The chemical weapons threat was a threat against innocent people. Regardless of whether or not there ever was any legitimate threat of chemical weapons in the area, there is a HUGE difference between the use of chemical weapons in small, defenseless villages and nuking San Francisco or Tokyo.
You're still using the same broken argument. Iraq/Afghanistan is not the same as Korea. This is a global, existential threat. There is a difference between a global, existential threat and some religious extremists that pissed off the wrong, oil hungry government.
You and I agree on more than you think, but for you to say that because of Iraq and Afghanistan, a war with a nuclear megalomaniac is inherently illegitimate is illogical.
Nobody wants bombs. The MAD principle still very much rings true. Nobody wants to see Seoul melt, just as much as they don't want to see Pyongyang or San Fran melt.
If you think that a nuclear war with NK will be localized to NK, Japan, SK, and the US, you're severely mistaken. Nuclear war will not stay localized, and even then, we're talking about millions of lives at risk.
That's why the world would all benefit from diplomacy. Nobody is arguing against that. BUT. If it does have to go ballistic, a joint UN war resolution, likely to be lead by the US, would be far less likely to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. The strike would likely be with conventional, non-nuclear weapons. I'm not entirely confident that one could say the same if we let the Kim regime strike the first blow.
There is nothing false in calling a nuclear hegemony that speaks on striking populated city centers of sovereign nations with nuclear weapons a global threat. I feel like that's at least one point we can agree on.
a global threat. I feel like that's at least one point we can agree on.
No. It is threatening the US, if it is in fact a thread tho is very questionable. I am pretty sure your anti-nuclear-missile-defense systems can take care of some shotty NK missles.
Oh and if you are afraid of the outbreak of WW3. I told you that if you touch Korea even with conventional weapons, then this alone might lead to a WW3 scenario.
Some people n your government must really like the game fallout so that they desire to create such a world.
The argument was not made against "the Iraq".
The chemical weapons threat was a threat against innocent people. Regardless of whether or not there ever was any legitimate threat of chemical weapons in the area, there is a HUGE difference between the use of chemical weapons in small, defenseless villages and nuking San Francisco or Tokyo.
You're still using the same broken argument. Iraq/Afghanistan is not the same as Korea. This is a global, existential threat. There is a difference between a global, existential threat and some religious extremists that pissed off the wrong, oil hungry government.
You and I agree on more than you think, but for you to say that because of Iraq and Afghanistan, a war with a nuclear megalomaniac is inherently illegitimate is illogical.
That is false. NK is a threat to Japan and SK and especially SK does not want America to handle this, they want diplomacy and not bombs.
Nobody wants bombs. The MAD principle still very much rings true. Nobody wants to see Seoul melt, just as much as they don't want to see Pyongyang or San Fran melt.
If you think that a nuclear war with NK will be localized to NK, Japan, SK, and the US, you're severely mistaken. Nuclear war will not stay localized, and even then, we're talking about millions of lives at risk.
That's why the world would all benefit from diplomacy. Nobody is arguing against that. BUT. If it does have to go ballistic, a joint UN war resolution, likely to be lead by the US, would be far less likely to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. The strike would likely be with conventional, non-nuclear weapons. I'm not entirely confident that one could say the same if we let the Kim regime strike the first blow.
There is nothing false in calling a nuclear hegemony that speaks on striking populated city centers of sovereign nations with nuclear weapons a global threat. I feel like that's at least one point we can agree on.
No. It is threatening the US, if it is in fact a thread tho is very questionable. I am pretty sure your anti-nuclear-missile-defense systems can take care of some shotty NK missles.
Oh and if you are afraid of the outbreak of WW3. I told you that if you touch Korea even with conventional weapons, then this alone might lead to a WW3 scenario.
Some people n your government must really like the game fallout so that they desire to create such a world.