3 ms·

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

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.
- ajbetteridge 9y ago
  USA wants nuclear weapons because because it’s the USA, it wants them as a tool to poke the world with to get whatever it wants and it wants them to be able to perpetuate their unhanded regime. Your statement can be made to fit any country that has a nuclear arsenal or wants one. USA and it's NATO lackies are bullies, pure and simple. USA wants to move it's embassy to Jerusalem, most countries don't agree and USA tries to bully them in the UN. Just because you're the biggest kid in school doesn't give you a justification for bullying smaller ones. But conversely, I'd lay money on North Korea wanting nuclear weapons just to piss off the USA, and see what the USA will respond with. It's pretty standard tactics for enemies to annoy each other and Trump and Kim are the worst kind of idiots in charge of a country because neither one is willing to back down. All this boils down to is a dick measuring contest between the USA and NK, nothing more.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Do you actually have an argument about nuclear proliferation or are you simply taking a jab at the Americans? I'm not an American the Embassy issue isn't relevant to this topic at all nor does it invalidates the stance that we should prevent further nuclear proliferation. Claiming that this is some dick waving contest between the US and NK is ridiculous, and comparing Trump to Kim is simply vile. N. Korea is objectively about as evil as a regime can get it killed millions of it's own people and will continue to do so for no benefit other than the perpetuation of a single family line.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    The problem with this argument is that you don't follow it to it's logical conclusion : That NK should be destroyed. For the good of the people living there. That would massively improve the lives of the people living there. Instead you're using this argument to both strengthen the NK government's position AND weaken opposition to it. This does not just make the lives of the NK people worse, but everyone's lives worse. So truly sorry, but morally, the US and Europe both have the right to bully the NK government AND in fact it is actually a good thing that it does so. That is, if you see the goal as improving people's lives. If your goal is to enforce some absolutist standard of behavior and damn the consequences, then ... well frankly, I'm sure a USA Taliban party probably exists. Why don't you go to their info evening ?
- danbruc 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. Do you see that this is exactly why North Korea would want to have nuclear weapons? Because you would be willing to use force against them to bend them to your will? How would they be sure that you would not consider the same for other issues than the nuclear weapons themselves? What exactly is the value of consulting Gambia or Bhutan? The value is not in what any random country has to say about this specific case, the value is in the fact that it provides a legitimization for the actions taken. If you simply blow up a North Korean reactor because you think it is the right thing to do, then that also gives North Korea wide latitude to do things they think are the right thing to do. If on the other hand most of the world agrees that North Korea should not have nuclear weapons, then we could justify taking actions against North Korea while not at the same time being forced to accept North Korean actions as equally legitimate because they lack this consensus by the world.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Do you see that this is exactly why North Korea would want to have nuclear weapons? Because you would be willing to use force against them to bend them to your will? How would they be sure that you would not consider the same for other issues than the nuclear weapons themselves? North Korea wants nukes to be able to continue to act like North Korea, if North Korea acted like NZ no one would give 2 fucks and I find it appalling that you apply relativism to this issue. North Korea is an objective blight of a country that forces it's own people to undergo unimaginable suffering and giving them any more power isn't something we should be even considering. Not every story has 2 sides. The value is not in what any random country has to say about this specific case, the value is in the fact that it provides a legitimization for the actions taken. If you simply blow up a North Korean reactor because you think it is the right thing to do, then that also gives North Korea wide latitude to do things they think are the right thing to do. If on the other hand most of the world agrees that North Korea should not have nuclear weapons, then we could justify taking actions against North Korea while not at the same time being forced to accept North Korean actions as equally legitimate because they lack this consensus by the world. There is no value in a meaningless consensus. There is a reason why we have the UN security council and that is because the UNGA and UN bodies that are based on geographic groups are essentially a meet up for tyrants. UN votes are constantly bought and it's not only 3rd world countries that are up for grabs, China has recently bought a Greek vote with it's investments. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/18/greece-eu-criticism-un-china-human-rights-record https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/18/greece-eu-crit... There isn't anything "inherently" wrong with that as that is how things work on the world stage but somethings should not be played with. But lets say you can't buy their vote would it their vote even matter? A county like say Gambia has no capabilities to weight in on a situation like this, they can't verify the situation independently, they don't even have the resources to perform a proper cost benefit analysis from a military, political and economic point of view. You don't consult you entire social circle about a medical treatment you consult with medical professionals and maybe a few close individuals with high stakes in both the outcome and the process. There is a big difference between a unilateral strike and consulting with regional and world powers, however consulting the 190 odd UN members isn't going to achieve any results.

