3 ms·
I don't think it's sarcasm. Maybe North Korea is a better example. It would probably just be "Korea" if they didn't have nukes, but you can't exactly go in an
by jrockway 5y ago
I don't think it's sarcasm. Maybe North Korea is a better example. It would probably just be "Korea" if they didn't have nukes, but you can't exactly go in and overthrow the government when they can just wipe out all human life on the peninsula in an instant.
(People get upset at the implication that one country would take over another country, but the people of North Korea would probably not be worse off if that happened. Instead they suffer greatly because nobody can help them.)
- RobertMiller 5y ago> It would probably just be "Korea" if they didn't have nukes Their first nuclear test was in 2006. Even their production of refined uranium and plutonium only began in the 80s, decades after the war came to a standstill.
- jrockway 5y agoKind of a case of ignoring geopolitical debt, I guess. Anybody who wants to fix the problem today has an impossible task that was once possible.
- CRConrad 5y agoSeems to indicate that the general rule of thumb should be to fix shit like that ASAP, so it won't over time get impossible to fix.
- CRConrad 5y ago> People get upset at the implication that one country would take over another country If anyone is upset that the people of the German "Democratic" Republic got to join the rest of "We, the people" in a free Federal Republic, they're cordially invited to go fuck themselves. The same would go ten times over for anyone feeling that way about the much more oppressed North Koreans.