North Korea says it will stage nuke test

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
NK certainly has acquired them as a defensive weapon. They are concerned about the US or SK invading them, as well as giving them the ability to talk louder without being concerned about a military backlash.

Agreed to an extent, though IMO the latter point is the more important one, as NK has enough conventional firepower to do SK some serious hurt.

Originally posted by snoopy369
India/Pakistan forced each other into doing so, also as a defensive weapon - if one and not the other had acquired them, the other would have inevitably lost the military conflict once the nuclear power possessed a conventional advantage.

This I disagree with; India is what prompted Pakistan to develop their weapons, so in that regard you're right (though I feel the "Muslim bomb" argument is also important), but if India were thinking purely militarily, it would have no reason to go down this path, as this has made us less safe vis-a-vis Pakistan.

Originally posted by snoopy369
Israel CERTAINLY acquired them as a defensive weapon. I can't imagine someone arguing with that one.

True, and I didn't.

Originally posted by snoopy369
Iran acquired them (or is trying to acquire them) to ensure their ability to survive US aggression and potential Iraqi/Saudi hegemonical aggression.

But Iran doesn't have the capability to strike the U.S. I find the diplomatic reason more compelling in this case.

Originally posted by snoopy369
Now, I'm not saying your list of 'diplomatic' reasons is incorrect. To a large extent, it's accurate. However, the diplomatic reasons and the military ones are tied together, and both exist in most cases. US, USSR, Britain, France acquired them in the premodern era, and China had defensive reasons that were secondary to the diplomatic reasons (and also were premodern acquisitors).

Fair enough. I should have been clearer that this was my point too. The discussion in the thread didn't mention the diplomatic rationale, so I brought it up.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by snoopy369


That doesn't mean the powers that be will allow that The acquisition of nukes by other powers lessens the power of the US/UK/etc., thus they don't usually react positively to that possibility

If NK does go through with a successful nuke test, you can bet that in two years or less, Japan and SKorea will have their own nukes as well...

Meaning that all six members of the six-party talks will be nuclear states.

[SlowwHand]

South Korea just sent concrete to the North.
Yeah, they need nukes. Again, can't even build a road.

[Barnabas]

South africa wanted to use the nukes on blacks is case of a racial civil war

[snoopy369]

The nuclear position with India and Pakistan has quite clearly made both sides MORE safe in relation to each other. Pre-nuclear weapons, a slightly unbalanced leader and/or a perceived change in the balance of power could easily have caused either side to begin a conventional war against the other.

Now, there's little to no chance of that happening, as both sides, even the more crazed on both sides, understand the horrible consequences of any meaningful war (rather than just a border skirmish).

That's what I'd call more safe...

[snoopy369]

[q="LordShiva"]But Iran doesn't have the capability to strike the U.S. I find the diplomatic reason more compelling in this case.[/q]

Iran would not use them against the US. Iran would use them against any potential US ally, thus decreasing the potential group of US allies, and also decreasing the likelihood of the US actually invading, thus endangering those that do ally with the US. (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.)

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The nuclear position with India and Pakistan has quite clearly made both sides MORE safe in relation to each other. Pre-nuclear weapons, a slightly unbalanced leader and/or a perceived change in the balance of power could easily have caused either side to begin a conventional war against the other.

India had a conventional advantage before 1998; that was neutralized after India's tests induced Pakistan to do the same. Interestingly, the closest we've come to war since 1971 has been after 1998 - in Kargil (1999), and after the parliament bombing in 2001. Both times saw mass mobilisation on either side, and in the Kargil conflict Pakistani regulars even crossed the LoC and took up positions on Indian mountains.

In fact, if anything, nukes have made us LESS safe, in that they can encourage more adventurism on Pakistan's part. Elements in their military and intelligence services know that the bar for level of violence that would warrant a retaliatory response had been raised much, much higher since India will now consider the nuclear escalation possibility before retaliating.