You have a very poor understanding of nuclear technology, I think.

The list of countries that cannot make nuclear weapons simply is rather long and consists of all nations that have nuclear power and not enrichment facilities.   Included among such nations are nations like Belgium, Sweden, Mexico, Argentina (which once had a weapons program and reactors but the weapons program failed, Finland, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Hungary, Romania...

Two nations have nuclear weapons and no commercial nuclear reactors.   Can you name them?

As for your rather bizarre appreciation of the Manhattan Project "jump starting" nuclear power, how is it exactly that even a 50 year head start cannot be overcome with respect to renewable energy?  

Is it your contention that renewable energy looks good because of this failure?   Did discussion of renewable energy begin last week or was it a little earlier?   Is there some way to account for the fact that renewable energy has been enormously politically popular for many decades while people have been protesting nuclear power and still nuclear prevails?

Would you like me to reproduce Admiral Hyman Rickover's 1957 speech on the future of renewable energy (and nuclear energy) or will you take my word that I can produce it?

This may come as a big surprise, but renewable energy is not 20 years old.   It is thousands of years old.  Thus it had a significant head start on nuclear energy, nuclear energy being the only new form of energy discovered in more than a century.   Renewable energy was abandoned by humanity and once was humanity's sole source of energy.  

I would submit that the return on investment in renewable energy, measured in units of energy divided by units of currency has been very small and will have quite some time to go before it catches up to the return provided by nuclear energy.    

In any case, the primary energy produced by nuclear energy is about 30 exajoules per year, making it the largest single greenhouse gas free producer primary energy there is.   If you are imagining that a 470 exajoule per year source of energy can be ignored in times of climate change, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

One need not oppose renewable energy to insist that nuclear power, with all its risks - and there are some even though they are grotesquely over stated - is absolutely essential to human survival.