We have to—and we can. We have 100X the population, 1000X the economy, and 1000X the nukes they do. They know striking first is suicide.https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/921357753720991744 …
-
-
Replying to @wellerstein
Deterrence didn't work for the 46 brave ROK Sailors of the Cheonan. How bold will KJU be when he has 6th largest stockpile in World?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichardMHeim
46 soldiers is not 100K civilians. Terrible — but not anywhere near the same. (And KJU not KJI, anyway.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @RichardMHeim
Nobody claims deterrence would stop all nasty/undesired/abhorrent state actions. But would probably stop nuclear use, because would
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @RichardMHeim
guarantee a regime-changing response. DPRK knows this. They bet that 46 sailors wouldn't guarantee that once they had nukes—and were right.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @RichardMHeim
Which incidentally works perfectly with deterrence theory. US in 2010 not willing to risk Seoul for 46 ROK sailors.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein
Deterrence may work but why take that chance? KJU may decide to conduct a first strike against US or allies and have sub based deterrent.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @RichardMHeim @wellerstein
It's a fallacy to believe it's for regime survival. DPRK nuke program is decades old. Hussein killed in 2006 and Gaddafi 2011.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
DPRK's regime threat fears pre-date the 21st century. Look into their history. US has kept troops on the southern border since 1950s.
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.