This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Who believes that N.Korea are just after purely a deterrent or is this really a bit of sabre rattling ? I have a worrying feeling that they are going to push these tests until the UN is forced to respond and it could all look a bit messy then.
Certainly more worrying to me at the moment than Al's hoards of Muslim fanatics
Certainly more worrying to me at the moment than Al's hoards of Muslim fanatics
In reply to GrahamD:
i dont think they are dumb enough to really push it. Probably looking for some more food shipments.
> Who believes that N.Korea are just after purely a deterrent or is this really a bit of sabre rattling ? I have a worrying feeling that they are going to push these tests until the UN is forced to respond and it could all look a bit messy then.
i dont think they are dumb enough to really push it. Probably looking for some more food shipments.
In reply to GrahamD: no, slept really well thanks
In reply to GrahamD:
From my limited knowledge, no. They always push tests. They don't like outside advice. If someone from the UN said don't do something I think it's possible they would do it even if they weren't planning on it in the first place. We've seen it before. Exchanges of fire a few years ago between North and South, a lot of serious posturing, sinking of a SK naval vessel etc. That was much more worrying I thought and it came to little.
This time on the whole I'm not worried. Not going to apply for that job at the Daily Mail either.
From my limited knowledge, no. They always push tests. They don't like outside advice. If someone from the UN said don't do something I think it's possible they would do it even if they weren't planning on it in the first place. We've seen it before. Exchanges of fire a few years ago between North and South, a lot of serious posturing, sinking of a SK naval vessel etc. That was much more worrying I thought and it came to little.
This time on the whole I'm not worried. Not going to apply for that job at the Daily Mail either.
In reply to GrahamD: I think the reaction of the western world is more worrying than what N.Korea have done!!
We know how the US love a war, and and half cocked excuse to try an topple a communist regime! I think if any trouble's going to happen, it'd be instigated by South Korea and the USA, not by North Korea.
We know how the US love a war, and and half cocked excuse to try an topple a communist regime! I think if any trouble's going to happen, it'd be instigated by South Korea and the USA, not by North Korea.
In reply to GrahamD: To be fair, based on the last 20 years, we are more likely to go to war than North Korea. I don't really understand why it is ok for us to have every weapon / technology under the sun but states like N Korea and Iran can not. Do states not understand that kids only want what they can not have?
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):
I agree. In launching a satelite into orbit North Korea haven't done anything more provocative than Soviet Union/Russia, US, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Israel, Iran or Elon Musk.
In fact, I'm more worried about Elon Musk. All he needs is a hollowed out volcano and he'll be starring in the next Bond movie.
> (In reply to GrahamD) I think the reaction of the western world is more worrying than what N.Korea have done!!
>
>
I agree. In launching a satelite into orbit North Korea haven't done anything more provocative than Soviet Union/Russia, US, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Israel, Iran or Elon Musk.
In fact, I'm more worried about Elon Musk. All he needs is a hollowed out volcano and he'll be starring in the next Bond movie.
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):
i doubt it. The US and South Korea arent likely to think the outcome is going to be any better than the last time round.
It would make Vietnam look like a walk in the park. The only real option would be to try and get a internal revolt and I doubt SK would be in favour of that on the grounds they are the ones living next door and if it goes wrong they get an invasion from some peeps with nothing to lose.
> We know how the US love a war, and and half cocked excuse to try an topple a communist regime! I think if any trouble's going to happen, it'd be instigated by South Korea and the USA, not by North Korea.
i doubt it. The US and South Korea arent likely to think the outcome is going to be any better than the last time round.
It would make Vietnam look like a walk in the park. The only real option would be to try and get a internal revolt and I doubt SK would be in favour of that on the grounds they are the ones living next door and if it goes wrong they get an invasion from some peeps with nothing to lose.
In reply to EeeByGum:
You're absolutely right.
Just like in primary school where the teacher shares out the Maltesers amongst everyone just to be fair the US should share out it's ICBMs to every country in the world. Just to be fair.
phuqmegently.
You're absolutely right.
Just like in primary school where the teacher shares out the Maltesers amongst everyone just to be fair the US should share out it's ICBMs to every country in the world. Just to be fair.
phuqmegently.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I think politicians are worried that next time they'll be putting a nuclear bomb onto the end of their rocket. A rocket with enough range to cross the pacific I think.
Given N Korea's previous of shelling people they're a bit pissed off with them but for no particular reason I can understand why some people might get a bit worried about the prospect of them now deciding to nuke Hawaii because Barak Obama called their pint a poof.
> (In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC))
> [...]
>
> I agree. In launching a satelite into orbit North Korea haven't done anything more provocative than Soviet Union/Russia, US, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Israel, Iran or Elon Musk.
>
> [...]
>
> I agree. In launching a satelite into orbit North Korea haven't done anything more provocative than Soviet Union/Russia, US, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Israel, Iran or Elon Musk.
>
I think politicians are worried that next time they'll be putting a nuclear bomb onto the end of their rocket. A rocket with enough range to cross the pacific I think.
Given N Korea's previous of shelling people they're a bit pissed off with them but for no particular reason I can understand why some people might get a bit worried about the prospect of them now deciding to nuke Hawaii because Barak Obama called their pint a poof.
In reply to GrahamD:
Worried, no.
Assuming the publicly available information is reasonably accurate then they lofted <100kg into a low orbit. If this is a balistic missile rather than a satelite launch platform they are unlikely to get anything other than a conventional or small chemical warhead into that so from a military perspective it doesn't change much. If it is a satelite launch platform then it is nothing to worry about (aside from global warming and the odd bit of falling debris). I'd be a bit more worried if they were spending their cash on AK74s or large fermentation vessels.
Worried, no.
Assuming the publicly available information is reasonably accurate then they lofted <100kg into a low orbit. If this is a balistic missile rather than a satelite launch platform they are unlikely to get anything other than a conventional or small chemical warhead into that so from a military perspective it doesn't change much. If it is a satelite launch platform then it is nothing to worry about (aside from global warming and the odd bit of falling debris). I'd be a bit more worried if they were spending their cash on AK74s or large fermentation vessels.
In reply to Removed User:
I think politicians are worried that next time they'll be putting a nuclear bomb onto the end of their rocket. A rocket with enough range to cross the pacific I think.
The rocket isn't nearly large enough to lift a device of the size they are likely to be able to manufacture at the moment. They also have a very low sucess rate with both tests and launches so I don't think even an utterly barmy general would think of launching one even if they could.
I think politicians are worried that next time they'll be putting a nuclear bomb onto the end of their rocket. A rocket with enough range to cross the pacific I think.
The rocket isn't nearly large enough to lift a device of the size they are likely to be able to manufacture at the moment. They also have a very low sucess rate with both tests and launches so I don't think even an utterly barmy general would think of launching one even if they could.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Fine but no doubt they'll be working on the mkII version...
> (In reply to GrahamD)
> Worried, no.
> Assuming the publicly available information is reasonably accurate then they lofted <100kg into a low orbit. If this is a balistic missile rather than a satelite launch platform they are unlikely to get anything other than a conventional or small chemical warhead into that so from a military perspective it doesn't change much.
> Worried, no.
> Assuming the publicly available information is reasonably accurate then they lofted <100kg into a low orbit. If this is a balistic missile rather than a satelite launch platform they are unlikely to get anything other than a conventional or small chemical warhead into that so from a military perspective it doesn't change much.
Fine but no doubt they'll be working on the mkII version...
In reply to Reach>Talent:
So you'll put off worrying until they've developed something that can lift ~500 Kg with a 30% chance of hitting the target?
Fair enough.
So you'll put off worrying until they've developed something that can lift ~500 Kg with a 30% chance of hitting the target?
Fair enough.
In reply to Removed User & others:
What motive do you all think that N Korea would have in launching a missile at the USA, Japan or whoever? What do you think they have to gain?
(Assuming that such a missile actually got in the air and avoided any anti-missile defenses, which is itself a pretty enormous assumption)
What motive do you all think that N Korea would have in launching a missile at the USA, Japan or whoever? What do you think they have to gain?
(Assuming that such a missile actually got in the air and avoided any anti-missile defenses, which is itself a pretty enormous assumption)
In reply to Removed User:
Yep, I don't see much point in getting stressed about something which is not very likely and even less likely to affact me if it does happen.
I'm not an expert but have done a fair bit of reading around the subject, looking at the history of their missile programs and the evolution of the A-bomb:
Everything I've read suggests they are somewhere around the same sort of point the Americans were toward the end of WW2, making 5ton devices that will probably go off. Unlike the Americans they are very resorce contrained and are going to struggle to optimise it, even though much more information is in the public domain. So at the moment the missile is roughtly 50x too small.
Now look at their ballistic missile program; it is in a better state and they have short range missiles capable of lifting close to a ton provided they aren't worried about them actually getting within 20 miles of the target. The long range program and the guidance seems to be causing them a few more problems. At the moment they could possibly land something on the USA but it wouldn't be big or accurate, you'd be better off sending it by UPS. They are a long way from getting a heavy lift rocket that is accurate and reliable enough to be worrying.
