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.

  • 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.