|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43907 Posts
On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 04:11 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 03:58 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 03:55 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 03:50 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 03:48 a_flayer wrote:
How close were we to the massive array of US nukes being under the control of a megalomaniac? NK's position of wanting nuclear weapons to be able to defend themselves against the American threat is suddenly a lot more credible. It's not even slightly credible. The only reason anyone wants to attack NK is because they're working on nuclear missile tech. I'd say that's a good point, but somehow I get the idea that the US was funding groups to undermine the NK government long before they started their nuclear program. Undermine in what way? Covert actions, funding or arming the opposition. Hell, they even consider the alliance/collaboration with South Korea a direct attack on their interests. I'm not saying that their behaviour is very sensible, its just their view. And, personally, even I felt ill at ease when Trump started gaining momentum and I listened in to what was being said at the RNC, so yeah, I'd say that gives them at least some credit towards to being worried. Whether that's 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 before being completely justified that's up to you. I don't think you know as much about NK as you think you do. It's not like the Ukraine where the US government discreetly funds a political party that opposes Russia. It's a single party police state. There isn't internal opposition and every state that exists outside of the borders of NK represents external opposition. The existence of people outside of the borders of NK undermines the NK government. Exchanging currency for goods, or simply reading the internet and exchanging ideas on teamliquid is undermining the NK government. The US did not create a need for NK to add a nuclear deterrent to their already existing deterrents. The border was stable for 40+ years before they decided to get a nuke. The cities of South Korea already represent a hostage for NK to threaten if they need to. I am perfectly aware of the situation in North Korea. I am willing to put money on whether or not there are groups of opposition within the NK police state. I understand they don't have a formal opposition, but I am taking the concept in the broadest possible sense, not limited to what you find in a parliament. And I'm willing to bet that at one point or another in history, the US government provided some of them with assistance (either directly or indirectly). I don't think NK views its ability to attack SK as sufficient influence in terms of deterrent. It might surprise you, but what the US does or does not need may not matter quite as much as you think.
As I previously explained, the very existence of nations outside of NK represents opposition in the broadest sense, which appears to be the sense you insist upon using.
|
On October 22 2016 04:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 04:11 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 03:58 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 03:55 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 03:50 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 03:48 a_flayer wrote:
How close were we to the massive array of US nukes being under the control of a megalomaniac? NK's position of wanting nuclear weapons to be able to defend themselves against the American threat is suddenly a lot more credible. It's not even slightly credible. The only reason anyone wants to attack NK is because they're working on nuclear missile tech. I'd say that's a good point, but somehow I get the idea that the US was funding groups to undermine the NK government long before they started their nuclear program. Undermine in what way? Covert actions, funding or arming the opposition. Hell, they even consider the alliance/collaboration with South Korea a direct attack on their interests. I'm not saying that their behaviour is very sensible, its just their view. And, personally, even I felt ill at ease when Trump started gaining momentum and I listened in to what was being said at the RNC, so yeah, I'd say that gives them at least some credit towards to being worried. Whether that's 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 before being completely justified that's up to you. I don't think you know as much about NK as you think you do. It's not like the Ukraine where the US government discreetly funds a political party that opposes Russia. It's a single party police state. There isn't internal opposition and every state that exists outside of the borders of NK represents external opposition. The existence of people outside of the borders of NK undermines the NK government. Exchanging currency for goods, or simply reading the internet and exchanging ideas on teamliquid is undermining the NK government. The US did not create a need for NK to add a nuclear deterrent to their already existing deterrents. The border was stable for 40+ years before they decided to get a nuke. The cities of South Korea already represent a hostage for NK to threaten if they need to. I am perfectly aware of the situation in North Korea. I am willing to put money on whether or not there are groups of opposition within the NK police state. I understand they don't have a formal opposition, but I am taking the concept in the broadest possible sense, not limited to what you find in a parliament. And I'm willing to bet that at one point or another in history, the US government provided some of them with assistance (either directly or indirectly). I don't think NK views its ability to attack SK as sufficient influence in terms of deterrent. It might surprise you, but what the US does or does not need may not matter quite as much as you think. As I previously explained, the very existence of nations outside of NK represents opposition in the broadest sense, which appears to be the sense you insist upon using.
