7 ms·
Extremely worrying for South Korea and Japan. Not sure how China treats this. This is like a crazy neighbor who you learn just got a gun.
by FreedomToCreate 11y ago
Extremely worrying for South Korea and Japan. Not sure how China treats this. This is like a crazy neighbor who you learn just got a gun.
- dbcooper 11y agoI suspect that if they developed an H-bomb it would be due to China's assistance ...
- jjoonathan 11y agoI thought the only reason why China supported NK was because they don't want to clean up after a fallen regime and deal with the stream of refugees. Giving NK a H-bomb would not help with that goal, it'd increase instability if anything. I don't know much about geopolitics so I could be very wrong.
- dbcooper 11y agoNote the "if they developed". I don't think they tested an H-bomb.
- gizmo686 11y agoNK having an H-bomb makes it far less likely for other countries to try and destablize NK. Additionally, if they start to get destbalized, then having a bomb makes it far more likely that countries like the US would support the regime (because, as much as we do not like the idea of NK having a nuclear weapon, it is still preferable to all of the groups that will take control of it after NK falls)
- 1stop 11y agoThat doesn't make sense: The groups that would take control: Japan: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Korea: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Russia: Already have this tech China: Already have this tech USA: Already have this tech Or do you mean some minor group, rather than a state taking control of a failed NK?
- akerro 11y agoBut dropping a bomb like that on Japan, US, S. Korea will kill skilled, educated people, destroy their technology, infrastructure and put country to a recession. Dropping it on NK will, like, kill thousands of slaves and destroy no meaningful infrastructure.
- garrettgrimsley 11y ago>thousands of slaves People.
- corin_ 11y agoAgreed. But there's a potential moral debate to be had around the subject. Imagine if you were given this scenario: "x" people will be killed tomorrow, you can't change that. There are three options for which people will be killed, either "well-off", "in poverty" or "random". You can choose one of the three, if you don't make a choice then one of the three will be randomly picked and the deaths still occur. Would killing the people in poverty be better because you're wiping out more misery, would it be worse because you're letting financial state influence death? And as much as ethically we want to think that all people are equal, let's not forget that most armys would be willing to kill 10 opponents to save the life of 1 colleague, and taking the US as an example I suspect (could be wrong..) a poll of the US would see most people willing to kill 10 North Koreans to save the life of 1 American, without having any other information about the 11 people who might die.
- sbjustin 11y agoI think you could use anyone as an example. It's always easier to ignore people you don't know than the people you do. I imagine most people would pick a family member over people they don't know.
- hnal943 11y agoIt matters that they NK people are slaves to their government. Killing the people will not influence the government like it would in parts of the world with better morality.
- eklavya 11y agoPakistan's nuclear and missile program wouldn't be possible if not for China.
- sanoli 11y agoIn both these cases (NK and Pakistan, assuming NK got tech from China), was there a lot of money involved? I mean, does China do it also for the money, or is it mostly geopolitical influence?
- ckarmann 11y agoIf NK regime falls down, likely it's going to be South Korea who is going to get refugees and to clean up the mess, since their long-term objective is to unify Korea and only the NK regime is preventing that. The problem China does not want to have is a US ally at his border.
- chrisdevereux 11y agoI am 99% sure that both China and the US would be happy with a deal along the lines of "The regeime goes, but NK stays a Chinese satellite", assuming that such a deal were feasible without risking huge destruction and loss of life.
- Shivetya 11y agoat one time that might have been true but I would suspect that rational heads in China would not want to give such technology to an inherently unstable regime. Similar to how Russia operated, their allies might end up with nukes in their territory but they were Russian nukes, same as the US. In the last decade or two, I doubt China wants a more dangerous North Korea. It could be that NK is attempting to play China like it plays the rest of the world. We always assume China is pulling all the strings but maybe NK knows some strings it can pull too
- jandrese 11y agoWhat would the Chine government's motive be to help the Kim government upgrade to H-Bombs? They're already a political liability and most people in the region are nervous about them having atom bombs in the first place. It just seems like a bad idea.
- steve19 11y agoInstead of watching Chinese island building in the South China Sea, they will be looking East. Can't see China being upset about this.
- mc32 11y agoIt depends on what their calculus is. Getting to play in the south China sea at the expense of instability in east Asia is probably not the bargain they are after. NK is to China what the sidekick is to the strongman. or the Capo to the Godfather. He's insufferable and creates you headaches, and provides diversion, but he's your sidekick... except if you go to far one day, it'll be goodbye.
- foobarian 11y agoI wonder how much those countries profit from NK. A typical pattern with undeveloped countries is they give up resources cheaply in exchange for high tech.
- apocalyptic0n3 11y agoThis is more like that crazy neighbor getting a grenade and immediately removing the pin while walking near a crowd. It's Brick in the first Anchorman fight.
- 91bananas 11y agoBrick killed a guy! Yeah!
- Zelphyr 11y agoAnd we all know how fast that escalated. Seriously. They should probably find themselves a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoMixing up your analogies, but you never ever want to kill a guy standing in the crowd with an armed grenade.
- Htsthbjig 11y agoNot really. South Korea is used to it, in fact war never officially ended between NK and SK. North Korea always had guns and South Koreans are prepared for the worst. The only way the NK regime could survive(international aid) is looking crazy, but not too much. Too much and they will be wiped from the face of earth. Too little and they won't get aid, and people will revolt against people in power.
- ddoolin 11y agoThis "crazy neighbor" of ours got their gun a decade ago, not today.
- cpursley 11y agoDisagree. The chances of NK using a nuclear weapon offensively is 0.03% They're crazy in Pyongyang, but not stupid. Same situation if Iran builds one. Doing so would be suicide, and they know it. This is about defense. Also, I'm glad you brought up the point about a neighbor with the gun. When somebody has a gun, you're not likely to walk over and screw with them. Nuclear weapons have lead to a great peace between nation-states.
- cpursley 11y agoBy the way, I would like to see US & Russia decrease their nuclear arsenal size by half or more. But there's no denial that since the advent and usage of the nuclear weapon, there's been no major world war. We're in one of the, if not the most, peaceful times in recorded human history. Even considering the current instability in the middle east. http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
- dghughes 11y agoComing from a family that thinks they are Gods isn't crazy already?
- cpursley 11y agoThey don't actually believe they are Gods, of course. They project this image to maintain control of a brainwashed populace. I'd say their leadership is rather rational for their objective (which is to maintain total control and thwart intervention of the west).