this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
5 points (77.8% liked)

politics

23951 readers
3325 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
5
South Korea's Nuclear Armament: Candidate's Statement and Regional Risks (www.straitstimes.com)
submitted 1 week ago by Ash_Bones@lemmy.ml to c/politics@lemmy.world
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Kim Moon-soo, a presidential candidate from South Korea’s ruling People Power Party, stated that he might consider the issue of nuclear armament for the country within the framework of its alliance with the United States.

This statement was made during a televised debate on Tuesday. Discussing the possibility of nuclear armament could signal a significant shift in South Korea’s defense strategy, though its implementation would depend on the terms of the alliance with the U.S.

This is not the first time a candidate from the People Power Party has urged the U.S. to deploy nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula to counter regional threats. Some American officials have already expressed support for this idea.

However, there are significant risks that are likely to prevent Washington and Seoul from taking this step.

Transferring nuclear weapons to South Korea would signal to other countries that the Trump administration no longer considers the non-proliferation regime important. Moreover, it would confirm that Washington opposes nuclear weapons only in the hands of its adversaries, not its allies.

The AUKUS partnership has already raised serious concerns in Southeast Asia due to the destabilizing consequences of increasing military competition. What will happen in the region if South Korea also becomes a player on the nuclear chessboard?

top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

South Korea's population will be cut in half in less than 50 years and be right around the size of North Korea by that time, which will have a much larger army unless South Korea dramatically increases conscription.

Within 70 years, South Korea will cease to be a functioning society. Their options are to dramatically and abruptly increase immigration (overtaking their native population and thereby wreaking havoc on their culture), reunify with North Korea (whose population would overtake theirs), or just give up and accept fate.

Either way, they're going to be overrun or die out in the long run, and it'll only get harder for working age people. Not sure nuclear armament is the best strategy given the demographic realities...