freediver wrote on Jan 9
th, 2019 at 7:26pm:
No it isn't.
yeah it is. If NK really isn't "motivated by US actions", they wouldn't care about the threat of US nukes. You do understand that nuking North Korea qualifies as an "action" - right?
freediver wrote on Jan 9
th, 2019 at 7:26pm:
Are you agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time? You go on about how unfair it is for countries with nukes to tell other countries not to develop them, but it is not about fairness, but it is about fairness and equality.
Quote me once saying it was "unfair" on anyone FD. For bonus points, quote me once saying it is anything about fairness and equality. Just once. No points though for quoting me saying it is only ever about finding practical solutions to de-nuclearise the world, that would be too easy.
freediver wrote on Jan 9
th, 2019 at 7:26pm:
Guns as well as nukes? I see now why you were so easily duped into becoming a Muslim.
naive, duped - or liar - which is it FD? Your seem rather confused about this. That probably explains the pathetic personal attacks here. Never mind, maybe you can hunt down Aussie again and troll him into saying something mean about white female neo-nazis, and give him another one of your holier-than-thou lectures about resorting to personal insults. That should help.
Quote:You lie when you assert that countries like NK would have less incentive to develop nukes if everyone else gave theirs up. They would have more.
Of course FD, patiently prosecuting a logical argument is by default "lying" - if it disagrees with FD's world view. Ho hum, I'm a liar then. Whatever.
Here's another "lie" for you FD - that even if NK had incentive to develop nukes in a nuclear-free world, it would be impossible to do so in a world where no existing nuclear power can help them develop then, and where all the previous nuclear powers are united as one in thwarting them developing nukes.
Do you at least concede that if nothing else, from a technical point of view, NK has a better chance of developing nukes now through the assistance of other nuclear powers - namely China and/or Russia - in some sort of proxy power play to counter the US nuclear threat?
Also, lets get real FD and dispense with this silly nonsense that tin pot nations like NK can develop nukes on their own:
Quote:It helped that the country already had basic nuclear infrastructure in place.
As a founding member of the Soviet-led Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, North Korea had for years sent its scientists to the Soviet Union for nuclear energy training, according to a timeline compiled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).
The Soviets even helped North Korea set up its first nuclear reactor in 1964. The reactor was used to produce radioactive isotopes for medicinal, industrial and research purposes.
Or that existing nuclear technology and infrastructure don't pose a direct threat to the campaign to prevent the NKs of this world developing nukes:
Quote:In the ‘70s and ‘80s, North Korea set about acquiring sensitive nuclear technologies from Europe, taking advantage of the lack of adequate nuclear information safeguards at the time.
At one point, North Korean agents went to a conference in Vienna and chatted up some Belgian scientists who had a design for a plutonium separation plant, The Atlantic reported.
“Lo and behold, it wasn’t long before the North Koreans obtained the design information for that installation… and then eventually over a period of 10 to 15 years, they set that technology up, they deployed the plant, they started to experiment with it and use it,” Mark Hibbs, a senior fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told The Atlantic.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3448765/north-korea-nuclear-weapons/
Forum
Pages: 
