In the unlikely event he fires one south, he'd end up as the worlds greatest suicide bomber as well as receiving a prestigious Darwin Award.
At least it would bring things to a swift conclusion. Dopey little twat needs a dry slap and no mistake.
Possibly, but that depends on the size, prevalent wind, etc. doesn't it? Personally I believe it will be someone just like this guy who will unleash a WMD on the world again, I hope not and perhaps not now, but the Darwin Award has quite a few contrary holders who held their countries in such a high regard they brought them to their knees and worse.
I suspect his judgement is somewhat ****ed, so ****ed in fact, that he probably couldn't even manage to spot the nutters in a single guest judge appearance on Britain's Got Talent.
Do people think that the Yanks do not have detailed info re. NKs weapons? I imagine with drones and satelite tech they know the situation in Iran and NK better than their own leaders
Knowing is one thing, doing something about it without enraging international opinion is another. They know they have the means, just not certain which type of bomb and whether or not they have achieved a miniaturisedwarhead that their missiles are capable of carrying. This is a good source of information, if interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699
Cafe, I've PM'd you a question. I did ask it on here but some boring prick thought it had something to do with them.
I think it was Clausewitz who said 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy', so yeah that strategies have flaws is a moot point - otherwise they'd be called certainties. The whole point of strategy is to mitigate against your opponent's strategy - hence Sun Tzu's dictum that 'what is of importance in war is to attack your enemy's strategy'. Bit like football I suppose. Its patently obvious for even the casual observer of North Korean foreign relations (or of any minor power/"rogue state" that most of what they do is posturing and bluff - it remains the only way they can gain any sort of leverage - as a means of securing aid. If you look at the record, this is what they do. One shouldn't underestimate the fact that much of this posturing is meant for the North Korean populace - keep them on a war footing, afraid of the 'other' - ****, Tony Blair did that to us for six years with the spectre of Islamist terrorism, and look at the ancillary effect - so many people continue to rehash the same narrative in giving voice to their ill-founded and usually prejudicial fears of an irrational easterner - Orientalism is just as alive today as it was in the days of Palmerston and Disraeli. I wouldn't go so far as to say there is no threat from North Korea, because as others mentioned, if anyone is going to show up to a gun fight against a howitzer with an air rifle its the North Koreans (just look at the tens of thousands of operational nukes the US has compared to the North Koreans or the Iranians, for example). But you can be damn sure it won't be white folk who bear the brunt of this fat little piggy's delusions. Most of this is media bullshit. Really? I doubt either that the Americans are overly concerned about public opinion (witness 5+ years of highly unaccountable rendition practices and drone warfare across the Middle East and South Asia) or the likelihood of punitive measures against the N Koreans eliciting anything more than a half-arsed whimper of disapproval from the international community - as others have said, the North has burned most of its diplomatic bridges. This is all theatre. That's not to say there won't be real-world repercussions, but its hardly the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Clausewitz and Sun Tzu in the same post? Wow, that takes me back to my time in the military college. I have decided that this posturing is based on the fact that Kim Yung Un is actually a completely naïve idiot. His Dad was a fool who liked to taunt the West, but he knew where the real balance of power lay. However, the sons who were familiar with the West and our ways were ignored as the next potential leaders of the country, rather the Un lad was selected and I have a horrible suspicion that he has been indoctrinated into the idea that NK actually can compete against the USA. He has no greater understanding of the real situation than the average North Korean, which makes him extremely dangerous. On the flip side, I believe that the Chinese will abandon him very quickly if that is the case. Either way, if someone can give them a slap without us having to be involved, then it is all fine by me.
Earlier posts seem to make an assumption that a nuclear initiative must be a large weapon that will have as much a negative effect on NK as it would on SK, but that is a false assumption. Battlefield tactical nuclear rounds (W79 fired from a M110A2 8" Howitzer) have been available to the Americans and deployed by them and us (Brits) in collaboration between 1982 - 1989 at least. They had a range of 16 - 30KM (ish) depending on the type of projectile being fired. The whole idea was that extreme impact could be made (a bucket of sunshine, as it was known) to a limited area without compromising your own assets. This sort of weaponary requires various techniologies that many are trying to perfect. So if something close were achieved, however crude, then an attack on SK is not akin to turning into a suicide bomber, far from it. For many factions, not just NK, it is a matter of aquiring the right combination of technologies, not necessarily their preparedness to use them. The Bay of Pigs and the subsequent missile crisis where squeaky bum time for that very reason. Just an opinion for those who wish to discuss a thread with is focussed on the topic.
The thing is he'll breed (unless he's gay) some sproglet who will succeed him as leader and the sproglet will have even madder views on the world. If we do all perish in a nuclear war can it not be until after the football season ends please,
Firstly, some important and intelligent points made - pleasure conversing with you Fez. I am using Orientalism as Edward Said did - I'm not actually aware of any other use of the term (are you sure you're not thinking of Occidentalism, which is the reverse). I think they've made gaffes in both tbh - how many ordinary citizens know why we are still in Afghanistan (poll results demonstrate that since 07, at least, about 50% of the UK are uncertain of why we are in Helmand or what we are trying to achieve), why we support some non-state armed groups as freedom fighters and denounce others as terrorists, why we support some states that have violated the rules on nuclear weapons (Israel) and not others (Iran, North Korea), why we think that winning an ideological conflict that is the "war on terror" can be solved by using drone warfare that kills more civilians than terrorist suspects...fundamentally the west has yet to come to grips with how to deal with this so-called war. What is more, our governments have yet to really deal with the fact that public (international) perceptions of their actions is actually of real strategic significance. I agree with all this - a lot of people seem to think Dr Strangelove is all she wrote, that mutually assured destruction is the end of the story. Tactical nukes are an option - a grey area between thermonuclear war and a particularly grotesque regional conflagration.
Agreed, but in the context of all of this it is very old technology I am surprised at the misconceptions some seem to have; still, they do say that ignorance is bliss!
Bloody hell Tiggaz.If you had been co-ordinating the march we would now have world domination. Really interesting posts.
