2 ms·

I don't understand how that addresses the NK's advantage point. Also, if risk is an actual issue, how do 10 nukes in NK justify this extend of worry, in contra

by mikejb 9y ago

I don't understand how that addresses the NK's advantage point. Also, if risk is an actual issue, how do 10 nukes in NK justify this extend of worry, in contrast to the weapons Russia and the US have? (For some reason I'm reminded of John Oliver's piece on Nuclear Weapons safety in the US [1]). If humanity is to be worried about NK having them, why shouldn't we be equally worried about Russia, China, France, the US, etc.? [1] https://youtu.be/1Y1ya-yF35g https://youtu.be/1Y1ya-yF35g

IanCal 9y ago
Minute physics also have a nice video about this [0] > If humanity is to be worried about NK having them, why shouldn't we be equally worried about Russia, China, France, the US, etc.? I'd say that we should also be worried, but there are different risks. Adding a new country to the mix with 10 nukes is different to adding 10 nukes to existing countries. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0
- mikejb 9y ago
  The Minute Physics video made me worry more about Russia's & US' ability to cause a nuclear winter rather than worry about NK. Yes, there's additional risk if another country has them, but that argument is independent from country. Arguing NK shouldn't have nukes because it increases a risk is equally applicable to the US. Actually, the US pose a much greater risk because they have bombers, silos and subs with way more nuclear weapons, multiplying the risk for accidents. Following the risk argument I feel the US are a larger problem than NK.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    > Yes, there's additional risk if another country has them, but that argument is independent from country. I don't think that's quite true. The stability of a country, and the current alliances & conflicts all influence the chance of a deliberate attack. The funding and security of a country influence the safety and chance of an accidental one.

by mikejb 9y ago

IanCal 9y ago

Minute physics also have a nice video about this [0] > If humanity is to be worried about NK having them, why shouldn't we be equally worried about Russia, China, France, the US, etc.? I'd say that we should also be worried, but there are different risks. Adding a new country to the mix with 10 nukes is different to adding 10 nukes to existing countries. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0

mikejb 9y ago
The Minute Physics video made me worry more about Russia's & US' ability to cause a nuclear winter rather than worry about NK. Yes, there's additional risk if another country has them, but that argument is independent from country. Arguing NK shouldn't have nukes because it increases a risk is equally applicable to the US. Actually, the US pose a much greater risk because they have bombers, silos and subs with way more nuclear weapons, multiplying the risk for accidents. Following the risk argument I feel the US are a larger problem than NK.
- IanCal 9y ago
  > Yes, there's additional risk if another country has them, but that argument is independent from country. I don't think that's quite true. The stability of a country, and the current alliances & conflicts all influence the chance of a deliberate attack. The funding and security of a country influence the safety and chance of an accidental one.