North Korea plans 3rd nuclear test 'at its sworn enemy, the USA'

trojan698 · 25 Jan 2013 at 15:35

Shayper said:
Just remembered this from Iron Sky. Scarily appropriate.

Beat me to it! So good!

d_brennen · 25 Jan 2013 at 15:44

majnu said:
I love the Koreans, they remind me of the Muslims that used to exist thousands of years ago and not the fanny panny ones of today. GO KOREA!!

Thousands? Before the religion was made up? That's a miracle

IronWarrior · 25 Jan 2013 at 17:39

wilber said:
We did and failed, 1950-1953. When the "allies" started to go hard on the offensive and gained North Korean territory, china joined in.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Jason2 · 25 Jan 2013 at 18:08

So enter an illegal war in Iraq with no clear objective yet let thousands of people be killed daily in a dictatorship country.

Are we scared of China or something?

bloodiedathame · 25 Jan 2013 at 18:09

d_brennen said:
Thousands? Before the religion was made up? That's a miracle

lolmajnu

Edward78 · 25 Jan 2013 at 18:35

Bennie-Mac said:
Ill bet the US are quaking in their boots. If only they had superior firepower which has been extensively tested and is ready to go at a moments notice.

I would say its all talk but as its North Korea nobody can be sure.

NK launched that rocket that fell into the ocean soon after launch right?

Mark A · 25 Jan 2013 at 19:34

shoot1st said:
Here's an interesting vid for anyone who hasn't seen it regarding nuclear testing...

I was amazed the first time I watched it, didn't think there was so many tests.

I saw this posted a while back on ********. I love how we tested all ours in Australia and the US

.

One thing I was surprised by was how much testing France has done.

Biohazard · 25 Jan 2013 at 19:58

France tested so many because it was determined to become a power by itself to deter any potential Soviet invasion, it wanted flexibility and not over-reliance of NATO and thus America and reservations about its commitments.

I like how we tested ours then got nobbled by the Americans and bought theirs ever since.

It would also seem Danny Alexander doesn't think we can afford it any longer.

Superficial · 25 Jan 2013 at 20:18

Biohazard said:
I like how we tested ours then got nobbled by the Americans and bought theirs ever since.

what do you mean "nobbled" ?

we took up the us offer because it made sound financial sense. the us offered this unique arrangement because we are an ally but chiefly because we had advanced our nuclear capability at a blistering speed - there was no reason not to supply us with their slightly superior technology and offset some of the own costs whilst we save massive amounts of money.

Biohazard · 25 Jan 2013 at 20:50

It's never made "sound financial sense" other than for the US toinfluence near crippled post-war Britain into subsiding its own weapons programs. There was a threat of us making our own domestic independent industry in Nuclear weapons and the US did not want to be involved in British disputes. It's never been a real "Independent Deterrent" since we stopped flying our own nuclear bombers before they were re-equipped with US technology. We had reparations of our own to pay.

I suppose it depends on which view you take on the special relationship. The historical one or the pink and fluffy one.

Superficial · 25 Jan 2013 at 20:53

Biohazard said:
It's never made "sound financial sense" other than for the US toinfluence near crippled post-war Britain into subsiding its own weapons programs. There was a threat of us making our own domestic independent industry in Nuclear weapons and the US did not want to be involved in British disputes.

domestic industry?post facts please. we were financially ****** after the war. even the research up until the agreement was too much for us to afford.

it saved us a LOT of money. Without this agreement our nulcear deterrent would, for a long time, been way behind the russians as we ran out of cash.

It's never been a real "Independent Deterrent" since we stopped flying our own nuclear bombers before they were re-equipped with US technology. We had reparations of our own to pay.

I suppose it depends on which view you take on the special relationship. The historical one or the pink and fluffy one.

im also not interested in whether we think it's truly independent because i genuienly don't think we understand exactly why it is or may not be.

Biohazard · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:06

Perhaps we shouldn't have had it in the first place then?

Anyway, you should try to calm down in these discussions of regarding Britain and London. You seem a bit touchy about it.

