As speculation mounts that Kim Jong-un and Trump could meet this month, analysts say Pyongyang will continue to see nuclear weapons as a matter of survival

North Korea’s launch last week of a missile from a naval destroyer elicited an uncharacteristically prosaic analysis from the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The launch was proof, he said, that arming ships with nuclear weapons was “making satisfactory progress”.

But the test, and Kim’s mildly upbeat appraisal, were designed to reverberate well beyond the deck of the 5,000-tonne destroyer-class vessel the Choe Hyon – the biggest warship in the North Korean fleet.

His pointed reference to nuclear weapons was made as the US and Israel continued their air bombardment of Iran – a regime Donald Trump had warned, without offering evidence, was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.

  • jdr8@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Ok, I get it.

    And what about the consequences?

    Have they thought about that?

    • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      The consequences of having nukes?

      MAD dictates that the US doesn’t fuck with nuclear-armed nations. That’s the consequence. You don’t need to actually launch it, just be able to.

      • jdr8@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 minutes ago

        I mean the consequences of actually using the nukes…

        I understand having nukes as a deterrent, but think about the consequences of an actual launch, in either side.

        We know who always pay the death price, and they are not the ones in power.

        I don’t get why I’m being downvoted when pointing out the bad consequences of a nuclear strike, in fact, I don’t care. My point still stands.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 minutes ago

          Because you’re asking the wrong people. You don’t ask the people about to be attacked if they understand, you ask the people doing the attacking. Do they understand the repercussions of using a nuclear weapon. Because if they attack that country they’re going to cause it. Get it? That’s the whole point.

          • jdr8@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 minutes ago

            But I am asking to the people doing the attacking, but also asking to anyone who has and is capable of launching a nuclear weapon.

            I’m not judging or disregarding who has nukes as form of deterrence, but the “technical” consequences of a nuke.

            We learnt about Hiroshima and Chernobyl (although Chernobyl was a nuclear accident and not a launch).