Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. Ask Lemmy
  3. Could North Korea covertly send nukes to another nation?

Could North Korea covertly send nukes to another nation?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Ask Lemmy
asklemmy
17 Posts 14 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • A [email protected]

    I think Russia and China do not want them to - it would threaten their diplomatic power over their Vassel states. If, say, Iran, had a nuke from North Korea, it would reduce Russian influence.

    North Korea is severely restricted from flying their own flag on their own ships. North Korean ships are often refused entry to many ports around the world due to UN sanctions and can also be boarded by SK or US forces if they suspect the ship is being used to transport weapons of mass destruction. North Korea often just registers their ships in other countries or outright illegally flies other country's flags to avoid inspection

    P This user is from outside of this forum
    P This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote on last edited by
    #8

    You are right,but there might be a scenario that is somewhat "in between".
    Russia/China might either let NK provide (or do so themselves) a single nuke and might make sure they use it immediately - for a underground test.
    This would lead to the world being "unsure" if they have more, they could make Trump and Bibi look pathetic, while the regime would be even more dependent on them, because they could call their bluff any day.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • K [email protected]
      This post did not contain any content.
      omegalemmy@discuss.onlineO This user is from outside of this forum
      omegalemmy@discuss.onlineO This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote on last edited by [email protected]
      #9

      Unless they are extremely selfless and are willing to give up the few nuclear bombs they could craft themselves to Iran (which broadcasts publicly that they refuse to build nukes on a religious level) it would both

      1. Validate actions of the external threats
      2. Create mistrust in the public for not following with their anti-nuke fatwa
      3. Still, Leave them without the capability to build MORE nukes

      if Iran wanted nukes, it would have publicly tested five out by the time the Israeli attacks came

      1 Reply Last reply
      2
      • K [email protected]
        This post did not contain any content.
        W This user is from outside of this forum
        W This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #10

        There's no particular reason they couldn't. Even a simple dirty bomb detonated in a high population area could wreak havoc -- and any country with centrifuges can basically make one of those in no time.

        Basically every sovereign state now has a very clear risk calculation supporting the development of nuclear arms and for ignoring all the UN's attempts for international cooperation / non-proliferation. Iran was compliant, from all accounts, with the vast majority of requirements that had been set out for it -- something that Israel's nuclear program is seemingly not required to adhere to (it's still "unofficial" that they have between 90 and 400 functional warheads).

        Opening yourselves to international inspectors just gives the USA a very clear target list + floor plans. Further, not having a nuclear option means the USA will potentially attack you. Even if rules of engagement say they shouldn't attack civilian power plant infrastructure, the USA, Israel and Russia do it without hesitation. North Korea, China, and Russia have shown that having a nuclear deterrent will keep the USA away. It'll even make the USA suck up to you / praise you, and let you attack/invade your neighbours without the USA taking action.

        What Trump and the States have done, in my view, essentially translates to destroying any semblance of international cooperation between nations (cause why bother trying to appease the EU, if the USA is gonna ignore international norms and bomb whoever they want anyway), and has made it so that every nation should now pursue weapons of mass destruction as a "deterrent", which will no doubt lead to catastrophe in time. But there aren't really many ways I can see it playing out otherwise.

        Like that 5% NATO military spending.... should prolly be every NATO country building a nuclear / WMD program of their own, unbeholden to US constraints, "just in case".

        kingporkchop@lemmy.caK J 2 Replies Last reply
        6
        • W [email protected]

          There's no particular reason they couldn't. Even a simple dirty bomb detonated in a high population area could wreak havoc -- and any country with centrifuges can basically make one of those in no time.

          Basically every sovereign state now has a very clear risk calculation supporting the development of nuclear arms and for ignoring all the UN's attempts for international cooperation / non-proliferation. Iran was compliant, from all accounts, with the vast majority of requirements that had been set out for it -- something that Israel's nuclear program is seemingly not required to adhere to (it's still "unofficial" that they have between 90 and 400 functional warheads).

          Opening yourselves to international inspectors just gives the USA a very clear target list + floor plans. Further, not having a nuclear option means the USA will potentially attack you. Even if rules of engagement say they shouldn't attack civilian power plant infrastructure, the USA, Israel and Russia do it without hesitation. North Korea, China, and Russia have shown that having a nuclear deterrent will keep the USA away. It'll even make the USA suck up to you / praise you, and let you attack/invade your neighbours without the USA taking action.

          What Trump and the States have done, in my view, essentially translates to destroying any semblance of international cooperation between nations (cause why bother trying to appease the EU, if the USA is gonna ignore international norms and bomb whoever they want anyway), and has made it so that every nation should now pursue weapons of mass destruction as a "deterrent", which will no doubt lead to catastrophe in time. But there aren't really many ways I can see it playing out otherwise.

