Should they be armed with nukes?

They have the capacity to develope one.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes are vely vely bad.
    t. Hideo Kojima

    There would probably be a public outcry at the idea.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Apparently, they began talking about nuclear armament after Ukraine.
      Especially S. Korea since they have a nuclear neighbor and is not pacifist.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You forgot the meme arrow.
      Also, yes. No way anyone in Japan would be really pro-nukes.
      >extremely expensive
      >not likely to be ready in time
      >sanctions
      >you can escalate conflicts by simply possessing nukes
      >no like uhnm sweetie the expenses ... are extreme mkay( https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240 )

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        only loose cannon nations opposed to US interests get santioned for developing nuclear weapons. They would face no western sanctions for armed themselves against an increasingly belligerent China/NK.
        Like do you think its some kind of automated rules based thing?
        And you have escalation exactly backwards possession of nukes keeps conflicts limited because neither side wants things to get to the stage where we start thinking about nukes.

        The ENTIRE reason we havent freedomed russia yet is the chance they may yet have a functioning nuclear deterrent, without that we would absolutely have bombed the shit out of them in 2008, 14 and 22. WE havent invaded russia and deposed putin because of russian nukes, and russia isn't conducting unrestricted warfare against Ukraine because of NATO nukes. Both sides are fighting a limited war because neither side wants to escalate and risk a nuclear exchange, which NATO would almost certainly win at this point but the cost would be catastrophic regardless.

        1000% yes. South Korea might just go ahead and do it, they have reasons and means to. In Japan the domestic resistance to having nukes is huge, but if SK gets them they might come around. Taiwan yeah ideally they should, but it's probably just gonna give the commie fricks excuses to overstep their borders again. They could instead be under nuclear guarantees by a friendly nation though, but everyone's too much of a pussy. So we end up at square one with a "yes" for Taiwan too.

        tl;dr yes they all should

        China hasnt tried shit in Taiwan because the invasion of Taiwan is not a simple problem and cannot simply be solved with mass. The Island is extremely heavily fortified densely populated with a population that basically all has defensive urban warfare training and the entire show has a dozens of miles wide killing zone in front of it. The chinese would lose dozens of ships and probably more than a hundred thousand men just getting to the beach, through the missile spam off the shore batteries and mountains. The entire strategic problem is a operations planners worst nightmare, and if China attempts to reclaim Taiwan and *fails to do so* the are basically finished as a world power. The lose of face will cripple their government at home, possibly bringing down the CCP and the international blowback would destroy their export economy.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The Island is extremely heavily fortified densely populated with a population that basically all has defensive urban warfare training
          >and mountains.

          This is all false.

          The sparsely populated mountains are in eastern Taiwan. 2% of the population lives there (mountain Aboriginals)

          The western flat plains which gas the densely populated cities aren't fortified at all.

          Not only that, they don't have urban warfare training. Taiwan has same basic military training during conscription, no specialised training.

          Also military conscription is hated in countries like Taiwan and South Korea, people deliberately get themselves sick or try to get exemptions (during peacetime, when there isn't any war).

          There's Russian style brutal hazing of conscripts by superior officers.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Should they be armed with nukes?

        >No way anyone in Japan would be really pro-nukes.
        There is an easy answer to this conundrum. Put American nukes in those countries under joint American/Korean, American/Japanese, American/Taiwanese command and stipulate that they are only to be used as a deterrence against China, the N-Orks, and the Russoids. They might even agree to a "leasing fee" or some other compensation. It's not like America hasn't put nukes in allied countries before.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Brainlet
          Any country that has nukes should know how to use them themselves
          Solution is to make japan a US state

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >>you can escalate conflicts by simply possessing nukes
        That's only true for dictatorships. Ukraine would have been fine if they'd kept their nukes, but they gave them up for a non-aggression pact with Russia (lol). Nukes are a deterrent foremost and a very poor way to bluff for places like Russia/NK

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They'd do better with ballistics missiles that unleash white phosphorus.

