6 ms·
Do you believe it’s a good thing North Korea has the bomb?
by baxtr 8mo ago
Do you believe it’s a good thing North Korea has the bomb?
- AbstractH24 8mo agoIf you are the leaders of North Korea, yes
- baxtr 8mo agoWhat about its people?
- AbstractH24 8mo agoThe leadership in North Korea’s clearly doesn’t prioritize them.
- Matl 8mo agoThe fact that NK possess nuclear weapons strongly discourages external players from attacking it. It does not in any way change the tools NK has at its disposal domestically. If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
- lyu07282 8mo ago> If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale. You think the US would just leave them alone as a communist, sovereign country without nukes, bordering china???
- Matl 8mo agoI think any US intervention in NK would not be to help the people of NK, that's all.
- cogman10 8mo agoYes. Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war. Syria is the prime example of this. A major reason for the civilian slaughter was foreign intervention trying regime change.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago> Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war It's a macabre study. But one could honestly argue that several countries in the latter category's populations are better off than North Korea's.
- cogman10 8mo agoMaybe after the civil war, certainly not during it. If I had to pick where to live, I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone. (This isn't me saying I want to live in NK, I don't). But I'd also point out that a lot of what makes it really suck to live in the worst places in the world isn't often the government but rather the international relationships. Turkey has a particularly brutal government, but it's Nato and EU ally status means that the civilians enjoy modern trade and travel. The worst times to be in NK was the 90s when there was an ongoing famine and the US refused to lift sanctions thinking it'd spark a civil war that overthrew the regime. It didn't.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago> I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone To each their own. I wouldn't. In part because once you're in North Korea, you're not getting out. That isn't the case for Ukraine, Syria or any of the other war-torn countries.
- cogman10 8mo agoIt'd depend on my status. There are a lot of people who can't just get out of Ukraine or Syria. The average citizen in Syria had no means to just flee. I'd assume in my above scenario that I'm one of the masses that can't escape. NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to china and mostly after they attain a high social class. A decent number of tourists, including US citizens, go on tours of NK.
- Matl 8mo agoI believe that it is a rational step they have taken as an act of deterrence. I don't believe any country having nuclear weapons is good.
- nkrisc 8mo agoIt’s good for them. That’s the point they’re making. All this shows that for many countries nuclear proliferation is the way to guarantee their safety.
- baxtr 8mo agoWho is "them"? Definitely not the people. "safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They starve.
- samrus 8mo agoThe people arent being pppressed by the bomb, but by their leaders. The odea that the US would liberate all peoples from tyranical rulers is naive. The US routinely installs and supports tyrants who allign with their geopolitical goals. Pol pot, pahlavi, pinochet, marcos, suharto, seko, the banana republics. Nukes didnt enable those guys, the US did
- lenkite 8mo ago> "safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They starve. Better to have privation than to get bombed and massacred in large numbers.
- throwaway421334 8mo agoWas it better for jews to starve in concentration camps rather than to get bombed by the allies? If not, what's different this time?
- samrus 8mo agoTheyve had the bomb for a while and south korea still exists and is thriving. I have seen alot of batshit insane talk from them, but no real negative consequences for any other country. So it hasnt really been a negative for anyone. I dont think theyll use it first either because they know theyll be glassed if they do Now if they didnt have the bomb, i dont think they would have lasted this long. I think the US would have gone and "democratized" them to smithereens a while ago.
- Peanuts99 8mo agoSouth Korea has the capability to build nuclear weapons very quickly if needed, they're a nuclear threshold state.
- wat10000 8mo agoNuclear weapons have a very brief transition from “everything is fine and nothing bad has happened” to “we’re completely fucked.” The fact that nothing has happened yet isn’t very reassuring to me with all the ways things can go wrong. The threat of retaliation certainly puts a damper on a first strike, but there’s always the possibility of a mistake, someone feeling backed into a corner, or not believing the consequences, or just going a little crazy. The more countries that have them, the more likely this becomes.
- itishappy 8mo agoKinda? I can't help but notice that I'm not particularly worried about my friends or family being sent off to fight North Korea anytime soon.