US officials playing a dangerous game — "can they nuke us yet?" They are betting "no." If they are *right*, they might only lose Seoul.pic.twitter.com/dM5qKDcQly
Show this thread
-
Anything short of using nuclear arms. They say remove sanctions or we nuke LA, what then? The passive route delays the problem w/o solving.
Deterrence works both ways. We can't bluff them, they can't bluff us. Nuclear blackmail has never worked.
-
-
To put it another way: DPRK is never going to say, "remove sanctions or we'll do something that will surely get us killed."
-
If you want to have a realistic deterrence-question, ask, what happens if DPRK slowly moves across southern border?
-
The answer is, we'd have a crisis and have to deal with it. Such is how things go. But that's more realistic than nuclear blackmail fiction.
-
Blackmail is simplistic hyperbole but it illustrates a point as much as DPRK trying to sneak across the DMZ. Their capability only gets
-
Stronger, and short of literal divine intervention with a revolution there's no reason DPRK will stop its pattern of belligerence. I can't
-
Imagine the people around the Sea of Japan have such a laissez-faire attitude to a crisis developing.
-
They wouldn't, but if you think nuclear weapons would give them infinite confidence — I think that's wrong. Because they aren't suicidal.
-
Let me put it another way. Nuclear weapons didn't make Stalin think he could invade Western Europe, did they?
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.