Someone please explain to me how North Korea is "no longer a nuclear threat"

[pmv]

Iran having nuclear weapons wo

Why is that comment relevant in any way?

Not as many as England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Spain, ect...

It's relevant because, as you may not have noticed, it's Americans making the point and passing judgements on the rest of the world.

And, sure, Britain (not 'England' - I'm tired of the Scots being let off the hook) has a very long list.

 

[realibrad]

Iran having nuclear weapons wo


It's relevant because, as you may not have noticed, it's Americans making the point and passing judgements on the rest of the world.

And, sure, Britain (not 'England' - I'm tired of the Scots being let off the hook) has a very long list.

Just the US is passing judgement here? If that is your position that is absurd.

The US is the only country with enough power to do something about NK. None of the regional powers have the ability to stop NK. Japan and SK sure seem to be okay with trying to reduce NK.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pakistan is a current nuclear threat and has a long and current record of conflict and current small border skirmishes with India.

Iran will be a nuclear threat at some point and has a long recent history of hot wars, proxy wars, huge support for terrorists, etc.

North Korea has nukes now but effectively is not a threat to anyone. They haven’t been in a war, fought a proxy war somewhere else, support terrorism to any large extent, and besides some random acts of a nuisance or criminal nature (like kidnappings and missile overflights) hasn’t really been a threat to anyone. They’re effectively the Cuba of Asia, ripe for more democratic governance but otherwise better left alone.

India is as much a threat as Pakistan. Their weapons program predates that of Pakistan by over 20 years. Our Israeli friends are just as much an issue as either of them.

The JCPOA limits Iranian uranium enrichment to 5% under IAEA supervision in perpetuity. It also denies them extraction of plutonium from spent fuel. They haven't renounced it, but Trump has. Go figure.

N Korea is a threat to S Korea but not at the level of nuclear weapons. There's no point to reunification with a radioactive wasteland. Their weapons are retaliatory in nature. They'll keep them, too, so long as the idea of reunification holds sway. It might be different if there was demilitarization & a peace treaty establishing two Koreas rather than just the 65 year old ceasefire & if American troops were withdrawn from the South. Nobody is talking about any of that so it's all just posturing for domestic political purposes. The actual points of contention are not being addressed at all.

 

[KMFJD]

Iran Iraq war was one they were involved in, but did not start. Beyond that Iran and S.A. have been fighting many proxy wars all over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Iran

Seems like they try to help their fellow shia's whenever they are being oppressed by the Saudi's

 

[SMOGZINN]

You know how Iran IS a nuclear threat despite not having nuclear weapons and suspending their development. Well, North Korea with their nuclear weapons IS NOT a nuclear threat under the exact same reasoning.

Hmm...This sounds familiar.
Oh, yes. Here it is...

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength"
- George Orwell 1984

 

[realibrad]

Seems like they try to help their fellow shia's whenever they are being oppressed by the Saudi's

That's a loaded statement, but, it does not change the response to your original question. Iran has been and is currently involved in much of the fighting in the region.

 

[realibrad]

India is as much a threat as Pakistan. Their weapons program predates that of Pakistan by over 20 years. Our Israeli friends are just as much an issue as either of them.

The JCPOA limits Iranian uranium enrichment to 5% under IAEA supervision in perpetuity. It also denies them extraction of plutonium from spent fuel. They haven't renounced it, but Trump has. Go figure.

N Korea is a threat to S Korea but not at the level of nuclear weapons. There's no point to reunification with a radioactive wasteland. Their weapons are retaliatory in nature. They'll keep them, too, so long as the idea of reunification holds sway. It might be different if there was demilitarization & a peace treaty establishing two Koreas rather than just the 65 year old ceasefire & if American troops were withdrawn from the South. Nobody is talking about any of that so it's all just posturing for domestic political purposes. The actual points of contention are not being addressed at all.

As much of a threat in what way? Far more bad shit comes from Pakistan than from India.

Are you trying to say that because India has a larger nuclear capacity it is more dangerous?

 

[Jhhnn]

As much of a threat in what way? Far more bad shit comes from Pakistan than from India.

Are you trying to say that because India has a larger nuclear capacity it is more dangerous?

Are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Pakistan & India pose a threat to each other over Kashmir. There is no settled border but rather a line of control.

I mean, who the Hell else would Pakistan nuke other than India & vice versa?

 

[pauldun170]

Ah yes
Pakistan
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...uclear-secrets-to-Libya-Iran-and-N-Korea.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah yes
Pakistan
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...uclear-secrets-to-Libya-Iran-and-N-Korea.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

Gotta love the bbc link. Saudi officials supposedly told "sources" who told the author that they believed they could get nukes from Pakistan if Iran develops nukes which they demonstrably are not doing. It's bullshit. See how that works?

