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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Yeah I think maybe sentences like this are why you come off as vague and unclear. Because you just said two different things in two halves of that sentence.
Do you understand deterrence or not? You say you do but your entire line of questioning seems to make me think that you do not. The entire point of deterrence is it’s up to the attacker to understand consequences. They’re the ones making the choice. They can either not attack and not be nuked or attack and be nuked. That’s the choice they’re making. That’s the point of deterrence.
If you read my very first comment on this, I didn’t even talked about deterrence.
I mentioned the consequences that if someone (attacked or attacker) uses a nuclear weapon.
The actual nasty effects, like radiation.
I don’t care about deterrence at this point. I care about people. People that will die if this is carried out.
Sure if someone says “I have nuclear weapons so you will obey me.”, of course others will also have nuclear weapons so they don’t get bullied.
But my point is way past that.