from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 10 Mar 11:28
https://lemmy.world/post/44072782
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.
#world
threaded - newest
I wonder how long it will take the EU to understand this
УНТИЛ ЩЕ АЛЛ СПЕАК РУССИАН
Oh damn, “fake” cyrillic that actually uses the letters right 😀 well, except for Щ, heh. I might have gone for a more phonetic transliteration myself:
Антил уй ол спик ращан
Ukraine found that out in 2022.
France knows, Poland knows and will probably be the first new nuclear power in the EU.
2014*
How on earth would a nuclear arsenal have benefited the Maiden Revolutionaries?
If anything, a nuclear armed Ukraine would have been invaded by Russia that much sooner.
And unfortunately, North Korea is very correct in this assessment :(
shit, i’m in canada and we are having a new conversation about acquiring nukes. USA is making the world a very dangerous place, and it’s all because grossly rich turds like trump want more.
when you type USA, do you mean the divided states between Canada and Mexico?
Ununited states of amerikkka
Anyone who didn’t learn that lesson from Ukraine is a fucking idiot
They had nukes, and gave them away after assurances if Russia invaded they’d be defended.
Instead we left them out to dry and started another war instead
They had nukes under a Moscow-aligned government. They surrendered those nukes to win trade concessions from their Western partners.
Had they keep their weapons, they’d have had a much larger contingent of Russian military personal in the country for the next 30 years.
We’ve sent them hundreds of billions of dollars in military hardware, mercenary staff, and logistical support.
They’re losing the war because NATO underestimated the offensive capability of the Russian military, especially over an enormous front line. Not because they lack raw firepower.
What do you think would have happened after Russia crossed into the Donbas over cross border shelling? Would Zelensky have responded by… nuking half the Oblast? Or are you suggesting everyone should start flinging nukes at each other’s capital cities?
I still think they’re loosing because Elon musk is a piece of shit. He hobbled their counter offensive that might have given them the breathing room to end the war. War is a collection of key moments and he stuck his dick in the gears during one of them when he shut down starlink
He extended state-of-the-art telecommunications on contract from the US, then yanked it back because he wanted more money. Which is what private industry always does, the moment they see an opportunity to squeeze someone for extra juice.
I’m personally of the opinion that the NATO block doesn’t want this war to end, because they see it as a way to bleed both Ukraine and Russia until they’re weak enough to re-colonize. This is part of a much broader pattern of NATO fumbled support for Ukraine, such that Russians can pursue a minimal advance while Ukrainians keep jumping into the meat grinder trying to slow it down.
The most glaring moment, for me, was the Prigozhin lightning raid on Moscow. Russian high command was in chaos. The front line was depleted of reinforcements. Ukraine… didn’t advance an inch.
After that, I was convinced Ukraine was never intended to win this fight.
We did send them aid. And then the administration changed. My point is, I agree. You should never trust someone else with your own protection. Ukraine got a major economic boon from disarming. And soft protection but donating to the local police force doesn’t really help in when someone decides to walk into your house anyway.
We pledged armies…
30 years ago Ukraine was the 3rd largest nuclear superpower in the world.
They didn’t trade that for a couple crates of old ARs and malfunctioning body armor
Completely wiped out by the multiple Russian invasions…
They traded real security for comfort, and comfort always can be taken away.
It’s almost impossible to get real.security, look at Iran.
Like, there’s no rational reason for a sovereign country not to be developing their own nukes these days. And that’s dangerous
Yeah, I don’t disagree. That’s what happened. They confused economic power with defense. Maybe if it wasn’t putin they were trying to stop it would have been better for them.
They essentially traded a gun for a job and a restraining order. But also consider that the economic ties they gained by giving up their nukes. Bought them time and capital to build up their own military power enough to fight off Russia decades years later. They may not win this, but at the time the only thing they had were nukes.
Ukraine made the choice to try to build itself up more. I don’t fault them for that. Geopolitics is a messy 4-D chess game.
