What a bunch of bull..
I will reply only on this one, promised, then stop as we are going off-topic and I do not want to get caught off-topic again.
So, my reply and then stop.
If you wish to continue on this topic, please open another thread.
Here's the difference. The US has a lot of nukes, but it is extremely unlikely that we would give them to anyone to use.
"We” what?
Are you the president of the US?
If not, dear, you count nothing on this and you can not give any nuke to any one.
Sorry for that.
As for the Government of the US giving nukes to anyone, this is not what I was talking about since the US Government can give orders to the US military to use such nukes
The arsenal of nukes the US holds on to, currently are largely a relic of the cold war, and primarily serve as a deterrent for other nations who also have arsenals of world destroyer weapons to not use them.
BS again.
The NPT requires countries with nukes to get rid of them, and Russia and the US, India, China are not.
At least, India and China adopt the minimum deterrent policy, Russia and the US do not.
As for the “deterrent” argument, you fail to realize that it is reflexive.
Iran on the other hand does have a lot of friends and groups they support who include the goal of killing millions of people as their primary missions. In addition, the Iranian government itself regularly states that carrying out mass genocide would be a great thing to do that they would really like to be able follow through on sometime.
This is crap propaganda that only people brainwashed by Fox News may believe.
Not worth an answer.
Mixing nukes with a country that regularly publically fantasizes about wiping other countries off the map is a very bad idea.
See above.
"Wipe off the map" was a lie made up by Western media. Go get informed.
Even kids know this by now.
The instability of the N. Korean regime which every so often bombs South Koreans and kills massive numbers of their own citizens is also a very problematic mixture for nuclear weapons.
Certainly true.
Considering the fact that most NK leaders, should the regime fall tomorrow, would probably be sent to The Hague for war crimes and imprisoned for the rest of their lives, I fail to see how threatening the NK regime may make them willing to do some concession and not instead push them even further into developing nukes.
In comparison, very few people are worried that France will ever launch off a nuclear weapon. They have a strong government, and little reason to use their nukes.
Sure.
What about the US with Iran?
Did the US rule out using nukes against Iran?
I remember the good old “all the options are on the map”
Why then Iran should trust the US if the US is giving no guarantee to Iran?
N. Korea on the other hand survives through fear, cult propaganda, the food aid of outside countries, and mass torture, slave labor, and mass executions. All of those factors create a very unstable country whose full reliance on outside countries for their survival requires that they continually take drastic steps to maintain power.
Agreed.
And how threatening North Korea of military action would move NK leaders to seek peace and not instead do everything they can to stick to power ?
China, the US, and South Korea will not let N. Korea become a fully failed state, for the very reason that the increased instability from that situation would be a danger to everyone in the region. Something that no one has to worry about with a country like France.
Last time I checked, it was China one of the main supporters of NK, and one of the reasons discussed was the China does not want an US proxy near their borders (an unified Korea).
Not that this justifies China` s behaviour
Whether the general was actually killed by a mortar is unverifiable, but his reported killing does follow a long pattern of high level executions since Jong Un took power. A pattern that makes it a lot less likely that there would be any need for Western media to fabricate the story. Unusual stories take more review of their authenticity, but the only thing unusual about this story was the way that the general was killed, not why, or whether he it would be likely that he could have been killed. Largely because of that fact, most opposition to the story is more related to antipathy toward the West in general rather than serious analysis.
All media, including Western ones, have the tendency to stretch, fabricate, spin and twist news according to their needs.