Yes, well, maybe I should have emphasized "within the NK police state". But thank you for your explanation of something I'd already read and understood.
|
On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:22 oBlade wrote:
You went from their pursuit of nuclear weapons being credible to it just being their perspective. Well, the Kim dynasty is nuts. Their view could be that Hello Kitty is a Japanese plot that requires a military response. Their perspective that an unstable US president is a solid point for being worried about the military power of the US, I'd say. Regardless of how inane their overall point of view is.
Nevermind, I see what this is now, we're going to try and blame the decades-old DPRK nuclear program on Donald Trump.
On October 22 2016 04:34 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:31 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 04:11 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 03:58 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 03:55 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 03:50 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 03:48 a_flayer wrote:
How close were we to the massive array of US nukes being under the control of a megalomaniac? NK's position of wanting nuclear weapons to be able to defend themselves against the American threat is suddenly a lot more credible. It's not even slightly credible. The only reason anyone wants to attack NK is because they're working on nuclear missile tech. I'd say that's a good point, but somehow I get the idea that the US was funding groups to undermine the NK government long before they started their nuclear program. Undermine in what way? Covert actions, funding or arming the opposition. Hell, they even consider the alliance/collaboration with South Korea a direct attack on their interests. I'm not saying that their behaviour is very sensible, its just their view. And, personally, even I felt ill at ease when Trump started gaining momentum and I listened in to what was being said at the RNC, so yeah, I'd say that gives them at least some credit towards to being worried. Whether that's 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 before being completely justified that's up to you. I don't think you know as much about NK as you think you do. It's not like the Ukraine where the US government discreetly funds a political party that opposes Russia. It's a single party police state. There isn't internal opposition and every state that exists outside of the borders of NK represents external opposition. The existence of people outside of the borders of NK undermines the NK government. Exchanging currency for goods, or simply reading the internet and exchanging ideas on teamliquid is undermining the NK government. The US did not create a need for NK to add a nuclear deterrent to their already existing deterrents. The border was stable for 40+ years before they decided to get a nuke. The cities of South Korea already represent a hostage for NK to threaten if they need to. I am perfectly aware of the situation in North Korea. I am willing to put money on whether or not there are groups of opposition within the NK police state. I understand they don't have a formal opposition, but I am taking the concept in the broadest possible sense, not limited to what you find in a parliament. And I'm willing to bet that at one point or another in history, the US government provided some of them with assistance (either directly or indirectly). I don't think NK views its ability to attack SK as sufficient influence in terms of deterrent. It might surprise you, but what the US does or does not need may not matter quite as much as you think. As I previously explained, the very existence of nations outside of NK represents opposition in the broadest sense, which appears to be the sense you insist upon using. Yes, well, maybe I should have emphasized "within the NK police state". But thank you for your explanation of something I'd already read and understood.
Opposition leads to purging. That means getting shot, not bulimic vomiting. The appearance of opposition leads to a concentration camp. There is no liaising with some kind of secret Freedom Army. There is no arms trafficking or funding insurgents.
|
On October 22 2016 04:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:22 oBlade wrote:
You went from their pursuit of nuclear weapons being credible to it just being their perspective. Well, the Kim dynasty is nuts. Their view could be that Hello Kitty is a Japanese plot that requires a military response. Their perspective that an unstable US president is a solid point for being worried about the military power of the US, I'd say. Regardless of how inane their overall point of view is. Nevermind, I see what this is now, we're going to try and blame the decades-old DPRK nuclear program on Donald Trump.
