We need it because they have it. I just love the movie Dr. Strangelove.

Who in their right mind would uphold such a law? And what would there deterant be? More nuclear weapons?

Well, I can't see any problem with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons. After all, how many wars have they started the past 50 years?

was 50 years a random choice??to ignore nth koreas invasion of sth korea...iran starting wars? they finance wars so they have proxy wars,they are still wars and iran is daily in the thick of it..A 15 year war ,lebanese against lebanese shia against sunni and iran determined to wipe out lebanese christianity...Noooo ,iran didn't start any war,they simply bankroll them,the way the soviets used to...

A country needs nuclear weapons because either (a) its politicians are power hungry: they need a means to exercise influence in the region or (b) they feel threatened by the fact that the neighbors have them too. This is basically what drives the self-perpetuating cycle of obtaining more, bigger and more destructive bombs that will hopefully never be used...

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others" ~ Groucho Marx

I wish they could all be banned. Honestly, but like world peace this is a pipe dream. No country will surrender them as long as another has them.

Look at the situation between India and Pakistan. They have had piss poor relations, fought at least one war, and tensions continue to be difficult. Thats not to mention China, a Nuclear power, also fought India once. But in regards to these countries, they have every reason to keep them. No way either gives them up.

It just won't happen as much as we wish.

"I pity people who don't drink. When they wake up feeling good in the morning, that is the best they are going to feel" Frank Sinatra

Financing war? Interesting. Then one can't hold it against Iran if they feel like wiping out some US citizens. After all, the US funded and supported Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980 did cost some 1.5 million Iranian lives.

Uh, have you never heard of Hezbollah? The wars financed by Iran (as pietro said, proxy) have already started and their victims many.

North Korea is busy trying to find its way around that paper bag, which makes them even more dangerous.

The logic you use is rather dated, to something like the late 30s. And you hide behind "tolerance" but when applied to evil, as the expression goes, it becomes criminal. When this is all over I hope people remember you and remember you well.

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step--Napolean Bonaparte

Yes, I can hold it against Iran's government, and I do. American agents (official or otherwise) did not beat Iranian passengers on airlines to death and then dump Iranian bodies onto tarmac, they don't sneak into Iranian pizzerias and bomb Iranian children and Iranian old people to high kingdom, they don't send cowardly shites to Iranian schools where they shoot terrorised and running Iranian children in the backs, they don't drive airplanes into Iranian towers to kill thousands of Iranian civilians and leave thousands more Iranian children orphaned, they don't slice off the heads of foreign or Iranian aid workers in Iran. Americans don't play by a rule book that allows soldiers to force Iranian mothers hiding from them in their attics to smother their Iranian children by accident, hammer Iranian children's heads in or dump old crippled Iranian people off ships. There are idiotic exceptions in every army, but this seems to be the rule for this ostensible "army" of Hezbollah and al-Kaida, who do not fight by conventional rules of warfare (which, whether you like it or not, includes collateral damage of the traditional sort--i.e. civilians who were unlucky enough to be nearby and received the impact, as opposed to civilians who were deliberately targetted).

Funny how you and your ilk are the first ones to scream racism and prejudice when certain things happen, such as an Iranian (or Arab) business person's store is set afire by some loser redneck in a Western country. And then when all the above (in previous paragraph) happens, and more, you find some reason to justify it all. And meanwhile, back in the U.S., communities across the country work to keep angry citisens from harming immigrants (incidents of which are rare to begin with). They instead go to extra efforts to help Iranian-American schoolchildren have positive experiences in school while in Iran American-Iranian schoolchildren are made to walk on American flags and chant that idiotic Marg bar Amerika. Iranian teachers and others aren't routinely given the voice to speak up against these practises or for ones that would help diminish tensions, or have positive interpersonal relationships with foreigners who wold like to see "normal" Iranians. The American president speaks against Americans who might want to harm Iranians in the country. Iranians who speak English or have some tie to the U.S. are routinely harassed, whereas in the U.S. speaking Farsi (or any foreign language) is ordinarily perceived as an assett.

These regimes are rather like small children in a scary way. Most people (like me) typically want to respect children and be fair, but that doesn't mean just because I own a weapon I have to allow my child to use it. I know how to be responsible with it and can demonstrate I am of sound enough mind and action to handle it, whereas my five year old has not. Likewise, nations that have not demonstrated that they are not trigger happy fanatics are not entitled to weapons merely because others have it. They hide behind the label "racism" because they cannot find any sound reason to make their argument.

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step--Napolean Bonaparte

Chana hey sorry abut the strudel but once again you have produced a rational lucid answer frag you aint no place!!!.

When the caveman picked up that first stick, he didn't use it to build a fire but to bean his neigbor. Then his neighbor got a bigger stick and came back to....etc. and so on and so forth, and we have been making bigger sticks ever since.....and unlikely to stop any time soon. Look at India, for example. Any country whose citizens are dying of hunger in the streets has no right to fritter its wealth away building nuclear weapons......and if India had not, perhaps Pakistan would not have either.

This exchange raises the question: What would/should be the response in the event one of these hostile regimes detonates a nuclear device in the USA? Or in any other country?

A King Size weenie roast?

Genius is the ability to utilize all the means at hand for the accomplishment of the end sought. Napoleon

Under british rule india pakistan bangladesh were one ,they FUNCTIONED!they worked..At the end of british rule millions of innocent lives overturned because of islam,its an abberration..One of the american mailfriends points to moslem killing moslem,in kashmir its happening almost every day..The wahabi's say everyone must be wahabi..the sunni say everyone must be sunni..the shia's say everyone must be shia,it goes on and on but one message remains clear,islam is now even more determined to rule,muhmad knows what is best for you and for your women..

The answer is straightforward: the world is not ruled by law, but by power. Countries powerful enough to keep their nuclear weapons keep them, and in turn make their best efforts to prevent others from having them too, thus ensuring a monopoly for them.

It is said human beings are complex. I say it's a complex challenge to be a human.

America and the soviets fought a long and bitter cold war,everyone saw what nukes can do ,eg Hiroshima and Nangasaki..Between RATIONAL countries the nuke is a serious deterrence...America and the soviets had serious differences,my way is better!! no!! my way is better but nobody nuked the other..Now we have a man in the middle east who seriously believes that his religion is the only one for the world..There is a precedent,the thousand year reich of germany...Millions of my people said he doesn't mean it,he can't be for real,he was for real and so is ahmadinejad..hitler believed in the justice of his cause,ahmadinejad believes himself to be inspired by god,he is shia he kills sunnis he kills wahabi's he kills alawi's and theoretically they are his co religionists ...Given a chance what will he do to you infidels??