North Korea

If North Korea's sole purpose for nukes is truly for self defence, why doesnt China just say to them we will defend you with our nuclear arsenal if needs be. You don't need your own.

If NK got rid of its weapons program it would please the West but NK still has a major nuclear ally on its doorstep which would defend it, i'd imagine China would like that also rather than having Kims finger on the big red button. However the true reason for these weapons in NK's eyes isn't to attack the US first, it's so it can steam roll the South and hold everyone else back. It's funny how people paint NK as the victims of apparent "imperialist aggression" when its anything but.
 
If North Korea's sole purpose for nukes is truly for self defence, why doesnt China just say to them we will defend you with our nuclear arsenal if needs be. You don't need your own.

If NK got rid of its weapons program it would please the West but NK still has a major nuclear ally on its doorstep which would defend it, i'd imagine China would like that also rather than having Kims finger on the big red button. However the true reason for these weapons in NK's eyes isn't to attack the US first, it's so it can steam roll the South and hold everyone else back. It's funny how people paint NK as the victims of apparent "imperialist aggression" when its anything but.

NK and China are far from best buds. The regime under Un has had a very frosty relationship with China. They constantly have disputes over borders, political prisoners and NK Nuclear weapon and testing.

The reason for these weapons is not to nuke the south, the winds in the area would blow any fallout their way most of the year. The reason for nuclear weapons is to deter any outside involvement if they were to have a war with conventional weapons with the South.

I dont see anyone painting NK as a victim of anything but their own regime.

China's position in this is closer to the rest of the world than NK...
 
Last edited:
That's if you take the assumption NK are acting alone. I'm not entirely sure they are! The question is though who benefits from them being nuclear?
That depends on if Kim is really as mental as some of the media claim.

If he is then nobody benefits because you have a lunatic with nuclear weapons.

If he isn't then everyone benefits because the USA won't be able to bully NK anymore and world peace will take a step forward.
 
I'd hardly say the US bullies NK.

If some guy down your road keeps threatening to kill everyone, don't you think you'd take some steps to counter the threat?
 
The reason for these weapons is not to steamroll the south, the winds in the area would blow any fallout their way most of the year. The reason for nuclear weapons is to deter any outside involvement if they were to have a war with conventional weapons with the South.
That's what steamroll the south means :P
 
That's what steamroll the south means :p

Fair, i thought it was used as a term to flatten the south with nukes :p

I think NK are the only ones that benefit from being nuclear capable but the US benefits the most from NK seeming like they are nuclear capable.

Right now you can argue that NK don't have effective delivery methods but the threat of North Korea is making the US presence in the east seem very valuable. If the situation fizzles away tomorrow, we can bet that it was enough for the US to convince SK that they should stick around for a few more decades.
 
The question is though who benefits from them being nuclear?

I struggle with this as well. If its supposed to be a deterrent (which most countries acknowledge it is) why is NK poking its stick at a wild dog?

Is it all a propaganda exercise? Kim assuming that the US will back down because of its fear of the consequences (who the hell wants a nuclear war???), and then he can beat his chest that the US cowered in front of his might?A game of chicken on steroids. He must know that Trump is pretty much the exact opposite of Obama etc??
 
I'd hardly say the US bullies NK.

If some guy down your road keeps threatening to kill everyone, don't you think you'd take some steps to counter the threat?
In England, you'd wait until he murdered a load of people then section him.

So not really a good analogy.
 
I'd hardly say the US bullies NK.
They annexed half their country to make a new country, imposed sanctions, openly supported their enemies, conducted annual invasion drills with SK, have been critical of everything they do for 60+ years, and have been deliberately persecuting their civillians for decades in an an attempt to annoy them into rebellion. It's fair to say the US has been a total **** to NK, hence their belief that arming themselves with nukes is the only way to get the USA off their back.
 
