Acquiring nukes seems like the best way for any country to protect themselves against outside interference.
We know that as soon as Gaddafi decommissioned his nukes, Libya was targeted and invaded. If Iraq actually did have nukes, the USA wouldn't have been so brazen to invade.
China, Russia, and North Korea's acquisitions of nukes are also some of the main reasons why they are not easy targets for direct US invasion.
If Iran had nukes, it would drastically limit Israel's ability to indiscriminately attack Iranian assets.
Western policies against nuclear proliferation always seem to target the countries that need them the most to ensure national sovereignty, and never refer to their own nukes.
For example, they always fearmonger about "rogue states" like North Korea getting nukes, while being perfectly okay with Israel's own nukes. It might be best if these policies are ignored entirely.
The sanctions are going to be there no matter what, and the more sovereignty and socialism a country strives for the more the imperialists try to pile on the sanctions. A country refraining from acquiring nuclear weapons does nothing to make them impose less sanctions. Your argument essentially amounts to allowing the imperialists intimidate and blackmail a country into foregoing self-defense. Iran has not yet developed nuclear weapons but they have essentially been treated as though they have. Cuba has been living under a crushing blockade, do you think that the US has been holding back because Cuba was nice enough to not have nuclear weapons?
To believe that if a socialist or anti-imperialist country just "plays by the rules" and bows down to imperialist diktat about not having nuclear weapons they will somehow be treated more nicely is incredibly naive. Not having the capability to defend yourself just puts you at risk, it emboldens the imperialists to more regime change attempts, more color revolutions, more aggression. Acquiring any and all necessary and available means for self-defense is a strategic and imo moral imperative for anti-imperialists. Whether that means nuclear weapons or more conventional assymetric armaments depends on the economic and military-industrial capabilities of a country, but nothing should be excluded.
Sanctions can always get worse.
My argument is that nuclear weapons don't help and might invite greater sanctions. At best it doesn't change anything.
And I'd rather a sanctioned country have nuclear weapons always available rather than be a sitting duck.
Plenty of so-called sitting ducks have avoided getting invaded for decades, it doesn't seem like nuclear deterrence is either necessary or helpful. If the DPRK had slashed their military budget after getting nukes I could see the appeal, but they still spend more as a percentage of GDP than any of the other sanctioned nations. Having nuclear weapons hasn't stopped the West from waging proxy war either.
You can't be this willfully ignorant and naive
I want you to imagine Cuba having its own nuclear program and nuclear arsenal. Would that change anything for the better for Cuba? I certainly don't think it would change anything about Cuba's current situation, but maybe it would hold off potential future US aggression.
I'm not convinced, I think the US would become even more aggressive if there was a nuclear rival in the Western hemisphere.
Now I want you to imagine the DPRK not having a nuclear program. Would they actually be vulnerable to Western aggression? They have the fourth largest military in the world, with or without nuclear weapons they could flatten Seoul. Do the nukes actually help? Maybe.
Again, I'm not convinced. I don't think nuclear weapons are as powerful a deterrent to be worth bothering with. I'm not even against enemies of the US/NATO suicide pact having nuclear weapons, I just question if they're really the best use of resources or worth the consequences.
The DPRK having nuclear weapons is unarguably the reason they haven't been attacked yet. That and China's help, of course, but with how often U.S. politicians have suggested nuking the DPRK, I can't not take them at their word.
That's a fair point and I didn't mean to be too dickish. I think Cuba is the exception to the rule though.
Unarguably, huh? So the fact that the Korean People's Army could flatten Seoul with ballistic missiles is unimportant? Or that they have the fourth largest army in the world and are ready and willing to fight back against invasion? Or that China is their closest ally?
I'm sorry, I just don't think nukes are the only reason they haven't been attacked. I think the nukes are icing on the cake, not fundamental to resisting US imperialism. The US can't even muster the political will to start a war with Iran, which they've also wanted to do for decades.
And it's not like nuclear weapons have kept the US from instigating trade war, proxy war, or using sanctions as siege war. They're not that great.
I don't think nuclear weapons are the only reason, just a primary one.
The U.S. would sacrifice Seoul in a milisecond if it meant permanently destroying the DPRK.
It's still better to have nuclear weapons than not have them, in a majority of cases, if it makes sense and if you have the funds to get them.
I question if the funds would be better spent doing other civic works projects like nuclear power plants. I just don't know if they're as big of a deterrent as is claimed.
Besides, if the US was willing to sacrifice Seoul then why didn't they invade before the DPRK attained intercontinental capacity? If the US was willing to sacrifice its pawns so easily then surely they would have invaded before there was a risk of nuclear bombs hitting the US. I think it's because the US would lose if it invaded, because the Korean People's Army is the fourth largest in the world and properly trained and equipped. They're the true deterrent, I'm just not convinced that nuclear weapons really matter that much. I think it's overblown.
I think that the DPRK's military acts as a deterrent as well, probably more than anyone expects. And while I take the U.S. projections relating to military-related shit with a mountain of salt, I'm not sure the DPRK's military could "win" against the U.S. military, given the significant funding, material and technological advantages.
Though I am aware that the DPRK's military wouldn't be helpless, and the U.S. would suffer massive casualties.
Win or lose, I still think it's enough of a deterrent to keep the US from attacking, which is why the US didn't invade to prevent the DPRK from achieving intercontinental capacity in the first place. It seems clear to me that nuclear weapons came long after such a war was untenable to the US. Until I see a serious downsizing of the Korean People's Army I'm going to be unconvinced that nuclear weapons actually matter.