As speculation mounts that Kim Jong-un and Trump could meet this month, analysts say Pyongyang will continue to see nuclear weapons as a matter of survival
North Korea’s launch last week of a missile from a naval destroyer elicited an uncharacteristically prosaic analysis from the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The launch was proof, he said, that arming ships with nuclear weapons was “making satisfactory progress”.
But the test, and Kim’s mildly upbeat appraisal, were designed to reverberate well beyond the deck of the 5,000-tonne destroyer-class vessel the Choe Hyon – the biggest warship in the North Korean fleet.
His pointed reference to nuclear weapons was made as the US and Israel continued their air bombardment of Iran – a regime Donald Trump had warned, without offering evidence, was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.
Sadly, that’s a lesson I’ve already learned from war in Ukraine. Before it I had "hope"s and "might"s about civilization. Now I have a substantial amount less
I mean its not a wrong view its either that or be a faithful servant of the west above your own citizens.
The situation Ukraine and Iran reinforced that position too. Ukraine believed that the US would have its back if it gave up its nukes
That’s the overwhelming message of the 20th and 21st centuries. If you don’t have nukes then the US or Russia is gonna mess with you. Get nukes.
Am Canadian. Want nukes.
Secretly get nukes.
Checks and balances.
I know that it’s an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe that we were at least marginally safer when the USSR was still a superpower acting as a check on American fuckery.
Once the USSR fell, US went masks off on the international stage because they had no reason to pretend to be the good guys anymore.
They convinced all their allies to disarm themselves, and then went full “nice country here…shame if something happened to it” the moment they were the only big dog left.
The world can’t re-arm itself fast enough as far as I’m concerned.
Better to have it and not need it. You can only have respect when your facing someone at an equal level of power and respect. Clearly even if some administration does have love for your people the next administration might not.
That would be the sane assumption to make here. But remember, trump is not a rational actor. He might just invade NK just for shits and giggles. i think the only reason he hasn’t yet is because they don’t have enough oil / kim is his friend.
His admin just has to tell him the Kim dynasty bought franchise rights to McDonalds and they are threatening American supplies of Big Macs. War by tomorrow morning.
Edit: That the above sentence is not the stupidest thing ever said and has even the smallest element of truth in it speaks very poorly about the age we are living in.
“North Korea’s view”
Ha, yeah, it’s a NK thing. It’s everybody’s view.
Turns out the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction was invented by Kim Jung Un, as a spec of genetic material living in his father’s sperm that was still lodged in his grandfather’s scrotum.
This is the true unlimited power of Scientific Marxism.
The thought of the Great Leader is si magnificent it reverberates backwards through time!
Someone post the apology form.
That’s because nukes ARE the only path to security lmao. As soon as the first one was tested, and then fuck me used against civilians everyone watching jnmed understood this.
It sucks, and I would much prefer a world without nuclear weapons, but this is reality unfortunately. If you have nukes, you have leverage without ever having to use them
This is the plot of metal gear
used against civilians
Uhhhh…
I don’t quite know how to break it to you but:
-
There’s no other way to use a nuke, they cover too wide an area.
-
Killing civilians was the norm in WW2, every war before that, and the vast majority of every war since.
Like, if the nukes on Japan wouldn’t have been dropped, it would have had to be more firebombing and then a ground invasion.
Firebombings which still had a higher kill count in Japan than both nukes combined.
The entire point of a nuke, is that all it takes is a single one to wipe out entire square miles of a city. There’s no way to do that without civilian casualties, and it’s only a matter of time until one gets thru defenses.
There’s no other way to use a nuke, they cover too wide an area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
Like, if the nukes on Japan wouldn’t have been dropped, it would have had to be more firebombing and then a ground invasion.
The nuclear strikes on Japan represented a political decision taken by the United States, aimed squarely at the Soviet Union; it was the first strike in the Cold War.
In August 1945, the USSR was preparing to invade Japan to overthrow its ruling fascist regime, which had been allied with Nazi Germany – which the Soviet Red Army had also just defeated in the European theater of the war.
Washington was concerned that, if the Soviets defeated Japanese fascism and liberated Tokyo like they had in Berlin, then Japan’s post-fascist government could become an ally of the Soviet Union and could adopt a socialist government.
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore, were not so much aimed at the Japanese fascists as they were aimed at the Soviet communists.
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/08/07/atomic-bombing-japan-not-necessary/
Ah yes the Soviets were right about to checks notes start building an invasion fleet and beat the US in the race to Tokyo, thus checks notes again singlehandedly defeat fascism around the globe
That’s some interesting alternative history you’re reading there
Not sure what youre talking about, or how any of that follows.
The simple fact is that the notion that the US did not need to nuke Japan is a well-respected position among historians.
Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, put it this way: “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
https://www.wagingpeace.org/were-the-atomic-bombings-necessary/
https://www.historyonthenet.com/reasons-against-dropping-the-atomic-bomb
Alperovitz further highlights that the Japanese had initiated peace envoy missions as early as September 1944, reaching out to figures like Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek by December 1944 and engaging with the USSR in April 1945. That the Japanese were interested in negotiating a peace was well known. Moreover, the Americans knew that there was a potential for a surrender without necessitating an invasion as early as April 1945, provided there was clarity in the surrender terms.
