A (potentially stupid) question on North Korea

[President Johnson]

The main problem with solving the conflict over North Korean denuclearization is that the world community can't accept North Korea to have nuclear weapons for a good many reasons, but the regime sees them as the only leverage and insurance they have. Obviously, the only two solutions are the world accepts a North Korea with nuclear weapons or they it's been taken care of militarily, leading the millions of deaths on the Korean peninsula. Both options are not bright, especially the last one.

I thought about this solution: North Korea gives up its own nuclear program and China signs a defense agreement with North Korea, that they pledge to defend the regime if attacked. China is even allowed to place its own nuclear weapons in North Korea as a defense (the same number of of warheads than the US has in South Korea). The Chinese nuclear weapons aren't a bigger threat to South Korea than they are already since China can obviously reach South Korea (but I doubt they have any interest in a military conflict). The same is also the case in Germany or Poland, which don't have nuclear weapons themselves, but American ones are placed in these countries. Why can't this be a solution for the Korean problem? Is North Korea unwilling to grant China that much presence? They're already depending on China very much, so it wouldn't make that much of a difference.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The main problem with solving the conflict over North Korean denuclearization is that the world community can't accept North Korea to have nuclear weapons for a good many reasons, but the regime sees them as the only leverage and insurance they have. Obviously, the only two solutions are the world accepts a North Korea with nuclear weapons or they it's been taken care of militarily, leading the millions of deaths on the Korean peninsula. Both options are not bright, especially the last one.

I thought about this solution: North Korea gives up its own nuclear program and China signs a defense agreement with North Korea, that they pledge to defend the regime if attacked. China is even allowed to place its own nuclear weapons in North Korea as a defense (the same number of of warheads than the US has in South Korea). The Chinese nuclear weapons aren't a bigger threat to South Korea than they are already since China can obviously reach South Korea (but I doubt they have any interest in a military conflict). The same is also the case in Germany or Poland, which don't have nuclear weapons themselves, but American ones are placed in these countries. Why can't this be a solution for the Korean problem? Is North Korea unwilling to grant China that much presence? They're already depending on China very much, so it wouldn't make that much of a difference.

Such as?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The problem is North Korea is already dependent on China in many ways and by agreeing to this the regime would place itself in the hands of Beijing completely, which they never do.

Having nukes is their best insurance. Gaddafi ended his WMD program and less than decade later he was overthrown with the western assistance and killed. Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for the Budapest Memorandum and was subsequently invaded by Russia. If I had nuclear weapons I would never give them up in the light of all this.

I know it may sound pretty radical, but I have no problem with North Korea maintaining its nukes, since, all stupid propaganda aside, they're not going to strike anybody without being attacked first. The regime may be deplorable beyond words, but it's also rational. I'm actually no big fan of nuclear proliferation, since it gives established nuclear states undue advantage over the rest of the world. At the same time we don't want to see another nuclear arms race globally, so I don't think we can answer the larger question easily. As of North Korea, though, the world can either accept it or try isolation which, as we've seen before, didn't dislodge the regime at all. And don't dream of full international isolation, since they'll always find a lifeline.

[President Johnson]

I know it may sound pretty radical, but I have no problem with North Korea maintaining its nukes, since, all stupid propaganda aside, they're not going to strike anybody without being attacked first. The regime may be deplorable beyond words, but it's also rational. I'm actually no big fan of nuclear proliferation, since it gives established nuclear states undue advantage over the rest of the world. At the same time we don't want to see another nuclear arms race globally, so I don't think we can answer the larger question easily. As of North Korea, though, the world can either accept it or try isolation which, as we've seen before, didn't dislodge the regime at all. And don't dream of full international isolation, since they'll always find a lifeline.

Well, this actually means it would be ok for Iran to have nukes as well. It's actually unlikely they attack Israel, for example, first because they know the US and Israel would wipe their country from the face of the earth. I'm generally skeptical of allowing any nations in addition to current ones to possess nuclear weapons. That would ultimately encourage more and more countries to launch a nuclear program and create more destabilizing factors for world peace and safety. The more nukes are out there, the greater the chance they get into the wrong hands. Just imagine Pakistan for example with nukes and a complete or partial overthrow by ISIS or the Taliban. The same in Saudi Arabia etc. This wouldn't end well. The same in North Korea; we don't know whether at one point some true maniac will rise to power.

[CumbrianLefty]

The same in North Korea; we don't know whether at one point some true maniac will rise to power.

