North Korean Nuclear Weapons

The world is sick. They're just doing all the bad visible, people don't realize how bad the situation really is deep inside. And how fucking twisted the government and lead of the world is.

But OT : why the fuck should anyone have one.. but at least isis or NK.

NK lives in MASS PSYHOSIC. Why are you defending the country for it actions, do you realize what's going on there?

Why won't they be stopped is because it would bring out too much of hassle and china is still their friend country a long with (russia) has to be. But imo like said above, all the traffic there whats sent out of the nk (food, electronic. Everything) should be shut down.

 

Could you elaborate in this, please? I'm very confused.

I never said a word about believing he should be disqualified from anything.

Tyrants are rulers, not leaders. If you ask me, tyranny is no substitute for leadership and should never be confused with leadership. Although I'm now curious as to which historical figures you're referring to.

 

They already have nuclear weapons, what they don't have yet is a missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the United States. Even if they did it would get shot down pretty quickly as the United States has patriot missile launchers in South Korea as well as many other countries along the way to the United States.

Invade North Korea? They have the largest paramilitary force in the entire world. If anything the United States would use air power to take out their nuclear bases while sending in small groups to ensure the success of the mission.

 

Fair enough

Can tyranny and leadership not coincide? Tyrants are effectively leading their population and Kim Jong Un is heavily revered in NK.

Stereotypical examples come to mind such as Hitler and Cesar. Hitler was a very good leader and became an authoritarian and totalitarian leader (effectively a tyrant). Cesar again was a very good leader and decided to condense all power under himself (leading to his death, but still).

I suppose the difference would lie in Kim not working for his power, rather, it was bestowed upon him.

 

No they shouldn't. They're unstable and are a massive threat to everything around them.
Not much of a debate here. They commit massive injustices to their own population and threaten war all the time.

Remember that Nukes are massive tools of death.

 

How are they an unstable country?

Many states of bordering states they're unfriendly with (look at the middle east), does this mean none of them should get nuclear weapons?

Does massive injustices to their own population coincide with their ability to control nuclear weaponry?

Threatening war is problematic, but much of NK's actions can be looked at through a perception of "Let's say/do something outrageous so we can get some more international funding because everyone is starving."

 

This isn't a discussion. Anyone who intends to start war and actively use a nuclear weapon shouldn't own them, period.

 

My questions remain valid and unanswered.

Testing and using nuclear weapons are hardly comparable (the U.S. alone has done in excess of 1,000 nuclear tests) and threats of war and planning on going to war are also two very different scenarios.

The U.S. has gone to war a multitude of times, but they have nuclear weapons? They're also the only state to have ever used nuclear weapons (in a conflict).

 

Answer me this.

Does this US threaten to NUKE various countries around the world on a regular basis?

 

No, but the U.S. Is still the sole superpower and does not have to use nuclear weapons as a way to provide legitimacy; rather, they have international institutions that work for them alongside their massive GDP and various other "tools."

 

Tyranny and leadership cannot coincide as far as I'm concerned, because I believe them to be vastly different, if not total opposites. Tyrants may appear to "lead" people but upon further inspection it becomes clear that this is not the case. The most glaring difference to me is the unfailing trend of tyrants to consolidate absolute power for themselves and themselves alone. However, that is not the sole distinction to be made. For example:


Leaders:

• Are primarily concerned with the cause, organization, or people being lead.
  
• Increase trust & support through intrinsic motivation without the need for coercion or punishment.
• Express genuine empathy for others.
  
• Tend to be responsible individuals with an internal locus of control.
• Are consistent, reliable, and stable.

Some examples of leaders include George Washington, Catherine the Great, Mahatma Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. By contrast...

​

Tyrants:

• Are primarily concerned only for themselves and their personal agenda/interests.
• Increase fear & support through extrinsic motivation, often through coercion or punishment.
• Express apathy for others and tend to be deceitful & manipulative, giving the illusion of empathy.
• Tend to be irresponsible individuals with an external locus of control.
• Are volatile, unpredictable and unstable.

Some examples of tyrants include Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, etc.

 

Send the USS Zumwalt guided missile destroyer to South Korea