The Good Things About North Korea

[laklak]

Best propaganda posters evah



I mean, they're nailing her goddamned head. Fucking Imperialist Aggressor Sons of Bitches.

[Ironclad]

What are they nailing to her head?
Will they get it through her thick skull?

[Ironclad]

Check these wimmin! Dying for it, and how so!!!1!

[FBM]

NK women are durable, well grounded, shock-proof.

[Coito ergo sum]

The honorable head of the UN Conference on Disarmament....

On Tuesday, the United Nations again made itself an international laughing stock – except perhaps to the American taxpayers who continue to foot 22 percent of the bill – by appointing North Korea chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. That would be the same North Korea that, according to an article this week by Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has “twice tested nuclear weapons…is developing missiles to carry them…has built facilities capable of producing highly enriched uranium for more nuclear weapons” and has defied a U.N. arms embargo by exporting weapons and sensitive technologies to rogue regimes.

[laklak]

The UN is a fucking joke.

[FBM]

I was hoping against hope that you were joking, CES, but holy fucking shit.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's almost what Moscow looked like in 1975. A few limos, the rest construction traffic.

[Cormac]

I was hoping against hope that you were joking, CES, but holy fucking shit.

Can I just ask though - what is the moral/ethical/logical idea behind disarmament and proliferation limitation activities, led by countries that:

1. Already have these weapons and
2. Have no intention of ever getting rid of them
3. And which themselve continue to invest in developing and building new arms themselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was hoping against hope that you were joking, CES, but holy fucking shit.

Can I just ask though - what is the moral/ethical/logical idea behind disarmament and proliferation limitation activities, led by countries that:

1. Already have these weapons and
2. Have no intention of ever getting rid of them
3. And which themselve continue to invest in developing and building new arms themselves.

Stopping the proliferation has to start somewhere.

When the US and the Soviets were the only nuclear nations, neither would get rid of them because they couldn't be sure the other would get rid of there arms. It was a game of chicken. The matter was further complicated when other nations got into the club. The matter becomes exponentially worse as new nations join the club, and the matter becomes infinitely worse when nations that are led by apocalyptic, dictatorial and theocratic regimes who have announced genocidal desires get them. While it would be nice if nobody had nukes, secondarily, limiting their spread so that 200 nations don't have nukes is better than having a whole bunch of nations have them. Not the least worry is that when so many nations have them, the task of determining which nation used one becomes infinitely harder.

[laklak]

Denis Leary explained it

..and there aint a goddamn thing anybody can do about it, you know why? Because we've got the bombs! That's why, yeah! Two words: NUCLEAR FUCKIN' WEAPONS! OK?!

[Cormac]

I was hoping against hope that you were joking, CES, but holy fucking shit.

Can I just ask though - what is the moral/ethical/logical idea behind disarmament and proliferation limitation activities, led by countries that:

1. Already have these weapons and
2. Have no intention of ever getting rid of them
3. And which themselve continue to invest in developing and building new arms themselves.

Stopping the proliferation has to start somewhere.

When the US and the Soviets were the only nuclear nations, neither would get rid of them because they couldn't be sure the other would get rid of there arms. It was a game of chicken. The matter was further complicated when other nations got into the club. The matter becomes exponentially worse as new nations join the club, and the matter becomes infinitely worse when nations that are led by apocalyptic, dictatorial and theocratic regimes who have announced genocidal desires get them. While it would be nice if nobody had nukes, secondarily, limiting their spread so that 200 nations don't have nukes is better than having a whole bunch of nations have them. Not the least worry is that when so many nations have them, the task of determining which nation used one becomes infinitely harder.

But, if I were an Iranian, or Pakistani, or India, I'd look at the US, and Russia, and China, and the UK, and France, and Israel, and I'd look at my economic position in the world, and I'd say fuck that. I'm getting these, so I can scare off all those guys and carve a bigger space for us in the world.

I just don't see how the moral outrage that the media adopt in these cases works.

I get that we'd be better off without them. But our position in the West is shored up by the possession of these weapons, and if I were in another part of the world, I'd not be happy with that.

I'd want the big stick to go along with my soft talking.

[Tyrannical]

If you could see North Korea from Alaska then maybe NK would be a big concern of mine as an American. I feel bad for the South Koreans, but NK is their problem, not mine.

[FBM]

Mmmm...They're said to be pretty close to having ICBMs capable of reaching Alaska. Keep yer eyes peeled...

[Coito ergo sum]

I was hoping against hope that you were joking, CES, but holy fucking shit.

Can I just ask though - what is the moral/ethical/logical idea behind disarmament and proliferation limitation activities, led by countries that:

1. Already have these weapons and
2. Have no intention of ever getting rid of them
3. And which themselve continue to invest in developing and building new arms themselves.

Stopping the proliferation has to start somewhere.

When the US and the Soviets were the only nuclear nations, neither would get rid of them because they couldn't be sure the other would get rid of there arms. It was a game of chicken. The matter was further complicated when other nations got into the club. The matter becomes exponentially worse as new nations join the club, and the matter becomes infinitely worse when nations that are led by apocalyptic, dictatorial and theocratic regimes who have announced genocidal desires get them. While it would be nice if nobody had nukes, secondarily, limiting their spread so that 200 nations don't have nukes is better than having a whole bunch of nations have them. Not the least worry is that when so many nations have them, the task of determining which nation used one becomes infinitely harder.

But, if I were an Iranian,

Iran denies it is even seeking nuclear weapons.

or Pakistani, or India,

They have nuclear weapons in conformity with the NNPT.

I'd look at the US, and Russia, and China, and the UK, and France, and Israel, and I'd look at my economic position in the world, and I'd say fuck that. I'm getting these, so I can scare off all those guys and carve a bigger space for us in the world.

The fact still remains that if 200 countries have nuclear weapons, it's far more dangerous than if 2 countries have nuclear weapons.

I just don't see how the moral outrage that the media adopt in these cases works.

I've heard zero "moral" outrage.

I get that we'd be better off without them. But our position in the West is shored up by the possession of these weapons, and if I were in another part of the world, I'd not be happy with that.

So? The fact remains that if a country like Iran gets nuclear weapons - an unstable regime bent on genocide - that is a bigger problem than if Britain or France have nuclear weapons.

I'd want the big stick to go along with my soft talking.

Of course. But, just because they want it doesn't mean it's not incredibly dangerous for them to have it.