As speculation mounts that Kim Jong-un and Trump could meet this month, analysts say Pyongyang will continue to see nuclear weapons as a matter of survival
North Korea’s launch last week of a missile from a naval destroyer elicited an uncharacteristically prosaic analysis from the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The launch was proof, he said, that arming ships with nuclear weapons was “making satisfactory progress”.
But the test, and Kim’s mildly upbeat appraisal, were designed to reverberate well beyond the deck of the 5,000-tonne destroyer-class vessel the Choe Hyon – the biggest warship in the North Korean fleet.
His pointed reference to nuclear weapons was made as the US and Israel continued their air bombardment of Iran – a regime Donald Trump had warned, without offering evidence, was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.
That’s because nukes ARE the only path to security lmao. As soon as the first one was tested, and then fuck me used against civilians everyone watching jnmed understood this.
It sucks, and I would much prefer a world without nuclear weapons, but this is reality unfortunately. If you have nukes, you have leverage without ever having to use them
we were working toward a way for a world without nukes. building an economy so interconnected that going to war with another country destroys your economy too. but that shit is fragile. i didn’t think it was this fragile tho.
Too bad that ideology drove wealth inequality which empowered populism which empowered fascism which destroyed the interconnected economy. Neoliberalism was never a solution to peace.
who said an interconnected economy needs to be neoliberal?
…The great project you were referring to was a neoliberal one…
The economy in the USA can still get a lot worse!
This is the plot of metal gear
Metal gear?!
used against civilians
Uhhhh…
I don’t quite know how to break it to you but:
-
There’s no other way to use a nuke, they cover too wide an area.
-
Killing civilians was the norm in WW2, every war before that, and the vast majority of every war since.
Like, if the nukes on Japan wouldn’t have been dropped, it would have had to be more firebombing and then a ground invasion.
Firebombings which still had a higher kill count in Japan than both nukes combined.
The entire point of a nuke, is that all it takes is a single one to wipe out entire square miles of a city. There’s no way to do that without civilian casualties, and it’s only a matter of time until one gets thru defenses.
You don’t know me so you would have no way of knowing this about me, but yes I am very familiar with all the tradeoffs and decision making in this part of WW2 around ground assault vs nukes and continued bombing etc 🙌
I am very familiar with all the tradeoffs and decision making
Another Godzilla connoisseur, I see.
You clearly believe so…
But that’s not the impression one gets from the words you type.
✌️
-
That’s the overwhelming message of the 20th and 21st centuries. If you don’t have nukes then the US or Russia is gonna mess with you. Get nukes.
Secretly get nukes.
All but impossible, the major players keep an eye on all the things necessary for nuclear weapons.
Just do what Pakistan did and make a publicized nuclear team and nuclear infrastructure that acts as the fall guy for the real nuclear team and real infrastructure.
Also probably maybe have a government and military that isn’t susceptible to espionage.
Am Canadian. Want nukes.
I’m an American. I want nukes. Not for my country, me specifically. We should legalize the private ownership of nuclear bombs!
Checks and balances.
I know that it’s an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe that we were at least marginally safer when the USSR was still a superpower acting as a check on American fuckery.
Once the USSR fell, US went masks off on the international stage because they had no reason to pretend to be the good guys anymore.
They convinced all their allies to disarm themselves, and then went full “nice country here…shame if something happened to it” the moment they were the only big dog left.
The world can’t re-arm itself fast enough as far as I’m concerned.
Better to have it and not need it. You can only have respect when your facing someone at an equal level of power and respect. Clearly even if some administration does have love for your people the next administration might not.
Once the USSR fell
For a brief time with Yeltsin at the helm.
Anyone who didn’t learn that lesson from Ukraine is a fucking idiot
They had nukes, and gave them away after assurances if Russia invaded they’d be defended.
Instead we left them out to dry and started another war instead
We did send them aid. And then the administration changed. My point is, I agree. You should never trust someone else with your own protection. Ukraine got a major economic boon from disarming. And soft protection but donating to the local police force doesn’t really help in when someone decides to walk into your house anyway.
We did send them aid.
We pledged armies…
30 years ago Ukraine was the 3rd largest nuclear superpower in the world.
They didn’t trade that for a couple crates of old ARs and malfunctioning body armor
Ukraine got a major economic boon from disarming.
Completely wiped out by the multiple Russian invasions…
They traded real security for comfort, and comfort always can be taken away.
It’s almost impossible to get real.security, look at Iran.
Like, there’s no rational reason for a sovereign country not to be developing their own nukes these days. And that’s dangerous
Yeah, I don’t disagree. That’s what happened. They confused economic power with defense. Maybe if it wasn’t putin they were trying to stop it would have been better for them.
They essentially traded a gun for a job and a restraining order. But also consider that the economic ties they gained by giving up their nukes. Bought them time and capital to build up their own military power enough to fight off Russia decades years later. They may not win this, but at the time the only thing they had were nukes.
Ukraine made the choice to try to build itself up more. I don’t fault them for that. Geopolitics is a messy 4-D chess game.
You just can’t really predict individual elements. When they declared independence putin was just a little shit stain and the billionaires in Russia were still fighting among each other to secure wealth and power.
At the time, Ukraine giving up it’s nukes fast tracked it to the 1st world. Yeah, it sucks that it played out this way. But it wasn’t on its face a bad plan.
If they had a 40 year old nuclear arsenal and matching tech they might not be at war right now, but they also probably wouldn’t be Ukraine either.
but at the time the only thing they had were nukes.
Wildly incorrect…
Like just look at any map, Ukraine was the front line to Europe, think about how much military is built up in Texas because it’s a border. Ukraine had a shit ton of all types of weaponry when the USSR dissolved
Weapony that the former USSR had claim to and would have been a justification for intervention. I’m not going to sit here and pretend I know the nuances of the fall of the USSR. I was 3. But I can see enough to know that at the time, Ukraine made the smart play for the foreseeable future. In 1994. In hindsight, it should have held its nukes. In the moment, throwing down that sword gave it a seat at the world table.
Weapony that the former USSR had claim to and would have been a justification for intervention.
Hate to break it to ya…
But after the dissolution of the USSR, there wasn’t anymore USSR.
Russia had claim to those weapons, just like the nukes.
Ukraine kept the conventional equipment, and gave up the nukes back to Russia instead.
This isn’t a hypothetical, this is what happened, and if you don’t know what happened, it’s hard to trust you on hypotheticals. Youre making them without all the facts
Look, I’m not really into how hot you’re being about this. Little nitpicking like that doesn’t strike me as good faith discussion. Especially when I haven’t exactly been adverse to a few of your points. If you want to talk, cool, if you want to argue, scroll on.
Thank you.
And Libya before Ukraine. Gaddafi complied with the West’s demands to dismantle his country’s nuclear program. In return for his cooperation, the US and NATO later backed rebel groups and had his government overthrown. This ultimately resulted in him being raped in the ass with a bayonet.
Budapest Ignorandum
They had nukes
They had nukes under a Moscow-aligned government. They surrendered those nukes to win trade concessions from their Western partners.
Had they keep their weapons, they’d have had a much larger contingent of Russian military personal in the country for the next 30 years.
Instead we left them out to dry
We’ve sent them hundreds of billions of dollars in military hardware, mercenary staff, and logistical support.
They’re losing the war because NATO underestimated the offensive capability of the Russian military, especially over an enormous front line. Not because they lack raw firepower.
What do you think would have happened after Russia crossed into the Donbas over cross border shelling? Would Zelensky have responded by… nuking half the Oblast? Or are you suggesting everyone should start flinging nukes at each other’s capital cities?
I still think they’re loosing because Elon musk is a piece of shit. He hobbled their counter offensive that might have given them the breathing room to end the war. War is a collection of key moments and he stuck his dick in the gears during one of them when he shut down starlink
He hobbled their counter offensive
He extended state-of-the-art telecommunications on contract from the US, then yanked it back because he wanted more money. Which is what private industry always does, the moment they see an opportunity to squeeze someone for extra juice.