The argument that the bombings prevented the necessity of an invasion is undermined by the very cities that were chosen to be bombed. It is now known that as many as nine atomic bombs were proposed to be used tactically against Japanese military targets as part of a planned — though never authorized — invasion. That two of those bombs were ultimately used against cities of no particular military value is evidence that plans for an invasion had already been abandoned by August of 1945.
The potential for a massive confrontation between the Red Army and the Kwantung Army in Manchuria introduced the prospect of the Soviets seeking equal participation in subsequent conflict-ending talks. This would have positioned them to assert a stronger claim over the region, resulting in gains that could far exceed their initial claims to territories lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. Consequently, the atomic bomb, instead of being used tactically, evolved into a strategic weapon of terror intended to jolt Japan into immediate surrender.
Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They could be dialed down lower, but even a “small” tactical nuke is bigger than what got dropped on Japan.
It is not a “bunker buster” type of munition.
And I have no idea what you’re second rambling source is trying to say.
They could be dialed down lower, but even a “small” tactical nuke is bigger than what got dropped on Japan.
It’s not about size, it’s how you use it. For example, a tactical nuke could potentially be used at sea to destroy a fleet. Depending on where the fleet is, this could potentially be done with no direct civilian casualties.
And I have no idea what you’re second rambling source is trying to say.
Really? It’s pretty clear cut: the Americans dropped the nuke to primarily rule out Soviet influence as opposed to being a decisive means to end the war. This isn’t even a fringe opinion among historians these days - I’m surprised you haven’t heard this take.
Militarily Japan was finished (as the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that August showed). Further blockade and urban destruction would have produced a surrender in August or September at the latest, without the need for the costly anticipated invasion or the atomic bomb. As for the second bomb on Nagasaki, that was just as unnecessary as the first one. It was deemed to be needed, partly because it was a different design, and the military (and many civilian scientists) were keen to see if they both worked the same way. There was, in other words, a cynical scientific imperative at work as well.
I should also add that there was a fine line between the atomic bomb and conventional bombing – indeed descriptions of Hamburg or Tokyo after conventional bombing echo the aftermath of Hiroshima. To regard Hiroshima as a moral violation is also to condemn the firebombing campaign, which was deliberately aimed at city centres and completely indiscriminate.
Depending on where the fleet is, this could potentially be done with no direct civilian casualties.
And huge environmental damage leading to indirect death and suffering at a wide scale…
It’s pretty clear cut: the Americans dropped the nuke to primarily rule out Soviet influence as opposed to being a decisive means to end the war
No, that’s from an opinion on a random website it doesn’t prove anything, just tells you the authors opinion…
Your new one agrees with me at least:
To regard Hiroshima as a moral violation is also to condemn the firebombing campaign, which was deliberately aimed at city centres and completely indiscriminate.
But I didn’t bother reading more than you quoted.
Genuine question: before today, had you ever heard of the take that the US didnt need to nuke Japan - given Soviet advancements and Japan’s military crumbling?
Yep, anytime it comes up a shit ton of .ml accounts all keep insisting it wasn’t necessary even tho the alternative would have caused more deaths and a shit ton more human suffering while ignoring that it fucking worked even when the Japanese government considered imprisoning the emperor to prevent him from surrending before the bombs were used.
That’s what people don’t get, Japan wasn’t going to surrender. The military had seized control and would 100% continue fighting to the last person, the only thing that stopped them was showing that continuing to fight would leave all of Japan a barren rock.
The complete destruction of their island was the only thing that would have worked.
But as sure as I just said that, it’s all hypotheticals and guesses, no one really knows how much it would have taken without nukes, but every indication is it would have taken a lot.
However if you compare the nukes used in Japan to current nukes, they now cover a lot more than 1 city…
Yeah, and conventional attacks have also evolved past just dumping napalm from a balloon…
Or attaching small moltovs to bats and releasing them.
Like, nukes getting bigger is better as a dettertent.
That’s the entire point of a deterrent.
Where we fucked up, is who we entrusted the buttons to.
You don’t know me so you would have no way of knowing this about me, but yes I am very familiar with all the tradeoffs and decision making in this part of WW2 around ground assault vs nukes and continued bombing etc 🙌
I am very familiar with all the tradeoffs and decision making
Another Godzilla connoisseur, I see.
You clearly believe so…
But that’s not the impression one gets from the words you type.
I’d better not express what impression I’m getting from your words, dude.
I get paid a lot to be right and say it in ways powerful idiots understand.
Not having to be polite is a relief valve, but it doesn’t mean the information is incorrect.
The smallest “tactical nuke” is orders of magnitude bigger than what was used in Japan and even at their lowest settings would snowball into environmental catastrophe.
You can’t contain an atomic blast. Even what’s left is irradiated and now nuclear waste. Especially any kind of metal, which is probably going to be whatever you nuke.
Being smaller just means idiots are more likely to use them.
Whoa you must be like so rich. How much do you make
Weird…
I thought the peace sign emoji meant you were done.
