North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons(www.persuasion.community)

22 pointsby stefan_3 hours ago6 comments

nostrademonsan hour ago
It's interesting that this article is funded by Francis Fukuyama, who famously wrote the "The End of History" [1] in 1992, which argued that the rules-based liberal democratic world order had won and there was no more need for geopolitical realism. This article represents a complete repudiation of his past beliefs, and basically an admission that he was wrong.
Anyway, just as how Fukuyama was right for ~20 years and then very, very wrong, I suspect this essay is too. The U.S. mapped out all the game theory around nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. If you have too many states with nuclear weapons, nuclear war becomes inevitable, just like if you have too many firms in a market a price war becomes inevitable. That's why the U.S. and other nuclear powers have put so much effort into nuclear non-proliferation. North Korea may have been right in the short-term national interest sense to pursue and continue its nuclear weapons program, but the end result here is that most of humanity is going to die in a nuclear war, and we won't have such things as states and nations afterwards.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Las...
infotainmentan hour ago
This article misses a major point: even without nuclear weapons, NK has always had the option to shell Seoul with conventional artillery and completely destroy it.
That, above all else, is likely why no one tried to topple them before they were able to develop nuclear weapons.
aeonik2 hours ago
North Korea is protected and bordered by China. Big difference with Iran.
- cucumber37328422 hours ago
  Only slightly more than Cuba is "protected" by the United states.
  It's more of a "don't F around in my back yard" statement directed at anyone who might than it is a protection deal.
beeflet3 hours ago
This is my analogy: If you are a fisherman, and you try to catch big beautiful fish and release small ugly fish back into the water, then eventually the pond will be full of small ugly fish because that is what you are selecting for.
If we want a world in which nuclear weapons are not the primary tools of war (which advantages these smaller players like NK that use it defensively when their means of conventional warfare would be insufficient) then we must work feverishly to undermine nuclear regimes like NK and cooperate with non-nuclear regimes like Iran above all else.
Even within the context of the middle east, we are attacking a state in the process of armament to the benefit of a presumably-already-armed Israel. The message to these minor countries is clear. We are making the political climate inhospitable to non-proliferation.
- csb6an hour ago
  The message to all other states to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible is reinforced by Trump's scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal. Even if you negotiate a treaty with the U.S. agreeing to deescalation, a new leader will likely tear it up (given the flip-flopping of the U.S. presidency, which has near total power over foreign policy).
  Even returning to the negotiating table isn't enough - the U.S. and its allies may strike you anyways. (as they did last year when they killed the lead Iranian negotiator and again preemptively attacked during recent negotiations)
- aucisson_masque2 hours ago
  No idea why you're getting downvoted, it absolutely makes sense.
  Attacking countries that have no nuclear weapon only strengthen the need for others to acquire it.
  Middle eastern, especially, where there is only one country that has the nuclear weapon. Other countries relied on usa support for their own defenses but seeing the mess they're in because of Trump blindly following israelian will and attacking Iran, they might consider acquiring it.
  Who'se to say that Israel won't take more land after it finish annexing Palestine and Liban ?
mytailorisrich3 hours ago
Yes they were, but the key difference is that North Korea is not actually a threat and its nuclear weapons program is obviously purely a deterrent.
The track record of Iran is very different. Even if nuclear weapons were only a deterrent they would likely embolden them to be more aggressive abroad.
- adampunk3 hours ago
  No.
  The whole point of the article is that the lesson from North Korea is get yourself a nuclear weapon. If you choose to give up that ambition, you can expect to be punished. If you realize that ambition, you may survive.
  It has nothing to do with the particular behavior of the country outside of their ability to achieve a nuclear deterrent. The plain lesson is deterrence works if the country you’re trying to deter is the United States.
- gherkinnn2 hours ago
  In practice, Iran posed a local threat. It wasn't Iran that exported Wahabism around the globe. Iran didn't fund the Mujahedeen, nor was it the source of IS. It wasn't Persians flying the jets of 911 nor were any Iranians or their allies tied to any terrorist attacks in Europe in my lifetime.
  I find the Iranian regime despicable, as frankly any decent human should, and I am glad they don't have nukes.
  But I do not see them as the international turbo villains they've been painted as.
- 2 hours ago
  undefined
machina_ex_deus2 hours ago
You can't compare Iran with north Korea. Iran funds and supports terrorism all over the middle east. They regularly call for the destruction of Israel. If Iran wasn't ruled by aggressive violent religious fanatics it wouldn't be in danger.
North Korea didn't fund terrorism. North Korea isn't an aggressor. You cannot compare them at all.
Israel and the US were monitoring Iran nuclear development and Iran knew that. They wouldn't allow Iran to rush to nuclear without striking them first, like it had happened.
If you're a dictator and you want to learn the lesson from Iran, it isn't to get nuclear weapons. It's too not call for the destruction of Israel and the US and to not fund terrorism.