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?

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:57:45 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana made Sep 18 at 2017 8:00 AM

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:00:19 -0400

Think through the question logically, both as a military leader and as a civilian.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2017 10:11 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:11:58 -0400

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.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Sep 18 at 2017 10:55 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:55:35 -0400

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."

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...

Response by CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana made Sep 18 at 2017 12:39 PM

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:39:02 -0400

Never said I want or wish the DPRK to have nukes, but I did ask why the West is so stuck on disarming that nation or sanctioning it till it yields. There is a difference and a separation between your assumptions and my question.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2017 1:05 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:05:24 -0400

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?

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Sep 18 at 2017 6:58 PM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:58:32 -0400

Because Bowl Cut is not all there. As the son of Kim Jung Mentally Il the insanity continues. The military junta has him believing that everything he does is in the best interest of his people and they are so brainwashed, they believe he can do no wrong.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 18 at 2017 7:08 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:08:12 -0400

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana Good Points Gene, With Pakistan, India, France, England, Israel , Russia, China Having Nuclear Weapons. This Lazer Focus on North Korea might seem a Little Ridiculous. With the US Working with the Saudis to make a Nuclear Power Plant, Yeah it is starting to sound a little weird and I can Appreciate Your Argument about our Maniac vs Their Maniac but I would like to See Little Kim Reigned In, but at this Point, I Don't Think it is Possible and any action by Them or Us will start the Dominoes of WWII.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Sep 19 at 2017 7:46 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:46:27 -0400

If you are interested in the subject, I would recommend "Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy" By: Todd S. Sechser and Matthew Fuhrman. The authors argue that while Kim Jung Un has gained deterrence (prevention from being attacked) by acquiring nuclear weapons, he hasn't gained coercive powers (ability to make other nations do things). Interesting and well-researched.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2017 11:23 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:23:48 -0400

First, the DPRK possessing nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them is a clear and present danger to the US and it's allies with which we have mutual defense treaties - Japan and South Korea. That is a problem if you consider the rhetoric and behavior of the DPRK.
Second, the DPRK does not behave in a rational manner, and routinely flaunts UN resolutions and previous agreements regarding their nuclear and ballistic missile programs. They do not do that for altruistic reasons of self-defense. If the US meant to conquer N Korea, we would have done so by now.

Third (but not exactly related), I am confused by your assertion that Pakistan "would invade India and make India another IS". India and Pakistan developed their nuclear programs roughly at the same time, and India tested their first bomb a full four years prior to Pakistan (1994 vs 1998). India may well have been looking to their self-defense in respect to Pakistan, but a reasonable observer could easily conclude that pursuing nuclear weapons on their part led directly to Pakistan obtaining the capability to destroy India as we know it.
Previous wars between the two were an inconclusive skirmish in 1965 and a categorical defeat of Pakistan in 1971. Not to mention that India is home to over a billion mostly Hindus who would not meekly be subjugated by Pakistan, Islamic State, Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, or many others who might have (and have) tried.
Pakistan and India have a long history of enmity and conflict, but I would argue that they have a longer history of peaceful, if tense, neighbors. If they could ever figure out Jammu and Kashmir, they wouldn't have much cause for war.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2017 5:42 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 05:42:45 -0400

The stated goal of the NK government is reunification under communist rule using ANY means possible. We don't want NK to have nukes for the same reason we don't want Iran to have them: They will USE them. Nuclear deterrence is only effective when dealing with a rational government. NK continues to defy the entire world and conduct their affairs without regard for any other nation. The indiscriminate firing of ballistic missiles through shared air space is good example of that. When we fire missile we de-conflict the air space and the impact area to ensure that no one is endangered by the test. While remote, the possibility of hitting an aircraft or ship is a real possibility with their lack of concern for flight trajectory. It would be kind of like someone shooting a rifle into the air over a populated area. You probably won't won't hit someone but you very well could. Couple this aberrant behavior with international kidnapping and murder you have a very belligerent group of people that will probably use nuclear weapons as soon as they feel they are capable.