US strikes on Iran may strengthen North Korea’s nuclear resolve, experts warn
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
It was attempted many times by South Korea, by the US, and by others to get North Korea to trash their nuclear program. It didn't work.
The world learned if a country isn't giving up their nuclear program, even with large incentives to do so, one cannot just hope things change in the future. That baseless hope is how we got a nuclear armed North Korea. The world learned, and a different strategy is being taken with Iran.
-
This post did not contain any content.
What resolve? They already have nukes, they show no signs of wanting to use them, and consistently want to be left alone to do their thing.
I hate when all the news bring up a completely unrelated country all of a sudden. Makes me think this WWIII thing is going to happen and is being pushed for.
-
What resolve? They already have nukes, they show no signs of wanting to use them, and consistently want to be left alone to do their thing.
I hate when all the news bring up a completely unrelated country all of a sudden. Makes me think this WWIII thing is going to happen and is being pushed for.
consistently want to be left alone to do their thing
They consistently want to extract economic and food assistance from other countries via threatening all kinds of shit. But otherwise, yes.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
No shit. Trump pulled us out of the mutually-beneficial nuclear deal that Iran had been abiding by simply because it was brokered by democrats. Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for security guarantees from us, the UK and Russia... We all see how well that worked out.
-
What resolve? They already have nukes, they show no signs of wanting to use them, and consistently want to be left alone to do their thing.
I hate when all the news bring up a completely unrelated country all of a sudden. Makes me think this WWIII thing is going to happen and is being pushed for.
My guess would be greater quantity and better delivery systems.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They should manufacture and sell nukes to Iran. Seriously.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think it'll strengthen everyone's nuclear resolve. Strategic ambiguity (with the common knowledge that you are a nuclear state, like Israel) is pretty much the only option now.
Iran was playing the game of "we aren't a nuclear power, but we COULD be" wasn't enough. Everyone sees that now. The only real deterrent is a literal nuke, now.
-
They should manufacture and sell nukes to Iran. Seriously.
Why the hell would you want Iran to have nukes? Just because Israel and/or US bad, doesn't mean Iran is good. Far, far from it.
-
Why the hell would you want Iran to have nukes? Just because Israel and/or US bad, doesn't mean Iran is good. Far, far from it.
Iran isn't good, but the kind of bad it does isn't the kind nukes would have an impact on. Meanwhile a nuclear armed Iran wouldn't be bombed by Israel year in and year out.
-
It was attempted many times by South Korea, by the US, and by others to get North Korea to trash their nuclear program. It didn't work.
The world learned if a country isn't giving up their nuclear program, even with large incentives to do so, one cannot just hope things change in the future. That baseless hope is how we got a nuclear armed North Korea. The world learned, and a different strategy is being taken with Iran.
even with large incentives to do so,
What large incentives? Obviously talking about Iran here.
-
Why the hell would you want Iran to have nukes? Just because Israel and/or US bad, doesn't mean Iran is good. Far, far from it.
Because it would be a meaningful check against Israel
and the US which are relentlessly belligerent and the source of most of the violence in the region. -
This post did not contain any content.
Well no shit. Countries with nukes aren't likely to be invaded or bombed. I bet Ukraine is kicking themselves for getting rid of the ones they had. I wouldn't be surprised if this kick-starts a new wave of nuclear proliferation, and I can't say I'd blame those countries.
-
even with large incentives to do so,
What large incentives? Obviously talking about Iran here.
Nuclear energy program assistance.
-
Iran isn't good, but the kind of bad it does isn't the kind nukes would have an impact on. Meanwhile a nuclear armed Iran wouldn't be bombed by Israel year in and year out.
Assad gazed Syrian rebels, so I don't think the Guardians of the Revolution wouldn't nuke a rebelled city. That would stop the revolt instantly.
-
Because it would be a meaningful check against Israel
and the US which are relentlessly belligerent and the source of most of the violence in the region.wrote on last edited by [email protected]No it wouldn't, Iran would use them immediately to destroy Israel and let themselves be destroyed in retaliation.
That's 100% what would happen. There is no possible deviance, the second Iran gets the bomb, it will use it.
-
They should manufacture and sell nukes to Iran. Seriously.
Yes, let's give nukes to a theocratic regime bent on destorying the west. That will own the libs.
-
Assad gazed Syrian rebels, so I don't think the Guardians of the Revolution wouldn't nuke a rebelled city. That would stop the revolt instantly.
They would if it was only their moral integrity stopping them, but they wouldn't because doing such a thing would destroy their international standing and immediately start a regional war with generous Western involvement if not outright belligerency. In other words: They wouldn't use a nuke against a regional adversary for the same reason North Korea hasn't nuked South Korea. There's a limit to how far you can push nukes and, counterintuitively, actually using them goes beyond that limit. If anything, it's countries with actual muscle like China, US and its allies and to a lesser extent Russia that could actually use a nuke and (comparatively) get away with it.
-
They would if it was only their moral integrity stopping them, but they wouldn't because doing such a thing would destroy their international standing and immediately start a regional war with generous Western involvement if not outright belligerency. In other words: They wouldn't use a nuke against a regional adversary for the same reason North Korea hasn't nuked South Korea. There's a limit to how far you can push nukes and, counterintuitively, actually using them goes beyond that limit. If anything, it's countries with actual muscle like China, US and its allies and to a lesser extent Russia that could actually use a nuke and (comparatively) get away with it.
Not against q regional adversary. But against their own population, they would.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Trump fawns over Kim so hard I wouldn't be surprised if he just provides nukes to NK if Kim asks him nicely.
