Hello Bob. I "get" the high cost of nuclear weapons and agree with you on that. I suppose the financial analyst that I once was, and still have elements of

always compares it to the cost of alternatives and their effectiveness. To me, the "cost" of an entire country being rubble-ized by Russia (as Ukraine is experiencing presently) makes the cost of not developing a truly formidable deterrent force very, very costly - almost incalculably expensive, in fact. I think we agree on that, the only question is whether a conventional force is the better option, or a nuclear one. Pakistan, being half the size of Israel in the measure that counts (GDP) has taken (and somehow afforded) the nuclear option AND the conventional one, something that probably any country would have to do... after all, you don't respond to a small conventional incursion by launching a nuke! And Russia is very good at brinksmanship, evidenced by the drones appearing over the western European airports in past months, the drones flying just barely into Poland, moving the boundary markers in Georgia and the Baltic states, and so on. They are jerks, and it shows.
Obviously I don't know the answer to this conundrum of having to deflect an evil empire wannabe like Russia, and also making it practical and affordable. I'm not a military guy. But something tells me that the solution has to involve outside the box thinking, which the Europeans are particularly bad at, and made worse by their unworkable EU compact... can you imagine a system where it only takes one US state to veto legislation? We would literally get nothing accomplished., and that's the EU situation in a nutshell. They can't even agree to use (or how to use) impounded Russian assets to bolster Ukraine. It's crazy!! Bottom line: if the Baltic states are counting on the EU to protect them, they're in big trouble.