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.
yea just like joe biden confirmed it when he supplied the funds/weapons to annihilate gaza, just like obama annihilated libya, just like dubya annihilated iraq
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.
Once the USSR fell
For a brief time with Yeltsin at the helm.
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
used against civilians
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.
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 🙌
I am very familiar with all the tradeoffs and decision making
Another Godzilla connoisseur, I see.
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.
Sounds like you get paid to shove your head up your ass, dude.
Nice.
Whoa you must be like so rich. How much do you make
Weird…
I thought the peace sign emoji meant you were done.
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.
There’s no other way to use a nuke, they cover too wide an area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
Like, if the nukes on Japan wouldn’t have been dropped, it would have had to be more firebombing and then a ground invasion.
The nuclear strikes on Japan represented a political decision taken by the United States, aimed squarely at the Soviet Union; it was the first strike in the Cold War.
In August 1945, the USSR was preparing to invade Japan to overthrow its ruling fascist regime, which had been allied with Nazi Germany – which the Soviet Red Army had also just defeated in the European theater of the war.
Washington was concerned that, if the Soviets defeated Japanese fascism and liberated Tokyo like they had in Berlin, then Japan’s post-fascist government could become an ally of the Soviet Union and could adopt a socialist government.
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore, were not so much aimed at the Japanese fascists as they were aimed at the Soviet communists.
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/08/07/atomic-bombing-japan-not-necessary/
Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
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.
They could be dialed down lower, but even a “small” tactical nuke is bigger than what got dropped on Japan.
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.
And I have no idea what you’re second rambling source is trying to say.
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.
Militarily Japan was finished (as the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that August showed). Further blockade and urban destruction would have produced a surrender in August or September at the latest, without the need for the costly anticipated invasion or the atomic bomb. As for the second bomb on Nagasaki, that was just as unnecessary as the first one. It was deemed to be needed, partly because it was a different design, and the military (and many civilian scientists) were keen to see if they both worked the same way. There was, in other words, a cynical scientific imperative at work as well.
I should also add that there was a fine line between the atomic bomb and conventional bombing – indeed descriptions of Hamburg or Tokyo after conventional bombing echo the aftermath of Hiroshima. To regard Hiroshima as a moral violation is also to condemn the firebombing campaign, which was deliberately aimed at city centres and completely indiscriminate.
Depending on where the fleet is, this could potentially be done with no direct civilian casualties.
And huge environmental damage leading to indirect death and suffering at a wide scale…
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
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:
To regard Hiroshima as a moral violation is also to condemn the firebombing campaign, which was deliberately aimed at city centres and completely indiscriminate.
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.
Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, put it this way: “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
https://www.wagingpeace.org/were-the-atomic-bombings-necessary/
https://www.historyonthenet.com/reasons-against-dropping-the-atomic-bomb
Alperovitz further highlights that the Japanese had initiated peace envoy missions as early as September 1944, reaching out to figures like Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek by December 1944 and engaging with the USSR in April 1945. That the Japanese were interested in negotiating a peace was well known. Moreover, the Americans knew that there was a potential for a surrender without necessitating an invasion as early as April 1945, provided there was clarity in the surrender terms.
The argument that the bombings prevented the necessity of an invasion is undermined by the very cities that were chosen to be bombed. It is now known that as many as nine atomic bombs were proposed to be used tactically against Japanese military targets as part of a planned — though never authorized — invasion. That two of those bombs were ultimately used against cities of no particular military value is evidence that plans for an invasion had already been abandoned by August of 1945.
The potential for a massive confrontation between the Red Army and the Kwantung Army in Manchuria introduced the prospect of the Soviets seeking equal participation in subsequent conflict-ending talks. This would have positioned them to assert a stronger claim over the region, resulting in gains that could far exceed their initial claims to territories lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. Consequently, the atomic bomb, instead of being used tactically, evolved into a strategic weapon of terror intended to jolt Japan into immediate surrender.
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
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.
