Sorry

I'm not aware that there are any criteria other than 'being a country' that is required.
How about "not being an opressive dictatorial state"...

You have been quite unclear. You are for the removal of Saddam Hussein, but it appears to me that you offer no means of doing so. I offer the floor to you: Tell us how to remove Hussein in a Walruss-approved manner.Offer no means? I, who have studied diplomacy and military tactics for my entire life, offer no means of removing Saddam Hussein? I want him gone, but educated as I am, I offer no means? Are trying to make a point, ac, or are you mongering? I have never claimed to have any means. My stance in this issue is to not bomb cities till the government has no choice but to surrender, as in Bosnia, to not kill civillians, and if war is to come, be so prepared for it that innocents don't die. You and your countrymen can be as cynic as you want, but there is no excuse for the loss of a human life, ceirtainly not thosuands, and not when they could have been avoided.

You asked, essentially 'by what right do particular countries hold nuclear weapons?'
I cannot believe that you are so immersed in logic that you do not recognize a rhetorical question when its stuffed up your nose. Seeker meant that some nations have proven themselves worthy, and I asked on what basis they were so much more worthy than others, and if that worthieness was based on the standard of the US.

The answer is this: Countries that develop nuclear weapons on their own or in cooperation with others cannot be stopped. The UN has no legal right to do so. The UN cannot stop the US, China, Great Britain, Russia, France, Israel, etc... from building nuclear weapons, got it?Don't tell me, tell Seeker!

So now you might (if you are puzzled by the US asserting authority to stop Iraq or North Korea from developing nuclear weapons) wonder why Iraq is in trouble. The answer is the Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iraq signed, which forbids it from doing so. The reason they signed was (ostensibly) to gain access to dual-use technology. [Important note here: Israel did not sign the NPT. Pakistan did not sign the NPT. India did not sign the NPT. France did not sign the NPT. etc... They all got ahold of/developed nuclear weapons anyway. Iraq could have followed the same path, and there would be little anyone could do about it.]
The reason Iraq is in trouble isn't a document. Its about keeping face, of continuing the War on Terror, of oil, and of public appearence. We are very selective about who the bad guys are. If they are allied with us, or if attacking them isn't cost-effective, then they're good. When there's no profit in keeping them, and nothing to stop them from being removed, they're bad. Look at post-war Sovjet. Stalin was in no way better than Hitler when it came to genocide, yet he arose a hero, until the East-berlin incident.

The US should certainly abide by its treaty agreements. If you would like to make a specific charge that we have not, then we can discuss it.
http://www.hrw.org/us/index.php

aerocontrols



But the dogs you say they fed you to
Lay their muzzles in your lap
And the lions that they led you to
Lie down and take a nap
h