Okay, here are my final answers and comments. 
1. I have serious quarrel with the subject assertion not only because 
I have a visceral conviction of it being untrue (it would be totally
contrary to the way big powers do business: if Israel were seriously 
threatened with immediate annihilation I could see rushing to their aid
with OUR nuclear weapons, but GIVING IT TO THEM, and in peacetime, too
--that's a horse of a different color. What if there is a government 
change or insurrection there and those weapons could be used against 
us?? Even Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, in whose strategic judgment I have the 
lowest possible confidence, would not do that) but because I also see 
it as a covert ploy to undermine public support for the US-Israeli 
alliance. As such, it could be, and probably was, Islamist-inspired. 
2. I did not mean to put Russia (i.e., present, post-Soviet) among the 
rogue nations. I am worried that we have not heard the last yet about
their nuclear arsenal because of the hazards created by their economic 
instability since the collapse of the Soviet Union. As you know, I was
repeatedly in Moscow & St.Petersburg in the 90's as member of a WHO 
task force and was frankly appalled by the inefficiency and corruption 
I had to witness. One had the impression that one could buy vital state
secrets for a good dinner. Also, the sensitive sites are not in Russia
proper; they are in Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, and other remote locations
where conditions may be even worse. The sad truth is that WE DON'T KNOW 
what private deals may be brewing between the oil-rich Ayatollahs and 
the hungry post-Soviet custodians of their atomic stockpiles.	
3. The USA does not "decide who is allowed to have nuclear weapons and 
who isn't", and never did. Those who have it, acquired it on their own; 
we are opposed for additional states going nuclear for reasons that are 
really obvious and that you yourself agreed with. This whole idea, and
its deliberately inflammatory phrasing, really reeks of very strong 
anti-American bias and I am frankly amazed that you are willing to 
become one of its mouthpieces. Do you also subscribe to the whisper 
that Jews knew beforehand of the 9/11 event and avoided going to the 
World Trade Center on that day?
4. As a linguist, you cannot afford bloopers like "member non grata". 
You obviously took the "non grata" adjective from "Persona non grata" 
but persona is feminine, whereas "membrum" as a Latin noun, is neutral.
Therefore, if you must have this combination, the proper form is 
"Membrum non gratum" although I admit to have never seen this form;
why not simply "not in good standing"? 
   Love, Dad