You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It's a shame Romney didn't get into power. I always wondered who would win in a nuclear war between the US and North Korea.
In other news no we shouldn't worry.
The US isn't who the North Korean's should be worried about, you [i]really[/i] don't want to annoy the Chinese next door.
As LoCo says, it's NK's neighbour to the north who are going to get antsy about a bunch of loonies with nukes.
China is already angry about it. Maybe China and the US can nuke NK for a laugh. Maybe Russia could also join in.
Not worried.
No nuclear weapon equipped country will ever be invaded and that is why they want them
To use them is to commit suicide for the regime/country so they have no incentive to us them except to stop us/someone invading them
To use them is to commit suicide for the regime/country so they have no incentive to us them except to stop us/someone invading them
But I wanted to watch a firestorm fireworks display. From the comfort of my armchair.
Junkyard - I'm not sure NK think that way!
Powerful and paranoid (North Korea) - not a good combination.
Nothing we can do about it, so no point in worrying. Ride bikes instead. Much more fun and better for you.
We should be concerned. Making longer range missiles whilst developing smaller warheads is a bad recipe for world peace.
We should be concerned that
1. NK launch and hit a target.
2. A.N. Other are pre-emptive and hit NK.
3. Lots of countries get annoyed with NK then each other and a huge mushroom cloud shaped fracas kicks off.
Junkyard - I'm not sure NK think that way!
I'm not sure it's possible to really understand anything that goes on in a country which essentially doesn't tell anyone anything - with the western media left to make stuff up left right and centre. Given the tendency of our media to make stuff up left right and centre about more open 'alternative' regimes like Venezuela, I hold out no hope for reporting on Nth Korea being particularly informative, and tending towards hysterical hyperbole.
That said, more nukes, anywhere, can't be a good thing.
Junkyard - I'm not sure NK think that way!
How do you know what NK think? Have you ever been there?
Powerful and paranoid (North Korea) - not a good combination.
Nowhere near as powerful and paranoid as the USA or UK though.
Contrary to western paranoia and propaganda, the World will be a safer place if nations like Iran and North Korea develop defensive nuclear weapons; that way, the west will be unwilling to send thousands of young men to their deaths to invade such nations in order to secure their material resources. The lives of millions of innocent people will be safer.
THX lights the firework
I'm not sure NK think that way!
What you think their ultimate goal is to ensure the complete and utter wipeout of their country and regime - probably easier to do this than starting a nuclear war - they could just nuke themselves for example
It is obvious to see why folk are scared but you just cannot use nukes offensively its the equivalent of me holding a hand grenade and going if you shoot me i will blow us both up.
They allow you to inflict unacceptable losses on an aggressor they dont allow you to take over or invade anyone not least because you just obliterated their country.
That is why they have not been used since WW2
no one can win a nuclear exchange everyone knows this and the rest is just posturing.
I opened this thinking someone was expressing concern over yet another release of a crappy pop song.
Build it Gangnam Style...
nope nothing to worry about. their nuclear capability can only ever be used as a deterrent, if they even though about using it in anger, it'd be suicide, they'd get annihilated.
THX lights the firework
He likes to steer threads down the road to closure.
NK are not a "rational" thinking nation so the above doesn't apply.
He likes to steer threads down the road to closure
or off a cliff to their messy death.
deadlydarcy - Member
THX lights the firework
He likes to steer threads down the road to closure.
Nothing a nuke can't resolve.
I'm broadly in favour of the BBC but using that link reminds me of why I never look at their website - it is just a series of external quotes. There is no reasoned analysis in there, they seem either incapable or terrified of expressing any sort of opinion.
Very mild rant over. Back on topic now, please!
I s****ed when I looked at Google maps earlier. If you soom in on their test site, the nearest road is called 'Nuclear Test Road'
Not so good at keeping secrets after all then.
He likes to steer threads down the road to closure.
Why not instead offer up your own views, or challenge mine in an intelligent and respectful manner, rather than just trying to shit-stir?
haha, would love that to be true locally! 😀franksinatra - Member
I s****ed when I looked at Google maps earlier. If you soom in on their test site, the nearest raod is called 'Nuclear Test Road'Not so good at keeping secrets after all then.
I'm with Junkyard on this.
You should think less about nuclear weapons being weapons and more about them being political tools.
It is why we still have them, they need a massive investment to build and fine tune and yet if you use them you have already lost.
However you can use them without ever firing them like so;
As a threat so you are not invaded,
A threat so that the country you are fighting does not use their chemical or nuclear weapons,
or
You can use them as bargaining chips to encourage others to reduce their stockpile e.g. we will de-target our missiles if you scrap some of yours etc.
The North Koreans might be crazy but even they know that they would lose everything if they used even a single nuke in anger.
I'd be more concerned about the nukes ****stan has and the fact its most likely opponent is a larger country that would 'win' in a last man standing kind of nuclear exchange.
