Posted on Sep 18, 2017
If the Mighty 7 can equip themselves with nukes, chem and Bio warheads, then why is the West so wrapped around the axle about NK?
6.28K
140
75
2
2
0
Developing countries also have the Right to defend themselves against foreign aggression; if India did not have an arsenal then, Pakistan would invade India and make India another IS. A war of nuclear proportions can evolve into WWIII.
Posted in these groups: 
North Korea
Korea
North Korea Korea
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
14
14
0
Because there are clear differences in the predictability and stability of governments. Foreign policy leaders use templates or models to help them understand, predict, and work with other nations. One prevalent model is Rational Choice Theory or Rational Actor Theory. This model assumes that nation-states will act rationally in their own best interests. https://www.britannica.com/topic/rational-choice-theory
A democracy or socialist republic with a free flow of communications into and out of the nation reveals its interests in many ways, from public policy to the free press to public opinion. A dictatorship with no flow of information, no free press, and no immigration/emigration allowed does not reveal its interests except those interests expressed by the dictator.
We can debate whether Kim Jong Un is a rational actor, but it should be obvious that NK, as a closed society, is quite different than your "mighty 7."
A democracy or socialist republic with a free flow of communications into and out of the nation reveals its interests in many ways, from public policy to the free press to public opinion. A dictatorship with no flow of information, no free press, and no immigration/emigration allowed does not reveal its interests except those interests expressed by the dictator.
We can debate whether Kim Jong Un is a rational actor, but it should be obvious that NK, as a closed society, is quite different than your "mighty 7."
rational choice theory | political science and economics
rational choice theory: School of thought based on the assumption that individuals choose a course of action that is most in line with their personal preferences. Rational choice theory is used to model...
(14)
(0)
SPC William Weedman
Another thought: North Korea is dynastical dictatorship with as far as we know no heir old enough to take power. If there is a coup within the North Korean border, who ends up with control of the nuclear weapons program? That could truly be a doomsday scenario or the other members of the nuclear club's greatest ally, depending on the owner.
(3)
(0)
11
11
0
In short, the leader of NK is not stable. It's a similar conversation to gun control. Do we really mind if law abiding citizens carry them in order to protect themselves? No. Do we want mentally unstable whack jobs to have them? No.
(11)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SSG James Behnke
MAJ (Join to see) - If a dirry bomb goes off, it will not only completely change the way we RESPOND to threats, it will completely change our entire concept of homeland defense, imo.
I pray that day never comes. It would make 9/11 look like a paper tiger.
I pray that day never comes. It would make 9/11 look like a paper tiger.
(1)
(0)
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana
Quite understandable; your confusion is because you lost focus. I never argued that US fired nukes, Tomahawks or Mohawks. My mention of POTUS firing missiles was referring to his tweets. Think outside the box Captain.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana - If I lost focus it's because you shifted it while providing no context. Your comments have had nothing to do with the original question. You asked what the big deal is with NK having nukes. I answered it's because KJU is an unstable leader in a rogue nation. You can agree or disagree. It doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter what Donald Trump is tweeting. His actions on social media have no bearing on the question you asked.
(3)
(0)
North Korea has shown by the actions of their dictator, Kim Jong In, that they are not afraid to, and even eager to show the world their military might. Would you allow a three year old to play with guns?
(6)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
Can the same argument not be made for us seeing as how we've been bombing other countries nonstop since the invention of the bomb?
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SFC Michael Hasbun - If you look back on the history of US bombing, You'll find that we have limited it to military targets and real or perceived threats. As the technology improved, we were able to do this with less and less collateral damage. When we talk about nukes, we're basically talking about taking out a society. That's a huge difference. A-bombs were used in Japan because we had been attacked, were at war, and used as a last resort. KJU has no reason to kill millions of Americans other than he would just want to.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
GySgt John Olson - Those are good questions. Wish I had the answer. I'd like to think that some of the bombings have made a positive impact (no pun intended) but I'm not at a level where I get that kind of information.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google