      There might be while they would remain silent about mass beheading prisoners with a katana. Also, frick Hideo Kojima. He is a shitty writer and his better work was in the distant past with Snatcher (Blade Runner) and Policenauts.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Policenauts was fricking trash too

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If China continues its aggressiveness, they will either need to develop one or rely on treaties with the US to provide a nuclear umbrella.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should they be armed with nukes?
    Frankly at a matter of pure national interest? Yeah, they probably should unfortunately. I'm not sure anyone can put that much assurance in the American nuclear umbrella anymore, unlike during the cold war I think we've grown too soft and/or corrupted to defend our ideals that well, which in turn means the deterrence value shrinks drastically. Russia's evil war has highlighted this, and then the subsequent Israel mess has double underlined it: America will treat even the most horrible mass war crime committing unprovoked invading force with kid gloves if they have NOOOOOOKS while meanwhile total shit heads who shit all over us will get unlimited support vs rando dune coons. China is a nuclear power under an expansionist dictator but far far far more powerful and important economically then Russia.

    If I was taking a clear, hard eyed look at my country's national defense in that position, I'd be thinking very, very hard about domestic nuclear weapons as well. No need for ICBMs that'd make me a world power, would be less destabilizing and a "compromise" measure to have relatively short range delivery vehicles, but the period of Pax Americana seems to be about over and thus back to normal.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should they be armed with nukes?
    Yes they should, only because it would further escalate world tension and we can finally accelerate into a real war

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They threw a hissy fit over releasing harmless water. Nukes are not happening.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They should develop metal gear rays to compensate

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Giving them nukes means they can say no to America down the line.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They already can though

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    NO.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. America isn’t a reliable ally as we have seen. Too many 5th Columnists are hijacking our government

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The unpalatable fact is the countries that were developing nukes (Libya, Ukraine) have suffered invasions/destruction, while a$$hole countries that did develop nukes or are believed to be close to nukes (Iran, Pakistan, NK) have been left alone more or less.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      *developing or HAD nukes but gave them up.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Way I see it, the less nukes in the world the better. Conventional forces is where the real big dick is.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should they be armed with nukes?
    No, but only because nukes are worthless and cringe, only microdick despots give a shit about them.
    Normal people understand they serve basically no purpose other than being a pointless fear tactic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No, but only because nukes are worthless and cringe, only microdick despots give a shit about them.
      >Normal people understand they serve basically no purpose other than being a pointless fear tactic.

      The unpalatable fact is the countries that were developing nukes (Libya, Ukraine) have suffered invasions/destruction, while a$$hole countries that did develop nukes or are believed to be close to nukes (Iran, Pakistan, NK) have been left alone more or less.

      It still shocks me that Libyans and Ukrainians were dumb enough to actually take those shitty short term IMF deals and 'security guarantee's in exchange for basically ensuring a future where they get invaded by France/Turkey/Russia et cetera.
      Just about as cringe as people turning in their old gramps hunting rifle to the police station to get chopped up and turned into a Benchmade knife in exchange for a shitty Amazon gift card.

      It's all so tiresome....

      They already can though

      ^ This

      Giving them nukes means they can say no to America down the line.

      The Korean K9 thunder is a great example of Worst Korea telling Uncle Sam to get fricked with their out dated over priced mobile artillery guns that development clearly payed off because now Poland buying them.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    my headcannon is that taiwan already has nukes and that's the only reason why china actually hasn't tried shit there

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1000% yes. South Korea might just go ahead and do it, they have reasons and means to. In Japan the domestic resistance to having nukes is huge, but if SK gets them they might come around. Taiwan yeah ideally they should, but it's probably just gonna give the commie fricks excuses to overstep their borders again. They could instead be under nuclear guarantees by a friendly nation though, but everyone's too much of a pussy. So we end up at square one with a "yes" for Taiwan too.

    tl;dr yes they all should

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no
    they would instantly nuke korea
    and then themselves as a sort of nuclear harakiri

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    abso-fricking-lutely

    The messages from ukraine are very clear cut
    >get big nook shitpile from vatnik union
    >burgers force ukranians to give the up to puccians because puny ukranians cant be trusted compared new partner and friend (TM) mighty Russhitia
    >get guarantees from both burgers and vatniks nothing will happen
    >a couple of decades later seething manlet khan Monke decides might makes right and start butchering ukraine while screaming nooks every second. Since he cant get over losing his precious disfunctional shithouse "empire" he loyally worshipped in his youth
    >burgers go nuh-uh, the paper was not technically binding. But we will trickle you cold war hand me downs as long as senpai puccia does not get too mad at us and NOOK

    everybody everywhere who either wants to invade without getting hit back into regime changing implosion or defend their borders needs nooks now. Specially with burgers head up their asses and now having a isolationist surge after wasting away their will for war playing democracy in middle east with inbred muzzies for two fricking decades. In the short term europe is on its own and actors like poland with actual skin on the line (unlike UK, france, germany) seriously need to start also their own nuclear program

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I believe Article X of the NPT anti-proliferation treaty specifically allows you to withdraw from the NPT and develop nuclear weapons, so long as you announce your withdraw in like 6 months BEFORE you attempt to develop them. So RoK could announce their leaving at the UN, then by Xmas begin legally developing the capability

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >are the one nation they were used against.
    sounds like a great idea, just like anime and the video game industry.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Should they be armed with nukes?
    They already are. You just don't hear about it as much recently because Kishida grew up in Hiroshima.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not a nuke, that's a missile.

