The United States developed, built and used atomic weapons at the end of World War II. For reasons no longer clear to me, Leftists in our scientific community decided the world would be safer if the Soviet Union also had these weapons and so sent them the information on how to build them. I don't recall who got them next. Presumably we told Britain how to build them. Perhaps the French built theirs on their own. I suspect the Israelis did. I believe the Indians and Pakistanis did as well. I don't know whether the North Koreans built their own or were helped by the Chinese. If the latter, that could explain why the Chinese are dragging their feet in doing something about the North Koreans. I notice that South Korea has informed the U.S. that it is opposed to "regime change" in North Korea. But then we expected that. Eventually the North and South will be put back together again and the South would be delighted if the North brought them nuclear power. The Russians and French were helping Iraq build nuclear weapons at one time, but the Israelis bombed their factory and Saddam never managed to build them. Iran according to Ilan Berman, Tehran Rising, 2005, is being helped in this regard by Russia, China and France. These three nations obviously have no problem with Iran becoming a nuclear power; so should we? Berman and others I've read on this subject would answer in the affirmative. Berman cites case after case of Iranian terrorist activity, much of it against the U.S., and it is much better financed than Al Quaeda. Iran has also, according to Berman, been sharing their nuclear knowledge with Syria, Saudi Arabia, and one or two other nations. Also, the Iranian government, the people in power, seems not to have backed off from Khomeini's announced war against the U.S. In Bush's State of the Union, he seemed to be content to let the EU and UN continue to try to deal with Iran, but does anyone think that will really work? So should we do something about Iran? And if the answer is "yes," what should we do? Lawrence