We are probably talking decades rather than years before their missile and A-bomb programs merge by which point they'll all have died of starvation.
Yep, I don't see much point in getting stressed about something which is not very likely and even less likely to affact me if it does happen.
I'm not an expert but have done a fair bit of reading around the subject, looking at the history of their missile programs and the evolution of the A-bomb:
Everything I've read suggests they are somewhere around the same sort of point the Americans were toward the end of WW2, making 5ton devices that will probably go off. Unlike the Americans they are very resorce contrained and are going to struggle to optimise it, even though much more information is in the public domain. So at the moment the missile is roughtly 50x too small.
Now look at their ballistic missile program; it is in a better state and they have short range missiles capable of lifting close to a ton provided they aren't worried about them actually getting within 20 miles of the target. The long range program and the guidance seems to be causing them a few more problems. At the moment they could possibly land something on the USA but it wouldn't be big or accurate, you'd be better off sending it by UPS. They are a long way from getting a heavy lift rocket that is accurate and reliable enough to be worrying.
We are probably talking decades rather than years before their missile and A-bomb programs merge by which point they'll all have died of starvation.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I'm intrigued by what motivation N.Korea have in launching any kind of rocket ? As we saw in Iraq even the flimsiest suspicion of WMD can be used as a catalyst for ill advised conflict and this (hot on the heels of a nuclear test) is a damned site more compelling than whatever it was Iraq was supposed to have had.
There has to be at least the potential for a 1960s Cuba style game of brinksmanship some time down the line
I'm intrigued by what motivation N.Korea have in launching any kind of rocket ? As we saw in Iraq even the flimsiest suspicion of WMD can be used as a catalyst for ill advised conflict and this (hot on the heels of a nuclear test) is a damned site more compelling than whatever it was Iraq was supposed to have had.
There has to be at least the potential for a 1960s Cuba style game of brinksmanship some time down the line
In reply to Reach>Talent:
My concern isn't so much about the actual destructive power they have - its more that they continue to deliberately give a poke in the eye to the UN (or at least those members of the UN that are prone to react to such things)
My concern isn't so much about the actual destructive power they have - its more that they continue to deliberately give a poke in the eye to the UN (or at least those members of the UN that are prone to react to such things)
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Have you heard of Jeff Bezos? You may have heard of a little company he set up (Amazon). He has his own space program (Blue Origin), he's the process of hollowing out a mountain (10000 Year Clock) and he's a billionaire member of a wonderfully Illuminati-esque organisation called the Bilderberg Group. I reckon he'd take out Musk in a fight any day.
> In fact, I'm more worried about Elon Musk. All he needs is a hollowed out volcano and he'll be starring in the next Bond movie.
Have you heard of Jeff Bezos? You may have heard of a little company he set up (Amazon). He has his own space program (Blue Origin), he's the process of hollowing out a mountain (10000 Year Clock) and he's a billionaire member of a wonderfully Illuminati-esque organisation called the Bilderberg Group. I reckon he'd take out Musk in a fight any day.
In reply to GrahamD:
My worry is that they will sell the missiles/technology to anyone that can slip them a briefcase or two filled with 500 dollar bills. Then any part of the world (Europe, N America) would be in range Pakistan, Iran, or even some god forsaken North/Central African country with resource money and an obnoxious regime that want protection from UN/Western intervention
>
> Certainly more worrying to me at the moment than Al's hoards of Muslim fanatics
> Certainly more worrying to me at the moment than Al's hoards of Muslim fanatics
My worry is that they will sell the missiles/technology to anyone that can slip them a briefcase or two filled with 500 dollar bills. Then any part of the world (Europe, N America) would be in range Pakistan, Iran, or even some god forsaken North/Central African country with resource money and an obnoxious regime that want protection from UN/Western intervention
In reply to MikeTS:
My worry is that they will sell the missiles/technology to anyone that can slip them a briefcase or two filled with 500 dollar bills.
I wouldn't worry, North Korea isn't going to export the technology. No one wants to buy North Korean defence secrets as everyone else has better missiles already. Their current technology is basically a couple of SCUDs rivetted together, you'd be better off buying a kit from Estes.
My worry is that they will sell the missiles/technology to anyone that can slip them a briefcase or two filled with 500 dollar bills.
I wouldn't worry, North Korea isn't going to export the technology. No one wants to buy North Korean defence secrets as everyone else has better missiles already. Their current technology is basically a couple of SCUDs rivetted together, you'd be better off buying a kit from Estes.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Agreed. But I would be very surprised if they actually flew one of these things at anyone. Even if they got it sorted, it doesn't take a brianiac to work out that retaliation would be swift and brutal. They are more likely to use such weapons as a negotiating tool very much in the way most countries that like to talk tough do every day.
> At the moment they could possibly land something on the USA but it wouldn't be big or accurate, you'd be better off sending it by UPS.
Agreed. But I would be very surprised if they actually flew one of these things at anyone. Even if they got it sorted, it doesn't take a brianiac to work out that retaliation would be swift and brutal. They are more likely to use such weapons as a negotiating tool very much in the way most countries that like to talk tough do every day.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
That's reassuring about N Korea. But now I'm worrying about Estes.
Something must be done. Boycotts? Taking away their passports?
> (In reply to MikeTS)
everyone else has better missiles already. Their current technology is basically a couple of SCUDs rivetted together, you'd be better off buying a kit from Estes.That's reassuring about N Korea. But now I'm worrying about Estes.
Something must be done. Boycotts? Taking away their passports?
In reply to MikeTS:
If you want to get really worried...
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/missilemanbook.shtml
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
If you want to get really worried...
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/missilemanbook.shtml
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Lashing out in vengeance if failing to repel an invader is about all I can think of. Or suicide.
> (In reply to Eric9Points & others)
>
> What motive do you all think that N Korea would have in launching a missile at the USA, Japan or whoever? What do you think they have to gain?
>
>
> What motive do you all think that N Korea would have in launching a missile at the USA, Japan or whoever? What do you think they have to gain?
>
Lashing out in vengeance if failing to repel an invader is about all I can think of. Or suicide.
In reply to EeeByGum:
Are you so sure ? its a tiny country sandwiched beteen China and the most populated parts of S.Korea. Exactly how would such a brutal retaliation take place ?
> Even if they got it sorted, it doesn't take a brianiac to work out that retaliation would be swift and brutal.
Are you so sure ? its a tiny country sandwiched beteen China and the most populated parts of S.Korea. Exactly how would such a brutal retaliation take place ?
In reply to dissonance:
Agreed but changed it slighly
Imaging what 20 million people trying to escape to a better life would do to South Korea.
> (In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC))
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
Agreed but changed it slighly
> It would make Vietnam look like a walk in the park. The only real option would be to try and get a internal revolt and I doubt SK would be in favour of that on the grounds they are the ones living next door and if it goes wrong they get a REFUGEE CRISIS from some peeps with nothing to lose.
Imaging what 20 million people trying to escape to a better life would do to South Korea.
In reply to cap'nChino: I'm more worried about the naivete of people answering this post than the actual event it proscribes. N Korea and Iran ARE dangerous, thank god the US and the UN are taking this seriously.
In reply to GrahamD:
Should we be worried? Yeah but not by North Korea. What can they possibly gain by using their fledgling weapons? They're piss poor and almost entirely isolated physically, politically and economically. Ok, they could potentially miscalculate some future round of saber rattling but that's some way down the line and strictly speaking in that case it would be the North Koreans with most to fear.
They could also sell their technology on to non-state organisations with a lot less to lose but it'd be high risk for relatively little gain. For all the cultish weirdness they don't appear to be suicidal.
What they do have is a large, poor and (presumably) loyal population, I'd be a lot more worried if they were investing heavily in assault rifles, boots and biscuits.
jk
Should we be worried? Yeah but not by North Korea. What can they possibly gain by using their fledgling weapons? They're piss poor and almost entirely isolated physically, politically and economically. Ok, they could potentially miscalculate some future round of saber rattling but that's some way down the line and strictly speaking in that case it would be the North Koreans with most to fear.
They could also sell their technology on to non-state organisations with a lot less to lose but it'd be high risk for relatively little gain. For all the cultish weirdness they don't appear to be suicidal.
What they do have is a large, poor and (presumably) loyal population, I'd be a lot more worried if they were investing heavily in assault rifles, boots and biscuits.
jk
In reply to Al Evans:
More cynicism than naivete - goverments such as UK & US who previously warned us about Iraqi WMD haven't yet re-established their credibility.
> (In reply to cap'nChino) I'm more worried about the naivete of people answering this post than the actual event it proscribes. N Korea and Iran ARE dangerous, thank god the US and the UN are taking this seriously.
More cynicism than naivete - goverments such as UK & US who previously warned us about Iraqi WMD haven't yet re-established their credibility.
In reply to GrahamD: What good is there worrying about it ? Nout we can do anyway so its just wasted energy. Let them get on with it, they'll do what they are going to do regardless.
In reply to Al Evans:
I'm more worried about the naivete of people answering this post than the actual event it proscribes.
Really Al? There are lots of model rocketry clubs that have better technology than the North Korean military! They are a small impoverished country stuck between China and the worlds most heavily fortified border what on earth do you think they are going to do? Grouping them with Iran is quite frankly offensive to the well equipped and trained Iranian military.
I'm more worried about the naivete of people answering this post than the actual event it proscribes.
Really Al? There are lots of model rocketry clubs that have better technology than the North Korean military! They are a small impoverished country stuck between China and the worlds most heavily fortified border what on earth do you think they are going to do? Grouping them with Iran is quite frankly offensive to the well equipped and trained Iranian military.
In reply to Al Evans:
Let's see, some parts of the UN will wring their hands unhappily, but apart from a few meaningless sanctions, nothing will happen because either China or Russia (or possibly both) will veto anything proposed by the USA.
The USA will give the NKorean ambassador a stern ticking off and will propose sanctions at the UN, which will be vetoed (see above)..
And then what?
> (In reply to cap'nChino) I'm more worried about the naivete of people answering this post than the actual event it proscribes. N Korea and Iran ARE dangerous, thank god the US and the UN are taking this seriously.
Let's see, some parts of the UN will wring their hands unhappily, but apart from a few meaningless sanctions, nothing will happen because either China or Russia (or possibly both) will veto anything proposed by the USA.
The USA will give the NKorean ambassador a stern ticking off and will propose sanctions at the UN, which will be vetoed (see above)..
And then what?
In reply to tony:
And then what ? N.Korea publicly test a bigger bomb and a better rocket. I'm not so concerned about N.Korea actually using the stuff - more what some members of the UN are going to do about being continually provoked.
And then what ? N.Korea publicly test a bigger bomb and a better rocket. I'm not so concerned about N.Korea actually using the stuff - more what some members of the UN are going to do about being continually provoked.
In reply to GrahamD:
I read the online comments on the Independent. They have some raving lunatics reading their paper! How about this
'South Korea is a puppet state of the USA - it had a US backed dictator until the 1980s, just like in Latin America.
Japan is still militarily occupied, nearly 70 years (!!) after WWII. The US fleet is constantly patrolling around the shores of China, some thousands of miles from its own coast.
The USA has a large ground based military presence in the area and regularly threatens NK with military action.
Under international law NK is in the right and the USA is in the wrong, not that the law matters when the propaganda and geo-political interests of the USA are being promoted.'
I read the online comments on the Independent. They have some raving lunatics reading their paper! How about this
'South Korea is a puppet state of the USA - it had a US backed dictator until the 1980s, just like in Latin America.
Japan is still militarily occupied, nearly 70 years (!!) after WWII. The US fleet is constantly patrolling around the shores of China, some thousands of miles from its own coast.
The USA has a large ground based military presence in the area and regularly threatens NK with military action.
Under international law NK is in the right and the USA is in the wrong, not that the law matters when the propaganda and geo-political interests of the USA are being promoted.'
In reply to MikeTS:
Is your issue with the accuracy or tone of the comments?
jk
> I read the online comments on the Independent. They have some raving lunatics reading their paper! How about this
Is your issue with the accuracy or tone of the comments?
jk
In reply to MikeTS:
Doesn't sound like a 'raving lunatic' to me. Somewhat polarised opinion for sure...
Doesn't sound like a 'raving lunatic' to me. Somewhat polarised opinion for sure...
In reply to jkarran:
Sort of both. e.g. Japan and S Korea have done a great (but not perfect of course) job of transforming their economy and political system and no way are run by the US!
SO do you think that the accuracy and tone are correct, or are you being provocative?
> (In reply to MikeTS)
>
> [...]
>
> Is your issue with the accuracy or tone of the comments?
> jk
>
> [...]
>
> Is your issue with the accuracy or tone of the comments?
> jk
Sort of both. e.g. Japan and S Korea have done a great (but not perfect of course) job of transforming their economy and political system and no way are run by the US!
SO do you think that the accuracy and tone are correct, or are you being provocative?
In reply to jkarran:
No idea but what did they hope to gain from shelling a S Korean island or sinking one of their warships last year?
I suspect cowed would be more appropriate than loyal.
I'm pretty sure they've got more of those than you can shake a stick at, 5000 tanks anyway. For some reason I can't post a link but Google is your friend.
> (In reply to GrahamD)
>
> Should we be worried? Yeah but not by North Korea. What can they possibly gain by using their fledgling weapons?
>
> Should we be worried? Yeah but not by North Korea. What can they possibly gain by using their fledgling weapons?
No idea but what did they hope to gain from shelling a S Korean island or sinking one of their warships last year?
