North Korea likely to carry out nuclear test

Good, this is what I want.

For far too long the US has remained unchallenged and I respect NK's right to nuclear weaponry as much as I respect the US's.

Why did we go to help the libyans and not the north koreans who are the most opressed people in the world? Makes no sense at all. We invaded countries for no reason and the one country in the world which needs to be invaded is never even touched. Makes you question the real intentions of our politicians.

For the first few decades after the Korean war the DPRK had the support of China and the USSR and hence couldn't be invaded without causing World War III. In more recent decades they built up enough chemical weapons and artillery to destroy Seoul; South Korea's capital meaning that any invasion would have a high cost for South Koreans. In the last decade they have acquired nuclear weaponry and are trying to acquire long range missiles so that they can force other nations to stay out of their planned war against the South.

I sincerely admire North Korea, the inhabitants have no conditions for life, they live very badly, but they have national dignity. The truth is that they live under a dictatorship, but it does not bow to anyone and nobody listening,

So you want North Korea's stalinist regime to be completely invincible and capable of defeating South Korea? Why?

Do you just oppose US policies for the sake of opposing US policy even if it leads to disaster?

I would rather live under the rule of the US than in a world in which North Korea has nuclear weapons.

X

Lol the Western allies stockpile nuclear weapons like it's no man's business and is surprised when 'the East' wants to do the same? Absolute joke.

By no means do I think that nuclear weapons are a good thing for our shared humanity, but hey - what right does the United States have to argue against their claim for nuclear weapons when they themselves have more than every nation except Russia? As far as I'm concerned, North Korea has as valid and legitimate a right to nuclear weapons as the rest of us.

Any disagreement is just a double standard.

"Whaaattt?? They want to have weapons too? Well that's preposterous! Only we are allowed to rape, pillage and invade foreign third world nations! Only we're allowed to stockpile the most deadly weapons on the planet! This is an outrage! Their claim to nuclear technology is an affront to peace and love!!1 What's that? Our weapons? Oh, don't be silly, we only carry nuclear trident missiles of love, we're the good guys, don't worry!"


Pshh..

You're clearly new to geopolitics, so I'll attempt to explain this in the easiest way possible: some countries cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Yes, that's right! Some countries - and I hope your bleeding liberal heart is still beating in your chest so you can comprehend this fully - would misuse nuclear weapons. Blab all you like about Western imperialism, but the West is safe. Besides Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have never been used by one nation against another. Reasoning that just because the United States has nukes, that all countries should be free to acquire them is signing your own death warrant. If we let North Korea - a staunchly anti-Western nation always on the brink of war with its neighbour - have nuclear weapons, then why shouldn't we let the suicidal mullahs in Iran have them? I'm sure they can be trusted!

Ah yes, 'the west is safe'. Unfortunately, the west has also been stamping its foot of self-interested foreign policy since the inception of post-WWII politics. From coups to illegal wars, the United States is willing to destroy democracy and kill aplenty, so long as it meets a US-friendly agenda.

The truth is, NK's military record is squeeky clean in comparison to the US's reign of bloodshed (and no, I'm not being ironic). Whether it's the use of systematic rape or white phosphorous or napalm, it's all A-okay with the USA so long as it means something beneficial for them. I feel much safer with a nuclear warhead aimed squarely at Los Angeles to keep the US in check than I do with unchallenged hegemony.

This is a misnomer. A nuclear deterrent doesn't even in the slightest make a nation 'invincible'. It is exactly what it is; a deterrent.

I oppose US policy because its (generally speaking) worse for the world. It acts only in its own interests without concern for other nations.

The United States is far, FAR from perfect, but I'd take them running the world any day over a nuclear holocaust, or Iran or North Korea being in the same position.

The effect that their possession of nukes would have is that it would be impossible for any nation to defeat North Korea without taking heavy casualties - it would be effectively unassailable and hence for all intents and purposes invincible.

In any case you have avoided my point with semantics; why do you want North Korea's Stalinist dictatorship to become effectively unassailable?

Even in cases where US policy is objectively better for the world?

In this case its policy protects South Korea from its crazy totalitarian neighbour - if you oppose that then you are opposing US policy for the sake of opposing US policy.

I'm going to address the only relevant point you've made.

If you're willing to ignore the reign of tyranny that the United States is willing to enact, that's up to you. Realistically speaking, we live in a safer world where the United States' power is kept in check by the fact that the countries' it chooses to bully have the option to nuke them into the ground. It's a fail safe. Your judgement of the situation is at the behest of the belief that NK nuclear arms = nuclear holocaust, an assessment that a) isn't true and b) ignores the reality of US hegemony. This has nothing to do with 'yank bashing' and everything to do with exposing the reality of US foreign policy - something which makes you look every bit as brainwashed and lemming-like as you describe North Koreans.

It acts as a measure of protection against foreign aggressors and provides the same fail-safe that a nuclear provides anyone - the UK for example. I have no desire to see North Korea 'defeated', for some misaligned belief that western hegemony must be maintained. In any case, their conventional military is piss poor. They are 'invincible' only against the threat of being invaded Iraq-style, a fail-safe that all nations should hold against US aggression.

As I pointed out, it only makes a power unassailable in terms of the ability of foreign nations to rip apart the state completely. A right that all people, including Brits have.

This doesn't happen.

Such is the resolve of individuals so entrenched in a perpetual state of existential fear...

As stated over and over (and I'm not going to repeat myself again). It is a deterrent and NK is subject to the same rules of reality as anyone, regardless of your opinion. It is subject to MAD, and in reality the deterrent is a fail-safe against people like you: those who insist that foreign nations leave their vulnerabilities open for exploitation, just in the invent that we have some desire to invade and destroy.

And I insist that we prevent North Korea from closing its vulnerabilities because I want to see its government annihilated. I don't even care who does it; even if Russia or China did it that would be preferrable to the status quo.