4 ms·

Imagine if south korea needed china's permission to build nuclear submarines. We'd called them china's vassals and attack china for being bullies who deprived n

Imagine if south korea needed china's permission to build nuclear submarines. We'd called them china's vassals and attack china for being bullies who deprived nations of their sovereignty. Imagine if the title was : "China Gives South Korea Green Light to Build Nuclear Submarines". What would the comments here be like. No doubt a lot of nonsense about "the ccp" this and "the ccp" that.

Glyptodon 11mo ago
I will say that the "in/on US territory" piece is a very key detail. Like obviously no matter the country, if you want to build weapons offshore in their territory you probably need permission.
- hearsathought 11mo ago
  > I will say that the "in/on US territory" piece is a very key detail. That's the point. South korea is not allowed to build nuclear submarines in their own territory. They lack the sovereignty to do it. The US won't give them permission to build one on their own. But you probably knew this and your comment is meant to distract.
  - cookingmyserver 11mo ago
    Citation needed. I am unable to find any treaty that prevents the RoK from building nuclear submarines on their own territory.
    - hearsathought 11mo ago
      > Citation needed. I am unable to find any treaty that prevents the RoK from building nuclear submarines on their own territory. Are you being intentionally dense? Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them? Besides, I already replied to your other comment that South korea is not allowed to enrich uranium by the US.
      - IncreasePosts 11mo ago
        > Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them? Because they don't have the facilities to build a nuclear sub, and America does, since America has built over 200+ nuclear submarines in the past? Building a nuclear sub, and fueling it, are two separate things.
      - cookingmyserver 11mo ago
        No, I am not being dense. From your continued lack of citations I am starting to assume there is no law stopping the RoK from enriching uranium (though I have been trying to find one). Uranium enrichment facilities are expensive. If you have a partner nation who is willing to sell you the enriched uranium that just makes sense. Again, it being the property of another nation, they have the right to judge who should have access it it and what they might do with it. If RoK wanted to spend a percentage of their GDP on enrichment facilities they could. They don't have an urgent reason to. Further they don't have any deposits of any uranium to begin with so they would still need to partner with another nation anyways, so I ask you - Why would RoK want their own enrichment facilities?
        hearsathought 11mo ago
        > No, I am not being dense. Yes you are. An easy tell is "citation needed". > there is no law Another tell. > If RoK wanted to spend a percentage of their GDP on enrichment facilities they could And they have in the past. Guess who shut that down? > They don't have an urgent reason to. South korea is surrounded by 3 nuclear powers ( north korea, china, russia ) and militarily occupied by another nuclear power and yet, they have no urgent reason to? Good one. > Why would RoK want their own enrichment facilities? This is just absurd. Your questions answer themselves. And it's obvious you already know the answers but just are trying to distract. You keep googling and I'll look for the citations. Okay buddy?
      - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo ago
        > Are you being intentionally dense? Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them? They actually could. This has been an ongoing discussion in South Korean politics for years. Nuclear Submarine shipbuilding is a large undertaking and it requires a lot of security to prevent sabotage in ways that other types of shipbuilding just don't have to put up with. So it is in many ways cheaper and more secure to just rely on the US for nuclear shipbuilding as we already have the infrastructure and we are on the opposite side of the world from any adversaries who would have interest in sabotage. > Besides, I already replied to your other comment that South korea is not allowed to enrich uranium by the US. This is not true. There are mutual agreements that set the limits on enriched uranium for military purposes but they are flexible agreements that can be renegotiated or broken off as needed. The US has them with everyone including our allies and our adversaries. It's essentially just a tool to say "hey you need to discuss this publicly within your country first before you can change it". Nothing more or less.
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo ago
    That's just not true? South Korean ministers have been discussing building nuclear submarines domestically long before this current agreement. And the US has an agreement with South Korea that limits domestic production of fissile material for military uses but it's a mutual agreement that we have with a bunch of countries (including China) and is essentially always renegotiable as situations change. Essentially it's just an explicit agreement of how much material a given country intends on producing for the purposes of requiring public political discussions domestically before ramping up production. That is all very much a flexible situation and the US doesn't have any actual power to legitimately stop South Korea from manufacturing domestic nuclear reactors for military purposes.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    I believe that's accurate. SK depends on the US for its security, and also generally is a memeber of the US-led order and coordinates with it. The spread of high-value miltiary technologies is limited to maintain secrecy and the US-led order's technological advantage. Countries like SK seem to let the US do the heavy lifting, including fighting major wars with them and for them, and in return they give the US considerable influence over international relations and military affairs.
osti 11mo ago
That's why reading comments about geopolitics on the Internet is largely useless. Big news! A country's population supports its own country on international stage! If you go on Chinese social media, it'll be mostly about how awful the Americans are, and vice versa if you are on Reddit for example. So what is even the point of reading them, anywhere..
- mh- 11mo ago
  I think you and I are on very different Reddits, if you're using it as an example of pro-American social media. Fully agree that reading either for geopolitical opinions is useless.
cookingmyserver 11mo ago
I don't think any country has the right to demand that another country hands over enriched uranium and allow them to move into a shipyard so that they could build a nuclear sub. Of course you need permission from a seller to buy products and use their facilities. I would recommend going beyond simply reading the headline.
- hearsathought 11mo ago
  > I don't think any country has the right to demand that another country hands over enriched uranium and allow them to move into a shipyard so that they could build a nuclear sub. The US won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own. Want to try again? > I would recommend going beyond simply reading the headline. Another intentional distracting comment.
  - jtuple 11mo ago
    > The US won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own. Want to try again? 190 nations have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This includes China, so the very US vs China premise here is misplaced. [The US, UK, France, Russia, China and 185 other countries] won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own
    - hearsathought 11mo ago
      > 190 nations have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Who cares? > This includes China, so the very US vs China premise here is misplaced. Sure. But it wasn't china that stopped korea's and japan's secret nuclear programs. It was the US. > [The US, UK, France, Russia, China and 185 other countries] won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own Just like they prevented north korea... Your response debunks your response. It's quite remarkable actually. The only country that can prevent another country is the one militarily occupying it. China, France, Russia, UK and the other 185 countries don't militarily occupy south korea. The only reason north korea, israel, india, pakistan, etc were able to go nuclear is because they are not vassal states military occupied by a foreign power.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
kelipso 11mo ago
The US invaded South Korea, had and still has massive influence on their government, has military bases there. It’s just polite fiction to ignore the fact that South Korea is a US vassal. Makes US look better in the media, etc.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > It’s just polite fiction to ignore the fact that South Korea is a US vassal Korea is an American suzerainty. Not vassal. Similar to North Korea:China. One of the strategic considerations in countering China in Taiwan is whether Japan and Korea would refused their territory from getting involved. That's a veto a vassal doesn't get. Iran under the Shah was a U.S. vassal. Same for Ghani's Afghanistan. (Belarus: Russia.)
  - hearsathought 11mo ago
    > Korea is an American suzerainty. Not vassal. Similar to North Korea:China. That's why north korea has nukes? South Korea:US is not analogous to North Korea:China. Neither is Pakistan:China analogous to South Korea:US. If you analogy held, south korea would be a nuclear power. Stop commenting on things you know nothing about. Honestly, do you think you are an expert in every geopolitical topic?
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      EDIT: Reply deleted. Troll/flamebait account.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  > The US invaded South Korea ? When was that? After the Pacific War with Japan, the US had bases in SK (from driving Japan out of SK?). NK and eventually China invaded SK and the US defended them, and since then SK has given the US military bases in order to deter NK and China.
JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> We'd called them china's vassals and attack china for being bullies who deprived nations of their sovereignty The treaty restricting Korea is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1]. America is giving Seoul a loophole by offering to do the NPT-governed work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
- hearsathought 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tyre 11mo ago
    America is doing South Korea a favor. It could ratchet sanctions (see: Iran) and ravage SK’s position and economic power on the global stage without its sign-off.
    - hearsathought 11mo ago
      > America is doing South Korea a favor. No. America is doing itself a favor. Not south korea. > It could ratchet sanctions (see: Iran) and ravage SK’s position and economic power on the global stage without its sign-off. So you are saying that korea is not a sovereign state like iran but a vassal to the US. Maybe the US could protect korea (see: Israel) and send billions of taxpayer dollars to korea.
      - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > No. America is doing itself a favor. Not south korea. You realise a deal can be both? > you are saying that korea is not a sovereign state like iran but a vassal False dichotomy. Korea is not as sovereign as the US, Russia or China because it's not a global nuclear power. Whether Seoul or Tehran are functionally more sovereign is an interesting question that isn't easily answered. > Maybe the US could protect korea (see: Israel) and send billions of taxpayer dollars to korea ...do you think we don't?

Glyptodon 11mo ago

I will say that the "in/on US territory" piece is a very key detail. Like obviously no matter the country, if you want to build weapons offshore in their territory you probably need permission.

hearsathought 11mo ago
> I will say that the "in/on US territory" piece is a very key detail. That's the point. South korea is not allowed to build nuclear submarines in their own territory. They lack the sovereignty to do it. The US won't give them permission to build one on their own. But you probably knew this and your comment is meant to distract.
- cookingmyserver 11mo ago
  Citation needed. I am unable to find any treaty that prevents the RoK from building nuclear submarines on their own territory.
  - hearsathought 11mo ago
    > Citation needed. I am unable to find any treaty that prevents the RoK from building nuclear submarines on their own territory. Are you being intentionally dense? Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them? Besides, I already replied to your other comment that South korea is not allowed to enrich uranium by the US.
    - IncreasePosts 11mo ago
      > Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them? Because they don't have the facilities to build a nuclear sub, and America does, since America has built over 200+ nuclear submarines in the past? Building a nuclear sub, and fueling it, are two separate things.
    - cookingmyserver 11mo ago
      No, I am not being dense. From your continued lack of citations I am starting to assume there is no law stopping the RoK from enriching uranium (though I have been trying to find one). Uranium enrichment facilities are expensive. If you have a partner nation who is willing to sell you the enriched uranium that just makes sense. Again, it being the property of another nation, they have the right to judge who should have access it it and what they might do with it. If RoK wanted to spend a percentage of their GDP on enrichment facilities they could. They don't have an urgent reason to. Further they don't have any deposits of any uranium to begin with so they would still need to partner with another nation anyways, so I ask you - Why would RoK want their own enrichment facilities?
      - hearsathought 11mo ago
        > No, I am not being dense. Yes you are. An easy tell is "citation needed". > there is no law Another tell. > If RoK wanted to spend a percentage of their GDP on enrichment facilities they could And they have in the past. Guess who shut that down? > They don't have an urgent reason to. South korea is surrounded by 3 nuclear powers ( north korea, china, russia ) and militarily occupied by another nuclear power and yet, they have no urgent reason to? Good one. > Why would RoK want their own enrichment facilities? This is just absurd. Your questions answer themselves. And it's obvious you already know the answers but just are trying to distract. You keep googling and I'll look for the citations. Okay buddy?
    - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo ago
      > Are you being intentionally dense? Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them? They actually could. This has been an ongoing discussion in South Korean politics for years. Nuclear Submarine shipbuilding is a large undertaking and it requires a lot of security to prevent sabotage in ways that other types of shipbuilding just don't have to put up with. So it is in many ways cheaper and more secure to just rely on the US for nuclear shipbuilding as we already have the infrastructure and we are on the opposite side of the world from any adversaries who would have interest in sabotage. > Besides, I already replied to your other comment that South korea is not allowed to enrich uranium by the US. This is not true. There are mutual agreements that set the limits on enriched uranium for military purposes but they are flexible agreements that can be renegotiated or broken off as needed. The US has them with everyone including our allies and our adversaries. It's essentially just a tool to say "hey you need to discuss this publicly within your country first before you can change it". Nothing more or less.
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo ago
  That's just not true? South Korean ministers have been discussing building nuclear submarines domestically long before this current agreement. And the US has an agreement with South Korea that limits domestic production of fissile material for military uses but it's a mutual agreement that we have with a bunch of countries (including China) and is essentially always renegotiable as situations change. Essentially it's just an explicit agreement of how much material a given country intends on producing for the purposes of requiring public political discussions domestically before ramping up production. That is all very much a flexible situation and the US doesn't have any actual power to legitimately stop South Korea from manufacturing domestic nuclear reactors for military purposes.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- mmooss 11mo ago
  I believe that's accurate. SK depends on the US for its security, and also generally is a memeber of the US-led order and coordinates with it. The spread of high-value miltiary technologies is limited to maintain secrecy and the US-led order's technological advantage. Countries like SK seem to let the US do the heavy lifting, including fighting major wars with them and for them, and in return they give the US considerable influence over international relations and military affairs.

osti 11mo ago

That's why reading comments about geopolitics on the Internet is largely useless. Big news! A country's population supports its own country on international stage! If you go on Chinese social media, it'll be mostly about how awful the Americans are, and vice versa if you are on Reddit for example. So what is even the point of reading them, anywhere..

mh- 11mo ago
I think you and I are on very different Reddits, if you're using it as an example of pro-American social media. Fully agree that reading either for geopolitical opinions is useless.

cookingmyserver 11mo ago

I don't think any country has the right to demand that another country hands over enriched uranium and allow them to move into a shipyard so that they could build a nuclear sub. Of course you need permission from a seller to buy products and use their facilities. I would recommend going beyond simply reading the headline.

hearsathought 11mo ago
> I don't think any country has the right to demand that another country hands over enriched uranium and allow them to move into a shipyard so that they could build a nuclear sub. The US won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own. Want to try again? > I would recommend going beyond simply reading the headline. Another intentional distracting comment.
- jtuple 11mo ago
  > The US won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own. Want to try again? 190 nations have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This includes China, so the very US vs China premise here is misplaced. [The US, UK, France, Russia, China and 185 other countries] won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own
  - hearsathought 11mo ago
    > 190 nations have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Who cares? > This includes China, so the very US vs China premise here is misplaced. Sure. But it wasn't china that stopped korea's and japan's secret nuclear programs. It was the US. > [The US, UK, France, Russia, China and 185 other countries] won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own Just like they prevented north korea... Your response debunks your response. It's quite remarkable actually. The only country that can prevent another country is the one militarily occupying it. China, France, Russia, UK and the other 185 countries don't militarily occupy south korea. The only reason north korea, israel, india, pakistan, etc were able to go nuclear is because they are not vassal states military occupied by a foreign power.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

kelipso 11mo ago

The US invaded South Korea, had and still has massive influence on their government, has military bases there. It’s just polite fiction to ignore the fact that South Korea is a US vassal. Makes US look better in the media, etc.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> It’s just polite fiction to ignore the fact that South Korea is a US vassal Korea is an American suzerainty. Not vassal. Similar to North Korea:China. One of the strategic considerations in countering China in Taiwan is whether Japan and Korea would refused their territory from getting involved. That's a veto a vassal doesn't get. Iran under the Shah was a U.S. vassal. Same for Ghani's Afghanistan. (Belarus: Russia.)
- hearsathought 11mo ago
  > Korea is an American suzerainty. Not vassal. Similar to North Korea:China. That's why north korea has nukes? South Korea:US is not analogous to North Korea:China. Neither is Pakistan:China analogous to South Korea:US. If you analogy held, south korea would be a nuclear power. Stop commenting on things you know nothing about. Honestly, do you think you are an expert in every geopolitical topic?
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    EDIT: Reply deleted. Troll/flamebait account.
mmooss 11mo ago
> The US invaded South Korea ? When was that? After the Pacific War with Japan, the US had bases in SK (from driving Japan out of SK?). NK and eventually China invaded SK and the US defended them, and since then SK has given the US military bases in order to deter NK and China.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> We'd called them china's vassals and attack china for being bullies who deprived nations of their sovereignty The treaty restricting Korea is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1]. America is giving Seoul a loophole by offering to do the NPT-governed work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

hearsathought 11mo ago
[flagged]
- tyre 11mo ago
  America is doing South Korea a favor. It could ratchet sanctions (see: Iran) and ravage SK’s position and economic power on the global stage without its sign-off.
  - hearsathought 11mo ago
    > America is doing South Korea a favor. No. America is doing itself a favor. Not south korea. > It could ratchet sanctions (see: Iran) and ravage SK’s position and economic power on the global stage without its sign-off. So you are saying that korea is not a sovereign state like iran but a vassal to the US. Maybe the US could protect korea (see: Israel) and send billions of taxpayer dollars to korea.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > No. America is doing itself a favor. Not south korea. You realise a deal can be both? > you are saying that korea is not a sovereign state like iran but a vassal False dichotomy. Korea is not as sovereign as the US, Russia or China because it's not a global nuclear power. Whether Seoul or Tehran are functionally more sovereign is an interesting question that isn't easily answered. > Maybe the US could protect korea (see: Israel) and send billions of taxpayer dollars to korea ...do you think we don't?