Sent my sister in Denmark money for some Christmas gifts. Had to fill out a very detailed form by hand and then wait for the clerk as she retyped it on her computer, punctuated by questions like “is this a 4 or a 9?” “You didn’t fill out which region in Denmark”
2 hours!

I’m not saying these views should be ignored (the books are on my to- read list), but there is a tactical element to this too. Why did the people collect 10m signatures for nuclear armament suddenly realize that a ”slow incremental approach” was necessary?

For context:

en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN2025...

Actually not entirely anecdotal, Alex Hynd makes that argument here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

And if you don’t close the door properly when you leave:
DING DING DING I AM NOT LOCKED 😡😡😡

Always appreciate you sharing your two cents, Frank.

It's a terrible plan if that is the case. If – and it's a huge if – they get HEU reactors, those will be sealed shut (AUKUS style) and the US (and the rest of the world) will be scrutinizing the whole enterprise by the seams.

Alternatively, this is driven by some form of prestige-related yee-haw-strategic-autonomy chimera on the progressive side, with a side of giving the ROKN a nice toy for not being political like the army.

To be clear, these are also not good reasons for getting a nuclear sub.

So at face value, the (progressive) arguments in favor of a nuclear propelled submarine are either weak or non-existent, or someone is not being honest about what they want and why they want it.

3) Maintaining a continuous at sea nuclear deterrent; but the ROK progressives don't want a nuclear weapon, or so they say.

2) Extending operational range; but ROK progressives don't want to get involved beyond the Peninsula, or so they say.

1) Hunting other nuclear subs; this is the stated rationale but you can do the same thing more cheaply with diesel and other ASW capabilities.