North Korea ...again

[Silvio Tattiescone]

So North Korea supposedly wants nuclear weapons to ensure they don't get invaded by the US.

Since the end of the Korean war, how many times have they been invaded by the US despite not having nuclear weapons?

[John Lambies Doos]

So North Korea supposedly wants nuclear weapons to ensure they don't get invaded by the US.
Since the end of the Korean war, how many times have they been invaded by the US despite not having nuclear weapons?

None. But the US have waved their willy several times

[Silvio Tattiescone]

Just now, John Lambies Doos said:

 

None. But the US have waved their willy several times

 

Really. And the mature response to willy waving is to threaten global thermonuclear war is it?

[John Lambies Doos]

Really. And the mature response to willy waving is to threaten global thermonuclear war is it?

I never said that; I'm just pointing out that NK are trying to level the playing field.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

So, nuclear proliferation. Good thing or bad thing? I only ask because so many of the CND types who are dead keen on unilateral disarmament show complete cognitive dissonance on this issue.

[Boghead ranter]

4 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

I never said that; I'm just pointing out that NK are trying to level the playing field.

 

Trying to level the planet, mair like.

[John Lambies Doos]

So, nuclear proliferation. Good thing or bad thing? I only ask because so many of the CND types who are dead keen on unilateral disarmament show complete cognitive dissonance on this issue.

I wish nuclear weapons didn't exist mate.

[chomp my root]

57 minutes ago, Zetterlund said:

Of course, but you have to wonder if the US does, or at least a large-scale conventional conflict, as they're doing everything in their power to ensure the situation continues to escalate. The master plan in response to the latest nuclear test in apparently to step up military counter-measures in the South. The only logical conclusion to draw from the US' actions is that the neverending tension and escalation is exactly what they want.

The US have been in South Korea for a wee whiley now, they carry out regular 'exercises' etc, its what the military do. North Korea might not like it but for a long time their rhetoric has been about targeting America, not "we have a missile with a range of 5000 miles" its "we have a missile that can hit America". I can understand why they might be getting a bit antsy about it. The scary part is they also have a huffy child 'on the throne'.

[sjc]

2 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

I wish nuclear weapons didn't exist mate.

 

I think the majority agree with this but unfortunately they do. Would you prefer states like NK had them and the US didn't? 

[John Lambies Doos]

I think the majority agree with this but unfortunately they do. Would you prefer states like NK had them and the US didn't? 

It's a difficult question tbh. Some states do have them, some states don't and some states like NK are developing. I think it would be easier to rid the world of them if less states had them and there were less of them. Building more and having more countries with them isn't the answer imo

[Granny Danger]

11 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said:

So, nuclear proliferation. Good thing or bad thing? I only ask because so many of the CND types who are dead keen on unilateral disarmament show complete cognitive dissonance on this issue.

Cognitive dissonance.

"We have a non-proliferation agreement and countries should respect it"

"What about Israel"

"Err we have a non-proliferation agreement..."

[sjc]

2 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

It's a difficult question tbh. Some states do have them, some states don't and some states like NK are developing. I think it would be easier to rid the world of them if less states had them and there were less of them. Building more and having more countries with them isn't the answer imo

 

We've been here before in the 80's with the old Soviet Union. Do you trust a totalitarian regime to get rid of theirs? Who blinks first? 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, sjc said:

I think the majority agree with this but unfortunately they do. Would you prefer states like NK had them and the US didn't? 

I think everyone would rather NK didn't have nuclear weapons. The fact is they do and there's nothing we can do about it without the almost certainty of millions of deaths. Sometimes the safest thing is to learn to live with the risk. We've managed to cope with thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us for the last 50 odd years. The only hope is that eventually the regime will collapse from within, or the intelligence services come up with some spectacular feats of sabotage.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

 

[mjw]

Would you prefer states like NK had them and the US didn't? 

For the next four years it probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Antiochas III]

1 hour ago, sjc said:

We've been here before in the 80's with the old Soviet Union. Do you trust a totalitarian regime to get rid of theirs? Who blinks first? 

Have you proof that NK having them is more dangerous than the US having them?  

All it does if NK has them is forces the US think twice before sending their bombs into NK.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Antiochas III said:

Have you proof that NK having them is more dangerous than the US having them?  

All it does if NK has them is forces the US think twice before sending their bombs into NK.

I actually think NK having nukes makes them more likely to be attacked than before. In the past attacking NK was out of the question because of what they could do to SK, especially Seoul (pop. 12 million) with conventional and bio/chem rockets and artillery. Now with the US mainland in range, possibly with nuclear, the US could see risking Seoul as a price worth paying. I don't think Kim really thought it through.

[chomp my root]

4 minutes ago, Antiochas III said:

Have you proof that NK having them is more dangerous than the US having them?  

All it does if NK has them is forces the US think twice before sending their bombs into NK.

What kind of proof are you looking for ? In any situation we make a judgement call, I'd be surprised if there were many (or any) that think the fat kid would be a safer set of hands than King Donald. There aren't many that I would say are bigger basket cases than Trump but in my judgement the fat kid is more of a phuqwit than the combover, Trump has to justify his actions for starters, he'll want a second term/legacy while the fat kid just does as he pleases. He's screwed if the US get the Chinese onside, its a high risk strategy.

[Granny Danger]

I reckon Trump is as unstable as Kim.  Despite the shroud of secrecy surrounding NK I would be surprised in any regime if there's no mechanisms by which Kim could be stopped from doing something crazy.

 

[Granny Danger]

Just now, G_Man1985 said:

Can't we just be friends ?

^^^^ Derry w****r.