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

[pmv]

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.

Well, on that we aren't a million miles apart. But that's the reason why Pakistani nuclear weapons seem the most worrying of all, as Pakistan I would say was the country most likely to fall apart or suffer some tumultuous regime change or other instability. I am more nervous of Pakistan than Iran in that respect.

Nuclear proliferation is not in my self-interest, for sure. The more there are in the world the more likely one will be used, and there's a chance it might be used on me (I grant I'm unlikely to be the _primary_ target).

I just think it's difficult to push that as if its a matter of firm moral principle.

 

[realibrad]

Well, on that we aren't a million miles apart. But that's the reason why Pakistani nuclear weapons seem the most worrying of all, as Pakistan I would say was the country most likely to fall apart or suffer some tumultuous regime change or other instability. I am more nervous of Pakistan than Iran in that respect.

Nuclear proliferation is not in my self-interest, for sure. The more there are in the world the more likely one will be used, and there's a chance it might be used on me (I grant I'm unlikely to be the _primary_ target).

I just think it's difficult to push that as if its a matter of firm moral principle.

Well careful with that, Jhnn is going to tell you that Pakistan is just as much of a risk as India lol.

Its super unlikely that a major world power would use a nuke, but its far more likely that a lesser power on accident or on purpose loses material that gets used. In that regard NK is a big threat.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Iran doesn't have any nukes. Their whole program is under the watchful eye of the IAEA. None of that is true wrt the US.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

I did not claim India to be a greater threat yet that was your contention in post #39, which I quoted. Just say you were mistaken in saying so.

 

[realibrad]

Iran doesn't have any nukes. Their whole program is under the watchful eye of the IAEA. None of that is true wrt the US.

As of now yes. It was not always so in terms of making the material.

 

[realibrad]

I did not claim India to be a greater threat yet that was your contention in post #39, which I quoted. Just say you were mistaken in saying so.

And in my reply to that, I asked you how India was equal. So again...

 

[Jhhnn]

And in my reply to that, I asked you how India was equal. So again...

When confronted point blank about your need to correct erroneous information you refuse to do so. You just dance away from it ever happening.

Should either India or Pakistan engage in first use of nukes the other will obviously respond in kind. Who's first? Depends on who's losing badly should the conflict in Kashmir become heated.

 

[realibrad]

When confronted point blank about your need to correct erroneous information you refuse to do so. You just dance away from it ever happening.

Should either India or Pakistan engage in first use of nukes the other will obviously respond in kind. Who's first? Depends on who's losing badly should the conflict in Kashmir become heated.

What erroneous information did I give?

As for your dumb hypothetical, you are trying to frame it in a very dumb way. Who is more likely to use it is also a dumb metric, but, I will answer it and then explain why.

The country that is most likely to first use it right now is obviously Pakistan. The reason this is obvious is that either country attacking the other with a nuke would get the attacked to launch, thus MAD of sorts. MAD only works if the country is interested in not getting hit by a nuke. India is far more stable than Pakistan and has far more control over its security. Thus, Pakistan is far more likely to collapse and to use a nuke.

That is not the most likely situation. The more likely situation is that nuclear material and or a bomb will be sold on the black market. Again, India being far more stable is less likely to have this happen. Pakistan is actually a far bigger risk in this regard when compared to a first strike.

 

[Noah Abrams]

The typical American, who does not know much about other parts of the world, let alone actually know people from other parts of the world, does not even know where Pakistan is. He or she most certainly does not know that if not for nuclear weapons, Pakistan today would be the same as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen - done to it either by the coalition of the willing or India or both. It was a long heroic struggle by them to build nuclear weapons, against all odds. Which the media here describes as rogue efforts, obviously. Now if they had actually used them like we did in Japan, and if they were part of the coalition of the willing, that would have been different.

 

[glenn1]

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.

Your statement about the U.S. arsenal is in no way relevant to the OP question. If you want to ask about the nuclear threat America poses that should be in a different thread as it’s thread crapping otherwise.

 

[Jhhnn]

What erroneous information did I give?

As for your dumb hypothetical, you are trying to frame it in a very dumb way. Who is more likely to use it is also a dumb metric, but, I will answer it and then explain why.

