Foreign Affairs published an interesting article (link below) supporting the idea of South Korea going nuclear.

 

The arguments put forward by the authors are convincing, they draw from the lessons of Ukraine and also apply to other geographies, starting from Japan and the European Union.

 

In a world where the USA seems to be closing in on itself and is less willing to take on the role (and the associated cost) of world's policeman, US-allied countries must deal with the fact that the greatest threat to their security comes from nuclear powers.

And even ignoring America's growing isolationism, modern technology allows countries like North Korea to directly threaten US territory. Guam, Hawaii, but also Los Angeles, San Francisco and Dallas.
 

The lesson learned from the war in Ukraine is that, in the event of a conventional war, the attacked country would hesitate to strike deeply into the attacking country, for fear of nuclear retaliation. The result is that Russia can afford to strike any target on Ukrainian territory while Ukraine is denied the right to do the same on Russian territory.
The risk of a Russian nuclear reaction is made credible by the fact that the only country capable of responding would be the USA, which would thus find itself in the position of having to risk sacrificing New York to avenge the destruction of Kiev. A clearly unsustainable choice.

 

And we can also see how it was the unilateral nuclear disarmament of Ukraine, which occurred in 1993 with the Budapest Memorandum, at the insistence of the United States, that created the conditions that made the Russian aggression possible. Of the three countries that signed the Budapest Memorandum accepting their nuclear disarmament, Belarus is in fact a Russian province, while Ukraine is engaged in a war to avoid the same fate. Only Kazakhstan still has a semblance of independence from Russia and it is currently trying to strengthen its relations with the US and China, realizing that it might be next on Putin's list.

 

According to the authors of the article, today "the biggest obstacle to South Korean nuclearization is not a domestic constituency but a foreign one: the United States. There is a deep, decades-old bipartisan opposition in Washington to nuclear proliferation, even among U.S. allies." 

"American opponents of South Korean nuclearization exaggerate the policy’s downsides, underappreciate its benefits, and ignore the United States’ own liberal values that call for Washington to tolerate a democratic partner’s national security choices, even when it dislikes them. "

 

To avoid having to ask the question of whether it is worth sacrificing Los Angeles to avenge the destruction of Seoul, "Washington will need to loosen its rigid opposition to allied nuclearization. This may become easier under Trump, who showed in his first term that he is inclined to throw out the script when it comes to U.S. alliances." 

 

More to the article link below.

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/north-korea/why-south-korea-should-go-nuclear-kelly-kim?utm_medium=newsletters&ut m_source=twofa&utm_campaign=Perché%20Sud%20Corea%20Dovrebbe%20Go%20Nuclear&utm_content=20250103&utm_term=EWZZZ003ZX

23 hours ago, AndreasHG said:

Foreign Affairs published an interesting article (link below) supporting the idea of South Korea going nuclear.

 

The arguments put forward by the authors are convincing, they draw from the lessons of Ukraine and also apply to other geographies, starting from Japan and the European Union.

 

In a world where the USA seems to be closing in on itself and is less willing to take on the role (and the associated cost) of world's policeman, US-allied countries must deal with the fact that the greatest threat to their security comes from nuclear powers.

And even ignoring America's growing isolationism, modern technology allows countries like North Korea to directly threaten US territory. Guam, Hawaii, but also Los Angeles, San Francisco and Dallas.
 

The lesson learned from the war in Ukraine is that, in the event of a conventional war, the attacked country would hesitate to strike deeply into the attacking country, for fear of nuclear retaliation. The result is that Russia can afford to strike any target on Ukrainian territory while Ukraine is denied the right to do the same on Russian territory.
The risk of a Russian nuclear reaction is made credible by the fact that the only country capable of responding would be the USA, which would thus find itself in the position of having to risk sacrificing New York to avenge the destruction of Kiev. A clearly unsustainable choice.

 

And we can also see how it was the unilateral nuclear disarmament of Ukraine, which occurred in 1993 with the Budapest Memorandum, at the insistence of the United States, that created the conditions that made the Russian aggression possible. Of the three countries that signed the Budapest Memorandum accepting their nuclear disarmament, Belarus is in fact a Russian province, while Ukraine is engaged in a war to avoid the same fate. Only Kazakhstan still has a semblance of independence from Russia and it is currently trying to strengthen its relations with the US and China, realizing that it might be next on Putin's list.

 

According to the authors of the article, today "the biggest obstacle to South Korean nuclearization is not a domestic constituency but a foreign one: the United States. There is a deep, decades-old bipartisan opposition in Washington to nuclear proliferation, even among U.S. allies." 

"American opponents of South Korean nuclearization exaggerate the policy’s downsides, underappreciate its benefits, and ignore the United States’ own liberal values that call for Washington to tolerate a democratic partner’s national security choices, even when it dislikes them. "

 

To avoid having to ask the question of whether it is worth sacrificing Los Angeles to avenge the destruction of Seoul, "Washington will need to loosen its rigid opposition to allied nuclearization. This may become easier under Trump, who showed in his first term that he is inclined to throw out the script when it comes to U.S. alliances." 

 

More to the article link below.

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/north-korea/why-south-korea-should-go-nuclear-kelly-kim?utm_medium=newsletters&ut m_source=twofa&utm_campaign=Perché%20Sud%20Corea%20Dovrebbe%20Go%20Nuclear&utm_content=20250103&utm_term=EWZZZ003ZX

Certainly, in an era when Trump treats allies like opponents and opponents like allies, acquiring nuclear weapons does make a lot of sense for America's friends to nuke up.

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

The plan was never to be in Kiev

Like I said earlier, you should maybe study history a little better. 
 

If the plan was never to be in Kiev, what were Russian paratroopers doing at Kiev (Hostomel) airport? And why was the Russian military advancing towards Kiev?

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Sure. They meant to leave all those tanks and other materiel on the road to Kiev because they wanted to help Ukraine in order to make it fairer fight. 

 

That was a feint, to see if they could push Zelensky and his cronies to leave the country and move to their mansions around the world and end the conflict without killing a million people. 

 

Sadly, the US and UK convinced Zelensky to fight on.

 

7 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

Like I said earlier, you should maybe study history a little better. 
 

If the plan was never to be in Kiev, what were Russian paratroopers doing at Kiev (Hostomel) airport? And why was the Russian military advancing towards Kiev?

Perhaps you propaganda media has told you that to push the Russian expansionism narrative and install fear in the EU, 'big bad Putin going to invade Poland next'

 

🐑🐑

Just now, impulse said:

 

That was a feint, to see if they could push Zelensky and his cronies to leave the country and move to their mansions around the world and end the conflict without killing a million people. 

 

Sadly, the US and UK convinced Zelensky to fight on.

 

With bags of cash and/or threat of death

10 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

Like I said earlier, you should maybe study history a little better. 
 

If the plan was never to be in Kiev, what were Russian paratroopers doing at Kiev (Hostomel) airport? And why was the Russian military advancing towards Kiev?

And where did you read the Russian para story?

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That was a feint, to see if they could push Zelensky and his cronies to leave the country and move to their mansions around the world and end the conflict without killing a million people. 

 

Sadly, the US and UK convinced Zelensky to fight on.

 

That was a ridiculously massive and expensive feint. But I guess if you believe that Putin or his general staff are highly competent, that is the kind of thing you would believe.

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

And where did you read the Russian para story?

Probaly not in any of the sources you draw on in your alternative universe. 

44 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

And where did you read the Russian para story?

Not sure it was para troopers, but Russian troops nonetheless:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hostomel

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Kyiv_convoy
 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-02/a-massive-russian-convoy-is-approaching-kyiv-heres-what-we-know/100874820

38 minutes ago, impulse said:

the US and UK convinced Zelensky to fight on

 

Nice try troll.

 

This is exactly what the US offered Zelensky assuming that the Ukrainian Army was incapable of resisting. Boy if they where wrong!

 

Google has no mercy for liar like you.

 

Слава україні

 

 

50 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That was a feint, to see if they could push Zelensky and his cronies to leave the country and move to their mansions around the world and end the conflict without killing a million people. 

 

Sadly, the US and UK convinced Zelensky to fight on.

 

A feint, in which they lost dozens (hundreds?) of tanks and countless soldiers’ lives. Quite a costly ‘feint’, wasn’t it?

 

And America offered to evacuate Zelensky, to which he famously answered: ‘I need ammunition, not a ride’. 
 

The 40 (or so) Russian assassination attempts on Zelensk’s life during the invasion were probably also just in jest, right?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What's amazing about so many right wingers like Frank83628 is that they assert things that never happened did (like the stolen 2020 election) and those things that did happen (like the battle at Hostomel/Antonov airport) didn't.

 

Either they do it for money, or they are brainwashed idiots. No... ...wait, yeah, none can be such an idiot.

A number of posts have been reported and removed for being off topic, mainly instigated by @frank83628 Replies also removed. 

 

This topic  is not about Ukraine and Russian war.

 

Why South Korea Should Go Nuclear

 

 

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Sadly, the US and UK convinced Zelensky to fight on.

Already forgotten the words of Zelensky at TV: "I want arms, NOT a ticket/taxi out of here". 

Someone really wants the whole world to be one big proxy war.

59 minutes ago, zmisha said:

Someone really wants the whole world to be one big proxy war.

 

Misha, you have been already banned from a number of posts as a Troll: do you really want to start all over again?

4 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

If the plan was never to be in Kiev, what were Russian paratroopers doing at Kiev (Hostomel) airport? And why was the Russian military advancing towards Kiev?

 

The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated many times that it believes that decisions are made not in Kyiv but in Washington. Based on this position, Kyiv is no better or worse than any other city in Ukraine from Moscow's point of view.
Perhaps Seoul is similar to Kyiv in this regard.

1 minute ago, zmisha said:

 

The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated many times that it believes that decisions are made not in Kyiv but in Washington. Based on this position, Kyiv is no better or worse than any other city in Ukraine from Moscow's point of view.

And of course, if the Russian Foreign Ministry says that's what it believes, that's what it believes. Now, if the head of the Russian government had been a KGB agent, we might have reason to mistrust what the foreign ministry says it believes. But since...oh wait a minute...

IMO South Korea should not go nuclear. The world is dangerous enough as it is.

 

The more variables there are in any equation, the more complex and unpredictable the result becomes.

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMO South Korea should not go nuclear. The world is dangerous enough as it is.

 

The more variables there are in any equation, the more complex and unpredictable the result becomes.

I guess the issue is do they want to pursue their immediate self-interest to deter North Korea at the possible expense of  greater world disorder

24 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I guess the issue is do they want to pursue their immediate self-interest to deter North Korea at the possible expense of  greater world disorder

Given that Kim Jong Un is the leader of North Korea, and what's even worse, that he's Donald Trump's man-crush, who could blame South Korea for going nuclear?

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IMO South Korea should not go nuclear. The world is dangerous enough as it is.

 

The more variables there are in any equation, the more complex and unpredictable the result becomes.

That was my first reaction as well. We really don’t need another country with nukes, and certainly not South Korea, which is not the politically most stable country to begin with, judging by what happened there over the last few weeks.
The chances of some nutcase pushing the button and sending us all to kingdom come are already way too high.

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

That was my first reaction as well. We really don’t need another country with nukes, and certainly not South Korea, which is not the politically most stable country to begin with, judging by what happened there over the last few weeks.
The chances of some nutcase pushing the button and sending us all to kingdom come are already way too high.

But put yourself in South Korea's position. Not only are they faced with a nuclear-armed foe, but the incoming POTUS actually called American-South Korean military maneuvers provocative.  Why should they believe that the US will stand with them for the next 4 years?

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

But put yourself in South Korea's position. Not only are they faced with a nuclear-armed foe, but the incoming POTUS actually called American-South Korean military maneuvers provocative.  Why should they believe that the US will stand with them for the next 4 years?

Trump calling maneuvers provocative is one thing. Letting the fat boy use a nuke on South Korea without response would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

On 1/5/2025 at 6:45 AM, Lacessit said:

Trump calling maneuvers provocative is one thing. Letting the fat boy use a nuke on South Korea without response would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

I suppose that most people here approve the supply of nuclear weapons to the region. Those who don't approve are most probably guys on marriage visa who are using safe entry on visa exempt (5000 baht per entry)  services - because they don`t have 400k in Thai bank. These people know that any big war in the region means thousands of refugees and inability to easily enter any country on visa exempt. When choosing between patriotism and family, they choose family.