View Single Post
Old 04-20-2012, 07:28 PM   #11
purifier's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DisneyLand
Posts: 724
LF Jester 
Originally Posted by mur'phon View Post
As for South Korea, it has little reason to suffer the reputation cost of obtaining nuclear weapons, especially with its alliance with the US (and, no, it doesn't need to match NK's nukes, the threat from the north is still a conventional artillery pointed at Seoul).
Yeah I thought about this a little more after your post, but I can't see SK not having nukes for just the simple reason of losing their good reputation as it is for a lot of other major reasons. Like for instance: SK doesn't believe NK would nuke them because NK would stand to totally lose in what they're trying to gain out of all of it, for the biggest part, than what NK would possibly gain with a simple military invasion (although that didn't really work the first time). I think both sides realize this, plus, not to mention SK has got the U.S. backing them. So yeah, SK probably doesn't need any nukes, at the moment. But that dosen't mean things couldn't change and suddenly something could put SK in a unforeseen position to haft to acquire nukes for some other reason, you never know.

Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
According to reports, India had the capability in the 90s, but deliberately stalled development to avoid attracting sanctions from the West, especially with the added attention during the 1998 nuclear tests.
Yeah your right Saber, I had actually forgotton all about that. Thanks for jogging my memory.

purifier is offline   you may: quote & reply,