4 ms·

NK having an H-bomb makes it far less likely for other countries to try and destablize NK. Additionally, if they start to get destbalized, then having a bomb ma

NK having an H-bomb makes it far less likely for other countries to try and destablize NK. Additionally, if they start to get destbalized, then having a bomb makes it far more likely that countries like the US would support the regime (because, as much as we do not like the idea of NK having a nuclear weapon, it is still preferable to all of the groups that will take control of it after NK falls)

1stop 11y ago
That doesn't make sense: The groups that would take control: Japan: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Korea: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Russia: Already have this tech China: Already have this tech USA: Already have this tech Or do you mean some minor group, rather than a state taking control of a failed NK?
- akerro 11y ago
  But dropping a bomb like that on Japan, US, S. Korea will kill skilled, educated people, destroy their technology, infrastructure and put country to a recession. Dropping it on NK will, like, kill thousands of slaves and destroy no meaningful infrastructure.
  - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
    >thousands of slaves People.
    - corin_ 11y ago
      Agreed. But there's a potential moral debate to be had around the subject. Imagine if you were given this scenario: "x" people will be killed tomorrow, you can't change that. There are three options for which people will be killed, either "well-off", "in poverty" or "random". You can choose one of the three, if you don't make a choice then one of the three will be randomly picked and the deaths still occur. Would killing the people in poverty be better because you're wiping out more misery, would it be worse because you're letting financial state influence death? And as much as ethically we want to think that all people are equal, let's not forget that most armys would be willing to kill 10 opponents to save the life of 1 colleague, and taking the US as an example I suspect (could be wrong..) a poll of the US would see most people willing to kill 10 North Koreans to save the life of 1 American, without having any other information about the 11 people who might die.
      - sbjustin 11y ago
        I think you could use anyone as an example. It's always easier to ignore people you don't know than the people you do. I imagine most people would pick a family member over people they don't know.
    - hnal943 11y ago
      It matters that they NK people are slaves to their government. Killing the people will not influence the government like it would in parts of the world with better morality.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      Yes, also, it's probably in the millions in terms of number of people we'd consider to be living as slaves in NK.
- VLM 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun It depends WHY it falls. The existing system is almost completely military with a sorta civilian mostly hereditary aristocracy leading it. So if it falls because the military collapses it'll be nearly a wasteland, total anarchy, but if the military stays in total power then instead of hereditary civilian aristocracy they'll have a genuine combat soldier (or at least a semi-experienced general) in charge. At the very tippy top the Chinese like their buffer states, and are not going to be happy with reunification with SK. Of course the same people said the same things about Eastern Germany.

1stop 11y ago

That doesn't make sense: The groups that would take control: Japan: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Korea: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Russia: Already have this tech China: Already have this tech USA: Already have this tech Or do you mean some minor group, rather than a state taking control of a failed NK?

akerro 11y ago
But dropping a bomb like that on Japan, US, S. Korea will kill skilled, educated people, destroy their technology, infrastructure and put country to a recession. Dropping it on NK will, like, kill thousands of slaves and destroy no meaningful infrastructure.
- garrettgrimsley 11y ago
  >thousands of slaves People.
  - corin_ 11y ago
    Agreed. But there's a potential moral debate to be had around the subject. Imagine if you were given this scenario: "x" people will be killed tomorrow, you can't change that. There are three options for which people will be killed, either "well-off", "in poverty" or "random". You can choose one of the three, if you don't make a choice then one of the three will be randomly picked and the deaths still occur. Would killing the people in poverty be better because you're wiping out more misery, would it be worse because you're letting financial state influence death? And as much as ethically we want to think that all people are equal, let's not forget that most armys would be willing to kill 10 opponents to save the life of 1 colleague, and taking the US as an example I suspect (could be wrong..) a poll of the US would see most people willing to kill 10 North Koreans to save the life of 1 American, without having any other information about the 11 people who might die.
    - sbjustin 11y ago
      I think you could use anyone as an example. It's always easier to ignore people you don't know than the people you do. I imagine most people would pick a family member over people they don't know.
  - hnal943 11y ago
    It matters that they NK people are slaves to their government. Killing the people will not influence the government like it would in parts of the world with better morality.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    Yes, also, it's probably in the millions in terms of number of people we'd consider to be living as slaves in NK.
VLM 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun It depends WHY it falls. The existing system is almost completely military with a sorta civilian mostly hereditary aristocracy leading it. So if it falls because the military collapses it'll be nearly a wasteland, total anarchy, but if the military stays in total power then instead of hereditary civilian aristocracy they'll have a genuine combat soldier (or at least a semi-experienced general) in charge. At the very tippy top the Chinese like their buffer states, and are not going to be happy with reunification with SK. Of course the same people said the same things about Eastern Germany.