561–570 of 587 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I partially agree but there was clear intent in theory but in practice the action was deeply unethical. Wouldn’t you go to jail if you taught someone how to plan a murder, with the knowledge they clearly planned on using that information?
He was teaching them how to manipulate distributed database entries that they have the explicit permission to use via their own private keys. If that is anywhere near equivalent to murder then I have a bridge to sell you. Next up teaching north korea how to farm better and how to dodge sanctions importing fertilizer is bad, because then their people wont starve as much and therefore can do more evil in the world via…
He wasn't just teaching a country to manipulate bits and bytes he purposefully ignored all risks and existing laws to help break sanctions decided against a country based on geopolitical situation guided by matter experts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better conditions and due process. Whataboutitists love to conveniently the latter.
Man oh man. You're right for a lot of cases, but in the USA if you're uneducated, poor, and in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can get railroaded by some crooked cops and a plea deal with a crooked DA, and it's going to be small comfort that things aren't usually as bad as in North Korea
In authoritarian systems, those instances are in accordance with their system. And while people there do sometimes raise hell about it, sometimes they're ignored, sometimes they're placated, and sometimes they're disappeared, depending on the whim, temperament, and calculations of whoever is in power, with zero recourse.
The two really aren't comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No issue with your main point, but "pursuing nuclear weapons" is such a strange and revealing phrase. North Korea has nuclear weapons. They've had nuclear weapons for at least 16 years (probably over 20). The last best chance to roll back their nuclear program was in the mid-aughts, and it didn't work. Lots of good and useful steps we could pursue to reduce tensions and make an accidental nuclear war on the Korean pe…
That's not accurate, a nuclear capability is not as binary as you make it out to be. In no particular order, there's: - Having a bomb - having one that works consistently (NK has conducted tests that likely failed to produce the expected yield) - having a device miniaturized to go on a missile - having a missile capable of hitting targets at significant range (reliably) - solid fuel rocketry (fueling can be a giveawa…
I'm not even sure it's oversimplified, though. Your list is a good set of things to worry about if you're going to fight a nuclear war. But from a strategic perspective, what matters is whether the capability is enough to deter, and I'd argue that even the lower end of likely North Korean capabilities is plenty, for most scenarios besides an outright North Korean invasion of South Korea. Yeah, the missiles might miss and maybe the bombs won't explode, but are you really willing to gamble with Seoul, Tokyo and Los Angeles?
Anyway --- sure, let's negotiate about missile technology. That'd be great. But those negotiations aren't going to go anywhere unless we recognize that full nuclear disarmament in the near-term is a big ask, and extremely unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sanctions are economic warfare.
By that standard, all international intercourse is one or another form of warfare.
When Putin financially supports the French far-right, it’s also warfare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sanctions have never ever in human history worked, so more like sabotaging one's placebos...
Sanctions have absolutely wrecked many hostile countries aconomy, crippling their ability to conduct war. There's a reason why North Korea's army is 50s technology held together by duct tape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fidel Castro, Kim jong Il, and Vladimir Putin.
The sanctions of the last 8 years have probably played a significant role in diminishing the RF's capacity to effectively occupy Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. They're free to choose who they trade with, using who that country trades with as a decider violates their autonomy. You're just framing the violation as a choice and saying it is their right to make that choice. Sure, they also have the right to make the choice to invade Canada, but actually invading is obviously violating their autonomy.
Quoted post unavailable.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sanctions have never ever in human history worked, so more like sabotaging one's placebos...
They're doing great at diminishing NK's industrial capacity, which it is hell-bent on using it to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sanctions have never ever in human history worked, so more like sabotaging one's placebos...
Does that matter? If someone tried to sell state secrets to another country and their buyer turned out to be a CIA agent undercover and the secrets were fake info planted for them to sell, they still likely will be prosecuted for treason despite all that.