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.

ajbetteridge 9y ago
USA wants nuclear weapons because because it’s the USA, it wants them as a tool to poke the world with to get whatever it wants and it wants them to be able to perpetuate their unhanded regime. Your statement can be made to fit any country that has a nuclear arsenal or wants one. USA and it's NATO lackies are bullies, pure and simple. USA wants to move it's embassy to Jerusalem, most countries don't agree and USA tries to bully them in the UN. Just because you're the biggest kid in school doesn't give you a justification for bullying smaller ones. But conversely, I'd lay money on North Korea wanting nuclear weapons just to piss off the USA, and see what the USA will respond with. It's pretty standard tactics for enemies to annoy each other and Trump and Kim are the worst kind of idiots in charge of a country because neither one is willing to back down. All this boils down to is a dick measuring contest between the USA and NK, nothing more.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Do you actually have an argument about nuclear proliferation or are you simply taking a jab at the Americans? I'm not an American the Embassy issue isn't relevant to this topic at all nor does it invalidates the stance that we should prevent further nuclear proliferation. Claiming that this is some dick waving contest between the US and NK is ridiculous, and comparing Trump to Kim is simply vile. N. Korea is objectively about as evil as a regime can get it killed millions of it's own people and will continue to do so for no benefit other than the perpetuation of a single family line.
- candiodari 9y ago
  The problem with this argument is that you don't follow it to it's logical conclusion : That NK should be destroyed. For the good of the people living there. That would massively improve the lives of the people living there. Instead you're using this argument to both strengthen the NK government's position AND weaken opposition to it. This does not just make the lives of the NK people worse, but everyone's lives worse. So truly sorry, but morally, the US and Europe both have the right to bully the NK government AND in fact it is actually a good thing that it does so. That is, if you see the goal as improving people's lives. If your goal is to enforce some absolutist standard of behavior and damn the consequences, then ... well frankly, I'm sure a USA Taliban party probably exists. Why don't you go to their info evening ?
danbruc 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. Do you see that this is exactly why North Korea would want to have nuclear weapons? Because you would be willing to use force against them to bend them to your will? How would they be sure that you would not consider the same for other issues than the nuclear weapons themselves? What exactly is the value of consulting Gambia or Bhutan? The value is not in what any random country has to say about this specific case, the value is in the fact that it provides a legitimization for the actions taken. If you simply blow up a North Korean reactor because you think it is the right thing to do, then that also gives North Korea wide latitude to do things they think are the right thing to do. If on the other hand most of the world agrees that North Korea should not have nuclear weapons, then we could justify taking actions against North Korea while not at the same time being forced to accept North Korean actions as equally legitimate because they lack this consensus by the world.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Do you see that this is exactly why North Korea would want to have nuclear weapons? Because you would be willing to use force against them to bend them to your will? How would they be sure that you would not consider the same for other issues than the nuclear weapons themselves? North Korea wants nukes to be able to continue to act like North Korea, if North Korea acted like NZ no one would give 2 fucks and I find it appalling that you apply relativism to this issue. North Korea is an objective blight of a country that forces it's own people to undergo unimaginable suffering and giving them any more power isn't something we should be even considering. Not every story has 2 sides. The value is not in what any random country has to say about this specific case, the value is in the fact that it provides a legitimization for the actions taken. If you simply blow up a North Korean reactor because you think it is the right thing to do, then that also gives North Korea wide latitude to do things they think are the right thing to do. If on the other hand most of the world agrees that North Korea should not have nuclear weapons, then we could justify taking actions against North Korea while not at the same time being forced to accept North Korean actions as equally legitimate because they lack this consensus by the world. There is no value in a meaningless consensus. There is a reason why we have the UN security council and that is because the UNGA and UN bodies that are based on geographic groups are essentially a meet up for tyrants. UN votes are constantly bought and it's not only 3rd world countries that are up for grabs, China has recently bought a Greek vote with it's investments. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/18/greece-eu-criticism-un-china-human-rights-record https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/18/greece-eu-crit... There isn't anything "inherently" wrong with that as that is how things work on the world stage but somethings should not be played with. But lets say you can't buy their vote would it their vote even matter? A county like say Gambia has no capabilities to weight in on a situation like this, they can't verify the situation independently, they don't even have the resources to perform a proper cost benefit analysis from a military, political and economic point of view. You don't consult you entire social circle about a medical treatment you consult with medical professionals and maybe a few close individuals with high stakes in both the outcome and the process. There is a big difference between a unilateral strike and consulting with regional and world powers, however consulting the 190 odd UN members isn't going to achieve any results.