North Korea says it will stage nuke test

[SlowwHand]

Wait a minute. You're in India?

[Barnabas]

Even without nukes north korea can kill over 1 million south koreans with the conventional weapons he has all pointing there, now witht he ability to kill millions of japanese due to nukes, kim has an absolutely untouchable ass, there are 0 chances of the USA invading north korea because otherwise millions will die, if that is what kim wanted, then, he for sure aint stupid.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Wait a minute. You're in India?

Yes.

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
silentone, Ayatollahs. Against everything, and the big reason Persians (the ones I know don't even want to be called Iranian) left to come here. Drop your probablies and go.

Huh? That really explains nothing. What exactly about my post was bull**** and what part of the history I posted was false?

[SlowwHand]

Your insisting that Iran is stable. Not that this thread is about Iran.

[thesilentone]

Sloww: So NK is more stable than Iran? Ok.

Lordshiva: I'd disagree about nukes not being a defensive weapon, they certainly make aggressors think twice before committing, even if they would have a sizable military advantage.

[SlowwHand]

I just find it peculiar that someone from a country with nukes would say they're not defensive.
No wonder Pakistan stays tense.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
He's not dumb. He's not even that crazy. He knows what he has, and out of desperation, paranoia, or some such, he's using the crazy man theory of IR to get what he wants--and he knows nobody can do **** about it, because it would be an unmitigated disaster all around. It's quite rational.

Stupid, no. Crazy, yes. Quite crazy. Any idiot can see that the DPRK can't continue this way indefinitely. He's been playing chicken with the whole world for years now, keeping his country from falling apart by brute force and the regular supplies of humanitarian aid. If it does all fall apart, he has almost no chance of surviving; he can only ensure that he'd take down a lot of his neighbors with him to discourage us from allowing the fit to hit the shan.

Though I suppose that really, he can't go anywhere else. He's painted himself into a corner. Without his massive security apparatus and military toys, he would be either murdered or hauled before a tribunal for crimes against humanity. All he can do is keep sitting on his crapheap of a country and dare us to take him down.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I just find it peculiar that someone from a country with nukes would say they're not defensive.

They're neither defensive nor offensive. They're really not considered military assets at all, rather, they're political and diplomatic assets.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No wonder Pakistan stays tense.

We have enough of a conventional superiority that we don't need nukes to attack or defend against Pakistan. Indeed, by acquiring them and inducing them to acquire theirs, we've somewhat compromised out defensive position.

[SlowwHand]

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

I am pwned by your sophisticated understanding of history and geopolitics

[thesilentone]

I do see your point lordshiva, in that if you do end up using the nukes as a weapon, particularly against someone else with nukes, you've pretty much already lost. So in that sense they are just a political tool, but it is still a weapon, and having it grants you more defense than you would have without it..

[SlowwHand]

No, he says it's just a matter of having a bigger dick. Not defensive. Ooook.

I can't even believe you said that, much less maintain it.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by thesilentone
I do see your point lordshiva, in that if you do end up using the nukes as a weapon, particularly against someone else with nukes, you've pretty much already lost. So in that sense they are just a political tool, but it is still a weapon, and having it grants you more defense than you would have without it..

Nukes are, by definition, weapons. But the primary motivation for acquiring them has always been political rather than military, except for one or two cases. Cases in point:

U.S.: offensive

U.S.S.R.: to prove to the world that they had "arrived," and deserved superpower status

U.K. and France: to prove that they still had teeth, and weren't dying powers

China: glorious manifestation of the achievements of the peoples' state, and to get the world and the U.S.S.R. to see them as one of the leading communist powers

India: to get the world to take us seriously as a world power, and to back up our claims to a permanent seat on the security council

Pakistan: to not lose face vis-a-vis India, and to realise Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's dream of "the Muslim bomb." The defensive argument is admittedly strong here, too

Israel: Strongest example of the defensive argument

Iran: to send a message to the other Middle Eastern countries that they're the big boys in the region. IMO, targeted more to the Sunni Arab states than at Israel

North Korea: to try and prove that they're not a failing state, and that they need to be taken seriously; as a bargaining chip in talks and way to extort more badly-needed aid; as a triumph of "juche" and the communist state; and KIJ's nutjob-ness


South Africa, Libya, Brazil and Argentina have had weapons programs in the past, too; who were they trying to defend against? (Namibia? lol)

[SlowwHand]

"U.S.: offensive"

At this point, I give up.