Episodes like these only serve to cement that Iran and North Korea are right to think that having nuclear deterrence is the only viable insurance policy.
(Delivery & effectiveness is another subject on its own but still)
I thought exactly this. The first comment talked about potentially destabilising not only the country but the entire region. In reality it perpetuates violence globally.
Not sure why you're putting Iran and North Korea together here, as Iran is hoping for a nuke, while NK already has them, and has for many years. And yes, calls for toppling the brutal NK dictatorship have completely disappeared once that happened - so the theory is extremely soundly proven.
North Korea is not trying to get a nuclear bomb, they've already got nuclear bombs and have for more than 10 years.
This is why I'm confused. They're also not the only examples of dictatorial states getting nuclear bombs - surely the Soviet Union and China are earlier examples of that.
What we saw with Venezuela was something nukes wouldn't prevent. Doing the same with Putin is infinitely harder, but if it did occur, chances are whoever fills in the power vacuum in Russia would be pretty happy with their situation.
I'm not saying chances are with regard to nukes, I'm saying with regard to whoever gets to take over Russia. In either case they definitely aren't using nukes because it means mutual destruction over one man who has 0% chance of ever returning to Russia.
