These 2 references give an Enlightened perspective on the topic of nuclear weapons and the situation we are all in - a very small boat on very rough seas.
http://www.dabase.org/not2p1.htm particularly sections 1-21 to 1-28

On the origins of the fight to the death psychology/psychosis that generates the will/urge to almost inevitably use nuclear weapons.
http://www.dabase.org/p5egoicsociety.htm
Also
http://www.coteda.com

Arjay, learn some history! In 48 the UN created the state of Israel, it's Arab neighbors attacked. The only nation which stood with Israel was the USSR, (which was also the first nation to recognize Israel) because Stalin assumed the migration of 300,000 Russian Jews would ensure Israel would be a socialist state.

As for the US plan for Europe, really, a US plan, when both the secretary of the Treasury, and the secretary of State were Russian agents!

France was to be reduced to an agricultural wasteland along with Germany as they were obviously the real problem. The British empire was to be dismantled, thus leaving the way clear for the glorious march forward of the motherland. The US part in the aftermath of WWII was seriously compromised by Soviet infiltration. As of course was the British effort.

Mr Ruff actually has some important points to make, although one wouldn't know it from the tenor of many of the comments thus far. The selective use of history in support of Israel from the usual suspects is predictable. Ruff notes that there are 9 nuclear states. That is an understatement. South Africa built the nuclear bomb and tested them in conjunction with the Israelis. Japan has had nuclear weapons for years and that fact is not unrelated to the ongoing disaster at Fukushima.
India and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT but nonetheless allow inspections. Israel is not and does not. Despite Steven Meyers valiant attempts to obscure the position, Israel does not even officially acknowledge that it is a nuclear power. That fact is the probable reason it acts with complete disregard for international law and the rights of other nations in the region. It's desperate attempts to get the US to attack Iran is motivated in part by its perceiving Iran as a threat to its regional monopoly of nuclear weapons.
It is worth noting that this June is the 50th anniversary of John Kennedy's speech to the American University in which he pointed out the imperative of nuclear disarmament. If James Douglass' thesis is correct that speech amounted to Kennedy signing his own death warrant. Read the book to learn more about how the world really works (although don't expect to read about it on OLO as such reviews are censored here).

Leaving aside the usual conspiracy theorists I and "Israel is the root of all evil" rants I have to agree with Graham Cooke. We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons. Realistically no country, least of all one that has had a near death experience like Israel, is going to give up its nuclear deterrent unless some other credible means of guaranteeing its security can be found.

Does anyone have any ideas about that?

What are you going to say to virtual nuclear power Japan as it faces an increasingly aggressive China?

Don't you think Taiwan regrets not having acquired a nuclear weapons capability?

The Saudis have made it clear that if Iran goes nuclear it will follow suit.

Iran's nuclear program was largely triggered by fear of Saddam – they tried to destroy the Osirak reactor before the Israelis did it. Now it has acquired a life of its own.

Neither Pakistan nor India are going to give up their nukes.

I'm afraid sooner or later we are going to have a nuclear catastrophe. If Israel is involved:

--25% of the world's oil pumping capacity will be radioactive dust

--The Suez canal will be rendered impassible

--Aleppo, Alexandria, Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, Mecca and Tehran at a minimum will be radioactive waste. Maybe Istanbul as well.

--More people will die in within a few days than died in both world wars. The ones who die in the initial blast will be the lucky ones. The rest will die slow lingering deaths from thirst, starvation and radiation and other sicknesses. The scale of the catastrophe will overwhelm the capacity of the rest of the world to offer humanitarian aid.

A nuclear winter of some sort is a real possibility.

C'est la guerr

Wow Steven, what a good argument to do a lot of car driving, motor boating, off roading & all those other things greenies hate.

We'd better get in there, get that oil, & have some fun, before it all goes up in a cloud of nuclear smoke.

Eat, drink, fornicate, drive & be merry, because tomorrow we're toast.

@Steven Meyer. I think the term is projection. I don't recall seeing a single "conspiracy" advanced by anyone. Neither did a see a single reference to anyone alleging "Israel is the root of all evil". But if the cap fits.

A nuclear war is highly unlikely for the sort of apocalyptic reasons you advance. No sane government is going to launch a nuclear attack when the inevitable consequence is their own immediate annihilation. Even less than sane governments and non-government actors are tempered by this reality.

Surely one of the minimum goals must be to eliminate the causes of cross-national friction. This would include not stealing other people's resources, land etc. you can recognise the worst perpetrators as well as I can.

You are fond of putting forward reasons for Israel's continued existence. You might therefore be invested in a recent article by Jewish scholar Eran Elhaik entitled The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry. Journal of Genome Biology and Evolution, December 2012 . He destroys a central claim of Israel apologists. They have no genetic link to that part of the globe and hence all claims of a Jewish homeland are bogus.