4 ms·

It does remind me of the North Korean situation, where nobody wanted NK to get nukes, but since nobody was willing to take action on it, and diplomacy went nowh

It does remind me of the North Korean situation, where nobody wanted NK to get nukes, but since nobody was willing to take action on it, and diplomacy went nowhere (because they obviously wanted nukes), eventually NK got the nukes they wanted. Does anyone think that situation resolved well? If we were able to go back in time, would we choose diplomacy again, knowing it would fail?

jack_h 1y ago
> Does anyone think that situation resolved well? I don't think we've seen the resolution of that situation. We will one day, and I think the chances of it being a good outcome are pretty slim. I'm very much against Iran having nuclear weapons. I just hope we don't get dragged into a long war which will explode our national debt and potentially lead to a sovereign debt crisis.
- TulliusCicero 1y ago
  Iraq and Afghanistan were long wars because we had a ground invasion and then nation building in countries with relatively weak civic structures and identities. It doesn't seem like anybody is seriously considering a ground invasion of Iran here, Israel will probably just continue airstrikes and sabotage/assassination. The US might join in on more airstrikes but it seems extremely unlikely it'd go beyond that, the appetite for nation building is obviously gone ever since Iraq and Afghanistan went terribly. Nobody in the US wants a repeat of that.
arp242 1y ago
North-Korea has had a bunch of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul since the 50s. They've had a "we will completely fuck your shit up"-type deterrent way before nukes, which is also why they've been able to do their nuclear programme: they used their previous deterrent to develop their new one. There was never really any other option than "ask nicely to not do that", and maybe try some covert sabotage here and there. Everyone knew that and everyone knew that everyone knew. In Iran the situation is different, because everyone knows that they don't have any such deterrent and they will lose in any real shooting war, with fairly little options to meaningfully fight back. There is a real inventive to actual pursue diplomacy for Iran which didn't exist in North-Korea. Also the North-Korean regime and population is of quite a different nature than Iran. By and large, the North-Korean regime just wants to be left alone and is quite isolationist. This also doesn't really apply to Iran.
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  And to pile on, diplomacy with Iran was working until Trump fucked it up in 2018. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_fro...
throwaway_dang 1y ago
During the Korean war, when the US started to lose, they threatened to use nuclear weapons to force negotiations. Maybe that's why NK has nukes. They US declared war on them and then threatened them with nuclear weapons to prevent North Korea from winning the war.

jack_h 1y ago

> Does anyone think that situation resolved well? I don't think we've seen the resolution of that situation. We will one day, and I think the chances of it being a good outcome are pretty slim. I'm very much against Iran having nuclear weapons. I just hope we don't get dragged into a long war which will explode our national debt and potentially lead to a sovereign debt crisis.

TulliusCicero 1y ago
Iraq and Afghanistan were long wars because we had a ground invasion and then nation building in countries with relatively weak civic structures and identities. It doesn't seem like anybody is seriously considering a ground invasion of Iran here, Israel will probably just continue airstrikes and sabotage/assassination. The US might join in on more airstrikes but it seems extremely unlikely it'd go beyond that, the appetite for nation building is obviously gone ever since Iraq and Afghanistan went terribly. Nobody in the US wants a repeat of that.

arp242 1y ago

North-Korea has had a bunch of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul since the 50s. They've had a "we will completely fuck your shit up"-type deterrent way before nukes, which is also why they've been able to do their nuclear programme: they used their previous deterrent to develop their new one. There was never really any other option than "ask nicely to not do that", and maybe try some covert sabotage here and there. Everyone knew that and everyone knew that everyone knew. In Iran the situation is different, because everyone knows that they don't have any such deterrent and they will lose in any real shooting war, with fairly little options to meaningfully fight back. There is a real inventive to actual pursue diplomacy for Iran which didn't exist in North-Korea. Also the North-Korean regime and population is of quite a different nature than Iran. By and large, the North-Korean regime just wants to be left alone and is quite isolationist. This also doesn't really apply to Iran.

DangitBobby 1y ago
And to pile on, diplomacy with Iran was working until Trump fucked it up in 2018. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_fro...

throwaway_dang 1y ago

During the Korean war, when the US started to lose, they threatened to use nuclear weapons to force negotiations. Maybe that's why NK has nukes. They US declared war on them and then threatened them with nuclear weapons to prevent North Korea from winning the war.