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

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.

  • crystalmerchant@lemmy.worldEnglish
    79·
    8 hours ago

    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

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      44 minutes ago

      we were working toward a way for a world without nukes. building an economy so interconnected that going to war with another country destroys your economy too. but that shit is fragile. i didn’t think it was this fragile tho.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      8 hours ago

      used against civilians

      Uhhhh…

      I don’t quite know how to break it to you but:

      1. There’s no other way to use a nuke, they cover too wide an area.

      2. 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.

      • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        6 hours ago

        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/

        • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zipEnglish
          3·
          2 hours ago

          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

          • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            2 hours ago

            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

            https://jacobin.com/2023/08/atomic-nuclear-bomb-world-war-ii-soviet-japan-military-industrial-complex-lies

            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.

            • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zipEnglish
              2·
              49 minutes ago

              Of course, they could have chosen to spend several hundred thousand soldiers instead.

              But I’m laughing harder at your other notion that the soviet ubermenschen were right about to swim across the Sea ofJapan and the US had to cheat to beat them there

              • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
                1·
                34 minutes ago

                But I’m laughing harder at your other notion that the soviet ubermenschen were right about to swim across the Sea ofJapan and the US had to cheat to beat them there

                Again, not sure what youre talking about, or how this follows. The only person bringing this idea is you.

                Perhaps you need to check your le epic notes again.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          6 hours ago

          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.

          • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
            5·
            5 hours ago

            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.

            https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-justified-us-debate-bombs-death-toll-japan-how-many-died-nuclear/

            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.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              4 hours ago

              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.

              • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
                2·
                4 hours ago

                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?

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  4·
                  4 hours ago

                  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.

      • Link@rentadrunk.orgEnglish
        14·
        7 hours ago

        However if you compare the nukes used in Japan to current nukes, they now cover a lot more than 1 city…

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          7 hours ago

          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.

      • crystalmerchant@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        7 hours ago

        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 🙌

        • Mulligrubs@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          6 hours ago

          I am very familiar with all the tradeoffs and decision making

          Another Godzilla connoisseur, I see.

          • B-TR3E@feddit.orgEnglish
            5·
            6 hours ago

            I’d better not express what impression I’m getting from your words, dude.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              5 hours ago

              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.