No. That is ridiculous. NK was not justified for building nuclear weapons by Trump. What I am saying is that the US has a shitton of Nuclear Weapons. They have not been a threat for the NK, or anyone other than Japan and maybe Germany in the 1940s, that is absolutely true. But we don't know how long the US remains a power for good. Nobody can predict the future, and the fact that someone like Trump can get so close to having so much power is a realistic and valid thing to be worried about. So now that this occurred, AFTER someone like Trump got so close, and only now, not before (I am really trying to emphasize the passage of time here, I hope the message is getting through) -- AFTER this occurred, one can add a credit to wanting the ability to defend yourself.
But the fact that it happened (Trump getting close) could maybe convince you that the THREAT of someone like Trump getting in power has always been there and thus that the excuse of wanting to defend yourself against possible (not existing... yet) threats is always a valid one. It's the same reason why India wanted nuclear weapons, no? I can't help but see validity in this kind of thinking and its made more valid when you have crazy people getting close to incredible destructive power.
|
On October 22 2016 04:40 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:35 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:22 oBlade wrote:
You went from their pursuit of nuclear weapons being credible to it just being their perspective. Well, the Kim dynasty is nuts. Their view could be that Hello Kitty is a Japanese plot that requires a military response. Their perspective that an unstable US president is a solid point for being worried about the military power of the US, I'd say. Regardless of how inane their overall point of view is. Nevermind, I see what this is now, we're going to try and blame the decades-old DPRK nuclear program on Donald Trump. No. That is ridiculous. NK was not justified for building nuclear weapons by Trump. What I am saying is that the US has a shitton of Nuclear Weapons. They have not been a threat for the NK, or anyone other than Japan and maybe Germany in the 1940s, that is absolutely true. But we don't know how long the US remains a power for good. Nobody can predict the future, and the fact that someone like Trump can get so close to having so much power is a realistic and valid thing to be worried about. So now that this occurred, AFTER someone like Trump got so close, and only now, not before (I am really trying to emphasize the passage of time here, I hope the message is getting through) -- AFTER this occurred, one can add a credit to wanting the ability to defend yourself. But the fact that it happened (Trump getting close) could maybe convince you that the THREAT of someone like Trump getting in power has always be there and thus that the excuse of wanting to defend yourself against possible threats is always a valid one. It's the same reason why India wanted nuclear weapons, no? I can't help but see validity in this kind of thinking.
DPRK state news came out in favor of Trump.
Your hysteria directed at Trump is the most popular argument against nuclear non-proliferation. You're saying you think someone is a lunatic, and in order to defend against them, we need more nuclear forces in the world, with a greater chance of a lunatic doing something. Think about what you're saying. Look at Kim Jong-un. Just look.
The DPRK wants nuclear weapons because they have nothing and everything else is fucking falling apart, their GDP is 3% of South Korea's. As Kwark tried to explain, in 60 years nobody has attacked them (despite them sending special forces to assassinate the South Korean presidentstationing uninvited peacemakers) or considered it until they got the bomb. Not for innocent self-defense.
On October 22 2016 04:40 a_flayer wrote:
its made more valid when you have crazy people getting close to incredible destructive power.
Indeed?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this syria war fear is pretty confused. it's fundamentally a diplomatic problem, not a military one.
when hrc or a general says we need a no fly zone, it's a mission statement only. it outlines a goal, but the exact strategy or how far we want to go to get there is not there. the actual goal in syria is to stop the bombing campaign that generates a lot of outflow refugees, and get a peace resolution.
syria is only taking on center stage because of the refugee situation, which has threatened stability of europe and allies like jordan. as much a human rights person hrc is, she's not going to tie down american resources over a humanitarian conflict.
this means there are clear objectives for the u.s. that do fall short of war or removal of assad. though some would argue for assad removal, it's way past that time now and only a settled ceasefire of some sort is the u.s. objective. there is no interest in prolonged occupation and removal of assad is just unrealistic. given the sectarian and ethnic composition of syria, no faction can administer effective rule over its entirety.
within this context, a campaign of equating a call for a safety zone, a reasonable declaration of our goal for syria, with war aspirations, a terrible choice of method, is either delusional or intentionally duplicitous. while it is true that military options are on the table and they do target assad, it's just a diplomatic move. the backbone of that move is credibility backed up by political will. what the military is looking at right now though, is an asymmetric information war that undermines that credibility. hrc and her generals should cut obama some slack right about now. while his red lines are easily crossed, her threats are probably not going to work out either.
obviously, raising the specter of actual war and associating any calls for more forceful actions on syria with severe escalation will just take that tool out of the u.s. toolbox. if the leadership in charge is actually the overly militarized, arrogant type, then blunting the diplomatic force of the military raises the risk of actual war and escalation. the longterm strategy here is to establish clear value commitments for u.s. strategy, make it clear to the public what we are really trying to achieve. only then can the cost be justified. if people are free to substitute whatever nefarious motives to u.s. policy, we won't get anywhere.
of course, having this strategy of criticizing assad/putin in terms of their clear acts of bad governance would probably entail ditching kleptocratic allies and be more forceful about tacking that problem in the domestic setting. this is the correct endgame view. someone with sufficient initiative and resources can develop it more and pitch it to hrc and she would prob be receptive.
some other basic preconditions,
u.s. has extreme conventional force advantage over russia, and russia is logistically strained anyway. so these two factors give some the impression that military force can be an effective position to get somewhere.
|
On October 22 2016 04:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:40 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:35 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:22 oBlade wrote:
You went from their pursuit of nuclear weapons being credible to it just being their perspective. Well, the Kim dynasty is nuts. Their view could be that Hello Kitty is a Japanese plot that requires a military response. Their perspective that an unstable US president is a solid point for being worried about the military power of the US, I'd say. Regardless of how inane their overall point of view is. Nevermind, I see what this is now, we're going to try and blame the decades-old DPRK nuclear program on Donald Trump. No. That is ridiculous. NK was not justified for building nuclear weapons by Trump. What I am saying is that the US has a shitton of Nuclear Weapons. They have not been a threat for the NK, or anyone other than Japan and maybe Germany in the 1940s, that is absolutely true. But we don't know how long the US remains a power for good. Nobody can predict the future, and the fact that someone like Trump can get so close to having so much power is a realistic and valid thing to be worried about. So now that this occurred, AFTER someone like Trump got so close, and only now, not before (I am really trying to emphasize the passage of time here, I hope the message is getting through) -- AFTER this occurred, one can add a credit to wanting the ability to defend yourself. But the fact that it happened (Trump getting close) could maybe convince you that the THREAT of someone like Trump getting in power has always be there and thus that the excuse of wanting to defend yourself against possible threats is always a valid one. It's the same reason why India wanted nuclear weapons, no? I can't help but see validity in this kind of thinking. DPRK state news came out in favor of Trump. Your hysteria directed at Trump is the most popular argument against nuclear non-proliferation. You're saying you think someone is a lunatic, and in order to defend against them, we need more nuclear forces in the world, with a greater chance of a lunatic doing something. Think about what you're saying. Look at Kim Jong-un. Just look. The DPRK wants nuclear weapons because they have nothing and everything else is fucking falling apart, their GDP is 3% of South Korea's. As Kwark tried to explain, in 60 years nobody has attacked them (despite them sending special forces to assassinate the South Korean presidentstationing uninvited peacemakers) or considered it until they got the bomb. Not for innocent self-defense.
In my opinion, someone like Trump getting close to power in the US should be a good motivation for the US (and indeed all countries) to immediately dismantle all weapons of mass destruction. You never know where the crazy may come from and what it is capable of. Unfortunately, since the relatively sensible people in control of governments today can't seem to agree, we are in a situation where everybody either has nukes or is building them. So, I am not surprised that the DPRK also wants them, nor do I think it is entirely unreasonable.