The only reason to believe any of it is if you want to.

 

[KMFJD]

That's a loaded statement, but, it does not change the response to your original question. Iran has been and is currently involved in much of the fighting in the region.

As is Saudi Arabia, i don't see much of a difference

 

[glenn1]

As is Saudi Arabia, i don't see much of a difference

While what you are saying is true it's also not extraordinarily relevant to whether North Korea is a nuclear threat. In my earlier post I compared NK to Pakistan and Iran because they're either acknowledged or prospective nuclear powers, we have no reason to believe Saudi Arabia should be included on the list. OP thread isn't about military threats in general (where Saudi Arabia would be a relevant comparison) or necessarily about whether the U.S. should be considered as a nuclear threat (we can based upon our prior actual use of nuclear weapons albeit 70 years ago).

 

[pmv]

Just the US is passing judgement here? If that is your position that is absurd.

The US is the only country with enough power to do something about NK. None of the regional powers have the ability to stop NK. Japan and SK sure seem to be okay with trying to reduce NK.

The poster I was responding to, and you, are Americans. Pontificating on the finer details of the relative worthiness of other countries to be trusted with nuclear weapons or not. It starts to sound absurd after a certain point.
Of course I guess the poster concerned was really just engaging in partisan logic-chopping to try and justify the righteousness of whatever Trump happens to do and the precise situation was secondary, but that wasn't what irked me about it in that instant.

 

[realibrad]

Are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Pakistan & India pose a threat to each other over Kashmir. There is no settled border but rather a line of control.

I mean, who the Hell else would Pakistan nuke other than India & vice versa?

If I were trying to put words in your mouth, I would do that. Asking a question is not. You will benefit from knowing that I believe.

Pakistan and India posing a threat to each other is not what I asked you about. You said India was more of a threat, and so I asked you to explain. Attacks that happen are usually coming from Pakistan. Again, can you explain what you meant when you said India posed a greater threat?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm a little surprised that @Thebobo hasn't yet weighed in on this topic as he's totally convinced NK isn't a threat. Car 54...where are you?

 

[realibrad]

As is Saudi Arabia, i don't see much of a difference

Not sure why you said that. Your question was about Iran and it was answered. S.A. does lots of bad shit and could easily be argued to be as bad or worse than Iran. But that was not your question and it seems weird that you would shift to S.A.

 

[realibrad]

The poster I was responding to, and you, are Americans. Pontificating on the finer details of the relative worthiness of other countries to be trusted with nuclear weapons or not. It starts to sound absurd after a certain point.
Of course I guess the poster concerned was really just engaging in partisan logic-chopping to try and justify the righteousness of whatever Trump happens to do and the precise situation was secondary, but that wasn't what irked me about it in that instant.

Someone asked what wars Iran had been in recently. I provided that, and you responded with "not as many as the US". How is that relevant to anything?

You then go on to reply to Glenn about how the US has been wars and supported terrorists. So, Glenn's context was that NK is less of a threat to global security when compared to other countries such as Iran and give some background to that. You then respond to try and equate the US as being equal if not worse. That is silly as the US is not even close to being as harmful as Iran. Not good from a moral stand point sure, but not even close to Iran.

All of that said, my comment was answering a question about recent conflicts Iran had been in, so your response was for sure out of place. I was not piggybacking anything that Glenn was trying to argue. I provided facts and gave no opinion.

 

[Jhhnn]

You said India was more of a threa

Incorrect. Read it again, particularly the first sentence.

India is as much a threat as Pakistan. Their weapons program predates that of Pakistan by over 20 years. Our Israeli friends are just as much an issue as either of them.

The JCPOA limits Iranian uranium enrichment to 5% under IAEA supervision in perpetuity. It also denies them extraction of plutonium from spent fuel. They haven't renounced it, but Trump has. Go figure.

N Korea is a threat to S Korea but not at the level of nuclear weapons. There's no point to reunification with a radioactive wasteland. Their weapons are retaliatory in nature. They'll keep them, too, so long as the idea of reunification holds sway. It might be different if there was demilitarization & a peace treaty establishing two Koreas rather than just the 65 year old ceasefire & if American troops were withdrawn from the South. Nobody is talking about any of that so it's all just posturing for domestic political purposes. The actual points of contention are not being addressed at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Someone asked what wars Iran had been in recently. I provided that, and you responded with "not as many as the US". How is that relevant to anything?

