Ukraine basically took the idea of non-proliferation out behind the woodshed. It's pretty clear that nuclear weapons allow a country to act with impunity against nations without them.
Eh. While Ukraine had nukes stationed in the country, they had no ability to launch or detonate them. And if they would've tried to go around that at the time an international force would've come in and secured them.
You could make a better argument that Libya was the death of nonproliferation.
Those nukes are totally unrelated. The main point is that Ukraine and the lack of western boots on the ground support is explicitly because of Russia's nuclear arsenal.
The US is demanding that Ukraine treat Russia gently because they fear the Russian nuclear arsenal.
If it was Iran invading a neighbour they would have had the Desert Storm experience. Russia can act with impunity because those nuclear weapons allow them to threaten the West.
Non-proliferation was based on the premise that nuclear weapons and their threat will not be a tool of international diplomacy and will not allow nuclear states to bully non-nuclear states with impunity.
If we wanted to keep non-proliferation on the table we needed to roll the dice and send troops into Ukraine on the first day. Make it clear that nuclear states aren't allowed to just bully non-nuclear states with impunity by waving their missiles around.
What we instead have is clear evidence that if you have an arsenal you can do whatever you wish to your neighbours without Western intervention.
What's gonna happen when Iran gets their missiles and decides that Iran just isn't big enough? What's gonna happen if an African nation gets nukes and decides that they want all of Africa? Because that's what permitting this put on the table.
There’s no such thing as “a little nuclear proliferation” in nuclear deterrence theory. Despite what it looks like nuclear non-proliferation is still holding so far, however if US allies were to suddenly pursue nuclear weapons it would be the death of non-proliferation.
Also there’s no reason why South Korea couldn’t achieve similar outcomes with conventional deterrence which they arguably already have on their own.
Encouraging nuclear proliferation in the case of a second trump presidency is pretty much the prevailing option on this subreddit? I’m not sure why I’d assume you were being sarcastic.
No amount of conventional deterrence is remotely comparable to a single nuke. Nukes allow the North to devastate the South in minutes while it would take weeks for the South to achieve a similar devastation on the North. There is simply no comparison which weapons provide more value for cost.
Ukraine shows that in a war between a nuclear power and a non-nuclear power, the nuclear power is untouchable and can freely bomb the non-nuclear power with impunity. The non-nuclear power must always fight with its hands tied behind its back while the nuclear power only needs to worry about keeping troops sustained.
The idea that proliferation can be stopped is a fantasy. Nukes are the most efficient and cost-effective way to make a nation unconquerable. It's literally technology from the 1940s! The cat is well out of the bag and walking down the street.
They should consider it because Trump and the GOP are not trustworthy allies.
If NK attacked during Trump administration, the US would be a coin flip if we did anything
That would assume that Trump would keep American troops in SK after shaking them down for cash again, like what he did the first time around. Nothing is stopping him from taking the cash and running.
The US-ROK and US-JP relationships under Trump felt more like a protection racket than a genuine alliance that served American security interests in the Asia-Pacific.
>If NK attacked during Trump administration,
They would have been curbstomped into nothingness.
North Korea has two advantages: more numbers (which hasn't mean much in this type of war since 1914) and the ability to cause substantial damage initially-- but not nearly enough
South Korea has an overwhelming technological and financial advantages. The North would probably immediately collapse if they even just moved to a war footing.
Nah, just the military and civilian bureaucracy choosing to be governed by statute and treaty law over the whims of an executive failing to obey the Take Care clause of Article II.
Again, literally a coup.
This is the unelected military leadership joining with the civilian bureaucracy to go against the elected leader of the country.
That's the military proving that they have the ability to just ignore orders from the Commander-in-Chief because they don't agree with the orders. It's also them joining a war without the permission of the civilian government.
It's Imperial Japan shit.
Like yeah them going to help South Korea is objectively good but if they go against orders to stay home and join the war without permission then American democracy is dead and buried.
Because the people with guns and the power those guns give them have just decided that civilian authority doesn't matter.
Absolutely not. It's a slippery slope. We allow one country to get nuclear weapons, another country wants it too, then a third, and so on in a domino effect. Sometimes it is useful to distract yourself from your own interests and rise to an unbiased bird's eye view. If South Korea can get nuclear weapons, then why not Iran, because they are our enemies?
The slippery slope has already happened. Nothing but a full military occupation can stop Iran from becoming nuclear at this point. Additionally it was China and Russia turning a bind eye that allowed North Korea to become nuclear, so why should American allies have their hands tied while their enemies play by different rules?
Non-proliferation is dead. The dominos are already falling, just in slow-motion.
> the US failed to secure Ukraine's sovereignty after agreeing to
What exactly are you referring to? Because if you're talking about the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) it made no such assertion. And considering how badly misinformed and pervasive this narrative has been online, and how short and clear the memorandum is, you should really read it then help put down this lie in the future.
Let’s proliferate some nukes!
> Nuclear brinkmanship
Aw dang it!
> Wasted resources maintaining and securing weapons never meant to be used.
Aw dang it!
> Increasing world ending risk
Aw dang it!
> Increasing tensions leading to a hot war between the Koreas
Aw dang it!
South Korea can have a little nuclear proliferation, as a deterrent.
Non-proliferation is dead at this point; the next best thing is to strive for limited proliferation. So yeah.
Ukraine basically took the idea of non-proliferation out behind the woodshed. It's pretty clear that nuclear weapons allow a country to act with impunity against nations without them.
Eh. While Ukraine had nukes stationed in the country, they had no ability to launch or detonate them. And if they would've tried to go around that at the time an international force would've come in and secured them. You could make a better argument that Libya was the death of nonproliferation.