The country that is most likely to first use it right now is obviously Pakistan. The reason this is obvious is that either country attacking the other with a nuke would get the attacked to launch, thus MAD of sorts. MAD only works if the country is interested in not getting hit by a nuke. India is far more stable than Pakistan and has far more control over its security. Thus, Pakistan is far more likely to collapse and to use a nuke.

That is not the most likely situation. The more likely situation is that nuclear material and or a bomb will be sold on the black market. Again, India being far more stable is less likely to have this happen. Pakistan is actually a far bigger risk in this regard when compared to a first strike.

Nice word salad!

 

[realibrad]

Nice word salad!

No. What I said is not all that complex either. pmv understood it, but it may be that its beyond you to understand.

What should be easy is to tell me what erroneous information I gave out. So how about it?

 

[Jhhnn]

No. What I said is not all that complex either. pmv understood it, but it may be that its beyond you to understand.

What should be easy is to tell me what erroneous information I gave out. So how about it?

You claimed I said something that I did not. It's all there in black & white. I never claimed India was a greater threat. You refuse to acknowledge that you were mistaken in saying so. You merely deflect.

It's all diversion from the reality of the so-called N Korean nuclear threat. They're no threat to this country & never have been.

 

[realibrad]

You claimed I said something that I did not. It's all there in black & white. I never claimed India was a greater threat. You refuse to acknowledge that you were mistaken in saying so. You merely deflect.

It's all diversion from the reality of the so-called N Korean nuclear threat. They're no threat to this country & never have been.

Tell me what I said. You are speaking in generalities.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tell me what I said. You are speaking in generalities.

I refuse to quote post #39 again. You're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[ivwshane]

Here is another view.

Thoughts?

http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...ation-bait-and-switch-north-korea-icbm-2018-6

Instead, according to former US ambassador to Turkey, James Jeffrey, who worked for Obama, the warning centered around North Korea getting missiles that could strike the US, something US intelligence officials estimated would happen during Trump's term.

"A nuclear strike capability against the US changes the entire strategic equation in a way that just having nukes that can be exploded in South Korea and Japan does not," Jeffrey told Business Insider.

Trump was "basically told [by Obama] if North Korea continued their tests, and they need more tests to have a survivable weapon, that would we would strike. Probably a limited strike," said Jeffrey.

With what Trump has done, he can claim they're on the road to denuclearization, which would be good if we get it," said Jeffrey. But Trump's real victory, the one that eliminated North Korea's real nuclear threat towards the US, was freezing their move towards ICBMs, he said.

Of course without being able to verify, there is no telling what the status of their ICBM's are.

 

[pmv]

Your statement about the U.S. arsenal is in no way relevant to the OP question. If you want to ask about the nuclear threat America poses that should be in a different thread as it’s thread crapping otherwise.

Not really, as you tried to make 'interference in other countries' the critical metric in determining a country's worthiness to have nuclear weapons. That was _you_ that did that, so it's a bit strange for you to then declare your own theory to be 'off topic'. At least _try_ to be consistent.

 

[glenn1]

Not really, as you tried to make 'interference in other countries' the critical metric in determining a country's worthiness to have nuclear weapons. That was _you_ that did that, so it's a bit strange for you to then declare your own theory to be 'off topic'. At least _try_ to be consistent.

I’d be happy if the U.S. disarmed. That still doesn’t make it relevant to whether NK is a nuclear threat. Iran is a good comp for NK in judging its level of threat and the U.S. is not for reasons that should be intuitively obvious.

 

[realibrad]

I refuse to quote post #39 again. You're being deliberately obtuse.

Again, empirically India is less of a threat than Pakistan. You are saying that this is wrong, so I ask you how you justify India being more of a threat than it appears to be. I see nothing false in that question.

 

[pmv]

Well careful with that, Jhnn is going to tell you that Pakistan is just as much of a risk as India lol.

Its super unlikely that a major world power would use a nuke, but its far more likely that a lesser power on accident or on purpose loses material that gets used. In that regard NK is a big threat.

I don't think there's anything much to choose between India and Pakistan as far as their current governments using the bomb are concerned. But possibly I disagree with Jhnn with regard to the long-term stability of those countries. I'm not a fan of Pakistan, I don't think the country should have come into existence in the first place. It's deeply dysfunctional because of how that came about (and Britain has a lot of responsibility for that). I suppose that's the "I wouldn't start from here" fallacy, though.