I know what you are saying, but that still made me smile given the current incumbent

[pikachu]

What people need to get their heads around is that barring war or Kim making a bizarre and irrational decision, North Korea will continue to have nukes for the foreseeable future because that’s the only way the regime can maintain its leverage over the US and China. The regime’s obviously awful and the world would be a better place if it didn’t exist and definitely if it didn’t have nukes, but that hasn’t been possible for decades at this point. Imo any US strategy in Korea based around denuclearization is doomed to fail and we’d be better off if we started to think of North Korea in ways that dealt with other issues.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

As of Iran, I don't see a problem with them having nukes, since it's obvious they want it as an insurance against foreign aggression, and in the light of recent developments their fears are fully justified. And the notion of Iran wanting to nuke Israel was always a lot of BS. They wouldn't do it even if Israel was not a nuclear state on its own. I'd be greatly troubled with the Saudis having nukes, given their record, though.

Unfortunately unless you have everybody, I mean everybody, disarming the proliferation as we know it just doesn't work. We can't have a committee deciding "which nation is reasonable enough to have nukes". And we can't bet on a true madman will never rise to power in already established nuclear states. So we're essentially forced to deal with this as it is. It's a very worrying situation, but a reality As North Korea proved, even a poor nation, barely holding together, can develop nukes with enough determination.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Lol why does everyone keep thinking that the Taliban or Isis could overthrow Pakistan? I know it is overshadowed by its much more powerful neighbors, but it is no pushover at friggin all. It has and will again if necessary absolutely decimate the Taliban and Isis by land, sea, and air. A nuclear country that consistently ranks within the top 20 militaries in the world, has hundreds of thousands of active soldiers, several hundred thousand more to call upon, tens of millions to draft, and has thrown gloves at India multiple times and lived to see another day (lost but still lived), is not going to be overthrown by a few ten thousand pashtun dukhi cavemen. 

[President Johnson]

The same in North Korea; we don't know whether at one point some true maniac will rise to power.

I know what you are saying, but that still made me smile given the current incumbent

Well, there are at least some generals who would like to get power. Not sure though whether they haven't been "eliminated" already.

[AndyHogan14]

What people need to get their heads around is that barring war or Kim making a bizarre and irrational decision, North Korea will continue to have nukes for the foreseeable future because that’s the only way the regime can maintain its leverage over the US and China. The regime’s obviously awful and the world would be a better place if it didn’t exist and definitely if it didn’t have nukes, but that hasn’t been possible for decades at this point. Imo any US strategy in Korea based around denuclearization is doomed to fail and we’d be better off if we started to think of North Korea in ways that dealt with other issues.

Bingo. The North Korean nuclear arsenal is just as much for leverage over China as it is for the Americans. Actually, I would argue that it is even more of a counterweight to China because North Korea already had pretty good leverage against the Americans/South Koreans before they had nuclear weapons (the ability to cripple Seoul with conventional weapons).

[America Needs R'hllor]

As of Iran, I don't see a problem with them having nukes, since it's obvious they want it as an insurance against foreign aggression, and in the light of recent developments their fears are fully justified. And the notion of Iran wanting to nuke Israel was always a lot of BS. They wouldn't do it even if Israel was not a nuclear state on its own. I'd be greatly troubled with the Saudis having nukes, given their record, though.

There's literally no difference. Both are threatened by other nations so they have "a reason", both have a horrid human rights record. Only one, actually, threatens to wipe another country off the face of the earth on a daily basis, but of course people on Atlas would treat it lightly, it's not them and their family being threatened with slaughter. Iran isn't some poor victim- it's an aggressive, revisionist state that's sowing instability and death in the middle east. It has as much blame in the Yemeni situation as Saudi Arabia, considering they started it.

Anyway, I don't agree with this entire doctrine that undemocratic, aggressive regimes are "just the same" as democratic, stable powers like the U.S. or France or Israel. We need to do everything possible to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more countries, because eventually, even if we keep saying "there's nothing to worry, they're rational", one of them won't be, or one of their oppressive regimes will collapse and then who knows what'll happen to the nukes. As for North Kora, we can't do anything at this point, as they have nukes that give them leverage and guarantees against their neighbours including the Chinese. We can, however, still prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

[dead0man]

Indeed, people in Poland or Maryland are not too concerned with Iran getting the bomb, why would they?  Even more so if they happen to not think much of Jews or the people living in the state of Israel.  Now I'm not going to say anybody that doesn't care if Iran gets the bomb is a bigot, but it's quite likely.  That or they're just ignorant of what Iran really is.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Iran should get the nuke to try and defend themselves best before somebody that Hillgoose likes gets in power.

