That would have been a much more interesting question.

I can't believe somebody rated this answer unhelpful.
This was exactly the point and @jason changed the question.

Damn, I thought you posted Iraq not Iran sorry disregard my comment.

Yes it was Iraq but changed to Iran. Jeez!

ok...when I answered the question is said "Iraq" please disregard.

But, I should have known you meant Iran.
If that's the case, here is a very recent story about Iran Nuke capabilities from CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/01/world/main4836902.shtml

Here is a key quote

--quote--
State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said Sunday that it was not possible say how much fissile material Iran has accumulated.

"There are differing view not only outside government but also inside the government" on how far Iran has gone, Wood said. He added that while he was not suggesting Mullen was incorrect, "We just don't know" exactly how much fissile material Iran now holds.

"We are concerned they are getting close" to having enough to build a nuclear weapon, he added. Wood spoke to reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Egypt.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran has processed 2,222 pounds of low-enriched uranium. But the report left unclear whether Iran is now capable, even if it wanted, of further processing that material into a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium to arm one weapon.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who like Mullen appeared on the Sunday talk shows, did not go as far as Mullen. The Iranians, Gates said, are "not close to a weapon at this point and so there is some time" for continued diplomatic efforts.

And the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, recently told National Public Radio that the IAEA report "confirms what we all had feared and anticipated, which is that Iran remains in pursuit of its nuclear program."
--/quote--

I understand that your answer was based on the original question of Iraq and not Iran. However, as I am always intrigued to get into a healthy debate, the only source you sited was a 2003 article written by Joe Wilson, who in the same article states that he spent 8 days of the time he was there, in Nigeria, "drinking sweet mint tea, meeting with dozens of people". The article while an informative read of the man's opinion of the yellow cake uranium not originating from Nigeria, does not provide the slightest shed of proof that the yellow cake uranium was not in Iraq at the time of his report. Whether the 550 TONS of yellow cake removed from Iraq was actually from Nigeria or some place else doesn't matter. The TRUTH is that it was there and has since been removed. To say that it wasn't there as a POSSIBLE means to be enriched in the future under a nuclear weapons program would be false. I can speak from personal experience to this because I myself provided overwatch of the convoys tasked to move the yellow cake from Tawaitha to Baghdad.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_550_tons_of_yellowcake.html

Actually, Russia is coming to their senses. They do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons either.

Does it matter? Personnaly I find it to be a great question and one that anyone serving in the military is interested in knowing. If Iran begins developing nuclear weapons it will greatly impact the security of the entire Middle East, as well as reaching out to Russia and many of our allied countries.

Sorry, I was being rather witty in that they are already developing them! So why ask the question.

What are we going to do now is what we should be discussing.
(See my few examples that I added links for).

Benjamin Barnett
http://Twitter.com/PoliticiansTV

Time to start my rant...
To begin with you never even began to answer the question or attempt to add sources of any sort. Now, lets break your answer down from the top...
Who cares? Really you have to ask that? Those that care would be the future inocent victims of Irans PLANNED use of nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders have stated numerous times that Israel needs to be eliminated. They are also known to support Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations. So what happens when Iran develops the weapons and then provides them to those organizations? I would venture a guess that due to their relationships with those organizations Israel will not be the only destination for those weapons.
Question time... Your first question is absolutly ridiculos! You are really asking for people to use their imagination to determine the "latest generation" of a nuclear weapon, and the United States production of it? Lets say I have a far reaching imagination and would like to build a nuclear weapon that the weapon itself and the included nuclear fall out of that weapon would target and affect only terrorists, radicals and those that support them. Are you really expecting me to imagine that being improved and developed by anyone? I think not...
Your second question... Do some research on the cold war. The reason the US and Russia never used their weapons was based on the Mutually Assured Destruction concept. If one or the other would have launched an attack on the other, the other would in turn react with the same force. Iran achiving nuclear weapons capabilities however would probably change the fact that they have not been used. Radical Muslims who believe that becoming a martyr is a good thing, would have no issues fullfilling their plan to destroy an entire nation and would look at the innocent casualties of their own as martyrs and think they just did them all a favor.
Question 3... No country in the middle east has more than 200 nuclear weapons. Not to my knowledge anyhow. Nor is that supported in anyway by any type of report. Though it has been reported that Israel has nuclear weapons, it has never been confirmed. I would believe it though as I am sure many others would as well. As far as them having more that 200 of them, I don't think so. But, if you have any source that says otherwise, by all means please share it with us.
And now for your conclusion... Only the war mongers need them to leave more footprints on the planet? I honestly have no idea what you mean by leaving a footprint on the planet and won't even try to speculate. Violating international rules? What rules has the US violated in regards to our nuclear program and for that matter what rules have the UK or Russia violated. And to back up to your list of war mongers... Because as you yourself stated "Only the war mongers need these kinds of weapons." (Pardon my correction of your typo for the quote.) you should have also added the following countries to your "war monger" list. France (yes they have them to), China, India, Pakistan, North Korea. All of these contries are declared nuclear states. Also, South Africa, Israel, and Iraq are nuclear states in the shadows.
And your final comment as well as mine... I don't know what my media is feeding me? Actually I do. I tend to use my brain very well when it comes to staying informed. Try taking your own advise and use your brain. Do some research and develop an original thought. You can start here if you care to.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Jason and others who actually read this... Sorry for the long rant here. Hope it was at least informative to a few of you.