UKC

Fire and Fury he's promising. At least he hasn't said he's going to nuke them (yet).

Not sure this is the best way to avoid the nutter in North Korea attacking the us (it seems Alaska at least is now in reach but US bases in Asia definitely are)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40869319

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I don't care as long as we keep out of it and so does Tony Blair.(I don't dislike him for his mad chase to do in the Iraqi dictator, but I just think that he has not learned to keep quiet.)
Lastly so long as the Lib Dems don't manage to get a self-righteous position in all of this.

In reply to veteye:

What would you do if a stupid fat schoolboy poked a banger up a cat's arse and set it off?
Make excuses and sit on the fence? Or give him a good old fashioned slap?

In reply to birdie num num:

The schoolboy reference is appropriate to the posturing of these two bizarrely coiffured f*ckwits.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I don't care as long as we keep out of it and so does our political masters. We've lost enough arms, legs and lives over other countries which have done us absolutely no harm at all and those countries no good.

This is just one fat ignorant bully threatening an other fat ignorant bully who thinks the other ignorant fat bully is going hit him first if he doesn't hit him first. Both bullies of course being advised and egged on by those who stand behind them wearing military uniforms.

And frankly I always thought it best at school to keep out of those sort of childish arguments.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

If you tried to judge the maturity, intelligence and mental stability of the two protagonists you couldn't get a cigarette paper between them.

It'd be nice to think that Trump will be impeached or sectioned before he does much more damage, but I'm not hopeful.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Probably.

It's never wise to push an idiot with nothing to lose into a corner.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

North Korea has said it is considering a missile strike on the US Pacific territory of Guam, just hours after Donald Trump warned the regime that any threat to the United States would be met with “fire and fury”. The threat, carried by the state-run KCNA news agency, marked a dramatic rise in tensions and prompted warnings to Washington not to become embroiled in a bellicose slanging match with North Korea.

Pyongyang said it was “carefully examining” a plan to strike Guam, located 3,400km (2,100 miles) away, and threatened to create an “enveloping fire” around the territory. Guam is home to a US military base that includes a submarine squadron, an airbase and a coastguard group.

A country so brainwashed it's on the verge of committing mass suicide.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
We (the west) are focussed on the nuclear threat, but one commentator yesterday pointed out the NK has massive amounts of conventional artillery permanently ranged against Seoul. Any attack on his missile capability will almost certainly result in hundreds of thousands of deaths from a conventional retaliation that's simply too big for the US to successfully destroy in time.

In reply to toad:

I get the impression that both "leaders" are more than content to keep ratcheting up the threat level with no real intention of going to war. It all helps divert public attention, create fear, cement control and stifle dissent.

That doesn't, of course, prevent events taking on a life of their own. Or perhaps one side (like the kid in the play fight, who cops an accidental elbow to the eye, going bonkers) forgetting that it was all in jest and start twiddling with launch keys.

On the positive side, we are definitely overdue for a drastic global population correction. And perhaps a nuclear catastrophe is just what is needed to convince those in power (and voters in support of Trident) that humanity might be better off without (i.e. "deterrence", which is the only justification for their existence, doesn't work).

So on balance I'm all for it, and my message to Kim-Trump would be "Aw'right mate, lets 'av it then!". Global warming, getting on the property ladder, my pension, Brexit, inequality and the other myriad of concerns I have would probably vanish with more immediate and down-to-earth issues becoming a bit more of a priority. Armageddon could be rather cathartic.

In reply to toad:

Not to forget the giant stockpile of VX nerve gas. That worries me more than their current nukes. Especially as they've already shown they're willing to spread it around the world with people not missiles.

In reply to David Martin:

When I'm eating my next door neighbour after a hard day of killing mutants with a hedge strimmer, I'll think of you.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Why can't we all just hug it out?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I reckon Trump should volunteer to settle it in single combat with Kim. Hand grenades at dawn.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

They could do that sumo stuff. They both look like they've been training for it.