You just can’t really predict individual elements. When they declared independence putin was just a little shit stain and the billionaires in Russia were still fighting among each other to secure wealth and power.
At the time, Ukraine giving up it’s nukes fast tracked it to the 1st world. Yeah, it sucks that it played out this way. But it wasn’t on its face a bad plan.
If they had a 40 year old nuclear arsenal and matching tech they might not be at war right now, but they also probably wouldn’t be Ukraine either.
Wildly incorrect…
Like just look at any map, Ukraine was the front line to Europe, think about how much military is built up in Texas because it’s a border. Ukraine had a shit ton of all types of weaponry when the USSR dissolved
Weapony that the former USSR had claim to and would have been a justification for intervention. I’m not going to sit here and pretend I know the nuances of the fall of the USSR. I was 3. But I can see enough to know that at the time, Ukraine made the smart play for the foreseeable future. In 1994. In hindsight, it should have held its nukes. In the moment, throwing down that sword gave it a seat at the world table.
Hate to break it to ya…
But after the dissolution of the USSR, there wasn’t anymore USSR.
Russia had claim to those weapons, just like the nukes.
Ukraine kept the conventional equipment, and gave up the nukes back to Russia instead.
This isn’t a hypothetical, this is what happened, and if you don’t know what happened, it’s hard to trust you on hypotheticals. Youre making them without all the facts
Look, I’m not really into how hot you’re being about this. Little nitpicking like that doesn’t strike me as good faith discussion. Especially when I haven’t exactly been adverse to a few of your points. If you want to talk, cool, if you want to argue, scroll on.
Thank you.
“It’s only nuclear war, why is everyone getting all worked up!?”
Budapest Ignorandum
Exactly, Trump’s brain has shrunk to the point of nonexistence.
That’s because nukes ARE the only path to security lmao. As soon as the first one was tested, and then fuck me used against civilians everyone watching jnmed understood this.
It sucks, and I would much prefer a world without nuclear weapons, but this is reality unfortunately. If you have nukes, you have leverage without ever having to use them
Uhhhh…
I don’t quite know how to break it to you but:
There’s no other way to use a nuke, they cover too wide an area.
Killing civilians was the norm in WW2, every war before that, and the vast majority of every war since.
Like, if the nukes on Japan wouldn’t have been dropped, it would have had to be more firebombing and then a ground invasion.
Firebombings which still had a higher kill count in Japan than both nukes combined.
The entire point of a nuke, is that all it takes is a single one to wipe out entire square miles of a city. There’s no way to do that without civilian casualties, and it’s only a matter of time until one gets thru defenses.
However if you compare the nukes used in Japan to current nukes, they now cover a lot more than 1 city…
Yeah, and conventional attacks have also evolved past just dumping napalm from a balloon…
Or attaching small moltovs to bats and releasing them.
Like, nukes getting bigger is better as a dettertent.
That’s the entire point of a deterrent.
Where we fucked up, is who we entrusted the buttons to.
You don’t know me so you would have no way of knowing this about me, but yes I am very familiar with all the tradeoffs and decision making in this part of WW2 around ground assault vs nukes and continued bombing etc 🙌
You clearly believe so…
But that’s not the impression one gets from the words you type.
✌️
I’d better not express what impression I’m getting from your words, dude.
I get paid a lot to be right and say it in ways powerful idiots understand.
Not having to be polite is a relief valve, but it doesn’t mean the information is incorrect.
The smallest “tactical nuke” is orders of magnitude bigger than what was used in Japan and even at their lowest settings would snowball into environmental catastrophe.
You can’t contain an atomic blast. Even what’s left is irradiated and now nuclear waste. Especially any kind of metal, which is probably going to be whatever you nuke.
Being smaller just means idiots are more likely to use them.
Whoa you must be like so rich. How much do you make
Weird…
I thought the peace sign emoji meant you were done.
Another Godzilla connoisseur, I see.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
geopoliticaleconomy.com/…/atomic-bombing-japan-no…
They could be dialed down lower, but even a “small” tactical nuke is bigger than what got dropped on Japan.
It is not a “bunker buster” type of munition.
And I have no idea what you’re second rambling source is trying to say.
It’s not about size, it’s how you use it. For example, a tactical nuke could potentially be used at sea to destroy a fleet. Depending on where the fleet is, this could potentially be done with no direct civilian casualties.
Really? It’s pretty clear cut: the Americans dropped the nuke to primarily rule out Soviet influence as opposed to being a decisive means to end the war. This isn’t even a fringe opinion among historians these days - I’m surprised you haven’t heard this take.
historyextra.com/…/atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki…
And huge environmental damage leading to indirect death and suffering at a wide scale…
No, that’s from an opinion on a random website it doesn’t prove anything, just tells you the authors opinion…
Your new one agrees with me at least:
But I didn’t bother reading more than you quoted.
Genuine question: before today, had you ever heard of the take that the US didnt need to nuke Japan - given Soviet advancements and Japan’s military crumbling?
Yep, anytime it comes up a shit ton of .ml accounts all keep insisting it wasn’t necessary even tho the alternative would have caused more deaths and a shit ton more human suffering while ignoring that it fucking worked even when the Japanese government considered imprisoning the emperor to prevent him from surrending before the bombs were used.
That’s what people don’t get, Japan wasn’t going to surrender. The military had seized control and would 100% continue fighting to the last person, the only thing that stopped them was showing that continuing to fight would leave all of Japan a barren rock.
The complete destruction of their island was the only thing that would have worked.
But as sure as I just said that, it’s all hypotheticals and guesses, no one really knows how much it would have taken without nukes, but every indication is it would have taken a lot.
Ah yes the Soviets were right about to checks notes start building an invasion fleet and beat the US in the race to Tokyo, thus checks notes again singlehandedly defeat fascism around the globe
That’s some interesting alternative history you’re reading there
Not sure what youre talking about, or how any of that follows.
The simple fact is that the notion that the US did not need to nuke Japan is a well-respected position among historians.
wagingpeace.org/were-the-atomic-bombings-necessar…
historyonthenet.com/reasons-against-dropping-the-…
jacobin.com/…/atomic-nuclear-bomb-world-war-ii-so…
Of course, they could have chosen to spend several hundred thousand soldiers instead.
But I’m laughing harder at your other notion that the soviet ubermenschen were right about to swim across the Sea ofJapan and the US had to cheat to beat them there
Again, not sure what youre talking about, or how this follows. The only person bringing this idea is you.
Perhaps you need to check your le epic notes again.
This is the plot of metal gear
Metal gear?!
we were working toward a way for a world without nukes. building an economy so interconnected that going to war with another country destroys your economy too. but that shit is fragile. i didn’t think it was this fragile tho.
Well nuclear weapons or being a Western lapdog, but yeah pretty much.
Am I missing something here?
How nuclear weapons can be a safe path, or a matter of survival?
Do these so called “leaders” have in mind the catastrophic effects of launching nuclear missiles?
All they want to have nuclear weapons so they can bully their neighbours or enemies, until someone launches a nuclear attack and then everyone retaliates.
But they have any idea about the after effects? Isn’t Chernobyl a hard lesson for these people?
Seriously, the world is being run by selfish lunatics with too much power in their hands.
Countries with nuclear weapons aren’t subjected to as much US imperialism because of the threat of retaliation.
Ok, I get it.
And what about the consequences?
Have they thought about that?
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.
That’s the thing, you don’t ever have to actually launch the dang nuke. The goal is that deterrent, not annihilation.
For whatever it’s worth, I think your questions make sense. MAD is kind of madness, but its how the world has worked since the invention of the atom bomb. And anyway, I can’t see or cast downvotes on my instance.
When you are facing a nation-state level power or above that 1.- has the ability to carpet bomb and genocide multiple countries 2.- supports others doing the same and 3.- shows disregard of international law, how can nukes be not the correct, reasonable defense?