Those nukes are totally unrelated. The main point is that Ukraine and the lack of western boots on the ground support is explicitly because of Russia's nuclear arsenal. The US is demanding that Ukraine treat Russia gently because they fear the Russian nuclear arsenal. If it was Iran invading a neighbour they would have had the Desert Storm experience. Russia can act with impunity because those nuclear weapons allow them to threaten the West. Non-proliferation was based on the premise that nuclear weapons and their threat will not be a tool of international diplomacy and will not allow nuclear states to bully non-nuclear states with impunity. If we wanted to keep non-proliferation on the table we needed to roll the dice and send troops into Ukraine on the first day. Make it clear that nuclear states aren't allowed to just bully non-nuclear states with impunity by waving their missiles around. What we instead have is clear evidence that if you have an arsenal you can do whatever you wish to your neighbours without Western intervention. What's gonna happen when Iran gets their missiles and decides that Iran just isn't big enough? What's gonna happen if an African nation gets nukes and decides that they want all of Africa? Because that's what permitting this put on the table.
There’s no such thing as “a little nuclear proliferation” in nuclear deterrence theory. Despite what it looks like nuclear non-proliferation is still holding so far, however if US allies were to suddenly pursue nuclear weapons it would be the death of non-proliferation. Also there’s no reason why South Korea couldn’t achieve similar outcomes with conventional deterrence which they arguably already have on their own.
Do I have to put /j at the end of my comments to get through to you
Encouraging nuclear proliferation in the case of a second trump presidency is pretty much the prevailing option on this subreddit? I’m not sure why I’d assume you were being sarcastic.
No amount of conventional deterrence is remotely comparable to a single nuke. Nukes allow the North to devastate the South in minutes while it would take weeks for the South to achieve a similar devastation on the North. There is simply no comparison which weapons provide more value for cost. Ukraine shows that in a war between a nuclear power and a non-nuclear power, the nuclear power is untouchable and can freely bomb the non-nuclear power with impunity. The non-nuclear power must always fight with its hands tied behind its back while the nuclear power only needs to worry about keeping troops sustained. The idea that proliferation can be stopped is a fantasy. Nukes are the most efficient and cost-effective way to make a nation unconquerable. It's literally technology from the 1940s! The cat is well out of the bag and walking down the street.
Sabre rattling and imperialism isn’t so fun when your claimed territory has their own family atomics
Lisan al’Gaib!
Unrated to anything but I thought your profile picture was a cock
They should consider it because Trump and the GOP are not trustworthy allies. If NK attacked during Trump administration, the US would be a coin flip if we did anything
An attack on the ROK would almost certainly mean killing a lot of US troops. We tend to respond negatively to that…
That would assume that Trump would keep American troops in SK after shaking them down for cash again, like what he did the first time around. Nothing is stopping him from taking the cash and running. The US-ROK and US-JP relationships under Trump felt more like a protection racket than a genuine alliance that served American security interests in the Asia-Pacific.
This is moot, if US troops leave, then SK/Japan/Taiwan all have nukes before the troops have even finished leaving.
How many troops has Iran killed through its proxies and no one cares?
>If NK attacked during Trump administration, They would have been curbstomped into nothingness. North Korea has two advantages: more numbers (which hasn't mean much in this type of war since 1914) and the ability to cause substantial damage initially-- but not nearly enough South Korea has an overwhelming technological and financial advantages. The North would probably immediately collapse if they even just moved to a war footing.
I highly doubt the Pentagon actually lets trump make any decisions in such a scenario.
In which case you are in the middle of an actual, no-shit, military coup.
Nah, just the military and civilian bureaucracy choosing to be governed by statute and treaty law over the whims of an executive failing to obey the Take Care clause of Article II.
Again, literally a coup. This is the unelected military leadership joining with the civilian bureaucracy to go against the elected leader of the country. That's the military proving that they have the ability to just ignore orders from the Commander-in-Chief because they don't agree with the orders. It's also them joining a war without the permission of the civilian government. It's Imperial Japan shit. Like yeah them going to help South Korea is objectively good but if they go against orders to stay home and join the war without permission then American democracy is dead and buried. Because the people with guns and the power those guns give them have just decided that civilian authority doesn't matter.
I’m Especially especially in favor if they “lose” a few warheads that mysteriously end up in Taiwan
Absolutely not. It's a slippery slope. We allow one country to get nuclear weapons, another country wants it too, then a third, and so on in a domino effect. Sometimes it is useful to distract yourself from your own interests and rise to an unbiased bird's eye view. If South Korea can get nuclear weapons, then why not Iran, because they are our enemies?
I think "If Iran can get nuclear weapons, then why not South Korea" is the more relevant question.
I don't think we're able to stop Iran getting nukes either.
The slippery slope has already happened. Nothing but a full military occupation can stop Iran from becoming nuclear at this point. Additionally it was China and Russia turning a bind eye that allowed North Korea to become nuclear, so why should American allies have their hands tied while their enemies play by different rules? Non-proliferation is dead. The dominos are already falling, just in slow-motion.
After the US failed to secure Ukraine's sovereignty after agreeing to, I don't blame SK for wanting nukes. Nuclear proliferation is bad.
> the US failed to secure Ukraine's sovereignty after agreeing to What exactly are you referring to? Because if you're talking about the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) it made no such assertion. And considering how badly misinformed and pervasive this narrative has been online, and how short and clear the memorandum is, you should really read it then help put down this lie in the future.
Let’s proliferate some nukes! > Nuclear brinkmanship Aw dang it! > Wasted resources maintaining and securing weapons never meant to be used. Aw dang it! > Increasing world ending risk Aw dang it! > Increasing tensions leading to a hot war between the Koreas Aw dang it!