Layout Options

Which layout option do you want to use?

Color Schemes

Which theme color do you want to use? Select from here.

Do you think Trump will go back to North Korea

The last of the witnesses
Joined
Jan 30, 2026
Messages
1,392
I don’t think it’s possible any time soon with the way things are going
Nah at this point North Korea has fully distanced itself with the West, and they got nukes so the Kim dynasty probably won't fall within my lifespan.
There is nothing stopping us from touch NK other then china, the nukes are more like defenses dressing. What does it matter though? Unless NK starts fucking with SK but I doubt it.
 
The last of the witnesses
Joined
Jan 30, 2026
Messages
1,392
Nukes are nukes, they fuck shit up. US doesn't mess with that, it's the same reason why they never attacked Russia in the 2020s when they easily could, meanwhile nukeless countries like Venezuela and Iran got fucked brutally.
What would attacking Russia do? And if nukes mattered so much the 2 week special operation would have been finished by now. Idk why Russia is even in the conversation? NK produces nothing, has nothing and will continue to be nothing, I don't have anything against them. On a global stage? They arnt even background characters. America has nothing and what's nothing to do with them other then a pact we have with SK.
 
uh uh YOU CANT TELL ME NOTHIN
Joined
Apr 12, 2025
Messages
110
What would attacking Russia do?
Overthrow their government, defeat them, completely change the country, etc
And if nukes mattered so much the 2 week special operation would have been finished by now.
Nukes haven't been used since that would cause WW3 lmao
Idk why Russia is even in the conversation?
Because Russia is an example of a country surviving because of nuclear deterrent much like North Korea.
K produces nothing, has nothing and will continue to be nothing, I don't have anything against them.
They have nukes and they have a large arms manufacturing industry, just because you view them as crazy commies doesn't change the fact that they indeed do have something potent.
They produce something, have something, and will continue to be something
 
The last of the witnesses
Joined
Jan 30, 2026
Messages
1,392
Overthrow their government, defeat them, completely change the country, etc

Nukes haven't been used since that would cause WW3 lmao

Because Russia is an example of a country surviving because of nuclear deterrent much like North Korea.

They have nukes and they have a large arms manufacturing industry, just because you view them as crazy commies doesn't change the fact that they indeed do have something potent.
They produce something, have something, and will continue to be something
When NK didn't have nukes no one did anything to them, idk what your view on geopolitics are but it's clear we see things differently.

What would over throwing Russia do for America? Russia needs more power not the other way around America is in full power. Not to mention Russia has not taken over a country much smaller and weaker then it...

If nukes are the only thing that keeps a country from being 'nothing,' does that mean the future belongs to whoever has the biggest bombs, or whoever builds the most conductive society?
 
Last edited:
uh uh YOU CANT TELL ME NOTHIN
Joined
Apr 12, 2025
Messages
110
When NK didn't have nukes no one did anything to them, idk what your view on geopolitics are but it's clear we see things differently.
You're forgetting the Korean War (though the North started it), and yea before NK had nukes their main protectors were China (which had nukes since 1964) and USSR. The Korean War was a stalemate and the US was putting resources into other wars like Vietnam.
What would over throwing Russia do for America? Russia needs more power not the other way around America is in full power. Not to mention Russia has not taken over a country much smaller and weaker then it...
Well yea exactly, my point is that the only reason why Russia hasn't been attacked by the US is because of the Russian nuclear arsenal, without it they would be prey, since they managed to fumble a weaker and poorer country like Ukraine.
If nukes are the only thing that keeps a country from being 'nothing,' does that mean the future belongs to whoever has the biggest bombs, or whoever builds the most conductive society?
I think it's more complex than that, having big bombs guarantees survival but in order to own the future you need both a conductive society and nukes, despite its flaws the US still has both.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2026
Messages
74
Well yea exactly, my point is that the only reason why Russia hasn't been attacked by the US is because of the Russian nuclear arsenal, without it they would be prey, since they managed to fumble a weaker and poorer country like Ukraine.
Arguably, they are already prey just a subjugated country under the rule of the more democratic ones, they get away with exterminating Russians and Ukrainians with the tariffs on trade (which is supposed to be mutually beneficial by the way) raising their grocery prices and forcing them to eat starvation/survival "food," such as gulag bread.
 
The last of the witnesses
Joined
Jan 30, 2026
Messages
1,392
You're forgetting the Korean War (though the North started it), and yea before NK had nukes their main protectors were China (which had nukes since 1964) and USSR. The Korean War was a stalemate and the US was putting resources into other wars like Vietnam.

Well yea exactly, my point is that the only reason why Russia hasn't been attacked by the US is because of the Russian nuclear arsenal, without it they would be prey, since they managed to fumble a weaker and poorer country like Ukraine.

I think it's more complex than that, having big bombs guarantees survival but in order to own the future you need both a conductive society and nukes, despite its flaws the US still has both.
I think you’re confusing 'not being deleted' with 'winning.' NK has the bombs, but they're a dead node. Russia has the bombs, but they’re fumbling a war with a neighbor and losing their best minds to the West.

The reason we don't 'attack' isn't just the nukes; it's because no one wants the headache of managing a pile of ash. In 2026, the real 'flex' isn't the Samson Option it's the bio tech and digital integration that makes your borders irrelevant. If you have to threaten to end the world just to stay something, you’ve already lost the future.

Russia isn't prey, they're a landlord who set their own building on fire and is now threatening to blow up the block because the neighbors are complaining about the smoke.

America doesn't want to own russia; we want them to stop being a high maintenance bitch in the global circuit(everyone and I mean everyone would rather we had a more stable Russia, Europe needs the energy and we don't want to deal with he mess). You're arguing that nukes make them potent, but all they've done is allow them to fumble a war with a smaller neighbor while their best scientists flee the country. If the only thing keeping you from being nothing is a suicide switch, you've already lost.

North Korea, we had 50 years to "prey" on them before they had a single nuke. Why didn't we?

Because they're a nothing. They have nothing we want, and 'winning' would mean we'd have to feed them. America doesn't want to be in charge of a pile of ash or a starving population.

This was all about NK from the start and my statement stands, ain't no one give a fuck about NK and they fact they are unhinged enough to drop a nuke isn't a win and btw China would be the first up their ass about it.

Closing note, is Russian didn't have gas, they would be far less relivant then they are now, it's how Putin became so rich and it's how Russia has stayed a global power.

There isn't anything to argue about here, just two different opinions.

1772842612271380
 
Last edited:
Activity
So far there's no one here
Top