>
>
> What they do have is a large, poor and (presumably) loyal population,
>
> What they do have is a large, poor and (presumably) loyal population,
I suspect cowed would be more appropriate than loyal.
> I'd be a lot more worried if they were investing heavily in assault rifles, boots and biscuits.
I'm pretty sure they've got more of those than you can shake a stick at, 5000 tanks anyway. For some reason I can't post a link but Google is your friend.
In reply to MikeTS:
Nothing much untrue about the first three statements,
While on the subject of this thread and in the same vein, what would you think of someone who said: "Never mind N Korea, the two most dangerous states in the world, responsible for the most acts of aggression of recent years, already have atomic bombs and ways of delivering them."
I won't name the two states to avoid taking the thread totally off subject but anyone can scan recent history and see who they are.
Nothing much untrue about the first three statements,
While on the subject of this thread and in the same vein, what would you think of someone who said: "Never mind N Korea, the two most dangerous states in the world, responsible for the most acts of aggression of recent years, already have atomic bombs and ways of delivering them."
I won't name the two states to avoid taking the thread totally off subject but anyone can scan recent history and see who they are.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
well one of them of course is the UK. That's easy. The UK has been almost continuously at war for a century, somewhere. Plus was number 2 with nuclear weapons and delivery systems
> (In reply to MikeTS)
> I won't name the two states to avoid taking the thread totally off subject but anyone can scan recent history and see who they are.
well one of them of course is the UK. That's easy. The UK has been almost continuously at war for a century, somewhere. Plus was number 2 with nuclear weapons and delivery systems
In reply to MikeTS:
You don't seem to be to concerned by historical fact, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%931944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%931989
You don't seem to be to concerned by historical fact, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%931944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%931989
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Not heard of Second Saud–Sharif War, but actually looking at your lists and then considering long running low intensity conflicts such as Northern Ireland (considering today's delightful news), Mike's point is far from the truth by any means.
Have a look at: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html for example.
Have a look at: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html for example.
In reply to GrahamD:
i worry not about NK strikes, but about the entire scenario showing yet again how ineffective the system is for preventing regional sabre rattling/willy waving.
its not like the levant, where its a mix of small players being proxy to big and middle sized prime movers. the NK matter is all big players - the worlds 3 largest economies, 2 of whom have a totally dismissive attitude to the UN and any regional treaties, the other who has almost no say at all.
the UN - an organization very good at standing by till its too late - is nothing more than an observational body in this one.
i dont see NK striking anywhere, but i do see china using it as the excuse it needs to extend military influence, and the US via its allies in response. already the powerplays between the 2 in the Nth Pacific are strained. china 'protecting' the strategic 'rights' of its 'friend' (china doesnt have many next door) seems to be counter to regional stability.
to liken it to iran is an exercise in hysteria, not geopolitics.
i worry not about NK strikes, but about the entire scenario showing yet again how ineffective the system is for preventing regional sabre rattling/willy waving.
its not like the levant, where its a mix of small players being proxy to big and middle sized prime movers. the NK matter is all big players - the worlds 3 largest economies, 2 of whom have a totally dismissive attitude to the UN and any regional treaties, the other who has almost no say at all.
the UN - an organization very good at standing by till its too late - is nothing more than an observational body in this one.
i dont see NK striking anywhere, but i do see china using it as the excuse it needs to extend military influence, and the US via its allies in response. already the powerplays between the 2 in the Nth Pacific are strained. china 'protecting' the strategic 'rights' of its 'friend' (china doesnt have many next door) seems to be counter to regional stability.
to liken it to iran is an exercise in hysteria, not geopolitics.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Please explain how you reach this conclusion?
> (In reply to MikeTS)
>
> You don't seem to be to concerned by historical fact, do you?
>
> You don't seem to be to concerned by historical fact, do you?
Please explain how you reach this conclusion?
In reply to ice.solo:
Though as you said,its all handbags.
> i do see china using it as the excuse it needs to extend military influence, and the US via its allies in response.
To read your post one could almost see the US as the good guy stepping in when some belligerent gets aggressive.When the truth of the matter is that the US perpetually stirs things up in the region to sell more arms and threaten China. Though as you said,its all handbags.
In reply to ice.solo:
> (In reply to GudrunEnsslin)
>
> handbags???
It is a contemporary term similar in meaning to sabre rattling or maybe a little more serious depending on what one carries in ones handbag.>
> handbags???