They annexed half their country to make a new country, imposed sanctions, openly supported their enemies, conducted annual invasion drills with SK, have been critical of everything they do for 60+ years, and have been deliberately persecuting their civillians for decades in an an attempt to annoy them into rebellion. It's fair to say the US has been a total **** to NK, hence their belief that arming themselves with nukes is the only way to get the USA off their back.

Getting the rest of the world to isolate them economically to the point that droughts or floods are felt through famine decades later.

No one has been nice to NK, not its own leaders, not China, not Russia and especially not the US.
 
They annexed half their country to make a new country, imposed sanctions, openly supported their enemies, conducted annual invasion drills with SK, have been critical of everything they do for 60+ years, and have been deliberately persecuting their civillians for decades in an an attempt to annoy them into rebellion. It's fair to say the US has been a total **** to NK, hence their belief that arming themselves with nukes is the only way to get the USA off their back.

It's an interesting viewpoint, one I don't disagree with, although I suck at history so I'm hardly in a position to counter it lol.

But it does seem to be a core attribute of US foreign policy - "Answer to us, otherwise we'll wreck you"

A weird part of me, seemingly against all reason - wishes that NK manages to make an effective weapon, simply to make the point that the entire world doesn't have to answer to the US, and it can't go around strong arming everyone, everywhere.
 
It's an interesting viewpoint, one I don't disagree with, although I suck at history so I'm hardly in a position to counter it lol.

But it does seem to be a core attribute of US foreign policy - "Answer to us, otherwise we'll wreck you"

A weird part of me, seemingly against all reason - wishes that NK manages to make an effective weapon, simply to make the point that the entire world doesn't have to answer to the US, and it can't go around strong arming everyone, everywhere.


Yeah! Let's all support states that tried to wipe half their population off the map! They're the best.

I think you're all forgetting what started this mess. The invasion of the South by the North. They're not peaceful or misunderstood. The reason there is a massive US presence there is because the North were the aggressor (arguably as puppets of communism). Had China and Russia not intervened on behalf of the North then this wouldn't even be an issue. There would be a united and likely peaceful Korea.
 
Yeah! Let's all support states that tried to wipe half their population off the map! They're the best.

I think you're all forgetting what started this mess. The invasion of the South by the North. They're not peaceful or misunderstood. The reason there is a massive US presence there is because the North were the aggressor (arguably as puppets of communism). Had China and Russia not intervened on behalf of the North then this wouldn't even be an issue. There would be a united and likely peaceful Korea.

Calm down, it was merely an alternate viewpoint.
 
Yeah! Let's all support states that tried to wipe half their population off the map! They're the best.
This is a bit off topic no? (unless you're trying to claim NK has ever tried to do that, in which case it's just wrong).


I think you're all forgetting what started this mess. The invasion of the South by the North.
Well as that was a direct result of the annexing/partitioning of the south by the west it's fair to say it was actually THAT which started this mess.


There would be a united and likely peaceful Korea.
Without western involvement yes, but it would probably look like China not SK, so better/worse depending on your political allegiance.
 
TBH i would argue that had it been kept to just north/south it would have settled and the country left to slowly build itself up to join the rest of the world, after becoming little China (obviously something the US couldn't stand for).

Instead, the US used it as an excuse to plant itself in Chinas back yard and put pressure on Russia. China was not happy obviously and so it became a buffer zone.

In the end Korea were reduced to rubble. With US money, technology and military support, South Korea they became the first world country they are today, with great global economic and political relations. Ont he other hand North Korea were starved of relations and trade, their only helping hand from the red countries and not without a price. Costly weapon and technology trades while the US nipped at them and kept them on edge. Tech moved at a rate a isolated country could not keep up with and China and Russia were happy to drip feed them old outdated crap for big dollar and brownie point when it kept to border disputes.

China and Russia are now completely different countries and if anything NK has gone backwards politically since Un came in and essentially has given China the cold shoulder. China has done things like banned the import or Coal and Iron, a huge hit to NK. They dress it up as if they are cooperating with UN sanctions but really, its just a result of the new regimes refusal to communicate, cooperate and comply with China.
 
Back
Top Bottom