[dead0man]

Iran should get the nuke to try and defend themselves best before somebody that Hillgoose likes gets in power.

how would Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes with no means to deliver them to NYC or DC be a defense against an American POTUS hell bent on hurting Iran?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Iran should get the nuke to try and defend themselves best before somebody that Hillgoose likes gets in power.

how would Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes with no means to deliver them to NYC or DC be a defense against an American POTUS hell bent on hurting Iran?

By this logic Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes wouldn't really be able to do much harm to Israel, especially considering Israel having quite effective missile shield.

Beside, you guys seem to operate under the belief that Iran is hell bent on releasing their nukes on Israel the moment they get them, which I'm pretty confident doesn't make sense. Even if they actually wanted this, which I don't believe either, Iranians are not suicidal, and that would be preceisly this, given Israel's doctrine of massive retaliation.

While I can agree that Iran is not an "innocent bystander" when it comes to conflicts in the Middle East (though I stand by my opinion Saudis are presently the main destabilizing force, with their heavy-handed approach), you need to remember we're talking about a country that's been under tremendous external pressure for decades now and, especially given the recent U.S. moves, I think they're absolutely right to be concerned about foreign agression. Sure, it would be absolutely preferable not to have a nuclear arms race in the region, but it can't be solved with that outlook.


Edit: OK, after some more thoughts I do concede Iran producing nuclear weapon would complicate already messed up situation in the Middle East, so "having no problem" was a wrong position to say. But not in the way that was being suggested here.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Iran should get the nuke to try and defend themselves best before somebody that Hillgoose likes gets in power.

how would Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes with no means to deliver them to NYC or DC be a defense against an American POTUS hell bent on hurting Iran?

Didn't say it would, see the highlighted word, it's the next best step they can take, besides, they would not be able to hit America, anytime soon, their best bet would be to make their program Israel centric, whether that be dirty bombs, icbm's, tacticals to hit invading armies (this one more America based but yeah), etc. but make the project Israel centric. They gotta try something, even if it has little to no chance of working, before it is too late. It has to try and build something that can inflict the most possible damage in an event of an attack, if not to prevent it, to cause as much ruckus as possible before being taken down.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Iran should get the nuke to try and defend themselves best before somebody that Hillgoose likes gets in power.

how would Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes with no means to deliver them to NYC or DC be a defense against an American POTUS hell bent on hurting Iran?

Didn't say it would, see the highlighted word, it's the next best step they can take, besides, they would not be able to hit America, anytime soon, their best bet would be to make their program Israel centric, whether that be dirty bombs, icbm's, tacticals to hit invading armies (this one more America based but yeah), etc. but make the project Israel centric. They gotta try something, even if it has little to no chance of working, before it is too late. It has to try and build something that can inflict the most possible damage in an event of an attack, if not to prevent it, to cause as much ruckus as possible before being taken down.

To make their arsenal targeted primarily against Israel would be exactly the dumbest thing to do. If anything Iran's more likely to target Saudi Arabia/Gulf countries, from where any substantial American military action would have to originate.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Iran should get the nuke to try and defend themselves best before somebody that Hillgoose likes gets in power.

how would Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes with no means to deliver them to NYC or DC be a defense against an American POTUS hell bent on hurting Iran?

Didn't say it would, see the highlighted word, it's the next best step they can take, besides, they would not be able to hit America, anytime soon, their best bet would be to make their program Israel centric, whether that be dirty bombs, icbm's, tacticals to hit invading armies (this one more America based but yeah), etc. but make the project Israel centric. They gotta try something, even if it has little to no chance of working, before it is too late. It has to try and build something that can inflict the most possible damage in an event of an attack, if not to prevent it, to cause as much ruckus as possible before being taken down.

To make their arsenal targeted primarily against Israel would be exactly the dumbest thing to do. If anything Iran's more likely to target Saudi Arabia/Gulf countries, from where any substantial American military action would have to originate.

You are right, this makes more sense.

[dead0man]

Iran should get the nuke to try and defend themselves best before somebody that Hillgoose likes gets in power.

how would Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes with no means to deliver them to NYC or DC be a defense against an American POTUS hell bent on hurting Iran?

