7 ms·

No way SK is going to convince NK to abandon nukes. The point of having nukes is not to intimidate SK or JP. It is to deter the US.

by k_sze 2mo ago

derelicta 2mo ago
That's also how I see it. If they want long-lasting peace, it will be a nuclear-enforced one. The DPRK has witnessed way too many times in its lifetime what happens to countries that naively give up their nukes. The atom is still one of the best guarantors of national sovereignty.
NetOpWibby 2mo ago
Especially with a nut job like Drumpf at the helm. It’d be great to see a united Korea though.
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  Ending the war is one thing. Reunion, I don't see that happening in the next decades. Don't forget how much poverty and indoctrination is there. And who would govern the combined Korea? The two governments are worlds apart. Ending the war might enable them to grow towards each other. But that will take decades.
- petre 2mo ago
  Not going to happen. China and Russia won't let it happen, since the DPRK is a buffer state. Kim has his nukes and doesn't want to lose power. Basically Soth Korea doesn't have any allies in the area, aside from US which has bases in Guam and Okinawa and has been unreliable under the current administration.
vagrantJin 2mo ago
Why should they give up their nukes? I'd like a rational, logically sound reason they should give up their nuclear research and or any war-heads already developed.
- thisislife2 2mo ago
  I can think of some: 1. North Korea doesn't really need a nuke. That the western allies of South Korea haven't attacked North Korea because it has nukes is overstated. The reason nobody has attacked North Korea yet is because South Koreans don't want to fight a war and endanger their economy. Geographical factors means that South Korea will face significant destruction - missile and artillery fire from NK already can target most regions of SK. And any war with North Korea guarantees the involvement of the Chinese and the Russians too. 2. If we accept the arguments of the west that the nukes are the only reason North Korea has been sanctioned, then giving up nuclear weapons should mean that all economic sanctions on North Korea would be lifted. North Korea already has a reasonably strong conventional military. If the sanctions are lifted, a strong economy + a strong conventional military (along with the military alliance with China and / or Russia) can be enough of a deterrent. Especially if North Korea also behaves as any other responsible nation. 3. Without giving up its nukes, even China and Russia won't allow an independent North Korea, with nukes, to become economically stronger or a democratic country. 4. Right now, the nukes are like an albatross around the neck. Getting rid of them voluntarily can provide immense benefits. NK already knows how to build nuclear weapons. With careful planning, they can resume a nuclear WMD program any time again in the future, if need be. 5. They do not have to give up their nuclear research or civilian nuclear programs.
  - Analemma_ 2mo ago
    I think in NK’s mind all of these reasons pale before the straightforward truth that nukes keep you safe and giving them up fucks you over. Libya: gave up its nukes; invaded. Ukraine: gave up its nukes; invaded. Iran: signed an agreement not to develop nukes; counterparty tore up the agreement and attacked. When has a nuclear-equipped nation been attacked lately?
    - AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
      Russia, bombed just last night. I mean, it was in a war that they started, so Russia is the attackers. But the attacks are coming back, and the nukes aren't preventing that.
root-parent 2mo ago
That is also a fallacy. Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them with the exception of nuclear weapons or ground forces. US ground forces against a country 1/3 the size of China with 90 million people is guaranteed to be a US military defeat, so Iran just realized they were actually stronger than they though. NK looked at all this, and had zero issues in deploying 10,000 combat troops in active combat in Europe, in case you have not paid attention to Ukraine... If you use even one single nuclear weapon, either as North Korea or Iran, you can be assured of being turn to ashes in the next minutes. So they dont make sense as a weapon, they are more of a status symbol.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Iran has famously impenetrable geography on its side.
  - petre 2mo ago
    The US couldn't handle Vietnam either. Iran is a citadel by comparison.
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    It's not only Iran though. The US and allies (including my own country) accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, 2 weeks after they left quite chaotically the country was back to the state of 20 years ago before the war. So many people died for nothing. So many billions wasted. And trump can't control Israel despite them being totally dependent on US weapons. He doesn't manage to reel Putin in. The world is in a super chaotic state, pax Americana is really over. I don't think the classification superpower really applies anymore to the US. And that's mainly because being a superpower isn't only about military power. You can't just bend the world to your will by shooting people. There's a lot of geopolitical goodwill and diplomacy involved too, and the US has thoroughly set that on fire by turning on its strongest allies. The diplomacy is what makes a superpower. The military is just the backup. I don't think there are any true superpowers anymore, though I do think China is on the rise to become one. Which I'm not happy with but of course that's the thing about superpowers, there's nothing we can do about it.
thisislife2 2mo ago
NK doesn't have to abandon the nukes to have peace with South Korea. As it has abandoned re-unification, and now recognises South Korea as an independent state, they could move on to a hot and cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other.
- mimsee 2mo ago
  > ...cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other. ..by launching missiles at each other just last year?
  - thisislife2 2mo ago
    Yes, but I guess it was a poor example. I was thinking that technically, they aren't at war all the time. Every decade or two, they declare a war and fight each other, and then settle. In between they even talk with each other civilly.
- expedition32 2mo ago
  South Korea needs to kick out the Americans though. That's more likely to be the real hold up.
dessimus 2mo ago
Deter the US from what exactly? In what capacity has the US been aggressors towards NK that isn't in support of SK or Japan? If anything China props up NK to keep a Western-aligned unified Korea off their border.
- dosisking 2mo ago
  > Deter the US from what exactly? Just in case this is a serious question, the US has invaded Iran and Venezuela most recently. The US previously invaded Iraq. What do they have in common? They don't have nukes.
  - dessimus 2mo ago
    They also have something NK doesn't: vast oil reserves. If they did, they be even more of a vassal state to China than they currently are, if they even existed as a separate state at all. Also, NK's sabre-rattling has been going on for decades and is not a response to Trump's actions.
    - gerash 1mo ago
      What are you talking about? NK was bombed by the US in the past. Also did Syria also have oil?
      - dessimus 1mo ago
        Yeah and...? It's been almost 75 years since the Korean War Armistice. Vietnam was more recent and we don't see Vietnam testing ICBMs over the South China Sea, just in case. Let's not forget, Trump is the only sitting President to visit North Korea, so they likely have less concern of getting bombed/raided than at any point in their past.
- WhyNotHugo 2mo ago
  After WWII, the southern part of Korean was under American occupation (it was previously under Japanese occupation, but Japan surrendered to the US). It was the US occupation that installed installed the precursor of current government, with elections which had a lot of boycotts/opposition/oppression. Right wing killed a few hundred thousands locals during these times. To be clear: I'm not justifying anything here, or claiming that you should share this viewpoint. I'm answering your question: how could NK possibly see the US as an aggressor.

