Iraq...Afganistan...next Pakistan? Keep it up, A$$HOLES...you'll find out.
Unfortunately there is no track record of attacking a nation that has nuclear weapons and/or capability. The list includes such 'luminaries' as North Korea and Iran. That track record gives nations like Pakistan (which also has a strong relationship with China that further makes them feel they have a hairy chest) the gonads to think they can stand up to Uncle Sam. It may be an incorrect belief on their part, but it is based on direct observation. It is the same reason why Ahmadenijad is really pushing for Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. Tehran has realized that Baghdad got bombed and Saddam toasted, yet Pyongyang is far worse (not just in terms of its standing in the 'Axis of Evil,' but also in terms of DIRECT nuclear proliferation through the sale of intermediate ballistic missiles, acts of terror against South Korea, and economic attack on the US eocnomy through the creation of so called 'super Dollars' that are virtually indistiguishable from the real mccoy) ...yet for all its evil efforts it gets money and fuel oil from the West! Hence, Ahmadenijad pushes Iran to get nuclear weapons. He may be mad, but he is not stupid.
Look at Pakistan - leading nation in the globe in terms of Islamic jihadism with their many Madrassas, the premier DIRECT proliferator of nuclear technology (unlike the North Koreans and their missile tech, the Pakistanis via the AQ Khan network were dealing in actual nuclear technology), directly supporting terrorist groups and terrorism against India and the West ...and for all their evil actions (just like North Korea), their 'just reward' is several billion Dollars every year from American taxpayers.
Hence my next question ...if you were the leader of some despotic nation somewhere in the Greater Middle East, Eastern Europe, Latin America or Africa, why would you NOT opt for nuclear weapons technology if you thought that your evil ways may lead to the US/NATO etc playing SWAT with you? I am not surprised people like Ahmadenijad would push for such technology ...one only need look at what happened to Baghdad and is happening to Tripoli, and what is happening to Islamabad and Pyongyang. If one option leads to your sons (and possibly you) dying, and the other option leads to receiving billions of US$ every year, what is the rational decision? People act all shocked when things occur, yet (just like in most game theory scenarios and stratagems) it is easy to see what the end-game will be. As the Bible says, as you sow so shall you reap. If you finance Mujahadeen to fight against the Soviets for their land and god, once the Soviets are done they will move to the next 'offendor' of their land and god. If you give people in poor income areas free aid if they do not work, do you think they will decide to find work? If you decide not to fuel your vehicle and take a long drive, do you think it will not run out of gas? If you do not raise your child well, would you be surprised if meth and the neighborhood truants take over? Cause and effect.
Iraq. Tick. Afghanistan. Tick. Somalia. Tick. Grenada. Tick. Panama. Tick. Bosnia. Tick.
Iran. Naaah! Pakistan. Naaah!
Inference: Nuclear weapons not only prevent you from attack (even when you do FAR WORSE things than other recipients of an @$$ kicking), but they ALSO end up providing you with billions of Dollars of direct and indirect assistance.
Cause and effect.