[plain talk]

Not “nuclear program”. An arsenal of tested nukes. No regime with working nukes has given them up.

[CutePuppy]

Not "nuclear program". An arsenal of tested nukes.

That's exactly what I emphasized, applicable to Libya and Qaddafi, because I cited the relevance of it to North Korea and Kim (and tangentially, Iran):

"Muammar Qaddafi of Libya did give up his nuclear program (not quite a working arsenal) in December of 2003, right after Saddam Hussein was pulled out of the spider hole in Iraq."

But, strictly for historical reference, there was a case of a nation giving up actual nukes, not just the nuclear programme, though under unique (they would have to be!) and proper circumstances — see South Africa and weapons of mass destruction :

From the 1960s to the 1980s, South Africa pursued research into weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Six nuclear weapons were assembled. Before the anticipated changeover to a majority-elected African National Congress-led government in the 1990s, the South African government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons, the first state in the world which voluntarily gave up all nuclear arms it had developed itself.

The nukes were developed with probable involvement of Israel, and F.W. de Klerk obviously did the right thing before turning over the government to ANC.

Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine also gave up the nukes after becoming independent republics with the fall and breakup of the USSR, but those nukes were developed and silo-ed by the USSR, not as a result of their national programmes.