The "Nucular" Haves and Have Nots

From CNN right now:

President Bush and Russian President Putin agreed today on new efforts to keep nuclear arms away from terrorists as well as Iran and North Korea. "We agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon," Bush said. "We agreed that North Korea should not have a nuclear weapon."

OK, but who gets to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not?

Since Bush took office, all the U.S. has done has speed up its production of nuclear weaponry with far more on the planning boards, especially for smaller nuclear devices. Does France or Poland or Latvia get to say, "No, I'm sorry, you cannot have these because you do not play well with others."

Remember that it is America alone who has dropped the forerunner of today's nuclear weapons with the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with the idea of North Korea or Iran having nukes. I don't think it's a good idea.

Yet I don't think we should have them either, just as I don't think Israel should have them or many of the other countries that do.

My question is entirely this: who gets to say? Why do the two most nuked-up lands in the world get to tell Iran and North Korea they can't have them?

What if North Korea weren't under the control of a mad man and they decided one day, "OK, America cannot have nuclear weapons. We will take it into our own hands to attack the US if they do not dispose of them and then submit to regular UN weapon inspectors." I pick North Korea only because they have an incredibly large military; they could possibly cream us if they decided to put their efforts into it.