I’m personally of the opinion that the NATO block doesn’t want this war to end, because they see it as a way to bleed both Ukraine and Russia until they’re weak enough to re-colonize. This is part of a much broader pattern of NATO fumbled support for Ukraine, such that Russians can pursue a minimal advance while Ukrainians keep jumping into the meat grinder trying to slow it down.
War is a collection of key moments
The most glaring moment, for me, was the Prigozhin lightning raid on Moscow. Russian high command was in chaos. The front line was depleted of reinforcements. Ukraine… didn’t advance an inch.
After that, I was convinced Ukraine was never intended to win this fight.
Surplus 90s equipment and lack of 21st century AMRAAMs is not a serious effort to back Ukraine.
They didn’t even give the F-16s until it was literally too late to make a difference.
I still remember a horrendous reddit article post of everyone championing Ukraine receiving a measly couple hundred ATGMs fom the UK as if that was going to do anything against Russia.
If the US was serious about their offer, they would have provided several squadrons of aircraft, training, the new AIM-260, muntions, etc etc.
While Ukraine was drowning in technology transfer blocks, they shipped all of that stuff to Israel no questions asked.
And for money mind you. Ukraine was still able to fund those purchases at the time.
If the US was serious about their offer
As of early 2026, the U.S. has allocated approximately $175 billion to $188 billion in total, covering military, financial, and humanitarian aid related to the war in Ukraine. Of this, roughly $66.9 billion to $69 billion has been specifically dedicated to security assistance and military aid.
That’s more than the entire GDP of Ukraine when the war broke out.
And unfortunately, North Korea is very correct in this assessment :(
shit, i’m in canada and we are having a new conversation about acquiring nukes. USA is making the world a very dangerous place, and it’s all because grossly rich turds like trump want more.
when you type USA, do you mean the divided states between Canada and Mexico?
Not just north Korea, the whole world can see what happened to Ukrain after they gave up their nukes in exchange for a protection deal, mutually assured destruction is the only way to keep your country safe
That had to be the biggest takeaway every country had to have gotten over the last couple of years.
Sadly, that’s a lesson I’ve already learned from war in Ukraine. Before it I had "hope"s and "might"s about civilization. Now I have a substantial amount less
I sincerely don’t give us 50 years. We will almost certainly destroy ourselves. Whether that’s by war, economic or environmental collapse, or otherwise, we’re speed running it on all fronts.
I used to hold so much hope for humanity. It feels so naive now.
If it makes you feel any better, we will probably survive and restart the cycle.
True. Perhaps a better way of mentally framing it might be that modern society is but one of many temporary states, not the end all be all of humanity and life on Earth in general. Still sad. We could be so much more.
“North Korea’s view”
Ha, yeah, it’s a NK thing. It’s everybody’s view.
Turns out the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction was invented by Kim Jung Un, as a spec of genetic material living in his father’s sperm that was still lodged in his grandfather’s scrotum.
This is the true unlimited power of Scientific Marxism.
The thought of the Great Leader is si magnificent it reverberates backwards through time!
If they have a brain they will never relinquish their nukes. Not just because of the US either.
Because they’re such a good use of national resources. They sit around costing money being a clear and present danger to all. Marvelous idea.
Costs less than defending your land with conventional weapons and lives.
As long as you plan on nuking someone I guess. Have you ever seen the infographic from the Cold War when everyone launches their nukes? Mutually assured destruction ringing any bells? What kind of sovereignty do you expect to have of your nuclear wasteland?
In science, we prefer observational to speculative evidence.
OK well the USA will launch 3200 nuclear missiles at just about anything that threatens it with a nuclear missile. We will basically hit every known nuclear missile site and every related population center… so I guess when you are thinking about nuking the United States before they invade you…. Just know they will nuke the entire world and they will dump more nukes on you. Then you could create in a lifetime… that’s our actual nuclear doctrine
Russia had about 10,000 of the biggest bombs in the world. Same doctrine just splatter anything close to being considered a friend of the US. So like it’s not having a nuke. It’s having enough nukes to outnuke the next guy and an survival plan for when your whole civilization turns to glass
If you prefer observational evidence do some research on a proper nuclear counter and check out what happened to those USSR nukes.
The future comes down to one thing - management.
The situation Ukraine and Iran reinforced that position too. Ukraine believed that the US would have its back if it gave up its nukes
And not just North Korea’s.
Just like Putin is the best NATO marketer, Trump is the best nuclear weapon marketer.
Since Putin attacked Ukraine half a dozen European countries are considering their own nuclear arsenal separate from US nuclear sharing. Sweden, Germany, Ukraine, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, Denmark.
If they have a bigger brain they would make a bigger stockpile with more capable strike capability. Having global nuclear reach is the only way to have sovereignty in 2026.
Yes, sir, when I look around and see a deteriorating global peace, the first thing I think is nuclear proliferation. It’s like clearly humans can handle more destructive power and need to be threatening each other on a more existential scale.
Instead of using our combined resources to elect, better governments, and what not we could just make nukes. The poor will be starving still but we will have nukes.
If they have a bigger brain they would make a bigger stockpile with more capable strike capability. Having global nuclear reach is the only way to have sovereignty in 2026.
It should be the goal of all politically unstable countries to control nukes. Fuck feeding your population or dealing with internal corruption. Just do nukes!
You spend your life building a beautiful home. Right when you pay the mortgage off and finish the last detail…a drunken maniac busts in the door, shoots you, and moves into your former home. And he just gets away with it because there’s no cops in your town.
Or, more concretely, you build a magnificent culture, industry, society, and economy. You invest in your people and technological innovation. You turn your nation into an economic powerhouse. Then the neighboring country, who put all of their more limited resources into the military, storms across the border and takes over your little paradise. Now you’re still paying the tax levels of a Nordic welfare state, but all of the money just goes into the pockets of the warlords and oligarchs of the mafia state that just conquered you.
Yea the Ukraine war is a real tragedy. But I don’t think the EU in America are afraid of Russian nukes. I think they’re addicted to Russian money.
North Korea doesn’t understand that you must have something worth taking like oil before you need to build nukes to protect it
They do.
Not oil but minerals.
deleted by creator
That would be the sane assumption to make here. But remember, trump is not a rational actor. He might just invade NK just for shits and giggles. i think the only reason he hasn’t yet is because they don’t have enough oil / kim is his friend.
He wouldnt because israel doesn’t give a shit about NK.
His admin just has to tell him the Kim dynasty bought franchise rights to McDonalds and they are threatening American supplies of Big Macs. War by tomorrow morning.
Edit: That the above sentence is not the stupidest thing ever said and has even the smallest element of truth in it speaks very poorly about the age we are living in.
As a completely irrelevant observer, yeah. Nukes are. If I was a leader of a people and we had one, I would never disarm.
Cool, except Trump and Putin don’t think rationally. What makes you think nukes are a deterrent from them trying to imperialize? It might stop them short term but not for long.
Aim directly at Mar-A-Lago.
Hell, you don’t even need a nuclear payload for that.
here’s the thing about narcissists. they only care about themselves. not stuff, not people, not morals or ethics or laws or anything.
as long as he’s alive, that’s all he cares about.
the only way to truly scare a narcissist is to take the most important thing from them of all.
public attention.
Nuclear weapons fall pretty solidly in the category of “things that can hurt a narcissist”. Trump is certain he can be protected from conventional attacks. If someone REALLY wants to nuke the president, however, he’d have to get EXTREMELY lucky to avoid it.
I think you underestimate the intelligence services that are dedicated to his safety.
they would see plans of a nuke months before they would see some psycho with a gun that decides on a whim that “today’s the day”.
They have nuclear resistant planes and can keep the president in the air indefinitely during a nuclear strike. The guys right trump has no deterrents. Nukes are an irrational deterrent for irrational people. You could launch 100 nukes on the USA and we’d still invade your country an hour later lmao
The point isn’t to kill him, just to destroy his golf course.
