• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should be done about NK and its nukes?

Works for me. China is more afraid of South Korea and North Korea uniting and spreading evil democratic ideas to China.

If it weren't for the precedent.
 
and if crazy little Kim actually shoots a nuke at the US or Europe, then we'll have a real problem. A preemptory strike, on the other hand, could end in disaster.

China needs to take the lead in this and make its lapdog quit barking at the rest of the world, it seems to me.

Kim is higly unlikely to shoot first. He knows he will lose. As you say us shooting first will be bad.

China has little control over the North Koreans. They are not allies or pupets.
 
Kim is higly unlikely to shoot first. He knows he will lose. As you say us shooting first will be bad.

China has little control over the North Koreans. They are not allies or pupets.

First sentence: Agreed.
Second one: I'm not so sure. China is far more powerful, and doesn't NK depend on them for some basic necessities?
 
First sentence: Agreed.
Second one: I'm not so sure. China is far more powerful, and doesn't NK depend on them for some basic necessities?

Only the ordinary people in NK depend on those things. Do you think that the leaders care about them very much?
 
Ideas: How do we deal with the likes of North Korea?
Isn’t there a valid question as to whether we have the moral position to challenge NK developing nuclear weapons given any such pressure would largely come from countries who have (and continue to develop) nuclear weapons ourselves? There’s obviously a practical issue given the nature of their government and the apparent psychology or their leadership but that makes the nuclear question just one of many symptoms rather than a root problem and not actually the most immediate one at that.
 
Isn’t there a valid question as to whether we have the moral position to challenge NK developing nuclear weapons given any such pressure would largely come from countries who have (and continue to develop) nuclear weapons ourselves? There’s obviously a practical issue given the nature of their government and the apparent psychology or their leadership but that makes the nuclear question just one of many symptoms rather than a root problem and not actually the most immediate one at that.

The world would be much better off without those terrible weapons, no doubt. The Problem is, we do have them and getting rid of them without a complete change in world politics is impossible.

But those nuclear armed nations not wanting NK to have nukes is a lot like a community of armed adults who don't want the toddler to be playing with guns.
 
But those nuclear armed nations not wanting NK to have nukes is a lot like a community of armed adults who don't want the toddler to be playing with guns.
Morally speaking I don’t think we can selectively deny their sovereignty. If we’re deeming the NK government unworthy of having nuclear weapons we have to say they’re unworthy to run a country in general. It’s not as if they can’t (and aren’t) doing plenty of harm to people (though primarily their own) already and given how unlikely it is that even NK would actually use nuclear weapons, it could be argued that the other aspects are more important.

Practically speaking I don’t think there is an answer that can prevent NK and nations like it developing nuclear weapons. I think there is a risk in our governments feeling pressured to “do something” and taking actions that actually do more harm than good (which some people might argue already happened with the Iranian deal).
 
Morally speaking I don’t think we can selectively deny their sovereignty. If we’re deeming the NK government unworthy of having nuclear weapons we have to say they’re unworthy to run a country in general. It’s not as if they can’t (and aren’t) doing plenty of harm to people (though primarily their own) already and given how unlikely it is that even NK would actually use nuclear weapons, it could be argued that the other aspects are more important.

Practically speaking I don’t think there is an answer that can prevent NK and nations like it developing nuclear weapons. I think there is a risk in our governments feeling pressured to “do something” and taking actions that actually do more harm than good (which some people might argue already happened with the Iranian deal).

Kim Jung Un is unworthy to run a country in general. He is maintaining an Orwellian dystopia that is a threat no only to his own people, but to the world in general.

Keeping rogue nations like NK or Iran from obtaining nukes is as necessary as keeping toddlers from playing with loaded guns, and for the same reason.

Sure, it would be great if none of us had guns or nukes. The problem is, outlawing either would leave the outlaws with them.
 
Back
Top Bottom