The US would have taken any nuclear facilities out years ago with an airstrike if they could have.
Trouble is the North Korean's aren't stupid. They've got several hundred artillery pieces dug in within range of Seoul. Any strike on NK would almost certainly result in an artillery attack on South Korea. Fair enough its not in the same class as a nuclear weapon but that number of guns could do some serious damage. Airstikes and Counter Battery fire would take a long time to neutralise them.
So NK's nukes are here to stay. The best solution would be to economically bribe them with aid to relinquish them. The only nation they will listen to is China so its really down to them how they proceed.
Another war isn't the answer
@THX - are you a member of the NRA perchance?
NK are not a "rational" thinking nation so the above doesn't apply.
Would you like to expand on this? What would you define as 'rational'?
@THX - are you a member of the NRA perchance?
National Rifle Association? No. Why would you think that?
I guess it comes down to Kim Jong-un
Whatever he says goes!
Looking at recent decades conflicts I think the USA are a far bigger threat than NK.
Hello Kim Jong-un, would you like to play a game?
THX - What would you define as 'niaeve'? 🙂
Contrary to western paranoia and propaganda, the World will be a safer place if nations like Iran and North Korea develop defensive nuclear weapons; that way, the west will be unwilling to send thousands of young men to their deaths to invade such nations in order to secure their material resources. The lives of millions of innocent people will be safer.
More weapons for peace?
I believe the NRA in the US had a similar view on guns in schools.
It has a certain twisted logic I'll grant you but is just wrong on so many levels.
Nations which don't have enough resources to provide electricity for their citizens and quite often enough food to eat either shouldn't be spending 20%+ of their GDP on the military.
We should bomb them back to the stone age!
oh...
In a word - no. They have no allies. Even the Chinese and Russians are getting fed up with them, particularly the Chinese.
As for their nuclear test - the yield was estimated to be 6-7 kilotons; that's about 1/3 of either of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. There are more powerful conventional munitions.
What IS a potential worry is that technology being given to undesirable elements such as al-Qaeda or the Taliban. They simply don't care who they wipe out or how much damage they cause. For North Korea to use it directly would be pretty much final for them. Their ultimate aim is to use it as leverage, by making threats that they will never carry out.
@THX1138 - it's a very similar argument that they promote, if we all arm up we'll all be safe.
Frankly, I'm all for Iran having a few nukes. It might make Israel behave itself a bit more.
I'm not in the slightest bit worried about NK having a few nukes. I feel for the citizens of NK having to endure grinding poverty, food shortages, lack of basic freedoms that we all take for granted and having to learn silly mass dance routines in order for their leaders to do a bit of sabre rattling. Their marching is something to behold though.
The chances of them ever actually launching one are minimal (for the reasons JY gave above). And, well, if they do launch one, well, we're all bolloxed anyway.
We should bomb them back to the stone age!oh...
🙂
if we all arm up we'll all be safe.
Well, when it comes to countries trying to prevent invasion by hostile forces, the possession of nuclear weapons seems to work better than any other deterrent. I'd rather see no nukes at all, but if they're going to exist, then better those nations which the west wants to invade to secure their material resources have them. If it weren't for the threat of nuclear war, Iran would have been invaded by now, at a cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. And the World would be a more dangerous place. What needs to change, is the belligerence and imperialistic attitude of the west, principally the USA.
Frankly, I'm all for Iran having a few nukes. It might make Israel behave itself a bit more.
I'm all for that.
NK are not a "rational" thinking nation so the above doesn't apply.
Whilst I tend to agree it is still alarge leap to think he wants to not be in power and have his family dynasty and country totally destroyed that really is utter madness and not worth worrying about
US, UK, Russia, Israel, China, France (and probably others too).
What gives them the right to tell another country they can't defend themselves with nuclear devices?
All or nothing.
NK have just as much right. Remind me again, who's the only country to have dropped nukes?
I echo what other say about the people of NK - its them I feel most sorry for.
The question is who is the baddy and who is the goody (just really wanted to use those two words) My vote is NK is the goody. They will almost certainly win cos the goodies always win against all odds.
im not surprised NK are doing it, we would be up in arms if we were told we HAD to give up our tridents.
US, UK, Russia, Israel, China, France
India and ****stan [ and obviously NK]
technically israel has never admitted to it nor denied it iirc.
.technically israel [s]has never admitted to it nor denied it iirc[/s] [i]got given nukes by the US for shits and giggles[/i]
Am I the only person that just connot take NK seriously since watching Team America?
I'm so ronley,,,,,,!
[img] 
[/img]
What could possibly go wrong?
[img] 
[/img]
And while we're 'worrying' about NK having nukes, shouldn't we be asking ourselves why we, the UK, possess them? What are we paranoid about? Who exactly are we defending ourselves against, given that we had nukes long before the 'rogue' states of Iran, NK and ****stan had them?
