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

World News

54677 readers
3066 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
498
Trump’s Iran war will reinforce North Korea’s view that nuclear weapons are the only path to security (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
196 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
[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Works both ways, while the USA is thinking about invading another country with nuclear weapons they have to know that will lead to nukes from that country hitting their major cities which will probably make them think twice.

Then the discussion moves to pre-emptive strikes which have the same problem if the other country already has nukes. Eventually we end up in this situation where some might see even pursuing a nuclear weapons technology as justification for a war of aggression like we're seeing in Iran so you certainly need to be careful during that phase but once you get there you're in a much safer place than you used to.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The US is a big place, and we starve our citizens for fun. I don’t think the higher ups would care if you dropped a handful of bombs up.

A true nuclear deterrent is a combination of icbms and sub launched missles. A lot of them. I’m thinking 300 before I even start to get scared. 3,000 and I’m shitting bricks. If you build 3 nukes and think that will stop the USA from invading it’s just nonsense. They’d happily let those hit so they could glass their enemies and start the apocalypse.

You’re dealing with mad men.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They'd care because it's not just the poor citizens you'd sacrifice to the gods of nuclear fire but also the very important ones with money and political connections. And the stock markets would really sink, the thing that gets Trump to TACO out every time.

Of course you want as strong a deterrent as possible but from estimates I've read North Korea's 10 nukes with MIRVs and decoy launches would very likely still be effective enough to extract a very serious price for invading.

Obviously if you just assume there is not even the slightest bit of rational self-interest from the actors involved, you've already lost humanity to nukes anyway.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That’s what I’m saying we have systems in place to save the important people. The same people that will press the button.

So you’re gonna gamble on the fact that America cares about its citizens getting nuke or not. I can tell you from the ground floor of America. They do not care if we get nuked. That would certainly help them proceed with their planned goals..

I totally agree with the theory if we were all dealing with rational actors, then yes, having a few nuclear weapons as a method of deterrent probably not a terrible idea. But the reality is nuclear powers already pretty concentrated and the powers that be don’t want anyone else getting the power. The American military complex is not being run by rational actors. Nuclear weapons are best at deterring military peers. The us military has no peer. You’d need to be building nukes for 100 year to catch up and that shouldn’t be a global goal.