3 ms·

How is it any more dangerous than the Western or Asian-Pacific countries? Other countries develop the same war kit, no one bats an eye. N.Korea does; everyone

How is it any more dangerous than the Western or Asian-Pacific countries? Other countries develop the same war kit, no one bats an eye. N.Korea does; everyone panics.

Tagbert 4y ago
It might have something to do with NK’s erratic and aggressive leadership.
- doublerabbit 4y ago
  And what about Russia's erractic and agressive leadership, or China's erractric and agressive leadership? Russia - Ukraine China - Hong Kong, Tibet, spectulating Taiwan.
  - 35208654 4y ago
    Many eyes have been batted over Russia’s erratic leadership. One one extended instance was called The Cold War. As for China, if you can’t hear the war drums being beat over the threat to Taiwan, get your hearing checked.
    - doublerabbit 4y ago
      Right, so how is that any different to NK developing ICBM's? This is just as the same level of war mongering as Isreal going to war for not wanting Iran to build nuclear. It's okay for other countries to have bombs, but not if..
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        Seems legit. If I were a country faced with a belligerent other country avowing my nuclear destruction once they get the capability I wouldn’t be super eager to see that happen. That’s not warmongering that’s taking serious explicit threats explicitly seriously.
      - 35208654 4y ago
        Not if they are totalitarian and have plans to invade a sovereign nation it borders. You cannot ignore the values of these states in this discussion.
      - bayouborne 4y ago
        Because Russia and China's occasional hyperbolic rhetoric notwithstanding, one gets the sense that behind the posturing, the people with their hands on the nuclear machinery are cold-eyed professionals. North Korea doesn't appear to have a layered command structure - it just has a succession of paranoid, isolated, all-powerful individuals, and almost directly underneath them, terrified administrators who feel that if they put a foot wrong they'll be disappeared. On the nuclear stage that's a terrifying dynamic. The US plays games, same for Russia and China - in a sense they're all veterans and they've been opponents on the same pitch for forever. Pakistan and India are going to be involved in their own private drama (from a global perspective) for the foreseeable future. I agree that Israel/Iran has disturbing potential, but North Korea? They're the damaged kid who had a .22 two decades ago, then got a 9mm, and now is about to take delivery of a Kalashnikov - that's why it's different.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    China is not erratic. They are the most long-term managed superpower out of them all. They don't have to worry about the next election nor bickering with their oligarchs. They just continue slowly and steadily with their plans made years in attendance. Geopolitically they are often in conflict with us but they are really predictable. Kim Yong Un is the total opposite of that, he has a similar stable position but many internal challenges like food supply that destabilize. And he uses his nuclear ambitions as a distraction. This nut should really have been cracked before he got his hands on nukes. I know the thousands of artillery shells pointed at Seoul were a problem but it's nothing compared to what it is now. It would have been better for their own population too which is living in a hellhole.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      The Chinese would have never let NK get "cracked". This is their rabid attack dog, and it keeps the US, Japan, and SK off kilter.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Probably because no one else is building ICBMs that are designed and pointed at the west coast (closet target being Seattle) and a rhetoric of launching a nuclear attack on the United States and Allies in the region. Words and actions matter I guess.
542354234235 4y ago
> Other countries develop the same war kit, no one bats an eye. I’m pretty sure that every single time a country has become a “nuclear state”, it has been a huge deal and dramatically altered the regional and global dynamics. Only 10 countries have ever developed nuclear weapons (South Africa giving up theirs, leaving 9 total today). The US developed the bomb, and it was a pretty big deal (for Japan and the world). In response, the USSR developed one and nuclear holocaust became the focus of the Cold War; with the UK and France developing them as well to counter the USSR and China developing them to counter the US and “West”. South Africa developed them to counter Soviet backed Angola, then gave them up after the collapse of the USSR and the end of apartheid. India developed them to dominate Pakistan, and in response, Pakistan developed their own. Israel developed them so that it would never lose as arms race against a combined Arab country adversary (also part of the reason why they are so opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear state). Several former soviet states gave up the nuclear weapons that the USSR housed in their countries after it collapsed, including Ukraine. If they had not, do you really think Russia wouldn’t have “batted an eye” about that when making its decisions to invade? The idea that nuclear weapons development has ever been anything but world changing is just not true.