But it's academic anyway, they have the bomb, there's not much that can be done about it. And in general it seems proliferation is inevitable and a one-way rachet-process that can at most be slightly slowed. Only solution is to address the tensions and conflicts that make countries (and 'non-state-actors') want them.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It really does not matter who is more of a danger. All nukes are a danger to us all. It is not like a Pakistani or Iranian or NK nuke will poison the air any less than a French nuke. All nukes are a danger to us all and no one should have any of them.

But we can't put the genie back in the bottle. People have nukes. So our only defense is to also have nukes, which means pretty much everyone else wants to have that defense as well, and the more of us that have nukes the greater the odds that someone will eventually use one. And if someone uses one then someone else has to use that defense and use it back.

Let's face it, a nuclear war is inevitable. It is going to happen sooner or later. All we can do is try to limit it's scope. That means we need to slow down the proliferation of nukes in practically any means possible because we are talking about the survival of our entire species.

 

[realibrad]

I don't think there's anything much to choose between India and Pakistan as far as their current governments using the bomb are concerned. But possibly I disagree with Jhnn with regard to the long-term stability of those countries. I'm not a fan of Pakistan, I don't think the country should have come into existence in the first place. It's deeply dysfunctional because of how that came about (and Britain has a lot of responsibility for that). I suppose that's the "I wouldn't start from here" fallacy, though.

But it's academic anyway, they have the bomb, there's not much that can be done about it. And in general it seems proliferation is inevitable and a one-way rachet-process that can at most be slightly slowed. Only solution is to address the tensions and conflicts that make countries (and 'non-state-actors') want them.

I find nothing to disagree with here. Ultimately diplomacy is the only long term solution.

 

[realibrad]

It really does not matter who is more of a danger. All nukes are a danger to us all. It is not like a Pakistani or Iranian or NK nuke will poison the air any less than a French nuke. All nukes are a danger to us all and no one should have any of them.

But we can't put the genie back in the bottle. People have nukes. So our only defense is to also have nukes, which means pretty much everyone else wants to have that defense as well, and the more of us that have nukes the greater the odds that someone will eventually use one. And if someone uses one then someone else has to use that defense and use it back.

Let's face it, a nuclear war is inevitable. It is going to happen sooner or later. All we can do is try to limit it's scope. That means we need to slow down the proliferation of nukes in practically any means possible because we are talking about the survival of our entire species.

You are ignoring the fact that some people are more likely to A sell their nukes, B use their nukes as a first strike. I feel much better about China having nukes than I do Pakistan. Not because one nuke is more powerful (China's nukes are much more powerful), but because China is self interested and appears to be far more stable than Pakistan.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You are ignoring the fact that some people are more likely to A sell their nukes, B use their nukes as a first strike.

No country is going to use nukes as a first strike. Nukes are going to be used when a country looks at an invading enemy and decides that there is no way they defend themselves against them. The likelihood is it will be America or one of the other super powers that gets their military nuked in response to a politically motivated 'police action' against some other country. My guess is it will be a carrier fleet that goes up in a mushroom cloud first, and then they will have to retaliate in kind.

Selling of nukes is a bit more problematic. But we can't really predict that. It could just as easily be China, the US, or Pakistan that does that. The US really loves selling nukes to countries we like. Hell, if I had to bet I would put my money on Israel that uses a nuke first, and that nuke will have been built in the US and sold or given to them.

 

[realibrad]

No country is going to use nukes as a first strike. Nukes are going to be used when a country looks at an invading enemy and decides that there is no way they defend themselves against them. The likelihood is it will be America or one of the other super powers that gets their military nuked in response to a politically motivated 'police action' against some other country. My guess is it will be a carrier fleet that goes up in a mushroom cloud first, and then they will have to retaliate in kind.

Selling of nukes is a bit more problematic. But we can't really predict that. It could just as easily be China, the US, or Pakistan that does that. The US really loves selling nukes to countries we like. Hell, if I had to bet I would put my money on Israel that uses a nuke first, and that nuke will have been built in the US and sold or given to them.

Bull shit that it will be just as likely as China or the US when compared to Pakistan. Get your head out of your ass and stop saying stupid shit lol. What kind of an idiot thinks China and the US are even close to selling their Nukes.