4 ms·
In fairness to him, North Korea's nukes are not that much better than dirty bombs and aren't super high-yield. N. Korea also has total control of the economy b
by mises 7y ago
In fairness to him, North Korea's nukes are not that much better than dirty bombs and aren't super high-yield. N. Korea also has total control of the economy because it is communist, so can starve her citizens to fund bomb construction. That said, your point is good.
Does any one have a real idea to denuclearize rogue nations (N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.)? All I've seen is both the Trump and Obama administrations saying very nicely "please, please denuclearize" and imposing sanctions. Problem being, bad nations don't care about their citizens. Could some one please propose a method to force denuclearization by an unwilling nation? Or at least prevent them getting more?
- Symmetry 7y agoIn 2006 North Korea had a nuke little better than a dirty bomb. These days, in 2019, they've got a 250 kt thermonuclear bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mas...
- th0ma5 7y agoArguably had a 250kt device, judging by seismic data, although they may have killed a lot of people involved by detonating it? I'm just going by what is in the linked articles from Wikipedia, although the Wikipedia articles themselves don't mention it as it hasn't been independently announced as such by any non media organization.
- asadlionpk 7y agoHow is Pakistan a rogue nation?
- leetcrew 7y agothere is an official definition of "rogue state" but it's an inherently political term, hard to have an unbiased discussion over who is and is not a rogue state. pakistan does present a bit of a problem for the rest of the world. they have over a hundred nukes and a very tense relationship with their neighbor, india. it's somewhat unstable and ISI has had some questionable (to say the least) dealings with terrorist groups. definitely not a combination that makes other countries very comfortable.
- asadlionpk 7y agoWith all respect, it's actually just your opinion then. Because the same reasons can be given for any nuclear nation, even more so about US. Just as I feel the US is more "rogue" these days (trump, warmongering, very questionable activity with certain groups, in certain regions etc) compared to Pakistan (very stable democracy right now) or India.
- leetcrew 7y agoI'm not arguing whether pakistan or the US are "rogue nations". as I said, it's a political term. all countries do dirty things to advance their interests. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a small country caught between US and russian interests (eg, syria). that said, there are some legitimate concerns about the pakistani nuclear arsenal. the pakistani government has been either unable or unwilling to suppress the extremist militias inside its borders. it's not unreasonable to fear that these people might be able to steal a nuke. if an american or french nuke is used, it is almost certainly by the order of a democratically elected president. doesn't make much difference to the people who would die, but it's a much less destabilizing situation.
- mirimir 7y agoBack in the 80s, I had no particular dog in the Cold War. But it did terrify me that the US and the USSR were both effectively threatening to destroy human civilization, if one of them attacked the other. It still terrifies me, when I think of it. But far less so, for good reason or not.
- trixie_ 7y agoBetween silos and submarines, thousands of nuclear warheads out there ready to go right now at a moments notice. The entire complex system antiquated and built/maintained by the lowest bidder to boot. So far we are very very lucky.