11 corrected grammar and misspellings
source | link

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the fewer nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • Fewer nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means fewer controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was party to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiksrealpolitik.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the fewer nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • Fewer nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means fewer controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was party to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiks.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the fewer nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • Fewer nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means fewer controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was party to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitik.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

10 corrected grammar and misspellings
source | link

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the lessfewer nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • LessFewer nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means lessfewer controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was partparty to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiks.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the less nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • Less nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means less controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was part to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiks.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the fewer nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • Fewer nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means fewer controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was party to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiks.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

9 added 16 characters in body
source | link

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the less nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • Less nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

And,The second part are the reasons for whatwhich North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means less controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was part to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiks.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the less nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • Less nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

And, the reasons for what North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means less controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was part to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiks.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the less nuclear capable countries there are, the better1:

  • Less nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

  • Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

  • Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

  • It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

  • It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

  • It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries2 (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

  • It is a totalitarian regime, which means less controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

  • It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

  • The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was part to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiks.


1And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

2Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

8 Grammar fix
source | link
7 Grammar fix
source | link
6 deleted 2 characters in body
source | link
5 some minor typos
source | link
4 deleted 7 characters in body
source | link
3 added 1 character in body
source | link
2 added 453 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link