So with the recent talk of Israel bombing the shit out of Iran if they continue to develop nukes and all the talk about how military action should not be taken and political action could stop the nukes from being built, in reality can any countries allow any future development of nukes?

Alright so why would Iran want nukes? Well their is the obvious destruction of Israel but why else? Because having nuclear weapons makes your Government invincible. If you have even one nuclear missile no country on earth will attack you if they can't first take that missile out. Even the mightiest countries on earth the US , Russia, China and Britain will not take action against you if you have a nuke.

Your Government can't be toppled externally or internally. You have a green card to kill as many people as you want and oppress your people as much as you want. You know that no country will intervene to stop you. You also know if your Government was actually falling and the nukes might find their way onto the black market the whole world will come to your aid.

So why would Iran give up nukes without military action? Sanctions will be lifted or aid will be delivered to keep your Government and people alive. look at North Korea and all the aid they receive every time their is a hostile action from North Korea the North demands more and more aid and other demands. Essentially Iran knows once it has a nuke it can safely build more nukes nobody is going to stop them. They also know that sanctions will begin to ease and aid will flow in if they even appear to be hostile. They can hold the entire region hostage knowing no other regional power has nukes (Other then possibly Israel) and that no regional power would dare confront them, in fact they know most international powers wouldn't dare confront them either with the threat of nuclear war.

Say Iranians try toppling the Iranian Government and they have a couple nukes. Would the UN allow the Iranian Government to fall? For that matter would the US, Russia, China or Britain allow the Government to collapse if the nukes could find their way onto the black market?

Now lets talk other countries then Iran. Every country that gets nuclear capabilities is one more man holding a detonator to a world wide bomb. We all know if nukes got used their would have to be a response and a nuclear one would inevitably occur. Each country to aquire nukes is one more country with a detonator.

Is it just me or should it be a major priority at the UN Security Council to prevent any country from acquiring nukes? Each time a country acquires nukes you pile more wood on a fire just waiting to burn out of control.In fact the UN should be doing everything in its power to reduce nukes. There are many ways that the worlds nuclear stock piles could be brought lower.

But any and all means necessary to prevent future countries from acquiring nuclear weapons should be taken. We cannot afford for a nuclear war to occur. Allowing any more regimes or in fact any countries for that matter to acquire nukes is very dangerous for all countries in the UN!

No, not any means necessary.

We must engage in those countries who wish to develop nuclear weapons, but with a carrot and not a stick. Promise countries something in return for giving up their programs, rather than threaten them with sanctions if they don't - punishing countries will just turn future generations against us. The carrot approach is also likely to get universal support, too - sanctions often cause countries like Russia and China to stand down, further empowering countries like North Korea and Iran to continue their programs (I understand that NK already has 1 or 2 warheads, but they need to continue development of delivery systems).

While it would be hard to work this out, due to the fact that America has been heavily involved in most international relations since, well, its inception (and before, the politics of imperial Europe during the 16 and 1700s were about dominating the Americas), and especially since the dawn of the 20th century. But we can look at past events, and say "what if America wasn't there", and not look at the chain of events before and after.

 - I mean, if it wasn't for the USA, would all of Europe be under the Soviet Union, now?
 - Would the allies have won WWII, or WWI?
 - The birth of America was also the birth of the natural law being respected by Governments... would Europeans ever have democracy as we see it today, without the USA?
 - After WWII, the USA rebuilt Germany and Japan, and rewrote their institutions... using this, both Germany and Japan went on to become the richest countries in their regions, and the 2nd and 3rd wealthiest countries in the world, until recent times. (I think this says alot about the American model of politics and economics - also look at South Korea and 1980s UK for the success of countries that copy the American model.) 
 - Would the British Empire have seen decline? Maybe, but it would have lasted a while longer.

Obviously, Cold War USA did a lot of bad, including making modern Iran. But the world would just be a COMPLETELY different place. This isn't some lowly African nation, we're talking about what would have happened without one of the most influential countries in the history of the world.

I think we should just take my advice and nuke the shit out of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, North Korea, and China.

Nah, Iran is fine. Everyone else can be bombed though!

I must not have been paying attention there, thanks! Definitely didn't mean to put Iran on my hit list. 

the problem is trying to deny other nations nukes while having nukes yourself seems very hypocritical and the people of countries lacking those nukes will always feel unnerved about it. Yes if every country in the world has a nuke that drastically increases the chances of a lunatic getting access to a nuke and causing shit to happen, but at the same time it is very hard to convince nations to not make their own nukes when their enemies have nuclear weapons of their own. But no, having a nuke isn't equivalent to invincibility. Unless a nation has hundreds of nukes hidden throughout their countries and the ability to launch them accurately at great distances they can still fairly safely be invaded and destroyed by a superior force.

I didn't want to say anything but you also forget about Canada 

Edit: Didn't realize you were Canadian xD 

Haha whoa easy! Not all of Canada, just Quebec! Quebec is fair game to be nuked but not the rest. 

I believe ALL countries should have nuclear weaponry. That way, west cannot bully and manipulate other countries, and if they try to, they just bomb cities like Washington, London, Paris, LA and other western capitals. If all countries have nuclear weaponry, west will eventually choke and die in its own paranoia, and will eventually become quite weak by which point we wouldnt need nukes to destroy them. Once western imperialism is dead world will mostly be peaceful. This is exactly how USSR collapsed, and its how MOST OF great empires collapsed. The great empire can only de destroyed from the outside once its dead on the inside.

Im 100% for giving nuclear weapons TO MORE countries in the world. Either that, or DISARM ALL countries of nuclear weaponry, but western paranoia is too huge for that to happen