No, I think you do when it comes to 'abolishing weapons'. There was a similar sentiment after WWI - as the west wanted disarmament as the Axis powers built powerful militaries. Churchill wrote a book about it, "While England Slept", with JFK following with "Why England Slept". He privately called himself a 'nearly peace at any price president" but supported 'peace through strength' recognizing a need for a strong force for deterrence.
It's a nice 'someday' goal to find a global political situation that allows for abolishing weapons, but we are nowhere near it.
We're in a 'strength needed to deter' period and there's no alternative we can see. The UN was an effort to reduce war, but while there weren't really wars in Europe much from WWII to Ukraine, outside of Yugoslavia, was has hardly been eliminated, and Ukraine could tell you that it was perceived weakness that led to Putin's war, and they'd let you know what they think of disarmament.
Things are going the opposite direction, given China's coming attempt to use their coming status as the world's greatest economy with 20% of the world's population, to become a military superpower as well and try to defeat democracy in the world as much as they can, rightly seeing it as a threat to their tyranny, much less the global movement for authoritarianism in many countries.
