They were also the only nation that had nuclear weapons at the time, and in World War Two with the level of destruction as it was, the current nukes were just seen as an alternative to large-scale bombing runs which would have happened anyways.

Not that it justifies their use in any circumstances, but this was the first time the world ever saw or heard about nuclear weaponry for the most part.

Since then, a lot of things have changed.

Who says preemptively--it doesnt have to be a first strike it just has to be used.

You seem to underestimate the thought process of dictators and many leaders in radical areas. Not only are regions like North Korea and the middle east extremely volatile, a lot of them are 50 years behind the thinking of the modern world--especially North Korea. Not to mention these are areas where extremism, ethnic cleansing, and racial/cultural hatred are at their highest. Under pressure and combined with an upbringing and conditions in this environment, people dont have the same way of thinking as would members of 1st world nations on the UN Security Council.

If a person has supreme authority and the ability to use nuclear weapons or WmDs--all it takes is for them to have a bad day or be especially mad at someone-- or "we will wipe Israel from the face of the map!" to acidentally push the button.

Not to mention these areas also have poor security, paramilitary armies running every which way, and terrorist activities. If any such material as WmDs or nuclear weaponry fell into the wrong hands--which is much more likely for countries that actually negotiate and directly deal with these groups as legal entities-- they probably wouldnt hesitate to use them. If people can blow themselves up in a carbomb, why not drive in a slightly bigger truck--with a city-burning bomb in the trunk?

Sure, its not entirely possible, but its a chance no one is willing to take. Plus, none of the countries in question have good records with foreign policy and have been known to make statements of hatred against other groups. If they had better security and maybe if they had better relations with the UN and the rest of the world, claims like the wish for nuclear power would be more widely accepted.

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

I keep hearing people talk about how volatile and unbalanced these regimes are, how their thinking is "different" than ours, and therefore makes them more likely to use a nuclear weapon.

To date, however, I have seen no evidence showing that they have ever acted irrationally on an international level.

Pakistan has a lot more internal terrorism than Iran, but their nukes seem pretty damn secure.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

Were talking about the same North Korea here right? The same, backwards, propaganda-influenced people that think the world is out to get them when they are really being held under a repressive regime, dying, in a constant state of war so as to rally the military that keeps a dictator in power?

I mean, this is significant change now, I doubt it will last, but still...

They have much more reason to use weapons that you think. Especially if they were pushed to the brink.


Only because the US spent 100 million dollars+ to personally secure their sites, laboratories and weaponry providing an entire military arsenal to make sure it was safe. Pakistan also kept its nuclear program a total secret until the last minute when it made its first test, and by that time they already had an aresenal at their disposal. There was still a lot of controversy when they confirmed their test as well.

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

A dictator treating his own people like garbage does not an irrational international actor make.

And what evidence can you present to suggest that Iran's nuclear weapons would be insecure?

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

NK would not use nukes against the US.
It would mean the destruction of there entire country. It is a simple matter of country size. China would not retaliate if it was because of a direct attack on the US.
There is definitely reason they would want to have them. So other countries do not screw with them. They would want to use them just about as much as we would want to try to use ours against russia or china.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Because of this:

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,” -Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the
Islamic countries due to their need.” -Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Israel must be wiped off the map" -Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran added a threatening edge to his verbal onslaught on Israel yesterday by warning European governments to withdraw their support or face getting "hurt" in a storm of retaliation.
Ahmadinejad warns Europe it will pay for backing Israel | World news | The Guardian

This is insecurity right there. Anyone with such ambitions is hardly a candidate for trust with nuclear weapons.

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

IAWTP.

Not to mention the fact that I doubt NK could deliver a missile to to the US.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

Aside from the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has extremely limited power in Iran and would not, in fact, be in charge of the nuclear weapons, words are meaningless without corresponding actions.

And Iran simply does not have an irrational history.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

At this point in time such an action would be suicidal. I also doubt there capability.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Also allowing any other country to have nuclear weaponry pretty much takes them off the table for aggressive action. That would not set well with current US policy of world policing.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill