>
Trump Explains Why He's Okay With North Korea Having Nukes, But Not Iran
Hegseth Reveals "AutoWarCom" As $74 Billion Drone Splurge May Ignite This Stock
Treasury Yield 30 Years (^TYX)
40 Percent Error Rate Found In Afghan Refugee Vetting Samples, Inspector General Finds
Med Beds Just Took a MASSIVE Step Forward, Healing People in Days!
Palmer Luckey: Autonomous Weapons Are Ancient and Why Anduril Won't Build Humanoids | EP #295
A laser just photographed objects through six feet of concrete
Elon Musk's Next-Gen Motor Destroy Entire EV Industry
China's disputed satellite refueling heralds new space war era
BYD Will Put Solid-State Batteries In An EV Next Year: Executive
FDA-cleared exoskeleton puts spinal-cord patients back on their feet
Your Robotic Vacuum Is Watching You -- Could It Someday Testify Against You in Court?
Why Unigrid's Sodium-Ion Batteries Are the Game-Changer for Off-Grid Energy Storage
This Battery On Wheels Makes Any Diesel Truck Electric In 5 Minutes

This week President Trump was asked why he seems OK with a deeply totalitarian state like North Korea and its dictator Kim Jong Un having nuclear weapons, and not Iran.
Trump's blunt response really deflates the sham talking points of the war's cheerleaders among Conservatism Inc, the FoxCon crowd, and NeoCon pundits and "intellectuals". So much for the whole defeat the "mullahs because they're evil!" fake morality tale...
"Ahh, because you had a different president. Kim Jong Un. He's a friend of mine. He likes Trump. I like him," Trump said when a reporter pressed him.
"As long as I'm around, he's going to be fine," Trump continued. "You know why? He respects me."
By this strange logic, Pyongyang - which has on many more occasions (than Iran) directly threatened the United States going back literally decades - possessing nukes is just fine. Or in other words Kim="friend"/Good, Ayatollah= Rogue Bad Guy, according to the simplistic equation. The inconsistency of the obviously self-defeating 'moral high ground' narrative advanced by the administration is baffling.
On a more serious note, the above exchange highlights something deeper: nation-states most often seek nukes precisely in order to get respect especially when facing destruction at the hands of a more powerful enemy.
The US and Israel have long claimed that Tehran is bent on annihilating Israel, and that its leaders will pull the trigger the moment they develop an atomic weapon (a pursuit the Iranians have over many years denied). Essentially, this is the mad mullahs myth, based on the NeoCon axiom that every Iranian leader is an irrational actor fundamentally bent on ushering in nuclear apocalypse against the Jews, self preservation or any other domestic consideration be damned.
When Trump said of Kim, "he respects me" - the irony here is in reality it is Washington that's forced to 'respect' North Korea because it possesses dozens of nukes and has the military tech to deliver them. Countries like Iran want this 'respect' too.
On the level of strategic realism, it's just the way the world works (ask Gaddafi)-->
From the perspective of its beleaguered leaders who've been under US bombs and blockade for seven months, Iran has two choices. It must choose one:
1. Become Libya
2. Become North Korea