3 ms·
> but doesn't know how to get them to stop.[1] [1] That is, without having a humanitarian crisis and state with nuclear explosives (and might have viable nucle
by KMag 10y ago
> but doesn't know how to get them to stop.[1]
[1] That is, without having a humanitarian crisis and state with nuclear explosives (and might have viable nuclear warheads) in civil war on their back doorstep.
I can see both sides to the dispute over how to handle DPRK. If Mexico got very politically unstable and started making nuclear explosions and likely had a missle-portable warhead, the U.S. would get touchy if China started proposing actions that could easily touch off a Mexican civil war. In hindsight, I hope they realize that they should have pushed the DPRK harder earlier and run a higher risk of a civil war in the pre-nuclear-explosive DPRK in exchange for heading off warhead development.
- mikeash 10y agoAgreed, it's a huge mess and I see no good way to clean it up. We should probably just rip the band-aid off ASAP and get it over with. I think the non-nuclear window of opportunity is still open there. They have weapons, but I don't think they yet have the means to deliver them. In any case, I doubt anyone is willing to do that, and I can't blame them at all. The other hope would be that somehow either the regime becomes less crazy on their own (like China did) or a successful revolution happens without spilling outside the country too much. Neither possibility seems likely. On the other hand, I remember how the Soviet Union seemed like it was here forever, right up until it wasn't. That didn't turn out great, but it stayed contained and nobody got nuked.