1 All of the middle-east is going to attempt to buy, or produce their own Nuclear weapons. Emboldened by Iran, and the non-response from the West, everyone will attempt to acquire them. The argument will be, well Iran has the bomb, and as we have the right to self-defense by having our own nuclear deterrent.

2 A hypernuclear proliferation is likely to result in the use of nuclear weapons. God only knows what will happen to the World.

3 countdown to liberal that believes his superior intellect is needed to point out the United States is the only country to have ever used a Nuclear Weapon, starting now. I nominate John Ryan, the math obsessed, equate everything with something the U.S does/has done, super hippy to be first.

4 The world will be a juster place if/when every country has the bomb.

5 juster?

6 Well thanks davec. Sometimes the math is a little dry of emotion., so I will try to put a little humor in this one just for you. So about the math OK here goes Your statement that "the United Staet is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon" well the math on that is wrong lol we actually used 2 nuclear weapons. And of course Pakistan has had nuclear capability and was directly responsible for advancing Iran's capability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons#Iran this wikipedia article ws interesting especially the section on the crude South African bombs that they built in the late 1970's. A gun type bomb where the fissile material reached critical mass by being fired together so no need for sophisticated electronic detonation.

7 oh and also the first Indiand test back in 1974 the code name for that test was "smiling buddha"

8 If these countries had even an ounce of inteligence, they'd all see what a horrible idea a nuclear armed Middle East is. Look at the level of restraint used so far with just conventional and chemical weapons. If this does happen (God, US and Israel forbid) it will be a cycle of constant nuclear testing anytime someone has a point to make, like India and Pakistan. Even if one is silly enough to believe that all the region wants is nuclear "energy", where are the environmentalists? Anytime someone proposed a new power plant in the US or Europe or moved a truckload of waste, Greenpeace was right there with their banners and shouting. In the interest of making my arguments sound better, I shall employ the John Ryan formula of utilising random facts which happen to fall under the same category as the topic, but at the same time are unrelated to it. Here it goes: For weapons, Pu-240 is regarded as a serious contaminant and it is not feasible to separate Pu-240 from Pu-239. An explosive device could be manufactured using plutonium extracted from low burn-up reactor fuel, but any significant proportions of Pu-240 in it would make it dangerous to the bomb makers, as well as unreliable and unpredictable. Typical plutonium recovered from reprocessing used power reactor fuel has about one-third non-fissile isotopes (mainly Pu-240).

9 Soon, very soon, everyone will understand why we don't let monkeys have guns. Of course, by then it'll be a moot point, because we'll all be sifting through the ruins of civilization looking for something to eat, while running from mobs of cannibals. Well, maybe most people will be sifting and running; I'll be on the greatest safari ever.

10 Graeme, you SHOULD have been a mathmetician. Haha! Or perhaps a career in nuclear technology would be in order. Or if that fails, I suggest a career as a politician. I only say this because my oldest son has a major in mechanical engineering with a minor in nuclear technology.

11 Actually JJ, the plutonium info comes from the Uranium Information Centre. My field is petroleum engineering, specifically, the production aspect. I'm severely allergic to politics and mathematics.

12 Actually, I alwasy favored invasion of Mecca. Take the moonrock and set it at ground zero in NY. Make the bastards pray towards Time Square.

13 Ok, Graeme, I'm allergic to those two career paths myself, as I chose geology for my major. I work for a small oil company and have been doing nothing but oil and gas leasing for the past six months. What a pain that is. And here in Arkansas(where I have been for the past few months) it is even worse than most places because the land owner can sell mineral rights, royalties, parts of each or both, and the mineral rights are forever separated from the land. After a few generations, you can well imagine what a pain it is to find all the heirs and get them to sign leases.

14 Graeme I do not think that Greenpeace would be allowed to demonstrate in either Iran or Saudi Arabia. These countries are not democracies.

15 Leave it to john to take the math challenge and apply it where there is no math. To go from "the United States is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon" to that's wrong, they used two weapons is totally wrong. The logic does not follow. At all. And I sincerely hope that the fact that it doesn't follow is the "humorous" part.

16 However, John Ryan, Greenpeace could demonstrate against Iran and Saudi Arabia at various locations around the World, such as embassies and cultural centers of these two states. If Greenpeace had any credibility that is.

17 Use it before we lose it, or before some other one of these tiny places looses it on one of our cities. Iran without Tehran might be a country that decides the nuke is no longer worth pursuing.

18 Just once I would like to see the reason America used nukes to end WWII. Here it goes: Truman used nukes on Japan, because it was believed it would cost America one million men to take Japan. One million. That is a lot of dead Americans, and I am glad Truman was in office to do the right thing, not some little girl like Clinton.