In reply to David Martin:


No, let's not. Sorry to tell you that Paracetamol doesn't cure acute radiation sickness.

In reply to balmybaldwin: some thoughts - the North Koreans full well remember 1 1/2 million casualties, many from American bombing in the last war so don't underestimate their intense fear and dislike of the US .

The current regime of course are happy. To exploit this as well as suffer it

Also, if theDonald got out of bed on the wrong side one day and decided to have a pop I don't think the Us military would do it. They disobeyed orders a couple weeks ago (ignored transgender ban) and mixed messages from the various parts of Wahington

In reply to David Martin:

Why am I imagining that post being read on 'Thought for the day'? ;p

In reply to Dave Perry: nice.. 30-40 million people lie within a 2 minute warning zone.

This is unprecedented really. I'm 37 so too young to remember the Cold War threats. I'm in Ne USA so safe but this is getting scary. For the first time in my life, that I can remember, we are looking at a possible nuclear war between two mad man with millions to die.

In reply to David Martin:
Trump, supposedly, can fire nuclear weapons without congressional approval.

In reply to Big Ger:




The country is?

I don't think Kim is, he's playing a game and his only concern is the long term stability of their families dynasty. He's not that crazy to just commit suicide, I think he knows he could possibly come out of this as a nuclear power. Other countries pushed on and became nuclearized.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I don't disagree.

However, there can be no doubt surely that the country is so isolated, tightly controlled, subjugated, or "brainwashed" to use my term, that they will follow this lunatic into whatever hells he may unwittingly release.

In reply to Big Ger:


The Dear Leader approved of Brexit. That is all.

In reply to Big Ger:
Yes, they'll follow him. As my point should illustrate the North Koreans know what a war with the US, with a million plus casualties feels like - they've done it before. They really do believe the US ate dangerous, and they want a weapon to protect them?
Tough position for Trump and the US now - shooting your mouth off has consequences. Will he attack - you think he'll nuke them, or the US has the desire to invade, for a ground war? Or does he lose face?
He doesn't need congressional approval, but life would get very tricky for him. And I am really not sure he'd get to launch a nuclear attack without someone 'grown up' saying stop.

BTW once an ICBM is in the air you cannot call it back, self destruct.
And Trump's claim this morning he renewed the nuclear arsenal as the first thing he did is wrong on all accounts, but a fine example of the alternate reality he lives in

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Seems to me that NK has just called Trump's bluff, and left Trump looking pretty silly and pretty exposed. Will the US launch a pre-emptive strike? Will Trump's handlers allow him to do so? I very much doubt it.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Speculation that it is the power men behind Trump that have ratcheted up the aggression. The two military generals McMaster and Kelly seem to have much more influence at the heart of executive power in the administration now and this is a play directed more at China than NK. China has been the tripping point for the Obama/Clinton/Bush administrations, always putting them off from properly dealing with NK. The Trump administration is less concerned and wants to bring China down a few pegs. China appears to take Trump more seriously (madman policy does have some upsides and has supported sanctions against NK in the UN, and this latest rhetoric from Trump could be seen as keeping Chinas toes to the fire to make sure they go through with it. Trump has always said that the NK problem could be solved easily by China.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I am ten years older than you, and did my compulsory military service in Germany at the arse end of the cold war. In the 15 months we had several full on alerts, where we drove our lorries to the next bunker, loaded the stockpile of "American" nuclear artillery grenades, and headed off to the East German / Czech border area where the artillery units were already moving to their positions.

While some of these alerts were certainly drills (we were never officially told), at least in one case US civilians from the surrounding bases were bused to Nuremberg airport, and had already boarded the airplanes for their evacuation. Allegedly in this instance the alert was triggered by a column of combine harvesters working late and without lights on one of the huge socialized East German farms close to the border, and was thus mistaken for a Soviet tank column.

I remember the paranoia and fear of a Soviet surprise attack quite clearly, and am sure that the situation in Korea is rather similar. The difference is that in the 1980s we could hope that our dear leaders were at least vaguely rational ( largely because they had experienced WWII as children or young adults and knew what they were taking about), something that we unfortunately cannot take for granted today.

The scary corollary is that the whole deterrence / MAD concept may potentially only work for a limited time, and then must fail at least partially before it can again work for a generation or two.

CB

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That would be the benign explanation, hope you are correct!

CB

In reply to Shani:

"The Dear Leader approved of Brexit. That is all."

My goodness! Is there a thread that BREXIT cannot be shoehorned into?

Well as we seem to want to drag UK politics into this ... Corbyn so far has refused to speak out against Kim, his campaign chief Andrew Murray has expressed his 'position of solidarity' and Seumus Milne, Corbyn's Chief of Staff has gone as far as supporting N. Korea's nuclear weapon programme in an article he wrote in he Guardian.

People talk about this being between North Korea and the US but actually it is more about China and Russia and North Korea than North Korea vs US. China and Russia both have land borders with North Korea. If the US nukes NK or an NK nuclear facility gets bombed with conventional weapons and starts leaking radiation they are going to get some of the fallout. If there is a war or massive famine in NK they are going to get the refugees.

China would probably love to depose Mr Kim and turn NK into a well behaved satellite state but they are far more threatened by NK nuclear weapons than the US because they are much closer. Right now the US with its THAAD system in South Korea can probably track any missile launches well enough to be able to have an excellent chance of shooting them down, China and Russia don't have that kind of defence.

By far the easiest way out of this for China, Russia and the US is for Kim to pop his clogs of something that looks like 'natural causes' before he goes too far.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

America should carpet bomb NK with old magazines and newspapers. Show them what they're missing and how the world is not obsessed with NK.

In reply to David Martin:

'Global warming, getting on the property ladder, my pension, Brexit, inequality and the other myriad of concerns I have would probably vanish...'

I've just read your post. Because you have some challenges in your personal life you think that nuclear Armageddon is acceptable as a way of taking your mind off things?

A nuclear explosion doesn't just vaporise people - those are the lucky ones. The flash from the explosion for those not lucky enough to be at ground zero also does damage - it will, for example, burn out the retina of anyone in range who happens to be looking at the time, it will boil the fat off a toddler's legs that are exposed to it. Because the flash precedes the shock wave, this is one of the reasons that the cold war advice to whitewash windows was not as daft as it sounded; but then the shock wave will of course smash windows , cause buildings to implode and send building debris and shards of glass flying in all directions. And that's all in the first second or two, before fires take hold, gas mains explode and those who've survived the initial explosion and flash, survived the shock wave and collapsing buildings will be left to burn alive in the resulting fires, or be buried under rubble and die of crush injuries or thirst. And then if they survive all that, of course, they will then have been exposed to massive doses of radiation which will cause a long lingering death as the micro flora in their gut fails, or they develop any number of aggressive cancers.

But you're happy for all that to happen (presumably to other people) because life isn't treating you so well at the moment?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


But then who comes after?

I don't suppose the USA is really much threatened by North Korea's missile capabilities, but South Korea certainly is by its more conventional weapons, and it's likely to be the Koreas that would particularly suffer if things get heavy - hopefully the US and China (and Russia) would restrain themselves in the event of a war, but given the potential for carnage and the various defense obligations it's easy to imagine things spiraling out of control very easily

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



which makes one wonder how NK has been allowed to carry on enriching uranium and developing war heads and testing missiles this whole time, no?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Presumably because they've been holding S Korea to ransom with conventional arms all the while?

In reply to David Riley:


You really think that exposing them to saturation coverage of preening celebrities and overpaid sportspeople won't hasten Armageddon?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Guess your sarcasm detector is turned off for the day (at least that is how I read the post you were referring to).