No way SK is going to convince NK to abandon nukes. The point of having nukes is not to intimidate SK or JP. It is to deter the US.

by k_sze 2mo ago

No way SK is going to convince NK to abandon nukes. The point of having nukes is not to intimidate SK or JP. It is to deter the US.

derelicta 2mo ago

That's also how I see it. If they want long-lasting peace, it will be a nuclear-enforced one. The DPRK has witnessed way too many times in its lifetime what happens to countries that naively give up their nukes. The atom is still one of the best guarantors of national sovereignty.

NetOpWibby 2mo ago

Especially with a nut job like Drumpf at the helm. It’d be great to see a united Korea though.

wolvoleo 2mo ago
Ending the war is one thing. Reunion, I don't see that happening in the next decades. Don't forget how much poverty and indoctrination is there. And who would govern the combined Korea? The two governments are worlds apart. Ending the war might enable them to grow towards each other. But that will take decades.
petre 2mo ago
Not going to happen. China and Russia won't let it happen, since the DPRK is a buffer state. Kim has his nukes and doesn't want to lose power. Basically Soth Korea doesn't have any allies in the area, aside from US which has bases in Guam and Okinawa and has been unreliable under the current administration.

vagrantJin 2mo ago

Why should they give up their nukes? I'd like a rational, logically sound reason they should give up their nuclear research and or any war-heads already developed.

thisislife2 2mo ago
I can think of some: 1. North Korea doesn't really need a nuke. That the western allies of South Korea haven't attacked North Korea because it has nukes is overstated. The reason nobody has attacked North Korea yet is because South Koreans don't want to fight a war and endanger their economy. Geographical factors means that South Korea will face significant destruction - missile and artillery fire from NK already can target most regions of SK. And any war with North Korea guarantees the involvement of the Chinese and the Russians too. 2. If we accept the arguments of the west that the nukes are the only reason North Korea has been sanctioned, then giving up nuclear weapons should mean that all economic sanctions on North Korea would be lifted. North Korea already has a reasonably strong conventional military. If the sanctions are lifted, a strong economy + a strong conventional military (along with the military alliance with China and / or Russia) can be enough of a deterrent. Especially if North Korea also behaves as any other responsible nation. 3. Without giving up its nukes, even China and Russia won't allow an independent North Korea, with nukes, to become economically stronger or a democratic country. 4. Right now, the nukes are like an albatross around the neck. Getting rid of them voluntarily can provide immense benefits. NK already knows how to build nuclear weapons. With careful planning, they can resume a nuclear WMD program any time again in the future, if need be. 5. They do not have to give up their nuclear research or civilian nuclear programs.
- Analemma_ 2mo ago
  I think in NK’s mind all of these reasons pale before the straightforward truth that nukes keep you safe and giving them up fucks you over. Libya: gave up its nukes; invaded. Ukraine: gave up its nukes; invaded. Iran: signed an agreement not to develop nukes; counterparty tore up the agreement and attacked. When has a nuclear-equipped nation been attacked lately?
  - AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
    Russia, bombed just last night. I mean, it was in a war that they started, so Russia is the attackers. But the attacks are coming back, and the nukes aren't preventing that.