I’ve never understood the international position that Iran, of all countries, should not have a nuclear program. Its enemy is literally the US!
just North Korea? How about the rest of the free world becoming a little more cozy to owning a nuke? What is stopping the American barbarians from just coming over and taking what they want? especially with their empire crumbling? See what the zionazis did to gaza? That is potentially ALL OF US.
“North Korea’s view”
Ha, yeah, it’s a NK thing. It’s everybody’s view.
Turns out the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction was invented by Kim Jung Un, as a spec of genetic material living in his father’s sperm that was still lodged in his grandfather’s scrotum.
This is the true unlimited power of Scientific Marxism.
The thought of the Great Leader is si magnificent it reverberates backwards through time!
The biggest deterrent Iran had wasn’t nuclear. It was their proximity to the Straight of Hormuz, with the potential to shut down a fifth of global fossil fuel traffic.
Trump blew straight past that breaker. He wasn’t deterred because he did not give a shit.
That’s not to say Iran shouldn’t have developed a nuclear weapon. But there’s no reason to believe a Pete Hegseth/Israel Katz joint brain trust would have respected it
America used certain weapons to stop WW2. (Edit: Though that’s an oversimplification and ignores the efforts of the other allies and battles of WW2) So it’s not only North Korean logic. Ironically, many Western countries also have Nukes and have not given them up. Nuclear Energy is a lot cleaner than fossil fuels as well though of course it is still very controversial and unpopular.
The U.S. did not use nuclear weapons to stop WW2. That is such a load of crap, and propaganda. We used nuclear weapons to intimidate Russia and show what we were capable of.
Just as the british didnt incinerate Dresden to stop the germans from producing… optics
Checks and balances.
I know that it’s an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe that we were at least marginally safer when the USSR was still a superpower acting as a check on American fuckery.
Once the USSR fell, US went masks off on the international stage because they had no reason to pretend to be the good guys anymore.
They convinced all their allies to disarm themselves, and then went full “nice country here…shame if something happened to it” the moment they were the only big dog left.
The world can’t re-arm itself fast enough as far as I’m concerned.
Better to have it and not need it. You can only have respect when your facing someone at an equal level of power and respect. Clearly even if some administration does have love for your people the next administration might not.
As a completely irrelevant observer, yeah. Nukes are. If I was a leader of a people and we had one, I would never disarm.
Someone post the apology form.
That’s the overwhelming message of the 20th and 21st centuries. If you don’t have nukes then the US or Russia is gonna mess with you. Get nukes.
Secretly get nukes.
Am Canadian. Want nukes.
Wasn’t that kind of a given already considering how Russia is treating Ukraine right now?
That would be the sane assumption to make here. But remember, trump is not a rational actor. He might just invade NK just for shits and giggles. i think the only reason he hasn’t yet is because they don’t have enough oil / kim is his friend.
His admin just has to tell him the Kim dynasty bought franchise rights to McDonalds and they are threatening American supplies of Big Macs. War by tomorrow morning.
Edit: That the above sentence is not the stupidest thing ever said and has even the smallest element of truth in it speaks very poorly about the age we are living in.
He wouldnt because israel doesn’t give a shit about NK.
<img alt="" src="https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/59f795d3-9b37-4a2c-898e-6a5588200539.png">
I mean its not a wrong view its either that or be a faithful servant of the west above your own citizens.
Instead of try to renovate or upkeep nuclear sites Ukraine gave them to Russia for assurances of protection by the Russia, the U.K, and U.S. Then Russia attacked them twice since then. It isn’t a “west” thing.
The situation Ukraine and Iran reinforced that position too. Ukraine believed that the US would have its back if it gave up its nukes
Sadly, that’s a lesson I’ve already learned from war in Ukraine. Before it I had "hope"s and "might"s about civilization. Now I have a substantial amount less
North Korea doesn’t understand that you must have something worth taking like oil before you need to build nukes to protect it
Bruh they’re protecting communism /s
But for real, North Korean national identity exists because the USA invaded Korea.
What they understand is that anti-USA sentiment is the only thing keeping their citizens from forming a class conciousness.