US strikes on Iran may strengthen North Korea’s nuclear resolve, experts warn
-
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.
-
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.
Does that propaganda line make sense if you think about it deeply? Stop repeating it!
Let me explain. The whole idea that North Korea "threatens the world to extract aid" is pure Western propaganda. It completely ignores history and the actual situation on the ground.
First off, the Korean War never officially ended. They signed an armistice in 1953, not a peace treaty. So North Korea has been living under constant military threat from the US and its allies for over 70 years. That includes nukes pointed at them and massive military exercises happening right near their borders.
Second, North Korea is one of the most heavily sanctioned countries on the planet. Those sanctions, pushed by the US, have crippled their economy and blocked access to food, medicine, and basic resources. When they try to negotiate for food or economic assistance, it gets framed as extortion, but the reality is they are trying to survive in a system designed to isolate and starve them.
Their missile tests and military displays are not random threats. They are a form of deterrence. Even mainstream scholars like John Mearsheimer recognize that smaller, isolated states under constant threat will use military posturing to prevent invasion.
On top of that, the history of negotiations shows it is often the US that breaks agreements. Look at the 1994 Agreed Framework. It collapsed largely because the US failed to follow through, not because North Korea suddenly decided to flip the table.
Leftist voices like Noam Chomsky have been saying for decades that the outrage over North Korean weapons is pure hypocrisy. The US has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world and uses its military power to bully smaller nations constantly.
Bottom line, the "they threaten to get aid" narrative strips away all context. It is designed to justify aggression and keep dehumanizing them. It ignores that North Korea's actions are shaped by decades of sanctions, military threats, and isolation.
-
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.
Wtf are you on about? It’s called mutually assured destruction, not immediately assured destruction.
Why are you implying that they have no brains and can’t reason or use common sense like all people? That’s racist as fuck.
-
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.
That just isn’t consistent with the behavior we’ve seen from Iran for decades. They have acted rationally over and over again, trying to avoid conflict, de-escalating when attacked (to their own detriment IMO), signing and complying with treaties. There’s a lot of anti-west sentiment in Iran, sure, but given what the west has done to them for a century, that’s very very rational. Why should I believe that such rational people would ignore the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that’s prevented all nuclear powers from using the weapons so far?
I’ve been hearing this alarmist rhetoric about Iran here in the US my entire life and I just cannot reconcile it with what I see them do.
-
Yes, let's give nukes to a theocratic regime bent on destorying the west. That will own the libs.
That’s rich, given the religious extremists that hold all the power in the US and Israel. Remind me again, which country launched this war?
-
That’s rich, given the religious extremists that hold all the power in the US and Israel. Remind me again, which country launched this war?
Remind me again, which country launched this war?
Iran's proxy.
-
Remind me again, which country launched this war?
Iran's proxy.
The one resisting a violent occupation? That one?
-
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.
I don't blame any country who wants nukes as long as the Obese idiots have them.
-
Does that propaganda line make sense if you think about it deeply? Stop repeating it!
Let me explain. The whole idea that North Korea "threatens the world to extract aid" is pure Western propaganda. It completely ignores history and the actual situation on the ground.
First off, the Korean War never officially ended. They signed an armistice in 1953, not a peace treaty. So North Korea has been living under constant military threat from the US and its allies for over 70 years. That includes nukes pointed at them and massive military exercises happening right near their borders.
Second, North Korea is one of the most heavily sanctioned countries on the planet. Those sanctions, pushed by the US, have crippled their economy and blocked access to food, medicine, and basic resources. When they try to negotiate for food or economic assistance, it gets framed as extortion, but the reality is they are trying to survive in a system designed to isolate and starve them.
Their missile tests and military displays are not random threats. They are a form of deterrence. Even mainstream scholars like John Mearsheimer recognize that smaller, isolated states under constant threat will use military posturing to prevent invasion.
On top of that, the history of negotiations shows it is often the US that breaks agreements. Look at the 1994 Agreed Framework. It collapsed largely because the US failed to follow through, not because North Korea suddenly decided to flip the table.
Leftist voices like Noam Chomsky have been saying for decades that the outrage over North Korean weapons is pure hypocrisy. The US has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world and uses its military power to bully smaller nations constantly.
Bottom line, the "they threaten to get aid" narrative strips away all context. It is designed to justify aggression and keep dehumanizing them. It ignores that North Korea's actions are shaped by decades of sanctions, military threats, and isolation.
When they try to negotiate for food or economic assistance, it gets framed as extortion
When one threatens death and destruction in exchange for money and goods, one does frame that as extortion, yes.