root-parent 2mo ago

That is also a fallacy. Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them with the exception of nuclear weapons or ground forces. US ground forces against a country 1/3 the size of China with 90 million people is guaranteed to be a US military defeat, so Iran just realized they were actually stronger than they though. NK looked at all this, and had zero issues in deploying 10,000 combat troops in active combat in Europe, in case you have not paid attention to Ukraine... If you use even one single nuclear weapon, either as North Korea or Iran, you can be assured of being turn to ashes in the next minutes. So they dont make sense as a weapon, they are more of a status symbol.

inigyou 2mo ago
Iran has famously impenetrable geography on its side.
- petre 2mo ago
  The US couldn't handle Vietnam either. Iran is a citadel by comparison.
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  It's not only Iran though. The US and allies (including my own country) accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, 2 weeks after they left quite chaotically the country was back to the state of 20 years ago before the war. So many people died for nothing. So many billions wasted. And trump can't control Israel despite them being totally dependent on US weapons. He doesn't manage to reel Putin in. The world is in a super chaotic state, pax Americana is really over. I don't think the classification superpower really applies anymore to the US. And that's mainly because being a superpower isn't only about military power. You can't just bend the world to your will by shooting people. There's a lot of geopolitical goodwill and diplomacy involved too, and the US has thoroughly set that on fire by turning on its strongest allies. The diplomacy is what makes a superpower. The military is just the backup. I don't think there are any true superpowers anymore, though I do think China is on the rise to become one. Which I'm not happy with but of course that's the thing about superpowers, there's nothing we can do about it.

thisislife2 2mo ago

NK doesn't have to abandon the nukes to have peace with South Korea. As it has abandoned re-unification, and now recognises South Korea as an independent state, they could move on to a hot and cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other.

mimsee 2mo ago
> ...cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other. ..by launching missiles at each other just last year?
- thisislife2 2mo ago
  Yes, but I guess it was a poor example. I was thinking that technically, they aren't at war all the time. Every decade or two, they declare a war and fight each other, and then settle. In between they even talk with each other civilly.
expedition32 2mo ago
South Korea needs to kick out the Americans though. That's more likely to be the real hold up.

dessimus 2mo ago

Deter the US from what exactly? In what capacity has the US been aggressors towards NK that isn't in support of SK or Japan? If anything China props up NK to keep a Western-aligned unified Korea off their border.

dosisking 2mo ago
> Deter the US from what exactly? Just in case this is a serious question, the US has invaded Iran and Venezuela most recently. The US previously invaded Iraq. What do they have in common? They don't have nukes.
- dessimus 2mo ago
  They also have something NK doesn't: vast oil reserves. If they did, they be even more of a vassal state to China than they currently are, if they even existed as a separate state at all. Also, NK's sabre-rattling has been going on for decades and is not a response to Trump's actions.
  - gerash 1mo ago
    What are you talking about? NK was bombed by the US in the past. Also did Syria also have oil?
    - dessimus 1mo ago
      Yeah and...? It's been almost 75 years since the Korean War Armistice. Vietnam was more recent and we don't see Vietnam testing ICBMs over the South China Sea, just in case. Let's not forget, Trump is the only sitting President to visit North Korea, so they likely have less concern of getting bombed/raided than at any point in their past.
WhyNotHugo 2mo ago
After WWII, the southern part of Korean was under American occupation (it was previously under Japanese occupation, but Japan surrendered to the US). It was the US occupation that installed installed the precursor of current government, with elections which had a lot of boycotts/opposition/oppression. Right wing killed a few hundred thousands locals during these times. To be clear: I'm not justifying anything here, or claiming that you should share this viewpoint. I'm answering your question: how could NK possibly see the US as an aggressor.