You then go on to reply to Glenn about how the US has been wars and supported terrorists. So, Glenn's context was that NK is less of a threat to global security when compared to other countries such as Iran and give some background to that. You then respond to try and equate the US as being equal if not worse. That is silly as the US is not even close to being as harmful as Iran. Not good from a moral stand point sure, but not even close to Iran.

All of that said, my comment was answering a question about recent conflicts Iran had been in, so your response was for sure out of place. I was not piggybacking anything that Glenn was trying to argue. I provided facts and gave no opinion.

Gawd. The invasion of Iraq was a crime against humanity. Iran hasn't done anything of that magnitude.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I'm a little surprised that @Thebobo hasn't yet weighed in on this topic as he's totally convinced NK isn't a threat. Car 54...where are you?

Well, he's got company...neither does our president..

 

[realibrad]

Incorrect. Read it again, particularly the first sentence.

Incorrect, read the post I was talking about.

"India is as much a threat as Pakistan."

How is India as bad as Pakistan. I asked you in my post (32) about your post (28). You are not keeping up.

 

[realibrad]

Gawd. The invasion of Iraq was a crime against humanity. Iran hasn't done anything of that magnitude.

The Iraq war was not a crime against humanity, but it was a massive failure that cost an unacceptable amount of death and suffering. I was not in favor then as I have remained not in favor. I reminded people of this when they started warming up to Bush when Bush started going after Trump.

This also is not relevant at all to the current topic.

 

[Thebobo]

Never was imo. No way they would kill anyone with a nuke unless someone else shot first. All this blustering for the last couple years is just like the runup to iraq. There was no threat to america it just bullshit for trump to ride in on his golden horse and save the word, said it from the first.

 

[pmv]

Someone asked what wars Iran had been in recently. I provided that, and you responded with "not as many as the US". How is that relevant to anything?

You then go on to reply to Glenn about how the US has been wars and supported terrorists. So, Glenn's context was that NK is less of a threat to global security when compared to other countries such as Iran and give some background to that. You then respond to try and equate the US as being equal if not worse. That is silly as the US is not even close to being as harmful as Iran. Not good from a moral stand point sure, but not even close to Iran.

All of that said, my comment was answering a question about recent conflicts Iran had been in, so your response was for sure out of place. I was not piggybacking anything that Glenn was trying to argue. I provided facts and gave no opinion.

Really? Historically? Are you sure about that? When did Iran bomb Cambodia? How many foreign democratic governments has it overthrown? (It didn't even get to overthrow it's own, as the US did that for it).

Glenn was logic-chopping to try and justify Trump's actions. Iran and NK are both messed-up countries (messed-up in part by outside influences, mind) that severely abuse and oppress their own citizens, especially minorities. They are by no means the same, of course, the basis for the regimes is different, the basis of what support they do have from their populations is different, the history is different.

But trying to justify NK being more entitled to nukes than Iran based on some dubious hastily-constructed metric about 'wars by proxy' just immediately invites the observation that the country that does by far the worst on that score in recent history, already has nuclear weapons and is also the only one that ever used them in anger. If 'meddling in other countries' or 'wars by proxy' is the critical factor for whether they should be allowed nukes, then you should surely be demanding the US gets rid of its own arsenal immediately.

 

[realibrad]

Really? Historically? Are you sure about that? When did Iran bomb Cambodia? How many foreign democratic governments has it overthrown? (It didn't even get to overthrow it's own, as the US did that for it).

Glenn was logic-chopping to try and justify Trump's actions. Iran and NK are both messed-up countries (messed-up in part by outside influences, mind) that severely abuse and oppress their own citizens, especially minorities. They are by no means the same, of course, the basis for the regimes is different, the basis of what support they do have from their populations is different, the history is different.

But trying to justify NK being more entitled to nukes than Iran based on some dubious hastily-constructed metric about 'wars by proxy' just immediately invites the observation that the country that does by far the worst on that score in recent history, already has nuclear weapons and is also the only one that ever used them in anger. If 'meddling in other countries' or 'wars by proxy' is the critical factor for whether they should be allowed nukes, then you should surely be demanding the US gets rid of its own arsenal immediately.

Are you confused and believe that glenn and I share the same view on this? Your response to me was in the context of answering a question with facts. It has sense then been expanded, but I still see no reason for your response unless you assume something that I did not say.

As for who should be allowed nukes, in a perfect world nobody. The reality is that the US and Iran are about as equally likely right now to use one, but that would miss a major point. The US is not likely to sell its nukes on the black market. Iran I think is far more likely to sell nuclear material to people that we would all consider bad.