• 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!

Should Japan and South Korea develop nuclear weapons?

Should S Korea and Japan have nuclear weapons?

  • Total voters
    29
Redress said:
Are military has trained, hard, in taking tubes out in a hurry for just that reason. Best estimate is we could limit SK casualties to maybe as low as 250k if everything goes right. Kinda helps you understand why SK opposes military solutions to NK...
Click to expand...

Pipe dream. 25 million casualties in just a day or two.
/
 
Of course they should.
 
I'm not a statistician, but it seems to me that the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that nuclear weapons will be used.
 
chuckiechan said:
I think they are cooperating, and China is helping them.
Click to expand...

What does China gain be destabilizing the region and risking action from USA and Russia?
 
Redress said:
Prime Minister Abe is considered an extreme militarist and nationalist for promoting the idea that Japan should be able to fight in places other than the Japanese islands in the event of war. Outside of the Uyoku Dantai, there is almost no one in Japan that wants Japan to have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

They already have the technology and ability to be nuclear fairly quickly. If given the green light, they can probably pass N. Korea's nuclear program in a matter of months.

I'm all for increasing nuclear prolifcation.
 
Bucky said:
They already have the technology and ability to be nuclear fairly quickly. If given the green light, they can probably pass N. Korea's nuclear program in a matter of months.

I'm all for increasing nuclear prolifcation.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what part of this confuses you: Japan has zero interest in going nuclear. None, nada, zip, zilch.
 
CMPancake said:
Nobody should have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Yup, and no guns for that matter. I would rather we stick with sword, and shield for a few more centuries if it were up to me.
 
DaveFagan said:
Pipe dream. 25 million casualties in just a day or two.
/
Click to expand...

Not physically possible. 250k to 350k on the UN side is a realistic number over the first month of fighting, and maybe even total numbers. Kim will not, IMHO, use his nukes unless one of two events either occurs or he thinks it is imminent - 1) an all out invasion of the north by the UN, or 2) an attempt to decapitate the North's leadership. Either of those occurs or looks imminent and Kim will use his nukes, but not on civilians in the south. He would use his nukes on UN military bases in South Korea and Japan. Even if that occurs there's no way the death toll rises to 25 million, much less in the first few days. His nukes are not that powerful.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Not physically possible. 250k to 350k on the UN side is a realistic number over the first month of fighting, and maybe even total numbers. Kim will not, IMHO, use his nukes unless one of two events either occurs or he thinks it is imminent - 1) an all out invasion of the north by the UN, or 2) an attempt to decapitate the North's leadership. Either of those occurs or looks imminent and Kim will use his nukes, but not on civilians in the south. He would use his nukes on UN military bases in South Korea and Japan. Even if that occurs there's no way the death toll rises to 25 million, much less in the first few days. His nukes are not that powerful.
Click to expand...

Kim has thousands of pieces of entrenched artillery aimed at and in range of Seoul. How many people in and around Seoul? No nukes necessary.
/\/
/
 
Bucky said:
They already have the technology and ability to be nuclear fairly quickly. If given the green light, they can probably pass N. Korea's nuclear program in a matter of months.I'm all for increasing nuclear prolifcation.
Click to expand...
Your "Glow in the Dark" logic is acknowledged. Get a nice bunker so you won't have to associate with neighboring "krispy kritters" during the proliferation and continuing nuclear hot button madness.\/
 
DaveFagan said:
Kim has thousands of pieces of entrenched artillery aimed at and in range of Seoul. How many people in and around Seoul? No nukes necessary.
/\/
/
Click to expand...

That is why the means one will require to neutralize NK without too many SK losses are so brutal that nobody believes the US has the stomach for it. After testing the US on this, the Chinese and Russians will test the country again on something else and again and again. That much is clear. To stop that chain of events there is no mechanism outside of communal global security. Without it we will have a major war and the best step now is to utterly destroy NK. That might even be the way to persuade the global community that it is in everyone's best interest to transfer production of that public good to a reconstructed UN, much as Bush had persuaded the community to introduce the UN norm change 2005.
 
joG said:
That is why the means one will require to neutralize NK without too many SK losses are so brutal that nobody believes the US has the stomach for it. After testing the US on this, the Chinese and Russians will test the country again on something else and again and again. That much is clear. To stop that chain of events there is no mechanism outside of communal global security. Without it we will have a major war and the best step now is to utterly destroy NK. That might even be the way to persuade the global community that it is in everyone's best interest to transfer production of that public good to a reconstructed UN, much as Bush had persuaded the community to introduce the UN norm change 2005.
Click to expand...


You are blaming China and Russia for ignorant USA policy and you want a big war to end wars. Right!
/
 
DaveFagan said:
You are blaming China and Russia for ignorant USA policy and you want a big war to end wars. Right!
/
Click to expand...

No. That is only, what you want to believe or trick others into believing I said. Very sad.
 
DaveFagan said:
Kim has thousands of pieces of entrenched artillery aimed at and in range of Seoul. How many people in and around Seoul? No nukes necessary.
/\/
/
Click to expand...

Most of his artillery can't reach Seoul. He only has a few large missile batteries that can reach Seoul and even less large artillery pieces (170mm) that can reach the northern suburbs of Seoul. Kim's artillery has an average range of 3 to 5 miles and some 12 miles max which won't reach Seoul because the artillery is around a mile or more north of the DMZ and is targeted toward UN FOB's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom