Nuclear Weapons, Iran And War: should all countries 'neutralize' their nukes?

The U.S. has been embroiled in wars for over a decade. We are still militarily occupying Iraq and is battling a full on conflict in Afghanistan as I type. Ten years and counting with no definitive end in sight. Yet our GOP presidential candidates--the same party who claims to be the new fiscally responsible ones in Washington--are talking war. Brazenly talking of yet another Middle Eastern military entanglement--this time, with Iran.

Presidential candidates Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney all talked of going after Iran during Saturday's debate. There is also talk of Israel launching their own strikes. Why is war being discussed so nonchalantly, when America is broke and has already spent trillions propping up conflicts that many critics say was a colossal waste? After billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost in Iraq, that country is cozying up to Iran and couldn't wait to push the U.S. out and Afghanistan continues to be a quagmire.

So what was the reason our Republican candidates were yelling out yet another war cry? Stop Iran from developing the technology to churn out nuclear weapons. Most of the candidates advocate striking a sovereign country--not to neutralize an immediate threat but to prevent that threat in the future.

Meanwhile the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) list these 5 countries--the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France and China as the official 'Nuclear States.' Interestingly, these countries were Imperialist giants some time in early history. The unofficial 'States' with the deadly weapons in their arsenal are Pakistan, India and North Korea.

Other countries like Israel, Syria, and now Iran are suspected of having nuclear weapons. South Africa Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan have since disarmed.

Which takes us to Pakistan, with their questionable loyalty to the U.S. and their continued vulnerability to terrorists organisations. Why are they being overlooked? Russia, with their less than transparent dealings since the Soviet Union dissolved, may still have a stockpile that's also vulnerable to the 'black market' and North Korea--well I don't have to elaborate--the world knows of that country's tyrannical dictatorship.

Israel and the rest of the world are right to be concerned by a nuclear Iran but shouldn't we also have concerns about all the nukes already flooding the market? Countries including the U.S.--who is leading militarily--spend inordinate amounts of money to develop weapons of such mass destruction, that if we used them, we will obliterate ourselves, literally.

Isn't this a colossal lesson in self-destruction? Forget global warming, we have created a more 'clear and present danger--the real monster of all-encompassing annihilation began ticking when countries started hoarding nuclear weapons. Treaties to disarm have not rid the earth of nearly enough of these deadly weaponry to eliminate a doomsday scenario. Though we have reportedly gone from an excessive 85,000 active warheads in 1985 to 8,000, as of 2010, there are still 22,000 warheads present globally--well, at least what can be officially account for. This amount can still reduce human and other life on earth via the way of the dinosaurs--extinct.

Why should some countries stockpile the nukes and some banned for following suit? Afterall, they are only trying to balance their defense aren't they? We are all capable of atrocities as history has documented vividly so the self-righteous notion that we are better than most is a myth. Pushed we can all go to that very dark place.

In the genuine interest of fostering world peace and fair play, shouldn't all countries neutralize their nukes?