          Like that 5% NATO military spending.... should prolly be every NATO country building a nuclear / WMD program of their own, unbeholden to US constraints, "just in case".

          kingporkchop@lemmy.caK This user is from outside of this forum
          kingporkchop@lemmy.caK This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote on last edited by
          #11

          Further, not having a nuclear option means the USA will potentially attack you.

          This Canadian wants nukes yesterday.

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          2
          • G [email protected]

            Russia needs Iranian weapons for Ukraine, and they can't get them if Iran has to use them their selves and can't make more if production facilities are destroyed...

            I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened yet.

            Russia could just shrug and claim no one knows how Iran has them, no one is going to hold them accountable for it.

            T This user is from outside of this forum
            T This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote on last edited by
            #12

            Wait, wait...

            So war in Iran... helps Ukraine. But it also supports Israel. This is a little too complicated, I want bad guys and good (or at least less bad/powerful guys), not one bad guy causing problems for another bad guy which causes problems for another bad guy.

            Hey, Israel! If you want to just bomb the shit out of weapons manufacturing facilities in Iran and quit your shit in Gaza, I will support you and my government tossing money at you for that purpose.

            G 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • T [email protected]

              Wait, wait...

              So war in Iran... helps Ukraine. But it also supports Israel. This is a little too complicated, I want bad guys and good (or at least less bad/powerful guys), not one bad guy causing problems for another bad guy which causes problems for another bad guy.

              Hey, Israel! If you want to just bomb the shit out of weapons manufacturing facilities in Iran and quit your shit in Gaza, I will support you and my government tossing money at you for that purpose.

              G This user is from outside of this forum
              G This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #13

              Welcome to real life bro...

              The victor writes the history books, so the only time the "bad guys" win, is before a revolution to explain why the asshats had to be overthrown in the first place. Virtually no country has labeled themselves the bad guys in a present moment.

              Damn near every war, both sides are assholes. Situations like Ukraine are the abnormality, and Gaza isn't a war, it's a genocide against a civilian population.

              Real life is messy. Especially when the guy in charge of the world's biggest military is best described as a horse loose in a hospital...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhkZMxgPxXU

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • W [email protected]

                There's no particular reason they couldn't. Even a simple dirty bomb detonated in a high population area could wreak havoc -- and any country with centrifuges can basically make one of those in no time.

                Basically every sovereign state now has a very clear risk calculation supporting the development of nuclear arms and for ignoring all the UN's attempts for international cooperation / non-proliferation. Iran was compliant, from all accounts, with the vast majority of requirements that had been set out for it -- something that Israel's nuclear program is seemingly not required to adhere to (it's still "unofficial" that they have between 90 and 400 functional warheads).

                Opening yourselves to international inspectors just gives the USA a very clear target list + floor plans. Further, not having a nuclear option means the USA will potentially attack you. Even if rules of engagement say they shouldn't attack civilian power plant infrastructure, the USA, Israel and Russia do it without hesitation. North Korea, China, and Russia have shown that having a nuclear deterrent will keep the USA away. It'll even make the USA suck up to you / praise you, and let you attack/invade your neighbours without the USA taking action.

                What Trump and the States have done, in my view, essentially translates to destroying any semblance of international cooperation between nations (cause why bother trying to appease the EU, if the USA is gonna ignore international norms and bomb whoever they want anyway), and has made it so that every nation should now pursue weapons of mass destruction as a "deterrent", which will no doubt lead to catastrophe in time. But there aren't really many ways I can see it playing out otherwise.

                Like that 5% NATO military spending.... should prolly be every NATO country building a nuclear / WMD program of their own, unbeholden to US constraints, "just in case".

                J This user is from outside of this forum
                J This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote on last edited by
                #14

                Ukraine gave up it's nukes in the 1990s for the promise of non-aggression. That's a lesson nobody will forget

                1 Reply Last reply
                2
                • K [email protected]
                  This post did not contain any content.
                  L This user is from outside of this forum
                  L This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote on last edited by [email protected]
                  #15

                  do they even have nukes? im sure they tested it, but china doesnt want NK nukes anymore than russia does. china might help iran with nukes though, a simple balance against israel/west. as they did with pakistan(helped them develop it) to balance out india.

                  A 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • kingporkchop@lemmy.caK [email protected]

                    Further, not having a nuclear option means the USA will potentially attack you.

                    This Canadian wants nukes yesterday.

                    L This user is from outside of this forum
                    L This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #16

                    they can send in thier armada of goose, and ground forces of moose and beavers.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L [email protected]

                      do they even have nukes? im sure they tested it, but china doesnt want NK nukes anymore than russia does. china might help iran with nukes though, a simple balance against israel/west. as they did with pakistan(helped them develop it) to balance out india.

                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #17

                      China won't ever go against West directly, especially with something involving nukes.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups