4 ms·

Again from your point of view. They probably trust the chain of command in the USA as little as you trust theirs. Wo don't trust them and they don't trust us. I

Again from your point of view. They probably trust the chain of command in the USA as little as you trust theirs. Wo don't trust them and they don't trust us. If we were really only worried that they build sub-standard nukes, we could always just sell or gift them better technology.

dogma1138 9y ago
Again this has nothing to do with a subjective point of view this is something that can be objectively quantified with metrics. Most things in life can be objectively quantified and evaluated despite the spirit of relativism which is way to prevelant today. North Korea is an objectively horrid regime and I would not wish it on my worse enemies to live under such conditions. We aren’t arguing about who’s better Belgium or Norway places like North Korea is about as black and white as it can get. And it’s also a huge fallacy that from their point of view it’s XYZ anyone in Norh Korea that is capable of having a point of view knows exactly where they stand and why they do the things they and what the situation is.
- danbruc 9y ago
  First note that I said the it is not impossible to treat different countries differently. I will also grant you that North Korea is objectively a worse place than the USA for the people living there. But we are debating whether North Korea should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, not how they run their country or treat their people. If the USA can justify their nuclear weapons with foreign threads, then North Korea can certainly do the same. If we still conclude they should not or must not have nuclear weapons, and I tend to agree with that, then we have essentially three options. We can nicely ask them to stop and optionally offer some kind of reward or compensation if they do what we want. If that does not work, we can impose sanctions on them and we can do so without any additional justification [1], if we don't want to trade with them because they have nuclear weapons, that is our decision alone, it does not really matter what our reasons are. Obviously some objective justification would make us look much better. If that still doesn't work we can either either give up and let them have nuclear weapons or we can use force against them, whether sabotaging centrifuges or bombing reactors. But now we need a solid justification for our actions unless we are willing to accept that the same actions against us would be equally justified. Also note that we are just eroding the sovereignty of countries. We could treat the world as a kind of democracy, if most countries [2] agree that a specific thing is not okay, then we are legitimized to enforce this with all means necessary. We may or may not be able to objectively argue that nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea are an exceptional danger but that doesn't really matter because our legitimization comes from the majority vote and not from any good reasons. It would of course again make us look much better if we could come up with some reasonable objective justifications for why some countries may and others may not have nuclear weapons. There are of course also implications here, for example if the majority of the countries decided to ban nuclear weapons altogether [3], then any state including the USA would have to give up their nuclear weapons. [1] There are of course complications, we may, for example, very well punish innocent citizens for the actions of a few at the top of the state. [2] Maybe weighted by population or something along that line. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_N...
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Treating the world as a democracy is exactly what got us into this mess because much of the world gets little to no representation whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World pick or what ever list you want to pick the picture is more or less the same. And no there shouldn't be a debate if N. Korea should be allowed to attain nuclear weapons this isn't an issue for debate, my stance on that would be similar even if it was Iceland but if we were talking about them I would at least humor the possibility. North Korea is and I can't believe I'm using Trump's rhetoric to put it mildly a shit hole run by a an absolute turd and that is if we are lucky and he actually has a grip on the situation. It's also a fallacy that some world wide consensus or justification is either needed, warranted or even wanted. The majority of the world's population doesn't care about N. Korea, nor should they. The only consensus that matters in this regards is the one between NATO, Russia, China, S. Korea and Japan with a warm FYSA to India and Pakistan.
    - danbruc 9y ago
      It's late here and maybe I am just too tired, but I am unable to figure out where you think the legitimization to blow up a North Korean reactor - correct me if you would not actually support this, you never said this, I just assume this based on what you wrote - would come from. I am not even sure whether we are really disagreeing. You said that you have no trust in their chain of command and technology and that may be valid reasons to not want them to have nuclear weapons, at least if we manage to make that judgment objective and I will grant you that we could do so. But were does the legitimization to enforce this desire with force against a sovereign country come from? It can't just be that NATO, Russia, and China want it, that would just be law of the strongest and would therefore be exactly the reason why North Korea would want their own nuclear weapons.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        I would blow it up today if it wasn’t hot, and there was a way to do it without Seoul getting pummeled and starting a confrontation with China. And yes it can be perfectly acceptable that it’s only NATO, Russia and China it has nothing to do with the law of the strong and even if it did it has nothing to do with this. What exactly is the value of consulting Gambia or Bhutan? They have no capabilities to even judge the situation correctly nor do have the resources to do anything about it. North Korea wants nuclear weapons because because it’s North Korea, it wants them as a tool to poke the World with to get free stuff and it wants them to be able to perpetuate their vile regime.

dogma1138 9y ago

Again this has nothing to do with a subjective point of view this is something that can be objectively quantified with metrics. Most things in life can be objectively quantified and evaluated despite the spirit of relativism which is way to prevelant today. North Korea is an objectively horrid regime and I would not wish it on my worse enemies to live under such conditions. We aren’t arguing about who’s better Belgium or Norway places like North Korea is about as black and white as it can get. And it’s also a huge fallacy that from their point of view it’s XYZ anyone in Norh Korea that is capable of having a point of view knows exactly where they stand and why they do the things they and what the situation is.

danbruc 9y ago
First note that I said the it is not impossible to treat different countries differently. I will also grant you that North Korea is objectively a worse place than the USA for the people living there. But we are debating whether North Korea should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, not how they run their country or treat their people. If the USA can justify their nuclear weapons with foreign threads, then North Korea can certainly do the same. If we still conclude they should not or must not have nuclear weapons, and I tend to agree with that, then we have essentially three options. We can nicely ask them to stop and optionally offer some kind of reward or compensation if they do what we want. If that does not work, we can impose sanctions on them and we can do so without any additional justification [1], if we don't want to trade with them because they have nuclear weapons, that is our decision alone, it does not really matter what our reasons are. Obviously some objective justification would make us look much better. If that still doesn't work we can either either give up and let them have nuclear weapons or we can use force against them, whether sabotaging centrifuges or bombing reactors. But now we need a solid justification for our actions unless we are willing to accept that the same actions against us would be equally justified. Also note that we are just eroding the sovereignty of countries. We could treat the world as a kind of democracy, if most countries [2] agree that a specific thing is not okay, then we are legitimized to enforce this with all means necessary. We may or may not be able to objectively argue that nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea are an exceptional danger but that doesn't really matter because our legitimization comes from the majority vote and not from any good reasons. It would of course again make us look much better if we could come up with some reasonable objective justifications for why some countries may and others may not have nuclear weapons. There are of course also implications here, for example if the majority of the countries decided to ban nuclear weapons altogether [3], then any state including the USA would have to give up their nuclear weapons. [1] There are of course complications, we may, for example, very well punish innocent citizens for the actions of a few at the top of the state. [2] Maybe weighted by population or something along that line. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_N...
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Treating the world as a democracy is exactly what got us into this mess because much of the world gets little to no representation whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World pick or what ever list you want to pick the picture is more or less the same. And no there shouldn't be a debate if N. Korea should be allowed to attain nuclear weapons this isn't an issue for debate, my stance on that would be similar even if it was Iceland but if we were talking about them I would at least humor the possibility. North Korea is and I can't believe I'm using Trump's rhetoric to put it mildly a shit hole run by a an absolute turd and that is if we are lucky and he actually has a grip on the situation. It's also a fallacy that some world wide consensus or justification is either needed, warranted or even wanted. The majority of the world's population doesn't care about N. Korea, nor should they. The only consensus that matters in this regards is the one between NATO, Russia, China, S. Korea and Japan with a warm FYSA to India and Pakistan.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    It's late here and maybe I am just too tired, but I am unable to figure out where you think the legitimization to blow up a North Korean reactor - correct me if you would not actually support this, you never said this, I just assume this based on what you wrote - would come from. I am not even sure whether we are really disagreeing. You said that you have no trust in their chain of command and technology and that may be valid reasons to not want them to have nuclear weapons, at least if we manage to make that judgment objective and I will grant you that we could do so. But were does the legitimization to enforce this desire with force against a sovereign country come from? It can't just be that NATO, Russia, and China want it, that would just be law of the strongest and would therefore be exactly the reason why North Korea would want their own nuclear weapons.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      I would blow it up today if it wasn’t hot, and there was a way to do it without Seoul getting pummeled and starting a confrontation with China. And yes it can be perfectly acceptable that it’s only NATO, Russia and China it has nothing to do with the law of the strong and even if it did it has nothing to do with this. What exactly is the value of consulting Gambia or Bhutan? They have no capabilities to even judge the situation correctly nor do have the resources to do anything about it. North Korea wants nuclear weapons because because it’s North Korea, it wants them as a tool to poke the World with to get free stuff and it wants them to be able to perpetuate their vile regime.