POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[PhantOS]

Do you actually know how North Korea deals with nukes or are you just pulling this out of your ass

Honestly I don't live in NK so I don't know how they handle their nukes. If you know some little bit of information that deviates from the norm of military production, please share it with me

civilian presence at north korea nuclear storage facility

that should be common sense considering how restrictive the country is about loving everything the civilians do

at this point you're just pulling stuff out of your ass in effort to discredit me

Workers aren't part of any armed service or police force. The workers who obviously need to work in these facilities are considered civilians. Unless they're run 100% by fully armed soldiers who carry guns at all times, they are civilian workers

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

Honestly I don't live in NK so I don't know how they handle their nukes.

That's where this conversation should end

[Insert Name Here²]

I don't know how they handle their nukes.

thus the argument ends

[PhantOS]

That's where this conversation should end

I think the common sense that workers aren't armed soldiers should override this

[Insert Name Here²]

I think the common sense that workers aren't armed soldiers should override this

I think the common sense that north korean citizens are under EXTREME regulations and restrictions and aren't military thus wouldnt be anywhere near the military bases and pads and storage areas in the first place should override this

[Red Spy]

Path apparently believes the most oppressive country on the Earth right now lets it's citizens near military sites

[PhantOS]

I think the common sense that north korean citizens are under EXTREME regulations and restrictions and aren't military thus wouldnt be anywhere near the military bases and pads and storage areas in the first place should override this

then who the forget operates the facilities? even in the most extreme regulations and restrictions, government owned facilities need civilian labour. If not, you're implying that it's either entirely automated or the workers, nuclear scientists, drivers & every single person that works at these facilities is an armed combatant

Path apparently believes the most oppressive country on the Earth right now lets it's citizens near military sites

I believe that every country in existence employs civilian labour in their military sites. Nuclear scientists are legally civilians. So are drivers. So are technicians that work there. Anyone that isn't an armed soldier is a civilian

[Nonnel]

there are military workers that aren't armed soldiers. they would be the majority of the people at a nuclear launch site.

[Becquerel]

there are military workers that aren't armed soldiers. they would be the majority of the people at a nuclear launch site.

This.
Most of the construction and other projects are done by the military itself too, from what I've heard

[Insert Name Here²]

then who the forget operates the facilities?

military

[PhantOS]

military

the military is operated by civilian workers as well. if you work for the government in a non-combatant occupation you are legally a civilian

there are so many jobs in the military that are operated by civilians. Doctors, technicians, teachers, researchers, etc. These are all operated by unarmed civilians. If there were to be a strike at any nuclear facility in NK, the majority of the casualties would be civilian. The only combatant casualties would be security and defense, which still wouldn't outnumber the civilian workers on-site

[Insert Name Here²]

the military is operated by civilian workers as well.

military =/= civilian

[PhantOS]

military =/= civilian

According to the geneva conventions, non-combatant military occupations, including military personnel, medics, technicians, etc. are all protected as non-combatants, which means they have the exact same protections as a non-military civilian.

Legally speaking, killing nuclear scientists working at said NK nuclear sites would be considered a civilian casualty slash war crime. With that in mind, these theoretical strikes against nuclear facilities would be a violation of human rights, and would probably kill more people than have been killed by NK's nuclear tests, if any people were actually killed by those in the first place.

[Red Spy]

This is all implying of course that we would actually strike the sites and subsequently kill people

[PhantOS]

This is all implying of course that we would actually strike the sites and subsequently kill people

Which is why we shouldn't strike the sites. We'd be killing civilians, non-combatants, declaring war & violating international human rights.