Wiki said:
The incoming Kennedy administration had a different opinion of the UK and the UK-US "special relationship." Robert McNamara, in particular, was opposed to independent British nuclear forces. In a speech at Ann Arbor, Michigan, on 16 June 1962, he stated "limited nuclear capabilities, operating independently, are dangerous, expensive, prone to obsolescence and lacking in credibility as a deterrent," and that "relatively weak national nuclear forces with enemy cities as their targets [are] not likely to perform even the function of deterrence."[1] Dean Acheson was even more blunt; in a speech at West Point he stated "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role - that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a 'special relationship' with the United States... is about played out."[2]

The Kennedy administration was concerned that a situation like the Suez Crisis might repeat itself, one that would once again incite a response from the Soviets. If the UK deterrent were not considered credible, an attack might follow that would require a US response. The Americans saw the UK nuclear force as a potential target that could draw the US into a war it didn't want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_Agreement

It also helps when it has a kickback even until this day;

Wiki said:
[Polaris Program under MDA]The UK National Audit Office noted that most of the UK Trident warhead development and production expenditure was incurred in the US who would supply "certain warhead-related components"

If we couldn't afford it then, as we apparently can't now either according to the Treasury Chief Secretary then why are we still buying them?

Superficial · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:11

Biohazard said:
Perhaps we shouldn't have had it in the first place then?

Perhaps none of us should.

Anyway, you should try to calm down in these discussions of regarding Britain and London. You seem a bit touchy about it.

You're always saying stuff like this but since you mention it I do believe in criticizing when it's justified - but i believe in a balanced analysis of any situation.

If we couldn't afford it then, as we apparently can't now either according to the Treasury Chief Secretary then why are we still buying them?

well I suppose it depends on whether you believe that, in life, we simply must have things for which we do not have the funds.

Shayper · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:12

MeatSack said:
Beat me to it! So good!

Isn't it just

"SIT DOWN NORTH KOREA!"

Biohazard · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:15

Superficial said:
You're always saying stuff like this but since you mention it I do believe in criticizing when it's justified - but i believe in a balanced analysis of any situation.

I wasn't complaining about your criticism but the tone of it and your outburst that you've now edited out. "Post facts or BS" etc Don't conflate matters. I won't stand for it.

Biohazard · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:16

Superficial said:
well I suppose it depends on whether you believe that, in life, we simply must have things for which we do not have the funds.

No I don't co-incidentally, do you?

I agree with the Treasury Chief Secretary. We can't afford it and it is unsuitable.

Superficial · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:18

Biohazard said:
I wasn't complaining about your criticism but the tone of it and your outburst that you've now edited out. "Post facts or BS" etc Don't conflate matters. I won't stand for it.

Biohazard, let me assure you that absolutely no one on this forum cares what you can and can't stand for.

In my opinion and the opinion of many others you have a well deserved reputation for hyperbole and conflation yourself.

that said my post facts or I call Bs line was over the top but then I did actually delete it pretty quick. I apologise for this

Superficial · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:22

Biohazard said:
No I don't co-incidentally, do you?

I agree with the Treasury Chief Secretary. We can't afford it and it is unsuitable.

on issues of national security it matters little what the treasury secretary thinks wouldnt you agree?

it does however matter a great deal what military chiefs think

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...efs-go-cold-on-nuclear-deterrent-8180688.html

the question in part is about the deterrent in of itself (which still has support but is waning) but is also about how are active military forces are being cut and how the nuclear budget is a direct issue for front line funding.

I'm undecided but am leaning towards "would like it but is not as effective as it used to be because of asymetrical warfare. so lets defer for a while." . there are so many opinions.

Biohazard · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:23

Superficial said:
Biohazard, let me assure you that absolutely no one on this forum cares what you can and can't stand for.

That was a polite warning not to play up like you usually do. Take heid.

Superficial said:
In my opinion and the opinion of many others you have a well deserved reputation for hyperbole and conflation yourself.

Can you tell me what is hyperbolic about the "evidence" I provided above, that refutes your accusation of "BS"?

Superficial said:
that said my post facts or I call Bs line was over the top but then I did actually delete it pretty quick.

Well then, not hard was it, reasonable rationale debate may just be within your grasp.

Biohazard · 25 Jan 2013 at 21:27

Superficial said:
on issues of national security it matters little what the treasury secretary thinks wouldnt you agree?

it does however matter a great deal what military chiefs think

I think everything overlaps and is inter-related, nothing can be viewed upon in isolation. We apparently cannot afford it, and given the current economic outlook I could see better uses for it. The stay at the top table game is draining, we need to shift from that notion because in all other respects our influence is waning.