Why Doesn't the US Support North Korea's Right to Nuclear Arms?

[Shadowferal]

So in in the US every citizen has a right to bear arms. It was (and perhaps still is) believed that an armed citizenry is a healthy way to ensure the continued security of a free State.

We're talking of US citizens not NK.
If the NK wants to adopt the US Constitution maybe we can talk...

[mootygrimes]

Because guns are not nukes. Even the biggest cannon has nothing on the smallest nuke, purely for the destructive effect. But the radiation is what makes them truly separate, its something we cant really deal with.
And, funny as it is, USA shows that the more guns you have, the more they are used. School shootings, ring a bell?

lol what are you even doing right now?

I've been saying, literally this entire time, that at least one party in the US government believes in a citizenries right to bear arms, advocates for *more* guns, and defends this right vehemently.

At the same time, this same party does not recognize a nation's right to defend itself from those that would do it harm. Why don't they advocate for more nukes? (This is rhetorical: The answer is because they are destructive. Just like guns)

I'm asking if anybody else sees the hyprocrisy in this logic. I have no idea wtf you're doing here.

[Shadowferal]

lol what are you even doing right now? I've been saying, literally this entire time, that at least one party in the US government believes in a citizenries right to bear arms, advocates for *more* guns, and defends this right vehemently. At the same time, this same party does not recognize a nation's right to defend itself from those that would do it harm. Why don't they advocate for more nukes? (This is rhetorical: The answer is because they are destructive. Just like guns) I'm asking if anybody else sees the hyprocrisy in this logic. I have no idea wtf you're doing here.

The hypocrisy you see is in your imagination.
If you're unable to see the difference between nukes and guns...or do you imagine that US citizens are allowed to own nukes? Because WMDs have always been off the table by law.

[mootygrimes]

• You are comparing guns to something that can destroy cities, especially if he actually has H-Bombs; that is like comparing a flea's ass hair to a blue whale.

• The US is not the only country that does not want North Korea to have nukes; most developed countries are against it, as well as the UN.

• The argument that the US wants to be the only one that has nukes is silly; of course they would like that. So would Russia, China and every other country.

I am comparing a weapon which destroys cities to a weapon that destroys cities.

If you are unable to see the destruction that firearms have on communities that are victims to mass shootings.... then I'm not sure what to tell you. Your colorful description does not make your argument any stronger.

The US not the only country that would prefer a denuclearized DPRNK, no. However, the US is the only superpower that has the audacity to tell it's citizens they have a right to destructive weaponry, backs it with lax regulations, watches as it's children are murdered while attending school and then turns around and tells a sovereign state that we do not recognize their right given to every other country in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

The hypocrisy you see is in your imagination.
If you're unable to see the difference between nukes and guns...or do you imagine that US citizens are allowed to own nukes? Because WMDs have always been off the table by law.

I dont mean to be rude, but you are legitimately not on my level. I'm glad you're here and participating but if you tried to join my conversation at a dinner party I would politely ask you to excuse yourself.

Sorry, man.

[Collegeguy]

I dont mean to be rude, but you are legitimately not on my level. I'm glad you're here and participating but if you tried to join my conversation at a dinner party I would politely ask you to excuse yourself.

Sorry, man.

Sorry, man but why would anyone sit at a table filled with gibberish of crazy and ignorance. NK sanctions have nothing to do with one party or even one country.
Why did you stop there anyway? Why not throw religion and music taste in as well. Go ahead a reply some more crazy.

[PACOX]

NK is probably the worse example to use for this kind of question...

The US doesn't want NK to have weapons because it has spent decades threatening to blow up SK, Japan, and the US. Even if those threats are empty, nukes give desperate men power should the Kim's face being dethroned.

[igualitarist]

I personally think every country that promisses to destroy other countries, or have unstable politics, shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.

[stomination]

So in in the US every citizen has a right to bear arms. It was (and perhaps still is) believed that an armed citizenry is a healthy way to ensure the continued security of a free State.

This belief is etched into the Constitution of the United States and likely will not be changing any time soon. Fine.

What can change, and can be iterated upon are the rules and regulations around how people acquire guns, how people can actually have their right to gun ownership revoked, building upon laws that make threat of violence punishable and other supporting efforts in the realm of mental health, etc.

There exists right now a party within the US government that has shown no interest in participating in any sort of iteration despite the (mostly avoidable) american loss of life at the hands of one or two heavily armed individuals in public settings.

This party believes that more guns, not less, are the solution and that if more people had weapons everybody would be safer for it. Mostly based on the idea that "you can basically be assured that the person you're likely to assault is armed just like you."

At the same time, this party is very much against a country like North Korea (and the rest of the world) gaining access to Nuclear weapons despite North Korea's sovereign right to defend itself from those that would do it harm.

If they believe that it works at home and the loss of life is just the cost of a free society why don't they support every countries right to arm themselves. Would it not act as a huge deterrent if *everybody* knew that *everybody* else had the ability to fire back at the same level? Is this not the same as arming teachers in class rooms to defend those who may not be able to defend themselves?

Does anybody else see the hypocrisy in this? Are we to takeaway from this that it's OK for Americans to keep killing themselves, that's just the cost of being free but the only people that can beat up on Americans is other Americans? We're willing to label Kim Jung Un a madman and at the same time work on a diplomatic solution; Why isn't diplomacy (iteration) being attempted at home? Why aren't these gunmen being labeled as domestic terrorists (which is the only word that seems to unify a failed two-party system)?