Even if you think Trump is fine, the idea that there's enough nuclear weapons on the earth to basically fuck us all over should be sufficient reason alone to get rid of them. But we don't. So if then certain groups of people want nukes to defend themselves from others who have nukes, then that makes sense to me. I am just crazy and unreasonable in that I guess.
|
On October 22 2016 04:57 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:52 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 04:40 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:35 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:22 oBlade wrote:
You went from their pursuit of nuclear weapons being credible to it just being their perspective. Well, the Kim dynasty is nuts. Their view could be that Hello Kitty is a Japanese plot that requires a military response. Their perspective that an unstable US president is a solid point for being worried about the military power of the US, I'd say. Regardless of how inane their overall point of view is. Nevermind, I see what this is now, we're going to try and blame the decades-old DPRK nuclear program on Donald Trump. No. That is ridiculous. NK was not justified for building nuclear weapons by Trump. What I am saying is that the US has a shitton of Nuclear Weapons. They have not been a threat for the NK, or anyone other than Japan and maybe Germany in the 1940s, that is absolutely true. But we don't know how long the US remains a power for good. Nobody can predict the future, and the fact that someone like Trump can get so close to having so much power is a realistic and valid thing to be worried about. So now that this occurred, AFTER someone like Trump got so close, and only now, not before (I am really trying to emphasize the passage of time here, I hope the message is getting through) -- AFTER this occurred, one can add a credit to wanting the ability to defend yourself. But the fact that it happened (Trump getting close) could maybe convince you that the THREAT of someone like Trump getting in power has always be there and thus that the excuse of wanting to defend yourself against possible threats is always a valid one. It's the same reason why India wanted nuclear weapons, no? I can't help but see validity in this kind of thinking. DPRK state news came out in favor of Trump. Your hysteria directed at Trump is the most popular argument against nuclear non-proliferation. You're saying you think someone is a lunatic, and in order to defend against them, we need more nuclear forces in the world, with a greater chance of a lunatic doing something. Think about what you're saying. Look at Kim Jong-un. Just look. The DPRK wants nuclear weapons because they have nothing and everything else is fucking falling apart, their GDP is 3% of South Korea's. As Kwark tried to explain, in 60 years nobody has attacked them (despite them sending special forces to assassinate the South Korean presidentstationing uninvited peacemakers) or considered it until they got the bomb. Not for innocent self-defense. In my opinion, someone like Trump getting close to power in the US should be a good motivation for the US (and indeed all countries) to immediately dismantle all weapons of mass destruction. You never know where the crazy may come from and what it is capable of. Unfortunately, since the relatively sensible people in control of governments today can't seem to agree, we are in a situation where everybody either has nukes or is building them. So, I am not surprised that the DPRK also wants them, nor do I think it is entirely unreasonable. Even if you think Trump is fine, the idea that there's enough nuclear weapons on the earth to basically fuck us all over should be sufficient reason alone to get rid of them. But we don't. So if then certain groups of people want nukes to defend themselves from others who have nukes, then that makes sense to me. I am just crazy and unreasonable in that I guess.
Is there anyone you don't want to have nuclear weapons?
|
United States43907 Posts
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them.