Didn't say it would, see the highlighted word, it's the next best step they can take, besides, they would not be able to hit America, anytime soon, their best bet would be to make their program Israel centric, whether that be dirty bombs, icbm's, tacticals to hit invading armies (this one more America based but yeah), etc. but make the project Israel centric. They gotta try something, even if it has little to no chance of working, before it is too late. It has to try and build something that can inflict the most possible damage in an event of an attack, if not to prevent it, to cause as much ruckus as possible before being taken down.

crazy idea, have they considered NOT being c**nts to Israel and America?  It's worked pretty well for most of the countries that were once enemies but are now friends.  But then who would they blame their failures on?

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Iran should get the nuke to try and defend themselves best before somebody that Hillgoose likes gets in power.

how would Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes with no means to deliver them to NYC or DC be a defense against an American POTUS hell bent on hurting Iran?

Didn't say it would, see the highlighted word, it's the next best step they can take, besides, they would not be able to hit America, anytime soon, their best bet would be to make their program Israel centric, whether that be dirty bombs, icbm's, tacticals to hit invading armies (this one more America based but yeah), etc. but make the project Israel centric. They gotta try something, even if it has little to no chance of working, before it is too late. It has to try and build something that can inflict the most possible damage in an event of an attack, if not to prevent it, to cause as much ruckus as possible before being taken down.

crazy idea, have they considered NOT being c**nts to Israel and America?  It's worked pretty well for most of the countries that were once enemies but are now friends.  But then who would they blame their failures on?

Like it’s just one sided lmao, and no we have proven we can’t be trusted. It’s a massive gamble. Promises change by admin and so do deals, if they even will exist anymore, too unstable. Is Iran just really expected to all of a sudden be nice and everything will be ok haha.  And come on, if they stop being mean since obviously it’s just them then everything will be great lmfao no. Also it’s not exactly a coincidence that when you are at loggerheads with America and co. you will be suffering in a world of hurt, so it’s not exactly a scapegoat, it’s the truth. We (not as much Israel) have been absolute d!cks to Iran, but somehow it’s all their fault. Being nice to America= guaranteed good path. Bottom line is America and Israel are going to keep f(cking over Iran for the forseeable future, and Iran should continue building as strong military countermeasures as they possible can to cause as big of a ruckus as possible in case an American hawk president and Netanyahu type pm decide it’s time to throw over another country and make life even worse for basically everyone there like they have been doing for decades now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The volatility of the U.S. foreign policy is clearly part of the problem. The previous administration brokered a deal with Iran and hostile relations seemed to have improved, but once the next guy got into power, we've seen a complete U-turn.

One must be historically illiterate to play the "U.S. can do no wrong, it's always the other guys that sucks" card, especially when it comes to U.S.-Iran relations. The U.S. f**ked over the people of Iran by orchestrating the coup that removed Mosaddegh and put Shah in total control, propping his regime all the way, eliminating the secular opposition as a force and opening the door for the Khomeini to take power once Shah screwed things up to the point of no return. During the Iraq-Iran war the U.S. had been doing their best to drag the conflict on so both sides can bleed as much as possible. But OK, even if you say it's in the past (even though effects continues to be felt decades after), the U.S. has been doing it's best to make sure any kind of meaningful reconciliation is off the table, strengthening the regime in the process (as evident now or back in the 2000s).

For the record, I detest the regime that is in power in Tehran. I've been following Iran-related matters for years, been active in several campaigns on behalf of prisoners in Iran and I keep in touch with many Iranians, both living abroad and in the country, so I can say with all confidence that the simplistic picture some here are painting, that of a land populated by grim mullahs and unhinged jihadists, dreaming of unleashing their weapons to annihilate the "infidels", is a complete bulls**t. While the ideology driving those in power is a factor, the fear of agressive actions from the outside are just as big a factor.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

North Korea is too afraid of a coup from Beijing. That's why Kim Jung Un had his brother assassinated.

[America Needs R'hllor]

By this logic Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes wouldn't really be able to do much harm to Israel, especially considering Israel having quite effective missile shield.

Beside, you guys seem to operate under the belief that Iran is hell bent on releasing their nukes on Israel the moment they get them, which I'm pretty confident doesn't make sense.

Oh, I'm not. I'm just operating under the belief that 1. if someone threatens to kill me, even if there's a tiny fraction of a chance he will, I'll try to prevent him from having the option and 2. if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will too and the region will erupt into a nuclear arms race, and these nukes could plausibly someday find themselves in the hands of a regime or organization that isn't thinking rationally.

Besides, I don't believe the Iranian regime is irrational right now, but what if one day they'll be threatened by an existential threat? I really don't care if it's by a stupid American foreign policy (like Bagel suggested) or an internal revolution. If they have nothing to lose, I do think my fear is not completely unfounded. Bagel might be lighthanded with suggesting ways for Iran to defend itself against evil America by possibly using my people as a hostage, but I have no reason to stand for it. Yes, they most likely won't do this, but trying to prevent them from having the possibility is important.

On North Korea, I'm in agreement that there's nothing to do, though I think it regretful because the people of South Korea are hostages in danger, just like I don't want to become. If there was a way to disarm a possibly unstable regime from a weapon that could lead to the deaths of billions, I'd gladly take it, but the way suggested is unfeasible.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

By this logic Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes wouldn't really be able to do much harm to Israel, especially considering Israel having quite effective missile shield.

Beside, you guys seem to operate under the belief that Iran is hell bent on releasing their nukes on Israel the moment they get them, which I'm pretty confident doesn't make sense.

Oh, I'm not. I'm just operating under the belief that 1. if someone threatens to kill me, even if there's a tiny fraction of a chance he will, I'll try to prevent him from having the option and 2. if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will too and the region will erupt into a nuclear arms race, and these nukes could plausibly someday find themselves in the hands of a regime or organization that isn't thinking rationally.

Besides, I don't believe the Iranian regime is irrational right now, but what if one day they'll be threatened by an existential threat? I really don't care if it's by a stupid American foreign policy (like Bagel suggested) or an internal revolution. If they have nothing to lose, I do think my fear is not completely unfounded. Bagel might be lighthanded with suggesting ways for Iran to defend itself against evil America by possibly using my people as a hostage, but I have no reason to stand for it. Yes, they most likely won't do this, but trying to prevent them from having the possibility is important.

I'll give it to you nuclear arms race in an unstable region is potentially a threat, and from an Israeli's point of view it carries more weight. But I must re-emphasize resolving this issue needs another approachment, because otherwise it'd be hard to prevent Iran from getting there, since their fears are not entirely unfounded. If North Korea, a poor country with backward industrial infrastructure, could get there, Iran should do this with more ease. Similary it would be easier to solve the issue. Iran, even after Trump's pullout, still did adhere to the deal until the situation reached boilling point.

While I'm not trying to make equivalency between Israel and Iran, Israel too got nuclear weapons due to being surrounded by hostile countries. Of course the situation Israel faced in the 60s and 70s was far more dire than Iran's, but you can see some patterns here.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

By this logic Iran having 5 or 6 low yield nukes wouldn't really be able to do much harm to Israel, especially considering Israel having quite effective missile shield.

Beside, you guys seem to operate under the belief that Iran is hell bent on releasing their nukes on Israel the moment they get them, which I'm pretty confident doesn't make sense.

Oh, I'm not. I'm just operating under the belief that 1. if someone threatens to kill me, even if there's a tiny fraction of a chance he will, I'll try to prevent him from having the option and 2. if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will too and the region will erupt into a nuclear arms race, and these nukes could plausibly someday find themselves in the hands of a regime or organization that isn't thinking rationally.

Besides, I don't believe the Iranian regime is irrational right now, but what if one day they'll be threatened by an existential threat? I really don't care if it's by a stupid American foreign policy (like Bagel suggested) or an internal revolution. If they have nothing to lose, I do think my fear is not completely unfounded. Bagel might be lighthanded with suggesting ways for Iran to defend itself against evil America by possibly using my people as a hostage, but I have no reason to stand for it. Yes, they most likely won't do this, but trying to prevent them from having the possibility is important.

On North Korea, I'm in agreement that there's nothing to do, though I think it regretful because the people of South Korea are hostages in danger, just like I don't want to become. If there was a way to disarm a possibly unstable regime from a weapon that could lead to the deaths of billions, I'd gladly take it, but the way suggested is unfeasible.

Kalwejt did make a good point though, Saudia and their gulf allies are more of a threat (and even worse) than Israel, they should be target number one to take as hostage for Iran should something break out. I would not mind an additional nuclear power in the region for Israel to have to deal with (and a more contenious one at that) either. Any additional countermeasure to the state of Israel is a good thing.