That ship sailed but the world was able to manage them. The ship didn't sail with Iran and the world was able to manage it. My point being is that whatever stage the situation is in, diplomacy without war actually works.
So this is a comment in favour of nuclear proliferation? I don't get your point. It sounds like you're saying oh well because NK has worked out so far. So far, by the way, because they're still a rogue state, and they now have nuclear weapons on top of that.
Yes, so far it worked. That's what "it's working" means, like, it will always be "its working so far". Listen, don't bring up the bullshit framework everyone used to get into the Iraq war. I can hear the echoes of it in your commentary. Everything is working so far, that is what a process is.
"It's working" in terms of NK not nuking anyone, but it also means that people are scared to do anything to North Korea even when they're belligerent, because they're a nuclear power now.
> Listen, don't bring up the bullshit framework everyone used to get into the Iraq war.
Ridiculous comparison. No one's talking about a ground invasion here.
I discard any pro-proliferation arguments at face value.
You’re arguing for a greater number of uncontrollable parameters governing the world’s most deadly weapons. I can’t think of a more idiotic position to take. And the “nothing bad has happened yet” belief system is just insane. Stanislav Petrov? Able Archer 83? Read a book man.
How many times has the world’s most capable military accidentally almost detonated a nuclear bomb?
