Ok maybe I'm not understanding this correctly... but isn't it the case that the US (as well as some other coutries) is able to develop whatever weapons or nuclear devices it wishes, but then it is free to invade other countries for doing so? (quite simple, if you feel they are a treat just label them as "terrorists" and then pair it up with some anti-terrorist and humanitarian talks, then off you go invading them and killing many innocent people! That's how you save the world!)
125591
you should understand NPT treaty first.
419462
That approach works when there is a clearly defined enemy and country to attack.  We are fighting a geurilla war now - much different.  Much more difficult.  Until we learn to also fight dirty, (which we will not do, the US won't plant ied's) we will continue to suffer losses.
572710
It is absolutely wrong to spend any kind of money on nuclear weapons. We want a world without them? Then why is this country going in the opposite direction of world peace and building them? We wage war on countries that are supposed to be making WMD's (then turn out to be not) yet we are making them ourselves and then when Iran wants nuclear power we jump to conclusions that they want nuclear weapons (the UN nuclear watch dog says that there is no evidence of weaponisation, just like with Iraq) . And even if they were, we're not setting a good example to follow are we!? And what about calling for reigme change in their neigbouring countries then invading their neighbours for "reigme change" and then calling for the same thing in Iran? It kind of makes a nation paranoid and want to spend money on defence...getting frightened into the position of moving in the opposite direction of world peace.\n\nI say spend the money on buying them a nuclear power plant. Who can argue with that? Its far less expensive than war and It dissolves a confrontation peacefully, Iran gets free energy and the world ends up with less nuclear weapons. I say we cant lose if we head in that direction.
248108
It's ridiculous that one country would assume it has the right to tell another country not to produce or have the same weapons it has. I don't understand why any of the people concerned are so stupid: I mean, if anyone ever did decide to deploy nuclear weapons, we'd ALL die...
648059
Nah possibility of a nuclear war with nations is slim but if a terrorist group were to get their hands on a nuke weapon then all bets are off. That's why Iran nuke program must be verifiable before they are allowed to have one - they sponsor terrorism (hezbollah, hamas, etc)
177568
This is an unfortunate question. The USA is a country of opportunity and freedom. It may not be 'perfect' and our situation with the War in Iraq has cost us some allies however, compare us to Ethiopia, Haiti, or countries in the middle east and we have more freedom and more opportunity than any of them. Our government affords us the lifestyles we choose and the political freedom to voice our opinions.
94865
A better question would be to ask why the government of the United States sends the US military into other countries in peacekeeping roles (Bosnia, for example) while the countries in the area - who's own best interests would be served by not having their neighbor self-destruct - do nothing.
315725
Strike for what?\n\nIf you were to attach a country purely based on rhetoric then you would have to go for, pretty much, every country in the area.\n\nThe issue of nuclear proliferation is pretty complex but the genie is out of the bottle ... who is to say they are not entitled to develop what they want?  I personally would rather they didn't develop such capability but I would be hard pressed to make a persuasive argument why the West can have it but they can't.\n\nPeace out
485126
America isnt worried about him attacking another country, the government is worried about him giving nuclear weapons and/or technology to Iran, which will attack another country, or giving it to a terrorist group.  Although i do agree with you that the press turned it into "the world is about to end" coverage.
583625
This last guy just typed out a lot of bullshit. I am pissed at myself for even reading all of that crap. And espike is wrong about the no-first use. The US not only maintains that it may use it first but it also maintains that it may use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.\n\n1. The United States is one of the five "nuclear weapons states" permitted to maintain a nuclear arsenal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory on July 1, 1968 (ratified March 5, 1970). Although the The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party, the United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". \n\n\n2. The U.S. cancelled its offensive biological weapons program by executive order in November 1969 and February 1970 and ordered the destruction of all offensive biological weapons by February 1973. The U.S. ratified the Geneva Protocol on January 22, 1975. In March 1975, the U.S. ratified the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). \n\n\n3. In May 1991 President George H.W. Bush unilaterally committed the United States to destroying all chemical weapons and to renounce the right to chemical weapon retaliation. \nThe U.S. Congress has since passed legislation requiring the destruction of the entire stockpile by December 31, 2004. Official U.S. policy is to support the Chemical Weapons Convention as a means to achieve a global ban on this class of weapons and to halt their proliferation. \n\nOh and the arabs, they had palaces and cities and knew how to read, write, trade, build ships etc. while Europe and America were barbarians and were still living in caves. The arabs gave the west the modern number system and they also carried the concept of zero from India to the west. What Europe and America boasts of today started with what they got from the arabs. But with their religious fanaticism their progress stalled and they fell behind. America is powerful and advanced today but it too is witnessing a religious fundamentalist movement. And if it continues on this path then the only thing separating America from its dark days is time.\nCivilizations rise and fall.
310244
In my view,Iran is as entitled to develop a nuclear program just as much as anybody else,regardless of whether it's for energy or military use.Iran has a hostile neighbour that is bristling with nuclear weapons,so who can blame them if they're trying to develop an effective defence system.Israel is a country which is founded and run according to religious fundamentalism and in my view they are the most likely to be the protagonists for the next nuclear war but nobody is prepared to try to disarm them or halt any nuclear research and development.I am from the czech Republic by the way.
242671
If we invade Iran it will be a grave mistake for one they can fight back ,its not as easy as invading Iraq (and we've turned that into an impossible situation). Also my personal opinion is that whilst were pointing the finger at Iran and getting all above ourselves there are bigger nuclear issues  that are being avoided like North Korea and China that have nuclear capability and would without a shadow of a doubt, whilst every ones focus is off them attempt to take over the world. (and could quite possibly succeed)
102472
Why isn't it?  People from these countries want to kill us, does that change anything?  You do not sit around and allow yourself to be in a target position.  When we have been attacked we must fight back.  Terrorists had been attacking the U.S. interests for several years and had to do something really big to get our attention.  They did we all wanted something done about it yesterday and we have declared war back against them.  If they no longer want to fight with us all that need be done is turn in those terrorist's that are wanted by the FBI and have rewards for their capture.   After that is done I believe all sides will be able to get together and figure out how we can all live together without stepping all over each other.  Yes these are people as well and as such have just as much value to their lives as do we to ours.  You do not gain peace by turning the other cheek.
627445
America COULD, if she wanted, become a fortress effectively defending herself on the four horizon points from any infiltration, or attack.\n\nBut globalism and unchecked alien invasion has rendered this hypothesis a waste of time. \n\nThe Congressional sale has been going on for decades, and it's near midnite, don't you know.
38776
What are you talking about? No one makes a stand against the U.S. unless that country wants things like suppression of human rights, corruption, nukes, to fight the U.N. or  other male type bull. I am generally a mild mannered person but this question is ridiculous.
143832
Israel is a lot less likely to be firing off nuclear weapons at their enemy-of-the-week than Iran is.  But who has the right to develope them and who doesn't - I don't know.   The US and the UN want to be the Police of the World, and that seems to cause more problems than it solves.
512730
The US has almost nothing to do with it, because it is in their beleif system.  They are radical fundamentalists, something we will never be, because they will kill themselves for a cause.  The US presence there has no hope of changing that short of every person over there dieing.