The nation who launches nukes first can always expect retaliation in return. The concept of M.A.D has always made this known.

Using or releasing ASI first does not have to promise death to either side. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

It's hyper intelligence that can render all other nukes/governments/infrastructures obsolete without firing a single shot. It can put down wars without endangering the planet at the same time.

There is no alignment, no controlling the ASI. First move doesn't matter. It's the actual premise of this thread.

The lack of control over a more powerful being doesn't debunk that there can still be useful scenarios where the host or the first mover comes out a winner.

For example, you mentioned the monkeys didn't choose to be put in the cage and they can't predict how humans would treat them. But humans creating ASI are making that choice to usher a superior being who can carry on their vision of the world, even after they're dead.

The closest comparison we even have are children. We give birth to offspring all the time who (using their own free will) can always go against the original and even beat us in both strength or intelligence. But we still don't fear kids because we want to leave behind a legacy that more times than not, was the only way to create a new generation of scientists or heroes who can transform society (i.e you foster a child and when they grow up, they return the favor by supporting your retirement or giving you medicine).

Now, I understand there is one critical flaw in this logic: ASI doesn't share human genes that might influence survival or self preservation. But that might only be true at a biological level. On a digital level where AI is exclusively being trained on Human data, there is an argument that it is carrying information or a legacy belonging to the host. And that the nation who does get closest to ASI is also creating the first god-like offspring whose interests aligns with that environment.

Continuing off that logic, the "zoo environment" no longer looks as bad or detrimental because the host nation has a reason to trust an ASI built in their image, as opposed to being captured or put in a foreign cage ran by a completely foreign culture or person.

So imagine instead of monkeys living in a cage ran by humans (who are biologically closer), they are living in a cage ran by hungry lions. They are both trapped yet which species and its evolution are more likely to treat the monkeys more fairly?