      Also the US gave Japan their rocket program and nuclear energy program during the Cold War. Japan didn't develop that themselves.

      Also Japan and South Korea don't have the number of launchers or fissile material for MAD with China.

      China can wipe out all Japan and South Korea with just one fourth of its arsenal.

      Japan and South Korea can only target 10% of China with the fissile material and launchers they have.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >That's not a nuke, that's a missile.
        Literally anyone can make a nuke as long as you have the materials. This isn't 1944 and there were legitimate worries during the GWOT that the taliban were gonna build some makeshift nuke.
        >Japan and South Korea can only target 10% of China with the fissile material and launchers they have.
        And China is like 65% uninhabitable mountains and desert. They only have around a dozen major population centers that need to be taken out to cause real damage with the rest of the country looking like pic rel inhabited by the elderly. If we are talking about MAD, all that Japan and SK would have to do is hit the major cities and watch China's demographics plummet to unimaginable levels within a decade. There is also the 3GD which would absolutely be a target since we are already talking about a nooks situation.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >And China is like 65% uninhabitable mountains and desert. They only have around a dozen major population centers that need to be taken out to cause real damage with the rest of the country looking like pic rel inhabited by the elderly.

          Nope, you're still full of shit, I am talking about only the densely populated Han provinces of China and excluding Xinjiang and Tibet.

          China has HUNDREDS of highly populated cities, even the the least populated Han majority inland provinces like Gansu have millions with major cities like Lanzhou, Dunhuang.

          Inland China has hundreds of cities with young people, not all cities are located on the coast like Guangzhou Shanghai.

          Same with small provinces like Guizhou, Ningxia.

          China will still exist, South Korea and Japan will be depopulated hellscapes.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >And China is like 65% uninhabitable mountains and desert. They only have around a dozen major population centers that need to be taken out to cause real damage with the rest of the country looking like pic rel inhabited by the elderly.

          Nope, you're still full of shit, I am talking about only the densely populated Han provinces of China and excluding Xinjiang and Tibet.

          China has HUNDREDS of highly populated cities, even the the least populated Han majority inland provinces like Gansu have millions with major cities like Lanzhou, Dunhuang.

          Inland China has hundreds of cities with young people, not all cities are located on the coast like Guangzhou Shanghai.

          Same with small provinces like Guizhou, Ningxia.

          China will still exist, South Korea and Japan will be depopulated hellscapes.

          The least populated Chinese city in the interior areas in mountainous provinces like Gansu, Sichuan, Yunnan are more populated than many coastal US cities which are considered major population centres.

          China has densely populated cities in the interior mountainous provinces in Sichuan, Guizhou, Hunan, Jiangxi, Gansu, Yunnan (I'm not talking about the Tibetan regions or Xinjiang)

          Meanwhile half of South Korea lives in Seoul and Tokyo has tens of millions of people.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not Korea, no.
    Worst Korea is bad enough as is; an entire country of mentally ill serfs that are merely the slightest bit less totalitarian communists than the northern version. Just look at the other half of Korea and what they fricking turned into, and now you want the other split personality schizo half to get nuclear capability, too? They'd just seethe and shit themselves and nuke Japan when the next feminist cult leader doesn't get the drop they want in a fujoshitter gacha

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does the US want them to have them? Certainly not.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there literally no point, they are protected by american nukes there are only downsides to getting them, it's the same as here in australia.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    omg imagine a joint nuclear program by these 3 countries. the ultimate Asian alliance

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I forgot where I read it but they have a lot of shit one needs to make nukes anyway, if they really wanted to they could just make nukes; and I think they count on people also recognizing that they have that capability

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's an affront to nature and God that the civilized nations of East Asia don't have nukes while the subhuman nations do.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. The last two years have shown that the USA are pathetic cowards who are afraid of anyone who has nuke, so you should not count on their help, only your own nukes are a guarantee of security.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *