Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Knowing "where you are" is irrelevant. Iraq was invaded under the pretense of having weapons of mass destruction, so the rational thing to do is having them anyway, cause the US can bomb you anytime if you don't. Meanwhile, North Korea is 100% fine.


The rational thing is to be killed in an airstrike when you are 10% into your nuclear program? I don't understand the justification for this opinion.


The Ayatollah wasn't killed, but Gaddafi and Hussein were, while the Kim family is still fine.

So from a regime leader point of view, it's better to have a nuclear weapon than not have it. For a member of the population it's probably a good idea to stay away from it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: