Maybe 'allowed' isn't the right word. Why is it considered acceptable for any country to have nukes?

@Deskpro. Iran is developing nukes - there is plenty of evidence that they're enriching nuclear material to a point that is not required for civilian use. Hence why even their allies such as Russia voted to impose sanctions.

Iran; what is wrong with you? Why do you want to ruin your own country? *shakes head*

Because other nations have them.

I think almost everybody would, if they could, wipe the memory of nuclear weapons from peoples minds.

However with the genie out of the bottle.... even if there are giant treaties to disarm the world, just about every country with nukes now could keep a few wharehouses secretly where eyes couldn't see.

This is really big news and I was taken aback hearing it on NPR this morning. It is odd that it's public though. Definitively an attempting public outcry. Iran itself doesn't want to be on the wrong side of the fence, it's their government that repeatedly takes stances that put them in the spotlight. A poor transition of secularism from clerical theology is a rough point for their country.. To be honest they are in no position to do anything military wise, even without the US getting involved, any action they pursue could be quelled by neighboring countries like Turkey whose military is massive compared to Iran's. I kind of agree with others that Iran obtaining nuclear capabilities is the surest way to obtain leverage in the area, but the cost of the pursuit is extremely high. I don't fear Iran using them as much as I did North Korea before Kim Jong Il died, I swear that man was going to try and launch a nuke nearby on his death bed. Thankfully that didn't happen.

I have a quesion for kasz.. In the past century who do think has been more aggressive with their weapons, America or Iran? Your answer, I'm betting, will help Iran's case.

You totally missed the context part above didn't you.   In equal situations, Iran has been far more aggressive then the US ever would of been in their shoes.

The US has been more agressive then Iran because the US has been a global super power that fought essnetially had to fight the cold war, and as much as people complain about it, keeps getting pushed to be the policer of the world.  (See the US being apathetic about Libya but being browbeaten into doing all the hard lifting by France and Italy.)

Give Iran the same level of influence as the US, and you can bet they would of been a LOT more agressive... for example, Iraq and Isarel likely wouldn't even exist.

This of course is ignoring the fact that the USA is  Democracy.  Democracies being fairly stable, and Iran is a theocracy that is feeling heavy pressure from it's secular wing of government... and that both of those groups are feeling major pressure from their people.

Meaning, who the hell knows what Iran will be 10 years from now, and what it's crazy autocratic leaders would do with nuclear weapons if they knew.

If Obama loses an election he's not likely to Nuke Cuba just to be remembered in history.

**voice of 360 adds** FALLOUT 4 Coming 2014 only for your "Real Life Entertainment System©".

Everyone who throws a nuke have to pay bethesda for copyright infringement. You are restricted to nuke Bethesda HQ. All nukes sold separately. **ends 360 voice**

For consecuences about exposing yourself to radioactive goo please visit: www.I_dont_want_to_be_a_ghoul.com

**small letters** Bethesda is not responsible if you become an sterile super mutant. Bethesda is not responsible if any/all of your "5" extremities fall off.  If any of these happen please visit your doctor (if he still is not a ghoul) **end of small letters**

I read a while ago that attack plans on Iran have been in place for a while. Its not if we go to war its when! Iran can not be allowed to be a nuclear state.

Kaz,I'm not supporting the the clerical fascists and it's likely Iran is probably trying to acquire the know how of developing nuclear weapons so the Mullahs can order one to be built if they feel the regime is under threat with it's very own survival from outside powers but saying Iran would be a lot more aggressive if it was a super power isn't a valid argument against the Mullahs. That argument can be applied to any country so not sure what point you're trying to make there.

Also regarding the MI6 saying what they have said, I wouldn't take that as gospel truth but rather I would treat it with scepticism. After all 16 US Intelligence agencies say Iran decided against developing nukes back in 2003 and that they haven't made the decision to build one. This directly contradicts what the MI6 have just said. The MI6 haven't even been clear (in no doubt due to secrecy reasons) as to what operations they carried out that stopped Iran becoming nuclear by 2008. Even the IAEA (now headed by a US ally) could find no smoking gun.

Less stable countries than Iran have nuclear programmes. I often feel Iran get an unfair press with regards to that. If we were to prioritise then surely non-signatory countries who already possess nuclear weapons, like Pakistan or India, would be higher on the list of who to deal with.

I often feel it would be better to deal with Iran by initiating discussions towards a transparency agreement. The international community would allow them to conduct limited research and development, granted they remain signatories of the non-proliferation treaty. If they do build weapons, they would have to under the strict supervision of nuclear ready states and even as part of NATO's sharing programme so their weapons aren't strictly "theirs" (even though they're not a NATO state).

If they are indeed building nuclear weapons and we don't do that, then the alternatives (hostility, alienation, etc) could force them to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty. We don't want that with any nation.

(I should also say that I am not well read on this subject at all, so I could be very wrong)