In my opinion, the United States would never allow them to obtain ICBMs. They would bomb that facility.

The U.S. wouldn't just bomb one facility. They'd need to unleash a full arsenal against the Jong-un regime and all military installations imo. I say this b/c I believe if the U.S. bombs one N. Korean facility then N. Korea will strike Seoul in an all out assult. I don't see a gray area or middle ground in this spot.

Off topic: if I'm an international student, au pair, etc. in Seoul, I'm already out of that city.

What is the policy, justification, etc, that says we are allowed to say who and who can not have nuclear weapons, especially when we have hundreds. This is one thing that's always irked me about US foreign policy.

There is fairly broad consensus across the international community, not just in the US, that nuclear proliferation is dangerous and should be prevented. I think the base rationale is that the more nuke there are and the more people that have control of nukes, the greater risk of their use/ a nuclear war. I'm not really that informed though, that's just what I've gleaned over the years.

Lol nice. What a way to find humor in such a grave mess of a situation

The non-fun part: The next winter Olympics 2018 are in Pyoengchang, South Korea.

*nuclear winter Olympics

And some people thought Rio was dangerous.

Maybe this is actually 28D chess by Trump. He's just trying to ramp up tensions until the Olympics have to be moved, then the US can graciously offer to host on short notice.

Some weird warnings from China:

China Warns of ‘Storm Clouds Gathering’ in U.S.-North Korea Standoff

Air China is suspending flights between Beijing and the North Korean capital of Pyongyang.

And the theory always was the US and Russia could essentially be trusted not to do stupid **** with them.

So much for that.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Kim Jong-un orders evacuation of Pyongyang
600,000 WTF?!

Regarding the current tension on the Korean peninsula, China is the country holding all the cards and the levers to diffuse the situation. Have you asked yourself why they haven't already?

It's been awhile since I read about this topic so take this with a grain of salt. I think you're basically right, though.

So on a nukes per country level the case against proliferation is geared more towards USA/Russia who have enormous, unnecessary stockpiles which (esp with Russia) are not very secure. So a decrease in that stockpile should also decrease the frequency of warheads going missing and being used by terrorists or being sold to shady nation-states.

Now the argument of whether nations should have the right to develop their own nuclear weapons is uh ongoing. In theory if you have nukes then MAD would ensure the nation's survival. Nukes are also a way onto the international stage. Deterrence (and to a lesser extant saber-rattling) is used as currency to negotiate better deals for more resources which theoretically should also lead to better lives for the people. So why is the US and others acting like *******s and keeping nations like Iran from protecting themselves or getting a seat at the table?

The reason most talked about is the perils of proliferation. If Iran gets nukes then other countries in the region will feel threatened and get nukes etc. Which is obviously a pretty good reason. But I also suspect that if Iran was culturally the Canada of the middle east and wanted to develop nuclear weapons the international community would let it slide and deal with the consequences later. But that's just my opinion.

Basically it's an argument between sovereignty/state's rights and theoretical proliferation/international instability. And right now it's in the US's best interest to be on the 'no more nations get nukes' side.

But if you're a Korean student from Busan you stay?

Be tough to leave your family/established life in your homeland.

Sorry, I mean a Korean student in Seoul from Busan. Like, there are plenty of non-international people in Seoul who could presumably get out of the city too.

I'm beginning to think this was a bogus story (I mean "fake news"...sorry, Donald). Not seeing Pyongyang evacuation reports anywhere else.

To be fair, if Trump is able to legit handle this **** without much damage he is gonna look like a boss. Last 3 prez did nothing and then he handles it within 3 months?

I already regret asking, but what is "handling it" in your opinion?

Gets rid of Kim with minimal damage

Obviously it is a longshot (or is it? I feel like the info about what NK can do is all over the place) but I'm just saying.

Trump sending Pence to South Korea to fix everything. Probably safe to close this thread now.

Get China to deal with NK.

He will still get attacked and criticized by the left. You can guarantee that.

We're stronger than them so we can do what we want. That's the justification.