Whats that got to do with anything? Im glad we went to the falklands but not happy about every war since. Dont you see the difference between defence and attack. http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php...-been-killed-in-11-years-of-the-war-on-terror The USA kills more civilians in a year than the Nazis killed in the blitz on Britain in WW2.
you should stop looking up all that crap mate, leave it to Imaz The falklands which you are happy about was probably the biggest waste of money in history as far as wars go good for the few people that live there and that is all you should not keep making posts against our closest allies
So let me get this straight, we should not defend Britains but should follow the yanks so they can make a few billionaires even more money, look up Haliburton and how they get the contracts to rebuild every country they destroy. Youll see the Bushes and Cheney feature in quite heavily. "Halliburton has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[40] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[41] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[42] In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid"
No because it would prove you wrong. Youd rather bury your head in the sand than realise the greatest threat to world peace in the US.
exactly this mate. i fall to believe a little country like North Korea can take on the US, seriously people melting over nothing if you ask me.
Look up the last Korean war or the Vietnam war, neither of which the US could win. Look up the area, nukes arent an option for the US but they are for Korea if they have them. Neither side can win.
Well let the ****ers get on with it, it's American business do we have to hold their hand all the time
I know, it looks like weve finally learnt our lesson and theres been zero interference from the UK POV.
Good analysis as to why nothing will happen: http://www.iiss.org/publications/st...he-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/ Conclusion The combination of North Koreaâs long economic decline and enhanced US and South Korean military capabilities has diminshed the threat of a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Nonetheless, North Korea retains the ability to inflict heavy casualties and collateral damage, largely through the use of massed artillery. In effect, Pyongyang has more of a threat to devastate Seoul than to seize and hold it. North Koreaâs conventional threat is also sufficient to make an allied pre-emptive invasion to overthrow the North Korean regime a highly unattractive option. In theory, US forces could carry out pre-emptive attacks to destroy known North Korean nuclear facilities and missile emplacements, but such attacks could provoke North Korean retaliation and trigger a general conflict. North Korea cannot invade the South without inviting a fatal counter-attack from the US and South Korea, while Washington and Seoul cannot overthrow the North Korean regime by force or destroy its strategic military assets without risking devastating losses in the process. In this respect, the balance of forces that emerged from the Korean War, and which helped in maintaining the armistice for 50 years, remains in place. None of the principal parties want to fight a war although they are prepared to fight if necessary. In this respect, the balance of forces creates certain vulnerabilities since it places a high premium on carrying out a pre-emptive strike if one side or the other believes that an attack is imminent. The danger is that war will begin out of miscalculation, misperception and escalation, rather than design. As a consequence, reduction of political tensions and conventional confidence-building measures can help to reduce the risk of war.
I'm really enjoying getting to know about the situation and the reasonable assumption that it is 'sabre rattling' on the part of NK, but has anyone taken into account that Kim seems to be a complete nutcase who, if pushed, could decide 'what the ****, I'm pushing that red button anyway just to piss off the Yankee imperialists' ? Does he hold total control of NK, or is it the military who hold actual power , with him as the figurehead ?
He is the dictator, if he say push the red button, the red button will be pushed without a second thought. Thats why the reports are saying this could get started over a mistake, say a US bomber strays into NK, most countries would simply shoot it down and wait, it wouldnt surprise me if NK went into all out war destroying Seoul if that happened. I thought it was Sabre rattling before to get more aid. The US sanctions are starving them even more which leads me to think this times its different, what have they got to lose, especially if they believe the US will invade anyway.
Well NK is now saying war is only hours away, imagine what would happen if they hit the mainland as they say they will. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-away-as-Kim-Jong-un-plans-US-strike.html?fb
Nothing will happen. Why would the North Korean elite wish to commit collective suicide and end their privileged lives? The Korean people wish for reunification but neither the governments of North or South want it. For the South the financial cost would bankrupt the state and for the North it would be the end of the regime and an ideology. Sad really as the people would get along fine and old wounds heal fast as Vietnam and Germany show. As for the US last time they were fortunate to have a President who had the balls to reign in the mad general who wanted to drop a chain of over 60 nukes (yes, you read right, that's 60 nukes) along the border between North Korea and Manchuria as the US were at the time on the back foot and on the point of defeat. It cost the President his chance to stand for re-election but saved the lives of millions. Never forget that Russia too has a border with North Korea: please log in to view this image
NK won't have a nuclear weapon good enough to reach the UK, but it looks like the US are buggered. No doubt Cameron will send in troops who won't have a chance against NK's advanced weaponary.
Im sure we wont get involved as weve been very quiet unlike China and Russia. I dont think they will fire missiles directly from NK, they should use subs or aircraft to fly them closer. Even a ship in NY would do a lot of damage even though nukes are supposed to be detonated at height for maximum impact.
The largest test by North Korea was 7 Kilotons. Hiroshima was 14 kilotons and Nagasaki 21 kilotons. They have no way of delivering a nuke anywhere. It's all fear mongering. While on the nuke subject the US, at the height of the Cold War madness, mined North East Italy (Friuli) with nuclear land mines against the perceived threat of a Eastern Block massed tank assault. Presumably they have since been removed.
I think it's highly unlikely that North Korea would have the capability to reach the US with a missile. Lots of hot air imo.
