5 ms·

DIA: North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear warheads

12 points by chrissnell 9y ago

TearsInTheRain 9y ago
I have a lot of trouble seeing how this tension could possibly be diffused peacefully.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  The alternative is likely nuclear war.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TearsInTheRain 9y ago
    Maybe, I feel like we are going to try to just wipe their nukes. If we succeed, I doubt the US or China will go nuclear. We would probably seek china's ok before trying that if we haven't already gotten it. If NK keeps escalating their arsenal eventual we won't ask China and just do it.
    - synicalx 9y ago
      The problem is, any sort of strike against the North is unfathomably risky - they've basically got some 25 million South Koreans hostage, with their obscene number of conventional artillery pieces within spitting distance of the DMZ. If Kim decides the end is near, Seoul and anything near it is basically done for.
- synicalx 9y ago
  It's really a terrible situation, and I agree there's no way this is going to end well. Nuking NK will mean at best, an environmental and humanitarian disaster on scale we can't even comprehend, and at worse a full on nuclear exchange between the US and anyone who decides to retaliate which could realistically be one or both of China and Russia. The alternatives suck as well; try and take out JUST NK's nuclear capability, and hope that it works and that they don't retaliate by obliterating Seoul. Or try and decapitate the regime, hope it works, hope you don't miss anyone, and hope someone worse doesn't come to power. If the world lets them go and keep their nukes, what happens then? Would anyone stop them from invading the South if there was a risk of NK going nuclear in response?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cjslep 9y ago
If anyone wonders why the North Korean are obsessed with nuclear weapons: it's our own fault (USA). During the Korean war, when ceasefire negotiations were straggling, both the US and N. Koreans came to the table expecting the other to surrender. During this time, it was suggested to Truman that the US threaten the use of the atomic bomb to coerce them into a peace treaty. Already having nuked Japan in WW2, Truman did not want to issue that threat. It wasn't until his successor, Eisenhower, came to power that the US threatened the use of the atomic bomb, and the N. Koreans begrudgingly agreed to an armstice. Thus, the nuclear weapon is their symbol of the ultimate power of the bully, and a way to guarantee their freedom and independence.
- ramphastidae 9y ago
  Exactly. Gaddafi accepted the US's demands to disarm in 2003 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya) and we know how that worked out for him and Libya.
- methodover 9y ago
  Oh please. North Korea invades their southern neighbor on a mission of subjugation; we come to help, do what needs to be done to bring the war to an end; and somehow NK's militarism and aggression is our fault? Don't get me wrong, the US has done some horrible things. But when it comes to NK, we've been saintly.
  - cjslep 9y ago
    I agree with you, but I think you are purposefully conflating their long-documented drive towards obtaining nuclear weapons (of which I am talking about) and... well, everything else that's been horrible about the regieme (which I am not talking about: starvation, kidnapping, torture, etc). So I think you are accidentally trying to strawman my small historical point into something bigger and more sinister than I intended.
    - methodover 9y ago
      Ah, my apologies. Upon re-reading your message I think I misread it the first time around. I thought you were saying more than just "we showed NK that nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon" -- I thought you were somehow implicating us as responsible for NK's militaristic, aggressive nature. Which you were not doing. My bad!
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ramphastidae 9y ago
I don't at all support how the NK government runs its country. But why does the US get to dictate who and who doesn't have the right to nuclear weapons?
- methodover 9y ago
  The US should act in the best interest of the people of the world as a whole. As should every other nation. We have the most resources at our disposal, and as such it's often up to us to take the lead. A nuclear armed NK is very, very bad for South Korea, Japan, and anyone else in range. They're a threat to their neighbors and likely soon a threat to the entire world. These are the facts. It's not a matter of the United States saying that someone should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons. It's a matter of us living up to our responsibilities; it's a matter of us doing our part to ensure a prosperous future for the whole world.
- synicalx 9y ago
  If the US doesn't get involved in policing this, then who would? Surely you can't say that a nuclear North Korea is a good thing?

12 points by chrissnell 9y ago

TearsInTheRain 9y ago

I have a lot of trouble seeing how this tension could possibly be diffused peacefully.

cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
The alternative is likely nuclear war.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TearsInTheRain 9y ago
  Maybe, I feel like we are going to try to just wipe their nukes. If we succeed, I doubt the US or China will go nuclear. We would probably seek china's ok before trying that if we haven't already gotten it. If NK keeps escalating their arsenal eventual we won't ask China and just do it.
  - synicalx 9y ago
    The problem is, any sort of strike against the North is unfathomably risky - they've basically got some 25 million South Koreans hostage, with their obscene number of conventional artillery pieces within spitting distance of the DMZ. If Kim decides the end is near, Seoul and anything near it is basically done for.
synicalx 9y ago
It's really a terrible situation, and I agree there's no way this is going to end well. Nuking NK will mean at best, an environmental and humanitarian disaster on scale we can't even comprehend, and at worse a full on nuclear exchange between the US and anyone who decides to retaliate which could realistically be one or both of China and Russia. The alternatives suck as well; try and take out JUST NK's nuclear capability, and hope that it works and that they don't retaliate by obliterating Seoul. Or try and decapitate the regime, hope it works, hope you don't miss anyone, and hope someone worse doesn't come to power. If the world lets them go and keep their nukes, what happens then? Would anyone stop them from invading the South if there was a risk of NK going nuclear in response?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cjslep 9y ago

If anyone wonders why the North Korean are obsessed with nuclear weapons: it's our own fault (USA). During the Korean war, when ceasefire negotiations were straggling, both the US and N. Koreans came to the table expecting the other to surrender. During this time, it was suggested to Truman that the US threaten the use of the atomic bomb to coerce them into a peace treaty. Already having nuked Japan in WW2, Truman did not want to issue that threat. It wasn't until his successor, Eisenhower, came to power that the US threatened the use of the atomic bomb, and the N. Koreans begrudgingly agreed to an armstice. Thus, the nuclear weapon is their symbol of the ultimate power of the bully, and a way to guarantee their freedom and independence.

ramphastidae 9y ago
Exactly. Gaddafi accepted the US's demands to disarm in 2003 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya) and we know how that worked out for him and Libya.
methodover 9y ago
Oh please. North Korea invades their southern neighbor on a mission of subjugation; we come to help, do what needs to be done to bring the war to an end; and somehow NK's militarism and aggression is our fault? Don't get me wrong, the US has done some horrible things. But when it comes to NK, we've been saintly.
- cjslep 9y ago
  I agree with you, but I think you are purposefully conflating their long-documented drive towards obtaining nuclear weapons (of which I am talking about) and... well, everything else that's been horrible about the regieme (which I am not talking about: starvation, kidnapping, torture, etc). So I think you are accidentally trying to strawman my small historical point into something bigger and more sinister than I intended.
  - methodover 9y ago
    Ah, my apologies. Upon re-reading your message I think I misread it the first time around. I thought you were saying more than just "we showed NK that nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon" -- I thought you were somehow implicating us as responsible for NK's militaristic, aggressive nature. Which you were not doing. My bad!

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ramphastidae 9y ago

I don't at all support how the NK government runs its country. But why does the US get to dictate who and who doesn't have the right to nuclear weapons?

methodover 9y ago
The US should act in the best interest of the people of the world as a whole. As should every other nation. We have the most resources at our disposal, and as such it's often up to us to take the lead. A nuclear armed NK is very, very bad for South Korea, Japan, and anyone else in range. They're a threat to their neighbors and likely soon a threat to the entire world. These are the facts. It's not a matter of the United States saying that someone should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons. It's a matter of us living up to our responsibilities; it's a matter of us doing our part to ensure a prosperous future for the whole world.
synicalx 9y ago
If the US doesn't get involved in policing this, then who would? Surely you can't say that a nuclear North Korea is a good thing?