Trump Intel Chief: North Korea Learned From Libya War to “Never” Give Up Nukes - Polidicks

[img]http://i.imgur.com/ChGO2c5.jpg?1[/img] [QUOTE]The media is now filled with headlines about North Korea’s missile test on Friday, which demonstrated that its ICBMs may be able to reach the continental U.S. What isn’t mentioned in any of these stories is how we got to this point — in particular, what Dan Coats, President Donald Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, explained last week at the Aspen Security Forum. North Korea’s 33-year-old dictator Kim Jong-un is not crazy, said Coats. In fact, he has “some rationale backing his actions” regarding the country’s nuclear weapons. That rationale is the way the U.S. has demonstrated that North Korea must keep them to ensure “survival for his regime, survival for his country.” Kim, according to Coats, “has watched, I think, what has happened around the world relative to nations that possess nuclear capabilities and the leverage they have and seen that having the nuclear card in your pocket results in a lot of deterrence capability.” In particular, “The lessons that we learned out of Libya giving up its nukes … is, unfortunately: If you had nukes, never give them up. If you don’t have them, get them.”[/QUOTE] [URL="https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nukes-nuclear-libya-regime-change/"]Source[/URL].

Yeah I heard that angle from other analysts before - basically, that after Lybia got toppled, NK figured "shit, we could be next, we need SOMETHING to keep them from doing this to us" and so they will rather escalate with nukes rather than risking they will get fucked conventionally. It's pretty much a hostage situation where NK is taking everyone around it hostage to keep the cops from fucking it up.

I honestly don't blame them, if self-preservation is your goal, nuclear weapons are your best bet. Libya and Ukraine have shown us that if you get rid of your nukes, then you're fucked if any larger country tries to destroy you. In the case of Ukraine, it shows that even if you get rid of them with the promise that you will receive help if you are attacked, nobody will keep their word.

It's been suggested that both Russia and the US have proven through past actions that there is no point for smaller nations to give up their nukes, or in fact make concessions of any kind, to maintain a military alliance with superpowers. Because if shit hits the fan they might leave you out to dry regardless of any agreements. Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq...

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52521664]It's been suggested that both Russia and the US have proven through past actions that there is no point for smaller nations to give up their nukes, or in fact make concessions of any kind, to maintain a military alliance with superpowers. Because if shit hits the fan they might leave you out to dry regardless of any agreements. Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq...[/QUOTE] This is why Trump is an idiot and needs to accept that NK will be a nuclear state and they've missed their window of opportunity for military action. The only way to encact change would be having it come from the inside of the regime. I swear the US is the dumbest nation in the world when it comes to handling sensitive situations like Cuba and North Korea. Trump doesnt even realise that cuba getting unlimited access to the internet would help lead it down a path towards democracy, instead he thinks a trade embargo is going to force a change in government.

The scary thing is though, is that unless we shove a firm boot in their ass, it sets a message for the rest of the world: If you want to break international laws, be able to stand toe-to-toe with superpowers, and make a mockery of every sanction in the book... Just get nuclear or chemical weapons. Seriously, if we do not either topple this regime within the next three to five years, we could see a ripple effect, in which several countries around the world will start their own nuclear weapon programs, in order to prevent countries from interfering with them. This could also lead to said countries threatening neighbors with nuclear weapons as a means of getting what they want, as it has proven to be possible thanks to the Norks. Hell, it might be worth mentioning that several Nork ships have been caught with weapon-grade material, of which they are delivering to friendly nations, like Syria and Iran. If you guys think having the North Koreans with nukes is bad, imagine having Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and maybe Syria with it's own stockpiles.

He does have a point. Just not a nice thought having the world engulfed in nuclear fireballs. [sp]If only everyone would disarm, such a waste of money and manpower imo[/sp]

as a counterpoint, libya was in europe's backyard whereas North Korea is in china's backyard. the stakes for invading them were much lower than say an invasion of north korea since southeast asia is a fucking powderkeg and china has been keeping them afloat by preventing foreign action in the country

erm Libya had nukes ? even theirs nuclear program never went into serious level or did the author mean Ukraine ...

Conversely, one of the reasons Libya [I]did[/I] give up their nukes is because they saw the invasion of Iraq and shit their pants

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52523660]Conversely, one of the reasons Libya [I]did[/I] give up their nukes is because they saw the invasion of Iraq and shit their pants[/QUOTE] Turned out it wouldn't do Gaddafi many favours in the end anyway.

Turns out they're screwed either way. Nukes may deter an invasion but they're also a big reason to do one. I guess their effectiveness goes down when people know you have them because then they're ready and you can't destroy the entire invasion force like in COD4

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52521782]Seriously, if we do not either topple this regime within the next three to five years, we could see a ripple effect, in which several countries around the world will start their own nuclear weapon programs, in order to prevent countries from interfering with them. This could also lead to said countries threatening neighbors with nuclear weapons as a means of getting what they want, as it has proven to be possible thanks to the Norks.[/QUOTE] There is only a key problem with this scenario. Namely, that [I]making[/I] nuclear weapons requires a [I][B]very significant[/B][/I] investment from any country's civilian and military industries. NK is a special case, because it has been locked in a military standoff for decades. The line between military and civilian industries is very blurry, and they've been receiving help from overseas for decades. Not simply years, decades. Other countries simply do not have the resources or time to star a military nuclear program (And repurposing civilian nuclear programs is another can of worms). Nukes are not going to spread across the world next weekend like a wildfire. For most countries concerned about outside interference, they can spend the same amount of resources in a more conventional military. After all, you don't just need a nuke to threat your neighbors. You need a way to deliver the bomb to its intended target. And a way to fit the bomb inside the delivery vehicle. Etc etc etc You see my point?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52521782]The scary thing is though, is that unless we shove a firm boot in their ass, it sets a message for the rest of the world: If you want to break international laws, be able to stand toe-to-toe with superpowers, and make a mockery of every sanction in the book... Just get nuclear or chemical weapons. Seriously, if we do not either topple this regime within the next three to five years, we could see a ripple effect, in which several countries around the world will start their own nuclear weapon programs, in order to prevent countries from interfering with them. This could also lead to said countries threatening neighbors with nuclear weapons as a means of getting what they want, as it has proven to be possible thanks to the Norks. Hell, it might be worth mentioning that several Nork ships have been caught with weapon-grade material, of which they are delivering to friendly nations, like Syria and Iran. If you guys think having the North Koreans with nukes is bad, imagine having Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and maybe Syria with it's own stockpiles.[/QUOTE] You shoved a boot in Iraq's and Libya's ass and what did we get ? ISIS and the biggest refugee crisis since World War 2, which destabilized not only the region, but influenced western policies and elections and was used as a platform for Brexit and Trump. If you want war with North Korea then you need a recovery plan like for Germany and Japan after WW2, that would cost few hundred billion dollars and years of reforms, or else you will just destabilize another region and cause another massive refugee crisis.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;52524844]You shoved a boot in Iraq's and Libya's ass and what did we get ? ISIS and the biggest refugee crisis since World War 2, which destabilized not only the region, but influenced western policies and elections and was used as a platform for Brexit and Trump. If you want war with North Korea then you need a recovery plan like for Germany and Japan after WW2, that would cost few hundred billion dollars and years of reforms, or else you will just destabilize another region and cause another massive refugee crisis.[/QUOTE] I mean it's not like the American government really cares, they won't be affected by it. It's pretty incredible that some Americans voted for Trump on his anti-refugee sentiment when they barely take any and are not the ones directly affected by the crisis. And by incredible, I mean completely fucking bullshit.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52524851]I mean it's not like the American government really cares, they won't be affected by it. It's pretty incredible that some Americans voted for Trump on his anti-refugee sentiment when they barely take any and are not the ones directly affected by the crisis. And by incredible, I mean completely fucking bullshit.[/QUOTE] And that is why for me USA itself is also a threat; they are physically isolated from all these regions and problems. Lack of information can be used to form a distorted public opinion and scare people(like media exaggerating refugee violence, or those false news South Korea spreads about NK). Then they can go in and freely mess up with no responsibilities, say "here is your freedom and democracy", go back home and don't care, while the local countries have to deal with their mess for generations.

Better way to deter invasion: don't be a huge fucking mass murdering maniacal cunt

[QUOTE=T553412;52524146]There is only a key problem with this scenario. Namely, that [I]making[/I] nuclear weapons requires a [I][B]very significant[/B][/I] investment from any country's civilian and military industries. NK is a special case, because it has been locked in a military standoff for decades. The line between military and civilian industries is very blurry, and they've been receiving help from overseas for decades. Not simply years, decades. Other countries simply do not have the resources or time to star a military nuclear program (And repurposing civilian nuclear programs is another can of worms). Nukes are not going to spread across the world next weekend like a wildfire. For most countries concerned about outside interference, they can spend the same amount of resources in a more conventional military. After all, you don't just need a nuke to threat your neighbors. You need a way to deliver the bomb to its intended target. And a way to fit the bomb inside the delivery vehicle. Etc etc etc You see my point?[/QUOTE] there's plenty of latent nuclear states such as japan, south korea, the netherlands etc that could get both a bomb and a delivery device very quickly. luckily for us they tend to be pretty stable and western-aligned.

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52526968]Better way to deter invasion: don't be a huge fucking mass murdering maniacal cunt[/QUOTE] Not being a cunt won't prevent you from being invaded by cunts.