North Korean Nuclear Weapons

Should North Korea be allowed to become a nuclear power/amass a nuclear arsenal?

Why, or why not?

General Discussion thread regarding their most recent nuclear test:
North Korean Nuclear Test

 

They clearly should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I think a better question would be how the international community should handle the situation.

 

I personally don't believe that North Korea should be allowed to build or amass nuclear weapons. With Kim Jong-un's temperament any perceived slight towards him/or the country, it could/more than likely would lead to a nuclear war. As for how the international community should handle the situation, even harsher trade sanctions and the refusal of dealing with them may work. Otherwise i do believe the only other option would be war.

 

How should the international community enforce banning them from having nukes?

 

Unfortunately i haven't fully fleshed out my thoughts on how to enforce banning them from having nukes, the only thing i could truly think of right now is finding a way to work with china to enforce more trade sanctions with the possibility of completely cutting trade off until they either meet the demands on the UN, Or something along those lines.

 

Personally I wish the USA would just invade North Korea and overthrow Kim Jong-un. Fuck letting them having any weapons under their current leader. Sadly I don't think it'll happen with liberals in power preaching war = terriorism.

 

North Korea is honestly too volatile of a nation, if you can even call it one, to be harboring weapons of mass destruction. From what I can tell, their leader is quite the egotist and will not hesistate to make his presence known, using whatever tactics that are at his disposal. As a result, I am strongly against a North Korea that has access to an arsenal of Nuclear weapons.

 

War with North Korea would likely end with millions of deaths and once it was over it would cost trillions of dollars to reintegrate North Korea into a unified Korea. It's really not feasible at all.

 

Millions of deaths for the Koreans maybe. In Vietnam USA suffered approximately ~40,000 deaths compared to 2 million from Vietn. I wasn't entirely serious with invading North Korea, but I think it's disgusting the way their citizens are treated and I feel horrible no one is trying to stop it. I have no idea how to stop it without war, but I can say pretty confidently letting them have Nukes is not it.

 

Well if you are invading them to improve the lives of their citizens and end up killing millions of them, you pretty much failed your objective.

 

Why should they clearly be forbidden to have nuclear weapons? What gives the U.S. The right to have nuclear weapons, but forbid others from the same?

How would it lead to nuclear war? Outside of propaganda there is no credible evidence that NK would truly attempt to start a war with any of its' neighboring countries; rather, the NK could potentially use nuclear weapons as a means to lift itself into the world community and be recognized as a legitimate power. You can argue the leader is volatile, but is the leader suicidal?

How should the U.S. Go about invading the likes of NK? What about the likes of China and Russia? North Korea may be isolated, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum and any invasion could lead to an even larger conflict between bigger and stronger nations.

They already have weapons (estimated to be around 5), but they lack a delivery system.

Also, I don't understand your last comment, but it sounds rather close-minded.

Why wouldn't it be a nation-state? An entity has control of it's borders and a monopoly on the use of violence so that meets the definition of a state pretty well. It may be that of a totalitarian state, but that doesn't make it not a state; rather, just a type of state you may not agree with.

Surely Kim Jong Un loves making his presence known, but there is a continuing cycle of NK doing something the international community doesn't like and stating it will stop upon continuation of more international aid, further prolonging his rule (and isn't that what those in power want? To remain in power longer?)

 

Countries don't have rights. North Korea is an unstable country ruled by an insane tyrant that constantly threatens the entire world with destruction and attacks its southern neighbor unprovoked.

 

Do they not have rights? The right called soverignty and the ability to do whatever within their own borders?

How is North Korea unstable? Have their been uprisings in NK? A recent civil war? Mass protests and actions by the people of NK

How is NK threatening the entire world? NK does not have the power or ability to project power outside of it's region. At least not hard power, there is an elite hacking unit in NK, but is that really power projection as cyber warfare that is constant among states?

Outside of the Korean War, when has NK actively attacked South Korea? There have been contentious incidents such as the SK vessel that was attacked at sea, but there has not been an actual attack on the state of SK since the cease-fire; if there was, war would begin again.

 

I don't think they should be able to get nuclear weapons. Look at their leader, he is a joke. You don't want to give someone like that so much power.

 

Why is he a joke?

Why do we get to decide if they get "that much power"?

 

I think he is trying to say that given Kim Jong Un's behavioral record and current political standpoint he is not the kind of person who ought to be trusted with the likes of nuclear weaponry.

 

hes a leader for a reason

 

So for you there is no difference between a leader and a tyrant, then?

 

havent seen north korea off the map yet, pretty sure it should be gone by now if that was the case.

 

Could I not argue the same for the likes of Donald Trump? Un does not exist in a vacuum and has advisors and such; furthermore, even if there is a perception about his "behavioral record", why does that disqualify his state from having nuclear weapons. Access to nuclear weapons does not necessarily require usage of them.

Are you implying a tyrant cannot be a leader? History would tell you some tyrants have been very good leaders.