Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes (Read 123 times)
Nazi Hunter B.S.C.
LNF Speaker
*****
Online

Bronze Swimming Certificate

Posts: 12,944
Location: Internet
Joined: Mar 21st, 2014
Gender: Male
Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Sep 8th, 2017 at 10:37am
Print Post  
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-case-for-letting-north-korea-keep-its-nu...

Intriguing case for letting N.K. remain armed with nuclear capabilities.  The suggestion is that a policy known as "Deterrance," adopted by Reagan during the cold war, is the solution.  The notion is that you contain the threat without trying to eliminate the threat completely.  It worked against The Soviet Union, perhaps it can work in North Korea as well.

Another important point is that as brutal and callous, even to his own people, as the Kim regime seems to be, they are rational and have been deterred from trying anything in the south nicely.  The Kim's are mostly interested in survival, keeping the regime intact.  They know that while they may be able to kick us in the nuts, any real conflict with the U.S. would mean their utter destruction.  They remember how close they were to losing it all in the Korean war, only thanks to China's intervention did they survive.  They will never disarm their nuclear capabilities, so we ought to live with a nuclear N.K.

I honestly believe that Kim honestly believes that America wants to do him in and will if he doesn't develop his nukes.  He remembers what happened to Kaddafi and Saddam, both rulers were easily toppled after they gave up their nukes and were deemed a threat by the U.S.

Also...

Couldn't the 2nd amendment, in spirit, be applied to N.K.'s regime?  Do they have a right to chart their own destiny, sans threat of invasion and foreign tyranny?  Maybe since N.K. is undeniably naughty and breaks the rules, they are considered a felon and lose their right to bear arms?

Shouldn't the spirit and essence of our notion of freedom be accorded to all, even those poor unfortunate souls unlucky enough to be not actually born here?  Crappity smack them?

  

"Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Hard Battle" Plato
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Original Wally
Hardhat
Conservative Caucus
*****
Offline

Cunning... is but the
low mimic of wisdom ~Plato

Posts: 17,035
Location: Upstate New York
Joined: Feb 24th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #1 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 11:26am
Print Post  
Deterrence of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was useful during the COld War because both the Soviet Union and the United States were rational actors.  The entire 'nuclear club' has long recognized the problem of nuclear proliferation to a rouge state, such as NK and Iran.
  

" The few will always act like the few.

Machiavelli

Back to top
WWWAIM  
IP Logged
 
Greg55_99
LNF Bunker
**
Offline

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 24,551
Joined: Jun 9th, 2006
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #2 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 2:09pm
Print Post  
What do you mean "let them keep them"?  How are you going to take them away?

Greg
  

&&&&"You want the TRUTH? You can't handle THE TRUTH!!"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
forgotten centrist
LNF Speaker
*****
Online

bring back the middle
class!

Posts: 11,012
Joined: Sep 29th, 2004
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #3 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 2:21pm
Print Post  
The risk here is that lil' Kim is an inherently unstable warden of a nuclear arsenal.  If he is making decisions based on what is best for NK, or even just the NK government at-large, he can be counted on to not fire a first strike.

But if he is making decisions based on his own personal safety and on the care and feeding of an ego that has been inflated since birth, then you can't expect him to be constrained by MAD.

Specifically, there are periodic threats of coups-d'etat and other rebellions.  If one of them is looking successful enough to unseat him (and thus directly endanger his life), it is entirely possible that he'll have the launch codes on his person AND be motivated to use them as a screw-you to whatever demons happen to be haunting him at the moment.
  

Nominated for 2016...
- Liberal of the Year
- Conservative of the Year
- Centrist of the Year
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nazi Hunter B.S.C.
LNF Speaker
*****
Online

Bronze Swimming Certificate

Posts: 12,944
Location: Internet
Joined: Mar 21st, 2014
Gender: Male
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #4 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:24pm
Print Post  
The Original Wally wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 11:26am:
Deterrence of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was useful during the COld War because both the Soviet Union and the United States were rational actors.  The entire 'nuclear club' has long recognized the problem of nuclear proliferation to a rouge state, such as NK and Iran. 


One of the counter arguments is deterrence won't work with them but not because they are irrational.  The regime is actually quite rational and will seemingly stop at nothing to stay in power.  That means not starting an all out war, something they know they can not win.  They can only deter us by threatening to level Seol should we invade.
  

"Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Hard Battle" Plato
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nazi Hunter B.S.C.
LNF Speaker
*****
Online

Bronze Swimming Certificate

Posts: 12,944
Location: Internet
Joined: Mar 21st, 2014
Gender: Male
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #5 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:26pm
Print Post  
Greg55_99 wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 2:09pm:
What do you mean "let them keep them"?  How are you going to take them away?

Greg


We are trying to sanction him so he disarms, maybe you missed that part.  The whole idea is that Kim gives up his nuclear ambition and agrees to inspections yadda yadda, same way we got Saddam and Kadafi.
  

"Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Hard Battle" Plato
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
USyeah
LNF Majority Leader
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 5,187
Joined: Jul 12th, 2016
Gender: Male
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #6 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:34pm
Print Post  
Greg55_99 wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 2:09pm:
What do you mean "let them keep them"?  How are you going to take them away?

Greg



Trivia Question :

what country has ever been prevented from keeping nukes after developing them?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
forgotten centrist
LNF Speaker
*****
Online

bring back the middle
class!

Posts: 11,012
Joined: Sep 29th, 2004
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #7 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:37pm
Print Post  
I know!  I know!
  

Nominated for 2016...
- Liberal of the Year
- Conservative of the Year
- Centrist of the Year
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Original Wally
Hardhat
Conservative Caucus
*****
Offline

Cunning... is but the
low mimic of wisdom ~Plato

Posts: 17,035
Location: Upstate New York
Joined: Feb 24th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #8 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:38pm
Print Post  
Nazi Hunter B.S.C. wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:24pm:
One of the counter arguments is deterrence won't work with them but not because they are irrational.  The regime is actually quite rational and will seemingly stop at nothing to stay in power.  That means not starting an all out war, something they know they can not win.  They can only deter us by threatening to level Seol should we invade.

I don't disagree with what you say.  Both Kims and their grandpappy have used threats and intimidation to blackmail concessions.  The most likely scenario is a far worse situation than we have now, with NK both demanding more concessions through increased threats as they acquire a larger and larger nuclear arsenal and more capable ICBMS.  They might well proliferate such WMD's to any of our enemies, too,

The problem we now face is "Pay me now or pay me later"  Even though the price is enormous now, the price of allowing NK to achieve the capability of destroying America is far worse!
  

" The few will always act like the few.

Machiavelli

Back to top
WWWAIM  
IP Logged
 
Limey
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 15,604
Location: the County Palatine
Joined: Dec 14th, 2012
Re: Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes
Reply #9 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:39pm
Print Post  
USyeah wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:34pm:
Trivia Question :

what country has ever been prevented from keeping nukes after developing them? 


Israel!!


No... Wait.... Pakistan!!!

No, no.... India!


France?

.... China...? America??? UK?


USSR?

I give up.
  

Under Capitalism, Man exploits Man.

Under Communism, it's the exact opposite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › Letting N.K. Keep it's Nukes

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules