this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
753 points (98.6% liked)

World News

55050 readers
2422 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
753
Trump’s Iran war will reinforce North Korea’s view that nuclear weapons are the only path to security (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
202 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As speculation mounts that Kim Jong-un and Trump could meet this month, analysts say Pyongyang will continue to see nuclear weapons as a matter of survival

North Korea’s launch last week of a missile from a naval destroyer elicited an uncharacteristically prosaic analysis from the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The launch was proof, he said, that arming ships with nuclear weapons was “making satisfactory progress”.

But the test, and Kim’s mildly upbeat appraisal, were designed to reverberate well beyond the deck of the 5,000-tonne destroyer-class vessel the Choe Hyon – the biggest warship in the North Korean fleet.

His pointed reference to nuclear weapons was made as the US and Israel continued their air bombardment of Iran – a regime Donald Trump had warned, without offering evidence, was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jdr8@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But I am asking to the people doing the attacking, but also asking to anyone who has and is capable of launching a nuclear weapon.

I’m not judging or disregarding who has nukes as form of deterrence, but the “technical” consequences of a nuke.

We learnt about Hiroshima and Chernobyl (although Chernobyl was a nuclear accident and not a launch).

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But I am asking to the people doing the attacking, but also asking to anyone who has and is capable of launching a nuclear weapon.

Yeah I think maybe sentences like this are why you come off as vague and unclear. Because you just said two different things in two halves of that sentence.

Do you understand deterrence or not? You say you do but your entire line of questioning seems to make me think that you do not. The entire point of deterrence is it's up to the attacker to understand consequences. They're the ones making the choice. They can either not attack and not be nuked or attack and be nuked. That's the choice they're making. That's the point of deterrence.

[–] jdr8@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you read my very first comment on this, I didn’t even talked about deterrence.

I mentioned the consequences that if someone (attacked or attacker) uses a nuclear weapon.

The actual nasty effects, like radiation.

I don’t care about deterrence at this point. I care about people. People that will die if this is carried out.

Sure if someone says “I have nuclear weapons so you will obey me.”, of course others will also have nuclear weapons so they don’t get bullied.

But my point is way past that.

[–] clean_anion@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

The point of having nukes is to threaten destruction of an enemy even at the cost of one's own destruction. Analysts understand that actually using nuclear weapons benefits no one. Nukes don't benefit the party that launches nukes upon event X taking place, the party that causes event X, or most bystanders. Saying that any party responsible for event X will be nuked is intended to ensure that event X doesn't occur. Threats are not reality: threatening retaliation is not the same as actually retaliating.

Some facts have been simplified in this reply. Reality is more complicated but these basic principles do seem to hold most of the time.