In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
gotcha.
i dont see this as being about US bullying for the arms trade: US arms sales to the countries involved isnt huge (the US has its own forces there already, japan doesnt use baseline US systems, the koreans have a weird mix, and both japan and korea themselves are huge military traders in the tech sector).
general trade more likely. NK is close to some of the worlds busiest shipping channels.
more likely tho is that the US cannot NOT be involved. with involvement with SK and japan at a constitutional level they have to be there. its another variant on the cold war agreements where theres the ideological divide, but in a modern way.
i dont think china and the US/allies want to face off - and i think china will jettison NK before things get real nasty but as yet they have historical obligations to the few remaining pinko bastions they helped develop - even when they have far greater economic ties to japan (who was the main instigator in kick starting the chinese economy 25 years ago).
if push came to shove i see china smacking NK before anything else.
living in the region (well within stike distance of NKs missiles and in direct eyesight of the system used to retaliate) i get to see the situation reported from different angles. like usual - its not as straightforward as the western media likes to make it appear.
gotcha.
i dont see this as being about US bullying for the arms trade: US arms sales to the countries involved isnt huge (the US has its own forces there already, japan doesnt use baseline US systems, the koreans have a weird mix, and both japan and korea themselves are huge military traders in the tech sector).
general trade more likely. NK is close to some of the worlds busiest shipping channels.
more likely tho is that the US cannot NOT be involved. with involvement with SK and japan at a constitutional level they have to be there. its another variant on the cold war agreements where theres the ideological divide, but in a modern way.
i dont think china and the US/allies want to face off - and i think china will jettison NK before things get real nasty but as yet they have historical obligations to the few remaining pinko bastions they helped develop - even when they have far greater economic ties to japan (who was the main instigator in kick starting the chinese economy 25 years ago).
if push came to shove i see china smacking NK before anything else.
living in the region (well within stike distance of NKs missiles and in direct eyesight of the system used to retaliate) i get to see the situation reported from different angles. like usual - its not as straightforward as the western media likes to make it appear.
In reply to ice.solo:
The sore of Okinawa aside,you are clearly unaware of this years $10 billion sale of strike fighters to Japan or the $2 billion sale of Patriots to a not so inconsequencial little island called Tiawan
Fruits of strategic long term planning though you make it sound as though they are an unwilling policeman.Whereas arms dealer/gangster would be the facts as they bear out but your conditioning is forgiven for what else are you to say.
Yes good insight,agreed though it won't come to that.
Western media is of one agenda that is why i try to avoid it.Obviously China and the US are economically entwined,so too much friction would be M.A.D.
Perhaps you aren't as conditioned as i thought.
> (In reply to GudrunEnsslin)
> i dont see this as being about US bullying for the arms trade:
I didn't say it was.The US HAVE persistently scaremongered and bullied in the region to encourage arms sales. > US arms sales to the countries involved isnt huge (the US has its own forces there already, japan doesnt use baseline US systems, the koreans have a weird mix, and both japan and korea themselves are huge military traders in the tech sector).
The sore of Okinawa aside,you are clearly unaware of this years $10 billion sale of strike fighters to Japan or the $2 billion sale of Patriots to a not so inconsequencial little island called Tiawan
> more likely tho is that the US cannot NOT be involved. with involvement with SK and japan at a constitutional level they have to be there. its another variant on the cold war agreements where theres the ideological divide, but in a modern way.
Fruits of strategic long term planning though you make it sound as though they are an unwilling policeman.Whereas arms dealer/gangster would be the facts as they bear out but your conditioning is forgiven for what else are you to say.
> i dont think china and the US/allies want to face off - and i think china will jettison NK before things get real nasty but as yet they have historical obligations to the few remaining pinko bastions they helped develop - even when they have far greater economic ties to japan (who was the main instigator in kick starting the chinese economy 25 years ago).
>
> if push came to shove i see china smacking NK before anything else.
>
> if push came to shove i see china smacking NK before anything else.
Yes good insight,agreed though it won't come to that.
> living in the region (well within stike distance of NKs missiles and in direct eyesight of the system used to retaliate) i get to see the situation reported from different angles. like usual - its not as straightforward as the western media likes to make it appear.
Western media is of one agenda that is why i try to avoid it.Obviously China and the US are economically entwined,so too much friction would be M.A.D.
Perhaps you aren't as conditioned as i thought.
In reply to GrahamD: The USA has always needed to create bogey men to keep their populace in fear. How many Americans still think Castro is a threat? Chavez? Iran? The USA depends hugely on defense and other sales.
In reply to TobyA:
>Mike's point is far from the truth by any means.
Toby, I assume you mean not far from the truth
>Mike's point is far from the truth by any means.
Toby, I assume you mean not far from the truth
In reply to tony:
Exactly!