How is it any more dangerous than the Western or Asian-Pacific countries? Other countries develop the same war kit, no one bats an eye. N.Korea does; everyone panics.

Tagbert 4y ago

It might have something to do with NK’s erratic and aggressive leadership.

doublerabbit 4y ago
And what about Russia's erractic and agressive leadership, or China's erractric and agressive leadership? Russia - Ukraine China - Hong Kong, Tibet, spectulating Taiwan.
- 35208654 4y ago
  Many eyes have been batted over Russia’s erratic leadership. One one extended instance was called The Cold War. As for China, if you can’t hear the war drums being beat over the threat to Taiwan, get your hearing checked.
  - doublerabbit 4y ago
    Right, so how is that any different to NK developing ICBM's? This is just as the same level of war mongering as Isreal going to war for not wanting Iran to build nuclear. It's okay for other countries to have bombs, but not if..
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Seems legit. If I were a country faced with a belligerent other country avowing my nuclear destruction once they get the capability I wouldn’t be super eager to see that happen. That’s not warmongering that’s taking serious explicit threats explicitly seriously.
    - 35208654 4y ago
      Not if they are totalitarian and have plans to invade a sovereign nation it borders. You cannot ignore the values of these states in this discussion.
    - bayouborne 4y ago
      Because Russia and China's occasional hyperbolic rhetoric notwithstanding, one gets the sense that behind the posturing, the people with their hands on the nuclear machinery are cold-eyed professionals. North Korea doesn't appear to have a layered command structure - it just has a succession of paranoid, isolated, all-powerful individuals, and almost directly underneath them, terrified administrators who feel that if they put a foot wrong they'll be disappeared. On the nuclear stage that's a terrifying dynamic. The US plays games, same for Russia and China - in a sense they're all veterans and they've been opponents on the same pitch for forever. Pakistan and India are going to be involved in their own private drama (from a global perspective) for the foreseeable future. I agree that Israel/Iran has disturbing potential, but North Korea? They're the damaged kid who had a .22 two decades ago, then got a 9mm, and now is about to take delivery of a Kalashnikov - that's why it's different.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  China is not erratic. They are the most long-term managed superpower out of them all. They don't have to worry about the next election nor bickering with their oligarchs. They just continue slowly and steadily with their plans made years in attendance. Geopolitically they are often in conflict with us but they are really predictable. Kim Yong Un is the total opposite of that, he has a similar stable position but many internal challenges like food supply that destabilize. And he uses his nuclear ambitions as a distraction. This nut should really have been cracked before he got his hands on nukes. I know the thousands of artillery shells pointed at Seoul were a problem but it's nothing compared to what it is now. It would have been better for their own population too which is living in a hellhole.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    The Chinese would have never let NK get "cracked". This is their rabid attack dog, and it keeps the US, Japan, and SK off kilter.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

Probably because no one else is building ICBMs that are designed and pointed at the west coast (closet target being Seattle) and a rhetoric of launching a nuclear attack on the United States and Allies in the region. Words and actions matter I guess.

542354234235 4y ago

> Other countries develop the same war kit, no one bats an eye. I’m pretty sure that every single time a country has become a “nuclear state”, it has been a huge deal and dramatically altered the regional and global dynamics. Only 10 countries have ever developed nuclear weapons (South Africa giving up theirs, leaving 9 total today). The US developed the bomb, and it was a pretty big deal (for Japan and the world). In response, the USSR developed one and nuclear holocaust became the focus of the Cold War; with the UK and France developing them as well to counter the USSR and China developing them to counter the US and “West”. South Africa developed them to counter Soviet backed Angola, then gave them up after the collapse of the USSR and the end of apartheid. India developed them to dominate Pakistan, and in response, Pakistan developed their own. Israel developed them so that it would never lose as arms race against a combined Arab country adversary (also part of the reason why they are so opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear state). Several former soviet states gave up the nuclear weapons that the USSR housed in their countries after it collapsed, including Ukraine. If they had not, do you really think Russia wouldn’t have “batted an eye” about that when making its decisions to invade? The idea that nuclear weapons development has ever been anything but world changing is just not true.