"Could North Korea’s Example Inspire Iran and Pakistan?" Topic

"As North Korea's continued missile launches demonstrate, a country with an advanced missile program in tandem with a nuclear capability can operate at a high level of impunity in defiance of the international community, global sanctions notwithstanding.

What North Korea seems to have discovered, based on lessons from places such as Libya and Iraq, is that the best leverage any state could have against regime change, or international pressure aimed at changing regime behavior, is the possession of nuclear weapons combined with a delivery system that allows such weapons to be deployed against the United States and other Western states. As Dan Coats, President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, said…"
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

Let's hope not.

Yes.

Pakistan has been a nuclear power for a long time. They're more interested in what India's doing at any given time. The short answer to the question is yes.

Now it is only a matter of time before South Korea and Japan build nukes to counter the North. Fun times around the world.

No and no. Very different countries with very, very different politics, establishment elites, internal pressures and geopolitical goals to NK.

Japan is considered by many to be de facto nuclear state, the term 'nuclear latency' is also used – both for SK and Japan. Both have the technological base. Japan has a lot of internal issues over 'nuclear weapons' and as long it can rely on the US (and some extent the UK and France) umbrella it won't trouble itself. SK probably won't either, though for slightly different reasons.

Yes, Iran has lots of money now and has no problem letting NK work out the bugs with the delivery systems, that way they can then buy either the equipment or the tech.

Taiwan is like Japan, it probably has "latency" -- I understand (correctly?) that it abandoned its own nuclear weapons development long ago with assurances from the US to defend it and supply it with advanced conventional arms, to maintain a deterrent against mainland aggression. But who knows if they've had second thoughts in the interim? And Taiwan has the expertise and technological foundations.

Iran, they are probably foolish NOT to develop at least a "latency", given the threats continually made against it by the US and Israel and with the hostile region in which it exists. Really, what better incentive can they have other than observing what has happened in the last few decades and how American and Israeli leaders talk? Why should Iranian leadership place trust in the goodwill of those who treat them as pariahs and enemies and openly threaten to abrogate treaties and pre-emptively attack at will?

Without a nuclear power program, it's very hard to make the plutonium that you need for small warheads.

Japan could, they had a lot of reactors before the 3/11 disaster. And a lot of fuel they could reprocess into warheads if they needed to. But there is an immensely strong and vocal anti-nuclear group in Japan, though they seem to be getting quieter after every time the Norks throw a rocket over Japan.

Taiwan still can, they have 3 plants. Better/worse yet, Taiwan's 2016 elections were won by a group planning on stopping nuclear power generation. Once the country no longer depends on the reactors for power, they can be run for the shorter periods needed for plutonium production without impacting electrical production.

South Korea also has a lot of reactors, and I would be surprised if they didn't have someone working on bomb designs.

Actually from what I can gather Taiwan's nuclear agreement with the US means that it can send material to France for reprocessing, suggesting they can't reprocess domestically (at scale), but any plutonium would have to stay in France – referred to by the beautiful euphemism 'special nuclear material', which would cramp any attempt at a bomb program and it suggests that the US isn't that keen on Taiwan having their own nukes.