To be fair, should all nations allow to own nuclear weapons?

[reedak]

In a political forum, I came across the following argument by a poster who was probably a North Korean. Readers are welcome to refute or support his argument.

"WHY? Does the UN punish North Korea..But not Israel,India or Pakistan?,
is it the usual double standard? I can have a gun to kill you but you cannot have a gun to defend yourself?"

[Drummond]

In a political forum, I came across the following argument by a poster who was probably a North Korean. Readers are welcome to refute or support his argument.

"WHY? Does the UN punish North Korea..But not Israel,India or Pakistan?,
is it the usual double standard? I can have a gun to kill you but you cannot have a gun to defend yourself?"

The examples you list, of Israel, India and Pakistan .. have they behaved as N Korea has ? How many nuclear tests have they carried out, in terms of testing missile capabilities ? How many missiles have they launched, sent out just to test how far they can send them, and how well they'll fly ?

Do any of the Nation States you mention act as belligerently on the world stage ? Yes .. India and Pakistan have threatened each other (.. but work to co-exist, all the same), but who else do they threaten ? Do you have any information that India or Pakistan are working on an ICBM designed to reach mainland America, for example ?

As for Israel, everyone accepts (though do Israel themselves officially admit to it ?) that they have a nuclear capability. But, consider their situation, with terrorist group after terrorist group wanting their destruction. Consider their history, the enmities they've faced, the battles they've had to fight, just to remain a secure State. What about Hamas, ruling Gaza, and all the attacks Hamas has launched !! Of Israel, I'd say their restraint is nothing short of remarkable.

If anyone's proved their fitness to retain a nuclear arsenal RESPONSIBLY, it's surely Israel !!!

Try comparing Israel with North Korea, then answer your own question !

North Korea doesn't have an enemy seeking its destruction ... what they DO have are Nation States responding to their own belligerence. If N Korea ENDED that belligerence, they'd have nothing to worry about.

[sear]

r #1

It might seem a double-standard to some. It is not. It is a standard we apply to individuals and nations alike.

Israel has reportedly been a nuclear weapon-armed nation for decades.
BUT !!

Israel has not been known to use their nuclear weapons arsenal either promiscuously, or unwisely.
In fact, it is only the U.S. that has used nuclear weapons in War.

In vivid contrast, NK is a rogue regime, a totalitarian Hell hole.
Last night's video of NK marching hordes dressed in bright colors, all flailing uniform enthusiastic greeting to the "dear leader" is as bad or worse than anything Orwell described.
The utter human hopelessness of it all is mind-numbing.

I'm not so much introducing the idea, as corroborating the sensible points D #2 already posted.

North Korea has proved itself exceedingly dangerous. Recently it has both sunk a South Korean military vessel at sea,
and used artillery to shower a South Korean fishing village, reportedly killing two.
Both reportedly unprovoked attacks.

If NK can't / won't handle their conventional weapons responsibly, why should the world trust them with nuclear weapons?

"Try comparing Israel with North Korea, then answer your own question !
North Korea doesn't have an enemy seeking its destruction ... " D #2

I consider that misleading.

It may be true that Palestine is openly committed to Israel's destruction, and Iran committed to removing Israel from the map.

BUT !!

While SK may not want to remove NK from the map, it's silly to overlook the fact that the two Korea's were once unified.
East & West Germany's too were once unified, and have re-unified. And guess which of the two has taken control. WEST Germany.
That is a detail that has not escaped the notice of China.

Thus, SK may not wish to "destroy" NK, but assimilate it, AND in the process terminate the Kim Jong dynasty.

"If N Korea ENDED that belligerence, they'd have nothing to worry about." D #2

Ironic, isn't it?

[NightTrain]

In a political forum, I came across the following argument by a poster who was probably a North Korean. Readers are welcome to refute or support his argument.

"WHY? Does the UN punish North Korea..But not Israel,India or Pakistan?,
is it the usual double standard? I can have a gun to kill you but you cannot have a gun to defend yourself?"

When there is a person that loudly & belligerently threatens to use his gun on his neighbor and other neighbors, the cops will be there in short order to remove that person and confiscate his guns.

That this result is achieved is a foregone conclusion; the only question that remains is whether the hostile party is removed from his house by force or quietly goes with the cops.

[sear]

NT #4

KJU will not go quietly.

[Drummond]

Thus, SK may not wish to "destroy" NK, but assimilate it, AND in the process terminate the Kim Jong dynasty.

I don't know if that's true or not. Why couldn't that 'dynasty' be replaced, and that be an end of it ?

But let's say you're right. What of it ? Do you seriously think this would be a bad thing ? That the world wouldn't be a safer place as a result ?

[Elessar]

In a political forum, I came across the following argument by a poster who was probably a North Korean. Readers are welcome to refute or support his argument.

"WHY? Does the UN punish North Korea..But not Israel,India or Pakistan?,
is it the usual double standard? I can have a gun to kill you but you cannot have a gun to defend yourself?"

I agree with all the above responders.

NK is a self-isolated, hate mongering, and sword rattling crap stain on the earth.

It is led by a psychotic and immature brat/man child whose self image of grandiose is
far below the reality of what he shows to the rest of the world.

NK has absolutely no business with nuke capability as long as its present government exists.

[sear]

"I don't know if that's true or not." D #6

It's not just the name "Korea" they have in common.
They're blood kin.
There are Koreans living in each nation with family photographs of Koreans living in the other nation. Why would they want to nuke uncle Sum Dum Phuk?

"Why couldn't that 'dynasty' be replaced, and that be an end of it ?" D

With another murderous totalitarian dictator? Have you thought this through?

"But let's say you're right. What of it ?" D

Problem solved.

"Do you seriously think this would be a bad thing ?" D

For the purposes of this conversation, not in the least.

"That the world wouldn't be a safer place as a result ?" D

Something is wrong here.
I've proposed a solution model that is proved to work in the unified Germany.
If implemented as I described, it would rid the world of what President Obama described to President Elect Trump as the most severe adversity the U.S. faces.

And your question to me is:

"That the world wouldn't be a safer place as a result ?" D

It's beyond my capacity to comprehend why you would ask such a clearly absurd question.

"That the world wouldn't be a safer place as a result ?" D

Is that what YOU think?

If it isn't what you would think, why would you think I would?

[sear]

PS

E #7

On FNS a former government official was asked if what blew North Korea's missile up was U.S. cyber-warfare.

It reportedly was but the latest in a string of liquid-fueled rocket test failures.

The former official declined to comment.