[wiseowise]

It is still unhinged, but not because of nuclear weapons. Ukraine, and now Iran, showed the whole world what happens when you don’t have a nuclear deterrence.

[somenameforme]

I think the unhinged rhetoric is, in part, a necessary partner of the nukes. Because you need to not only have nukes but have your adversaries believe that you won't hesitate to use them. If North Korea had nukes, but the US didn't believe they would use them, then they'd be getting the Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc treatment.

[wk_end]

The claim has always been made that attacking NK was off the table anyway, because they have obscene numbers of conventional artillery pointed directly at SK's capital and largest population centre, right across the DMZ; even the fastest decapitation strike wouldn't have prevented Seoul from getting flattened. Nukes definitely don't hurt but I'm not actually sure NK needed the bomb as an additional deterrent.

[Gare]

Exactly, the threat of using nukes needs to be credible in order to work as a deterrence.

[csomar]

That doesn’t make sense. Even if you are almost certain they won’t use the nuke, do you really want to take that gamble?

[wat10000]

NK didn’t get nuclear weapons until several years after the invasion of Iraq, and it was probably longer still before they had a viable delivery system. The nukes clearly aren’t the only reason they’re left alone.

[thrance]

I mean, nothing unhinged here, nukes are only ever useful if other countries believe you will use them when attacked. Same thing for North Korea as the US, France, etc. (Well, nuclear war is unhinged, but...).