I'm pretty sure no one in our government thinks we do need nuclear weapons for defence or deterrent. They're just worried that getting rid of them might not go down well with the electorate (seen as weak), the US (might damage our special relationship) and industry (billions of £ spend in engineering on the UK).
it was France and the UK and not the US that gave them nukes
US donations paid for some of it
thx1138: Argentina, of course, silly !
shouldn't we be asking ourselves why we, the UK, possess them?
D'uh. So we annoy the SNP. 🙄
it was France and the UK and not the US that gave them nukes
US donations paid for some of it
Gave who?
Having nukes doesn't automatically mean a nation is paranoid. NK are a paranoid nation with or without Nukes.
Argentina?
[img] 
[/img]
Would have taken more than a nuke to stop him.
What with China rapidly becoming a capitalist country, via the "back door" so to speak, i suspect that NK will start to have it's hands full with local issues quite soon. And as the vast Chinese population start to attain the luxury "western" lifestyle then the people of NK will soon want the same. In the end, communism is always over thrown by the people, not by politics, and there's a kind of just iron ronney in that 😉
NK are more likekly to nuke their own population when the rebellion comes imo.
That German keeper 'Schumacher' would have smashed him to pieces!
[img] 
[/img]
Gave who?
Israel - I guess
Although I can understand those who appear to be in favour of NK having nuclear weapons as a means of defence but bear in mind (edit):
1. This strong defence keeps a rather nasty regime in place
2. This regime needs hard currency to survive (starving the population only gets you so much), how much can they generate through selling both this weapon and rocket technology?
And for all those saying that China will do something about this, they will not. The existence of NK is an irritant to South Korea (a major trading rival), Japan (an historical adversary) and America (an ideological enemy) without affecting their business with all 3 nations plus if South and North Korea did peacefully merge then chances are American bases would be even closer to their border.
And as for us having nuclear weapons I thought that was explained years ago, its because the French have 🙂
@thx1138 - if everyone has a gun there's more chance of one person getting twitchy or loosing something off in error. If we all put our guns down it's so much harder for someone to get shot - if we extend the metaphor.
I can understand those who appear to be in favour of NK having nuclear weapons as a means of defence you have to remember
I am not in favour I just am no more scared than if anybody else had them
This strong defence keeps a rather nasty regime in place
I think that is the massive army they have that has done this. Consider how recent they got nukes and how long they have been there.
And for all those saying that China will do something about this, they will not. The existence of NK is an irritant to South Korea (a major trading rival), Japan (an historical adversary) and America (an ideological enemy) without affecting their business with all 3 nations plus if South and North Korea did peacefully merge then chances are American bases would be even closer to their border.
That actually makes a lot of sense, realpolitik Beijing style
Keep NK just the right side of crazy as it pisses off all your rivals
if everyone has a gun there's more chance of one person getting twitchy or loosing something off in error. If we all put our guns down it's so much harder for someone to get shot - if we extend the metaphor.
Yeah, but the west isn't putting it's 'guns' down (quite the opposite in fact), hence why other nations that feel threatened are taking up arms.
NK will eventually succumb to external pressures, but it will be China's poodle, not the USA's.
Hello Kim Jong-un, would you like to play a game?
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
D'uh. So we annoy the SNP.
😆
I'm more worried about Ikea than Korea.
You're wise to be. A Billy bookcase falling on you poses a greater threat to your safety than does North Korea.
Too right, that Gangnam Style song makes me fear more for the future of the human race than any of the Kim Jongs.
When did Ikea get nukes? The bloke who runs that international tyranny drinks over a bottle of vodka a day. Norway must be shitting itself 😯
This thread has reminded me of one of my favourite games from the eighties. 😀
[url= http://boardgamegeek.com/image/196812/nuclear-war ]Nuclear War anyone?[/url]
Well, we shall see I guess....watch this space!
That actually makes a lot of sense, realpolitik Beijing styleKeep NK just the right side of crazy as it pisses off all your rivals
The problem with North Korea is that they have been so bat-shit crazy for so long (and when I say they, I mean the dictatorship) that intergrating the people into a modern society would be difficult.
Hence South Korea are quite happy to keep them as they are too. Where do you put several million people who suddenly discover the world has moved on 50 years in advance of them?
It's messed up. And I agree, I doubt they're a threat to anyone. It's all propaganda. Their biggest threat will be to their neighbours when they eventually allow people to leave the country.
[img] 
[/img]
Everyone knows how nuclear deterrent's work:
[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
[b]Hacker:[/b] I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] It’s a deterrent.
[b]Hacker:[/b] It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it.
[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.
[b]Hacker:[/b] They probably do.
[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know.
[b]Hacker:[/b] They're probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t.
[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!