What're the takes here?

EDIT: this was meant to be in off-topic. plz move?

Guns and nukes are not the same. International law dicated who could have nuclear weapons only to use them as a dont start ww3 thing.



But honestly most of the world is against other countries having nukes. Not just the US. WE just technically happen to still be at "war" with North Korea and considered the only real superpower at this time.

[AlphaOut]

Its the UN that created specific sanctions against NK. But this really all started when NK withdrew from the NPT, which pretty much gave NK a ton of attention the nuclear discussion.

[dontknowdoya]

I am comparing a weapon which destroys cities to a weapon that destroys cities.

If you are unable to see the destruction that firearms have on communities that are victims to mass shootings.... then I'm not sure what to tell you. Your colorful description does not make your argument any stronger.

The US not the only country that would prefer a denuclearized DPRNK, no. However, the US is the only superpower that has the audacity to tell it's citizens they have a right to destructive weaponry, backs it with lax regulations, watches as it's children are murdered while attending school and then turns around and tells a sovereign state that we do not recognize their right given to every other country in the world.

I am not arguing gun control politics, I am saying that comparing guns to nukes is silly.

• A .50 produces 15,037 joules of muzzle energy.
• A ton of TNT produces 4.184 gigajoules (a gigajoule is 1,000,000,000 joules)
• The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT.
• An H-bomb is 1000 times more powerful than an Atom bomb.

Do the math dude. Even if my figures are off, there is an astronomical difference from guns and nukes.

I dont mean to be rude, but you are legitimately not on my level. I'm glad you're here and participating but if you tried to join my conversation at a dinner party I would politely ask you to excuse yourself.

Sorry, man.

You are being rude. You flat out insulted the person and claimed to be superior to him. Being a dick does not help your argument, even when you apologize for it. Attack the subject, not the person.

[Shadowferal]

I dont mean to be rude

Too late.

but you are legitimately not on my level. I'm glad you're here and participating but if you tried to join my conversation at a dinner party I would politely ask you to excuse yourself.Sorry, man.

Sorry, but if you're that ignorant of international law, and the US Constitution I would likely need a shovel to reach your "level..."

[mootygrimes]

I am not arguing gun control politics, I am saying that comparing guns to nukes is silly.

• A .50 produces 15,037 joules of muzzle energy.
• A ton of TNT produces 4.184 gigajoules (a gigajoule is 1,000,000,000 joules)
• The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT.
• An H-bomb is 1000 times more powerful than an Atom bomb.

Do the math dude. Even if my figures are off, there is an astronomical difference from guns and nukes.

You are being rude. You flat out insulted the person and claimed to be superior to him. Being a dick does not help your argument, even when you apologize for it. Attack the subject, not the person.

I am not, and never will argue that a firearm expels more energy than a bomb. This is now the third time that you'll be reading words written by me that align with that statement.

You conveniently glossed over the point I'm trying to make -- again. Both are weapons. Both are destructive.

The other guy was staying so blatantly off base that I thought he was being disrespectful to my efforts to contribute here. I chose to disengage. I could've ignored him, but I wanted him to know I was no longer going to converse with him. I don't know if telling him he's not really "getting it" is an attack on him personally, but, buddy, if you're still out there reading and you feel like I went after you, I apologize. No ad hominem here.

[Shadowferal]

yeah...I'm sure swords are destructive too...
So are baseball and cricket bats...(fuckers hurt)

[stomination]

I am not, and never will argue that a firearm expels more energy than a bomb. This is now the third time that you'll be reading words written by me that align with that statement.

You conveniently glossed over the point I'm trying to make -- again. Both are weapons. Both are destructive.

The other guy was staying so blatantly off base that I thought he was being disrespectful to my efforts to contribute here. I chose to disengage. I could've ignored him, but I wanted him to know I was no longer going to converse with him. I don't know if telling him he's not really "getting it" is an attack on him personally, but, buddy, if you're still out there reading and you feel like I went after you, I apologize. No ad hominem here.

Basically guns is a country to country law.

Nukes is more of international law.

[Direpenguin]

because if other countries start getting nuclear weapons, the US can no longer be the bully of the world, and that same party you mention thrives on creating wars with countries like NK and getting that sweet sweet military money.

You mean other than Russia, France, India, Pakistan, etc? But yeah, continue spouting your stupidity.

[Shadowferal]

UN security Council's permanent members; US; Russia; UK; France; China; all have nukes.
Israel, Pakistan, India are other countries that have them.

[dextersmith]

I don't think they believe in the right to bare nukes; they wouldn't activate a nuke if someone robbed a coffee shop.

[Azelas]

You mean other than Russia, France, India, Pakistan, etc? But yeah, continue spouting your stupidity.

the first two, at a time where the US couldn't enforce shit. Their development of nuclear weapons was too early into the process. The second two, the US saw India getting nuclear weapons as a win in the cold war, never thinking the USSR would not only support but provide for Pakistan.

The fact is the nuclear powers don't want other people having nuclear weapons because it's the way they mantain their superiority.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...the more nukes, the greater the odds they get used.

[Zython]

Ostensibly because North Korea is a rogue state with massive human rights violations and a dictator who's practically a cult leader.

More likely reason? Imperialism.

Not that the former stuff isn't true, mind you.