Anyway, here is a short instructional song about how to enjoy the upcoming war:

youtube.com/watch?v=DOvkWZ4-cf8&

CB

In reply to broken spectre:

Held to ransom? S.Korea have one of the largest armed forces in the world backed by the *largest* armed forces in the world (The US armed forces budget is larger than the 7 next largest armed forces combined)

Do you think N Korea would win any armed conflict?

In reply to Clauso:

They will be delighted with your articles in Owl Handler and The Owler.

In reply to cb294:

I think this one is really appropriate. As he says, lets end on a positive note!

youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs&

In reply to David Riley:


Naturally... And Kim Jong-un needs to understand that, in me, he's up against a man who was bitten by a radioactive owl at an early age.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

North Korea has the backing of China.
Without their intervention the Korean war would have been won by the UN back in the 1950's.
Ever since then the North Koreans have been supported by China.
This, as I'm sure you know, is the main reason why North Korea has survived for so long.
While North Korea had neither ballistic missiles or nuclear warheads the situation suited successive governments.
Now there's a chance that the North can deliver a nuclear warhead to both the US and China.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

After Kim, I think NK's most terrifying individual is their female News Reader. A very indignant no nonsense type of girl.....

In reply to cb294:

Well I hope so, I don't often get caught out though.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Bloody typical eh?

Armageddon means armageddon. It's time for all the nuclear warmoaners to stop whinging, get behind the idea and start working to make it a success.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


The way their statements are going Trump and Kim will probably solve it with a Rap Battle.

youtube.com/watch?v=r6g45MwWe9U&

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Well I doubt I'd ever read a headline in the NY Times along the lines of, "Seattle reduced to nuclear desert by N. Korea. Congress to vote on retaliation on Monday."

In reply to Removed User:


The converse situation is more likely "Pyong Yang reduced to nuclear desert by Trump. Congress to vote on declaring war on Monday"

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Isn't the Korean War still ongoing, as in it never actually finished?

In reply to baron:


I think so. I've no idea what the implications are in US law. As I understand it the President doesn't need congressional approval for defensive actions but there is disagreement about whether he needs approval to start a new war. Maybe because the war never technically stopped he's got more latitude than usual.

In reply to Shani:

Possibly one of the most irrelevant and obsessive posts here ever?

In reply to Big Ger:


Triggered much?

In reply to baron:


Surely it's not a war, it's a "police action".

In reply to fred99:

Correct.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Does North Korea have any resources of value the US would like to get their hands on or control (like oil)? Do NK really want to go to war with the USA? If so, why?

In reply to Toerag:
Don't think about this logically. Think using the illogic, ignorance and vanity of the protagonists.

Rob Ward exile got it right with....
If you tried to judge the maturity, intelligence and mental stability of the two protagonists you couldn't get a cigarette paper between them.

and Summo got it right with....
It's never wise to push an idiot with nothing to lose into a corner.

In reply to Toerag:

A million and a half civilian casualties last time round means they really don't like them. They also think the US likes regime change a la Libya, Iraq.

Nice confusing messages from the White House - compare those from Trump, Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis and, scariest of all, the unspeakably foul Sebastian Gorka. Bombs away!

In reply to Toerag:


A military defeat of the USA by the DPRK would put the N Korean government in a much stronger position in any negotiations regarding reunification with the south. That is their main interest.

Obviously this is not realistic with a rational (informed leader), but I don't think you can count on this. After all, if you were the head of the N Korean army and Kim asked you whether the army (that you commanded) was a match for US forces how would you choose to answer him? Very carefully I would assume.

A more realistic strategy would be to develop your weapons just to the point where winning a war would carry too high a cost for the US to consider and then push the confrontation just far enough to show that the mutual defence obligation between the US and the south was worthless. That would give the same strategic effect and is more achievable, but would be extremely dangerous. It then becomes a case of how much you trust the judgement of the two leaders.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think you may have missed the sarcasm, but understandable - text isn't always great at conveying it.

Over here and as part of work, I witness the after-effects of explosive ordnance and genocide daily. It's not something I'd wish on anyone.