Yeah must have been some other you that posted that the USSR was about to invade Japan
-
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.
Too bad that ideology drove wealth inequality which empowered populism which empowered fascism which destroyed the interconnected economy. Neoliberalism was never a solution to peace.
who said an interconnected economy needs to be neoliberal?
…The great project you were referring to was a neoliberal one…
It just needs someone with power and without any fucking knowledge of economics but thinking the opposite.
The economy in the USA can still get a lot worse!
This is the plot of metal gear
Metal gear?!
!
I heared this.
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
Not just north Korea, the whole world can see what happened to Ukrain after they gave up their nukes in exchange for a protection deal, mutually assured destruction is the only way to keep your country safe
Yes, not holding up that deal was the worst move in modern US diplomatic history. The Doomsday Clock was moved from 100 seconds to midnight up to 90 seconds to midnight because of it. The message is VERY clear: you will only be protected or respected if you can launch nukes.
That had to be the biggest takeaway every country had to have gotten over the last couple of years.
Proximity bias of Europoors.
What is happening in Gaza and Iran is much worse. Iran is a 3,000 years old civilization while Ukraine is a fragment of USSR, 30 years old.
This comment should win some kind of an award. How on earth could anyone think the history of Ukrainian culture began 30 years ago when a regime that itself had only existed for around 70 years fell apart?
As if the Ukrainians aren’t a culture and people going back thousands of years. What odd bigotries you have.
Humans have inhabited Ukraine since 32,000 BC. - Wikipedia
Ukraine, the official country, is just some lines drawn on a map. The people, the culture, the history has been around for thousands and thousands of years.
Not even from Europe dumbass
Ukraine is far more older civilization than you think dumbass. Actually it’s older than russia.
As a completely irrelevant observer, yeah. Nukes are. If I was a leader of a people and we had one, I would never disarm.
reinforce North Korea’s view
I think you mean conclusively prove North Korea’s view to be correct
Wasn’t that kind of a given already considering how Russia is treating Ukraine right now?
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.
The US slaughtered 20% of the country’s people. “Invasion” is putting it lightly.
oh fuck off. My point was that North korea exists as a result of the korean war. As such they don’t need to have oil to be justified in worry about a US invasion.
The United States dropped 635,000 tons of bombs and 32,557 tons of napalm in North Korea, more than what was spent on the entire Pacific Theater of WW2.
While I don’t doubt the US would drop that many bombs just to cause suffering, I don’t think it adds up financially if they didn’t want something.
They do.
Not oil but minerals.
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
I sincerely don’t give us 50 years. We will almost certainly destroy ourselves. Whether that’s by war, economic, or environmental collapse, we’re speed running it on all fronts.
I used to hold so much hope for humanity. It feels so naive now.
If it makes you feel any better, we will probably survive and restart the cycle.
The Security Dilemma: Any steps a state takes to protect itself also threatens their neighbours who can’t tell if those actions are purely defensive or if they might be used for an offensive war.
In the Realism interpretation, this necessarily produces an arms race: The neighbours also need to increase their own safety, in turn threatening the first state, who then needs to…
WMDs and nuclear deterrence are the escalation of that dilemma. By raising the potential cost of an attack war to the level of annihilation, this leverages the most fundamental state objective (securing its own survival) to deter from ever attacking (at least one paper; war and diplomacy never turn out quite as the theory might imagine).
Idealism would instead trust in mutual understanding between states, that this arms race will produce pointless cost for all parties, which might be better invested in infrastructure and trade to make all parties more prosperous. Which also sounds nice on paper, but greed, ego and military industrial
corruption“lobby” are working hard to separate us.Remember, you’ve got more in common with a working-class American, Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese, North Korean, Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian or any other other country than you do with billionaires or the leaders working so hard to spread hate and division and turn us on each other. We do what we must to protect ourselves, but we must not forget that the guy on the other side is just as much a victim.
Until we can make that unity a reality, it unfortunately does seem that nukes are a critical component in any state’s security strategy.
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
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.
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!