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> Let's see, some parts of the UN will wring their hands unhappily, but apart from a few meaningless sanctions, nothing will happen because either China or Russia (or possibly both) will veto anything proposed by the USA.
>
> The USA will give the NKorean ambassador a stern ticking off and will propose sanctions at the UN, which will be vetoed (see above)..
>
> And then what?
> [...]
>
> Let's see, some parts of the UN will wring their hands unhappily, but apart from a few meaningless sanctions, nothing will happen because either China or Russia (or possibly both) will veto anything proposed by the USA.
>
> The USA will give the NKorean ambassador a stern ticking off and will propose sanctions at the UN, which will be vetoed (see above)..
>
> And then what?
Exactly!
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Think of the last few decades. From memory (I'm sure I've forgotten some)
Palestine. India. Malaya. Korea. Cyprus. Kenya. N Ireland. Suez. SE Arabia (Yemen, Muscat etc). Falklands. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya.
Probably more years fighting than not fighting.
What is interesting to me is that most of them were countries that did not directly threaten the UK!
(Actually just before I posted I found this link. Which definitely proves my point)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain
so I claim victory in the historical fact competition
> (In reply to MikeTS)
>
> You don't seem to be to concerned by historical fact, do you?
>
> You don't seem to be to concerned by historical fact, do you?
Think of the last few decades. From memory (I'm sure I've forgotten some)
Palestine. India. Malaya. Korea. Cyprus. Kenya. N Ireland. Suez. SE Arabia (Yemen, Muscat etc). Falklands. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya.
Probably more years fighting than not fighting.
What is interesting to me is that most of them were countries that did not directly threaten the UK!
(Actually just before I posted I found this link. Which definitely proves my point)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain
so I claim victory in the historical fact competition
In reply to GrahamD: What we need is someone to make "Team America-part 2" if we did then kim jong bong would know that WE know.
In reply to ice.solo:
Sadly this is one of the less naive answers to this post.
> (In reply to GrahamD)
>
> i worry not about NK strikes, but about the entire scenario showing yet again how ineffective the system is for preventing regional sabre rattling/willy waving.
>
> its not like the levant, where its a mix of small players being proxy to big and middle sized prime movers. the NK matter is all big players - the worlds 3 largest economies, 2 of whom have a totally dismissive attitude to the UN and any regional treaties, the other who has almost no say at all.
> the UN - an organization very good at standing by till its too late - is nothing more than an observational body in this one.
>
> i dont see NK striking anywhere, but i do see china using it as the excuse it needs to extend military influence, and the US via its allies in response. already the powerplays between the 2 in the Nth Pacific are strained. china 'protecting' the strategic 'rights' of its 'friend' (china doesnt have many next door) seems to be counter to regional stability.
>
> to liken it to iran is an exercise in hysteria, not geopolitics.
>
> i worry not about NK strikes, but about the entire scenario showing yet again how ineffective the system is for preventing regional sabre rattling/willy waving.
>
> its not like the levant, where its a mix of small players being proxy to big and middle sized prime movers. the NK matter is all big players - the worlds 3 largest economies, 2 of whom have a totally dismissive attitude to the UN and any regional treaties, the other who has almost no say at all.
> the UN - an organization very good at standing by till its too late - is nothing more than an observational body in this one.
>
> i dont see NK striking anywhere, but i do see china using it as the excuse it needs to extend military influence, and the US via its allies in response. already the powerplays between the 2 in the Nth Pacific are strained. china 'protecting' the strategic 'rights' of its 'friend' (china doesnt have many next door) seems to be counter to regional stability.
>
> to liken it to iran is an exercise in hysteria, not geopolitics.
Sadly this is one of the less naive answers to this post.
In reply to MikeTS:
I can't be bothered to do the sums, but my impression is that the UK has been the most belligerent nation of the last 100 years. Hardly a war around the world it didn't want to get involved in.
I can't be bothered to do the sums, but my impression is that the UK has been the most belligerent nation of the last 100 years. Hardly a war around the world it didn't want to get involved in.
In reply to MikeTS: yes, exactly. Apologies for the drive-by typing!
In reply to Shearwater:
Yeah, he may have the volcano, but he's not made orbit yet.
> Have you heard of Jeff Bezos? You may have heard of a little company he set up (Amazon). He has his own space program (Blue Origin), he's the process of hollowing out a mountain (10000 Year Clock) and he's a billionaire member of a wonderfully Illuminati-esque organisation called the Bilderberg Group. I reckon he'd take out Musk in a fight any day.
Yeah, he may have the volcano, but he's not made orbit yet.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...