4 ms·

People are critical of North Korea - very understandable since the Juche ideology is absolute rubbish nonsense and North Korea remains hostile to South Korea. H

People are critical of North Korea - very understandable since the Juche ideology is absolute rubbish nonsense and North Korea remains hostile to South Korea. However had, with the USA becoming a rogue country now, I think it is time that many more countries will need a small, defensive nuclear arsenal: South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Canada, the whole EU (that is, all EU members need protection on their own; the USA can not be trusted anymore, Trump made that clear while serving Putin as agent Krasnov). One can say that more nukes are bad; that's true. However had, the big old countries CONSTANTLY abuse smaller countries. This happens again and again and again. So, since they don't stop their own nuclear abuse and blackmail, the only response that is logical is to more fairly distribute nukes. Of course a much better option would be for all countries to give up nukes; perhaps that will happen one day in the future though probably not, since when one refuses, others would have to follow suit and also get nukes. So the only viable long-term strategy is to have nukes, while also working much harder to improve diplomacy.

alansaber 8d ago
Geopolitics is very complex, but at least those bigger states have a lot to lose. Under mass proliferation I can see a small country with an ideological nemisis deciding to just nuke them.
vharuck 8d ago
I've been thinking about nukes lately (way too much, in fact). And, IMO, the only people who want nuclear weapons are national leaders. If the US invaded North Korea tomorrow, then NK has three options: 1) Launch nukes at the US. The minute those missiles leave their silos, the US will launch theirs. Even assuming the best case of no other nations joining in, most residents of NK and many residents of the US are either dead or going to die soon. The leaders of NK are probably dead. 2) Fight a conventional war. NK will probably hold out fairly well using drones. If they learned from Iran's diffuse decision-making in the military, they'll do even better. They might hold off the US long enough for peace talks. Leadership has a chance to survive, more so if they flee to China or Russia. 3) Capitulate immediately. Leadership flees to China or Russia, and the US probably lets them. The citizens aren't massacred or conscripted into a massacre, and they go on living their lives. For NK citizens, the order from best to worst is scenario 3, 2, then 1 (if NK had good human rights, the order would be 2, 3, then 1). For pragmatic leadership, it's 2, 3, then 1. For crazy leadership, it's 1, 2, then 3. In the long run, every country will have a crazy ruler. And that applies to any two countries. If Russia invaded the US tomorrow, I'd prefer we put up a good fight with conventional weapons, and then surrender if that fails. No nukes. I would rather live a mean life under Putin than watch my family suffer radiation poisoning. At least there's a chance of improvement and rebellion with the former. Thinking more about it, is there any good circumstantial evidence that nukes have deterred war? Conventional war between any major powers would be devastating to everyone's economy. When the USSR was falling apart, they knew it was because of their own system and choices. Was would have just made things worse. The US goes to war with weaker nations and still leaves before winning, because we're a democracy and wars are very unpopular.
- nephihaha 7d ago
  The North Koreans would find it easier to smuggle nuclear weapons in by boat.
FireHorseAutumn 8d ago
I don't see how anyone can argue that North Korean decision making has NOT been vindicated. Personally: let everybody who needs one have a few instead of relying off the caprices of others. It's not like a small country wouldn't still be having a death sentence if they chose to nuke a big one. But it provides psychological security, as well as deep mutual interest to never let any crazy network have access to a bomb through mutual complicity.
- epolanski 7d ago
  > let everybody who needs one have a few instead of relying off the caprices of others I don't think this is the solution. We have a huge number of people willing to press a button and cause pain. And it's escalating. I don't want more of those. Instead, we should isolate countries that tend to be the aggressors. The Iranians, the Israelis, the Americans, the Russians. Because we have long pretended to not see or found excuses for those aggressions. Needless to say, we also need to get rid of systems that concentrate too much executive power in a single person. Authoritarian governments are the first, but presidential and semi presidential republics come second.

alansaber 8d ago

Geopolitics is very complex, but at least those bigger states have a lot to lose. Under mass proliferation I can see a small country with an ideological nemisis deciding to just nuke them.

vharuck 8d ago

I've been thinking about nukes lately (way too much, in fact). And, IMO, the only people who want nuclear weapons are national leaders. If the US invaded North Korea tomorrow, then NK has three options: 1) Launch nukes at the US. The minute those missiles leave their silos, the US will launch theirs. Even assuming the best case of no other nations joining in, most residents of NK and many residents of the US are either dead or going to die soon. The leaders of NK are probably dead. 2) Fight a conventional war. NK will probably hold out fairly well using drones. If they learned from Iran's diffuse decision-making in the military, they'll do even better. They might hold off the US long enough for peace talks. Leadership has a chance to survive, more so if they flee to China or Russia. 3) Capitulate immediately. Leadership flees to China or Russia, and the US probably lets them. The citizens aren't massacred or conscripted into a massacre, and they go on living their lives. For NK citizens, the order from best to worst is scenario 3, 2, then 1 (if NK had good human rights, the order would be 2, 3, then 1). For pragmatic leadership, it's 2, 3, then 1. For crazy leadership, it's 1, 2, then 3. In the long run, every country will have a crazy ruler. And that applies to any two countries. If Russia invaded the US tomorrow, I'd prefer we put up a good fight with conventional weapons, and then surrender if that fails. No nukes. I would rather live a mean life under Putin than watch my family suffer radiation poisoning. At least there's a chance of improvement and rebellion with the former. Thinking more about it, is there any good circumstantial evidence that nukes have deterred war? Conventional war between any major powers would be devastating to everyone's economy. When the USSR was falling apart, they knew it was because of their own system and choices. Was would have just made things worse. The US goes to war with weaker nations and still leaves before winning, because we're a democracy and wars are very unpopular.

nephihaha 7d ago
The North Koreans would find it easier to smuggle nuclear weapons in by boat.

FireHorseAutumn 8d ago

I don't see how anyone can argue that North Korean decision making has NOT been vindicated. Personally: let everybody who needs one have a few instead of relying off the caprices of others. It's not like a small country wouldn't still be having a death sentence if they chose to nuke a big one. But it provides psychological security, as well as deep mutual interest to never let any crazy network have access to a bomb through mutual complicity.

epolanski 7d ago
> let everybody who needs one have a few instead of relying off the caprices of others I don't think this is the solution. We have a huge number of people willing to press a button and cause pain. And it's escalating. I don't want more of those. Instead, we should isolate countries that tend to be the aggressors. The Iranians, the Israelis, the Americans, the Russians. Because we have long pretended to not see or found excuses for those aggressions. Needless to say, we also need to get rid of systems that concentrate too much executive power in a single person. Authoritarian governments are the first, but presidential and semi presidential republics come second.