✌️
-
Wasn’t that kind of a given already considering how Russia is treating Ukraine right now?
As a completely irrelevant observer, yeah. Nukes are. If I was a leader of a people and we had one, I would never disarm.
Anyone who didn’t learn that lesson from Ukraine is a fucking idiot
They had nukes, and gave them away after assurances if Russia invaded they’d be defended.
Instead we left them out to dry and started another war instead
They had nukes
They had nukes under a Moscow-aligned government. They surrendered those nukes to win trade concessions from their Western partners.
Had they keep their weapons, they’d have had a much larger contingent of Russian military personal in the country for the next 30 years.
Instead we left them out to dry
We’ve sent them hundreds of billions of dollars in military hardware, mercenary staff, and logistical support.
They’re losing the war because NATO underestimated the offensive capability of the Russian military, especially over an enormous front line. Not because they lack raw firepower.
What do you think would have happened after Russia crossed into the Donbas over cross border shelling? Would Zelensky have responded by… nuking half the Oblast? Or are you suggesting everyone should start flinging nukes at each other’s capital cities?
I still think they’re loosing because Elon musk is a piece of shit. He hobbled their counter offensive that might have given them the breathing room to end the war. War is a collection of key moments and he stuck his dick in the gears during one of them when he shut down starlink
We did send them aid. And then the administration changed. My point is, I agree. You should never trust someone else with your own protection. Ukraine got a major economic boon from disarming. And soft protection but donating to the local police force doesn’t really help in when someone decides to walk into your house anyway.
We did send them aid.
We pledged armies…
30 years ago Ukraine was the 3rd largest nuclear superpower in the world.
They didn’t trade that for a couple crates of old ARs and malfunctioning body armor
Ukraine got a major economic boon from disarming.
Completely wiped out by the multiple Russian invasions…
They traded real security for comfort, and comfort always can be taken away.
It’s almost impossible to get real.security, look at Iran.
Like, there’s no rational reason for a sovereign country not to be developing their own nukes these days. And that’s dangerous
Yeah, I don’t disagree. That’s what happened. They confused economic power with defense. Maybe if it wasn’t putin they were trying to stop it would have been better for them.
They essentially traded a gun for a job and a restraining order. But also consider that the economic ties they gained by giving up their nukes. Bought them time and capital to build up their own military power enough to fight off Russia decades years later. They may not win this, but at the time the only thing they had were nukes.
Ukraine made the choice to try to build itself up more. I don’t fault them for that. Geopolitics is a messy 4-D chess game.
You just can’t really predict individual elements. When they declared independence putin was just a little shit stain and the billionaires in Russia were still fighting among each other to secure wealth and power.
At the time, Ukraine giving up it’s nukes fast tracked it to the 1st world. Yeah, it sucks that it played out this way. But it wasn’t on its face a bad plan.
If they had a 40 year old nuclear arsenal and matching tech they might not be at war right now, but they also probably wouldn’t be Ukraine either.
but at the time the only thing they had were nukes.
Wildly incorrect…
Like just look at any map, Ukraine was the front line to Europe, think about how much military is built up in Texas because it’s a border. Ukraine had a shit ton of all types of weaponry when the USSR dissolved
Weapony that the former USSR had claim to and would have been a justification for intervention. I’m not going to sit here and pretend I know the nuances of the fall of the USSR. I was 3. But I can see enough to know that at the time, Ukraine made the smart play for the foreseeable future. In 1994. In hindsight, it should have held its nukes. In the moment, throwing down that sword gave it a seat at the world table.
Weapony that the former USSR had claim to and would have been a justification for intervention.
Hate to break it to ya…
But after the dissolution of the USSR, there wasn’t anymore USSR.
Russia had claim to those weapons, just like the nukes.
Ukraine kept the conventional equipment, and gave up the nukes back to Russia instead.
This isn’t a hypothetical, this is what happened, and if you don’t know what happened, it’s hard to trust you on hypotheticals. Youre making them without all the facts
Look, I’m not really into how hot you’re being about this. Little nitpicking like that doesn’t strike me as good faith discussion. Especially when I haven’t exactly been adverse to a few of your points. If you want to talk, cool, if you want to argue, scroll on.
Thank you.
America used certain weapons to stop WW2. (Edit: Though that’s an oversimplification and ignores the efforts of the other allies and battles of WW2) So it’s not only North Korean logic. Ironically, many Western countries also have Nukes and have not given them up. Nuclear Energy is a lot cleaner than fossil fuels as well though of course it is still very controversial and unpopular.
The U.S. did not use nuclear weapons to stop WW2. That is such a load of crap, and propaganda. We used nuclear weapons to intimidate Russia and show what we were capable of.
Just as the british didnt incinerate Dresden to stop the germans from producing… optics
And unfortunately, North Korea is very correct in this assessment :(
shit, i’m in canada and we are having a new conversation about acquiring nukes. USA is making the world a very dangerous place, and it’s all because grossly rich turds like trump want more.
when you type USA, do you mean the divided states between Canada and Mexico?
Ununited states of amerikkka
