Libya: The Forgotten Reason North Korea Desperately Wants Nuclear Weapons

North Korean leaders have witnessed how the United States treats nonnuclear adversaries such as Serbia and Iraq. But it was the U.S.-led intervention in Libya in 2011 that underscored to Pyongyang why achieving and retaining a nuclear-weapons capability might be the only reliable way to prevent a regime-change war directed against the DPRK.

Featured Image -- 13902

Astute News

The United States and its allies continue to cajole and threaten North Korea to negotiate an agreement that would relinquish its growing nuclear and ballistic-missile programs. The latest verbal prodding came from President Trump during his joint press conference with South Korean president Moon Jae-in. Trump urged Pyongyang to “come to the negotiating table,” and asserted that it “makes sense for North Korea to do the right thing.” The “right thing” Trump and his predecessors have always maintained, is for North Korea to become nonnuclear.

It is unlikely that the DPRK will ever return to nuclear virginity. Pyongyang has multiple reasons for retaining its nukes. For a country with an economy roughly the size of Paraguay’s, a bizarre political system that has no external appeal, and an increasingly antiquated conventional military force, a nuclear-weapons capability is the sole factor that provides prestige and a seat at the table of international…

View original post 618 more words

2 thoughts on “Libya: The Forgotten Reason North Korea Desperately Wants Nuclear Weapons

  1. I think North Korea is well within its rights to build nuclear weapons to protect itself from this warmongering cesspool called, America. Why does America get to pick and choose which countries and nations can and cannot have nuclear weapons? Another country’s nuclear capabilities should be no concern of ours seeing as we have enough nuclear weapons to blow this planet up too many times over and yet we still have the audacity to come down hard on other countries for wanting to have the ability to fire back at US if we strike them just because we can.

    Too bad Libya did not invest in developing a nuclear arsenal, perhaps Gaddafi would be alive today and Libya would not be up in flames.


  2. The really sad thing, Shelby, is that Gaddafi DID have a nuclear arsenal though it never worked really well. The Bush administration persuaded him to give it up in 2004 – that it would help him improve his international image. It was obviously a fatal error. Thanks for commenting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.