|
On October 22 2016 04:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:22 oBlade wrote:
You went from their pursuit of nuclear weapons being credible to it just being their perspective. Well, the Kim dynasty is nuts. Their view could be that Hello Kitty is a Japanese plot that requires a military response. Their perspective that an unstable US president is a solid point for being worried about the military power of the US, I'd say. Regardless of how inane their overall point of view is. Nevermind, I see what this is now, we're going to try and blame the decades-old DPRK nuclear program on Donald Trump. Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:34 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:31 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 04:11 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 03:58 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 03:55 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 03:50 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 03:48 a_flayer wrote:
How close were we to the massive array of US nukes being under the control of a megalomaniac? NK's position of wanting nuclear weapons to be able to defend themselves against the American threat is suddenly a lot more credible. It's not even slightly credible. The only reason anyone wants to attack NK is because they're working on nuclear missile tech. I'd say that's a good point, but somehow I get the idea that the US was funding groups to undermine the NK government long before they started their nuclear program. Undermine in what way? Covert actions, funding or arming the opposition. Hell, they even consider the alliance/collaboration with South Korea a direct attack on their interests. I'm not saying that their behaviour is very sensible, its just their view. And, personally, even I felt ill at ease when Trump started gaining momentum and I listened in to what was being said at the RNC, so yeah, I'd say that gives them at least some credit towards to being worried. Whether that's 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 before being completely justified that's up to you. I don't think you know as much about NK as you think you do. It's not like the Ukraine where the US government discreetly funds a political party that opposes Russia. It's a single party police state. There isn't internal opposition and every state that exists outside of the borders of NK represents external opposition. The existence of people outside of the borders of NK undermines the NK government. Exchanging currency for goods, or simply reading the internet and exchanging ideas on teamliquid is undermining the NK government. The US did not create a need for NK to add a nuclear deterrent to their already existing deterrents. The border was stable for 40+ years before they decided to get a nuke. The cities of South Korea already represent a hostage for NK to threaten if they need to. I am perfectly aware of the situation in North Korea. I am willing to put money on whether or not there are groups of opposition within the NK police state. I understand they don't have a formal opposition, but I am taking the concept in the broadest possible sense, not limited to what you find in a parliament. And I'm willing to bet that at one point or another in history, the US government provided some of them with assistance (either directly or indirectly). I don't think NK views its ability to attack SK as sufficient influence in terms of deterrent. It might surprise you, but what the US does or does not need may not matter quite as much as you think. As I previously explained, the very existence of nations outside of NK represents opposition in the broadest sense, which appears to be the sense you insist upon using. Yes, well, maybe I should have emphasized "within the NK police state". But thank you for your explanation of something I'd already read and understood. Opposition leads to purging. That means getting shot, not bulimic vomiting. The appearance of opposition leads to a concentration camp. There is no liaising with some kind of secret Freedom Army. There is no arms trafficking or funding insurgents.
There appears to be a sort of underground railroad that attempts to help people escape from North Korea (via China). I'd say that's some pretty solid opposition. Could be that America helps fund it. Not that there's anything wrong with that since NK is fucking crazy, but still they'd be right and somewhat justified when saying stuff like what Assad was saying a few years ago (ie. "foreign powers are working to undermine us").
|
On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them.
You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head?
|
On October 22 2016 05:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:52 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 04:40 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:35 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 04:28 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 04:22 oBlade wrote:
You went from their pursuit of nuclear weapons being credible to it just being their perspective. Well, the Kim dynasty is nuts. Their view could be that Hello Kitty is a Japanese plot that requires a military response. Their perspective that an unstable US president is a solid point for being worried about the military power of the US, I'd say. Regardless of how inane their overall point of view is. Nevermind, I see what this is now, we're going to try and blame the decades-old DPRK nuclear program on Donald Trump. No. That is ridiculous. NK was not justified for building nuclear weapons by Trump. What I am saying is that the US has a shitton of Nuclear Weapons. They have not been a threat for the NK, or anyone other than Japan and maybe Germany in the 1940s, that is absolutely true. But we don't know how long the US remains a power for good. Nobody can predict the future, and the fact that someone like Trump can get so close to having so much power is a realistic and valid thing to be worried about. So now that this occurred, AFTER someone like Trump got so close, and only now, not before (I am really trying to emphasize the passage of time here, I hope the message is getting through) -- AFTER this occurred, one can add a credit to wanting the ability to defend yourself. But the fact that it happened (Trump getting close) could maybe convince you that the THREAT of someone like Trump getting in power has always be there and thus that the excuse of wanting to defend yourself against possible threats is always a valid one. It's the same reason why India wanted nuclear weapons, no? I can't help but see validity in this kind of thinking. DPRK state news came out in favor of Trump. Your hysteria directed at Trump is the most popular argument against nuclear non-proliferation. You're saying you think someone is a lunatic, and in order to defend against them, we need more nuclear forces in the world, with a greater chance of a lunatic doing something. Think about what you're saying. Look at Kim Jong-un. Just look. The DPRK wants nuclear weapons because they have nothing and everything else is fucking falling apart, their GDP is 3% of South Korea's. As Kwark tried to explain, in 60 years nobody has attacked them (despite them sending special forces to assassinate the South Korean presidentstationing uninvited peacemakers) or considered it until they got the bomb. Not for innocent self-defense. In my opinion, someone like Trump getting close to power in the US should be a good motivation for the US (and indeed all countries) to immediately dismantle all weapons of mass destruction. You never know where the crazy may come from and what it is capable of. Unfortunately, since the relatively sensible people in control of governments today can't seem to agree, we are in a situation where everybody either has nukes or is building them. So, I am not surprised that the DPRK also wants them, nor do I think it is entirely unreasonable. Even if you think Trump is fine, the idea that there's enough nuclear weapons on the earth to basically fuck us all over should be sufficient reason alone to get rid of them. But we don't. So if then certain groups of people want nukes to defend themselves from others who have nukes, then that makes sense to me. I am just crazy and unreasonable in that I guess. Is there anyone you don't want to have nuclear weapons?
I don't want anyone to have them.
|
United States43907 Posts
On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head?
As does everyone else who has been paying attention.
|
On October 22 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head? As does everyone else who has been paying attention.
Let me ask you another thing: Do you think that at some point in the future World War 3 will happen, or do you think it will never happen? I'm not talking in your lifetime or even this century.
I understand that right now it is the only way to effectively maintain peace, but I don't think it is something sustainable in the long term.
Oh well, maybe we'll develop anti-matter weapon technologies before anyone bothers getting rid of nukes, and then it won't matter anymore.
|
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power.
|
United States43907 Posts
On October 22 2016 05:12 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head? As does everyone else who has been paying attention. Let me ask you another thing: Do you think that at some point in the future World War 3 will happen, or do you think it will never happen? I'm not talking in your lifetime or even this century. I understand that right now it is the only way to effectively maintain peace, but I don't think it is something sustainable in the long term. Oh well, maybe we'll develop anti-matter weapon technologies before anyone bothers getting rid of nukes, and then it won't matter anymore.
At some point someone will invent a way of stopping them effectively and then we may go back to the bad old days. But hopefully we'll have outgrown that by then. We'll see. Could go either way.
|
On October 22 2016 00:41 LegalLord wrote:
This topic involved into an impressive attempt at a dick-measuring contest by the usual suspects.
I usually see the thread jump 150+ posts in a few hours at work and see an oBlade or xDaunt taking up the right side of an argument, but this time it's the French & British talking about other Europeans and Russians.
On October 22 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:05 Dan HH wrote:
Uhm, does no one next to him dare tell him? I have to admit, the first thing I checked was whether or not it was a parody account.
I'll have to check this out
when twitter is reachable for me again >< Russians proving their internet might again or something?
|
Edit: nvm, can't quote the right person for some reason.
|
![[image loading]](http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-21-at-11.39.40-AM-768x475.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
(actual Tweet is in spoiler, but I know a lot of people are having issues with twitter atm)
|
On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power.
I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Trump supporters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://66.media.tumblr.com/7aa038b75e5c0933a6296e2954dbed6d/tumblr_o3sj72i5nK1r8asibo1_1280.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://67.media.tumblr.com/e5b436dc4bb85c763562df976698ac8a/tumblr_n878jg8dF71r8asibo1_1280.jpg)
