Their leadership has proven to be irrational, brutally cruel and dangerous. A North Korean official has already claimed that their leader's finger is on the nuclear button, ready to attack the USA. Whether this is possible or not yet is beside the point. Must the US stand by and do nothing while threatened in this way? North Korean intentions are apparent and even China has reason to fear them.

Equally dangerous is that the financially bust North Korea is offering its nuclear capabilities to anyone prepared to pay. Syria is one such country, and if the wealthy ISIS came waving its cheque book we can be sure of the outcome if nuclear weapons fell into ISIS hands.

 

not really, a artillery gun is a very different thing to a nuke missle

 

He's had the 'bullets' but no means of firing them.


He getting closer to being able to deliver nukes everyday

 

Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, Syria, Namibia, Angola and The Cold War to name a few were not all about oil.

Protecting the West's access to oil is a very different argument, why haven't the West filled the power vacuum left by Charvez in Venezuela?
Especially when the forum is contained inside a petrol head website

 

I would expect that some governments probably know much more than they let on about the capabilities of NK. If he really decided to escalate things, those that need to know probably would in time to react. I would think that's probably the same for most countries tbh.

I watched some news that said the range of the NK weapons are "only" short to medium range - so China and Japan and maybe some outlying US owned islands.

I believe it's not even that hard to get in to have a look around (If you like that sort of thing) and as long as you keep very much in line you're unlikely to have a problem.

 

If they Develop as they plan iirc alaska was in range

 

The lack of any basic understanding of international affairs shown by a few on here is pretty disappointing. Comparisons with the Middle Eat conflicts do not stack up. ISIS beheading a few thousand non-believers is but a tea party compared to the world threat posed by Kim Jong or the implications of taking him out. Paben make a good point though about the possibility of ISIS crossing Kim Jong's palm with silver for a couple of nukes. There is also a small chance that they could nick some from Pakistan.


And it defies logic to state that he may not press the button. The world can't take that chance. Say the world suddenly took a direct course for the sun - would you stand back and say "well it might not happen" or do something about it.


But what? Note there are small nukes that could just wipe out a defined area so may be the West could just obliterate Kim Jong's nuclear testing base?


David

 

Chernoble gives us an insight into the long term effects of a nuclear disaster; yet this is very far down the scale from the death and destruction that would follow the deployment of even a 'small' tactical nuclear weapon. This really would be a 'last resort' in every meaning of that expression.

 

There's no external solution to the NK problem. We just need to hope they come in from the cold.

 

Well I have no in depth knowledge of nukes so cannot comment sensibly but did watch/read this. I wondered if this is what Israel has in mind for Iran's deep underground testing facilities if they play up. D


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/s...easy.html?_r=0

 

Little kim is playing Jack Russell to the new Alsatian on the block, that's all

 

I'm sure the polar bears are sh1tting their pants

At the risk of sounding pedantic, Chernobyl wasn't a nuclear explosion.



Excuse the phone pic. My bro re-enacting the scene in reactor no2 control room

 

At the risk of sounding counter pedantic who said it was?

 

This ^^^

 

If the North Koreans manage to extend the range of their missiles then I suspect a pre-emptive strike will be the prime option. That's probably under consideration now.

 

Why would they do that Paben ?

 

Why would who do what?

 

You didn't say so accepted. Just saying a nuke attack from NK and Chernobyl is completely different.

 

Considering there were two possible 'theys' and two possible 'thats', it was a vague question.

 

I can see how/why you may been hoodwinked into buying a golf

 

I can see how somebody thick enough to post such illiterate, non-sensical gibberish may be hoodwinked into just about anything.

 

There's no probably about it. US, Japan (does it have any missiles?) and even China will have strike options in place. dl

 

Ah, so you have inside information. Enlighten us please.

 

Don't be childish. Of course the key nations will have contingency plans to deal with serious threats like N Korea.


Do you really think they don't or were you just having a cheap jibe at me?


D

 

It's not childish to expect you to substantiate your statement. Of course you cannot because you have no clue what may or may not be in place. I suggested a pre-emptive strike was the probable option, you implied it was certain. You rather spoiled that claim by including Japan, a demilitarised country with limited attack capabilities and no defence against nuclear missiles.

 

Whats the grudge with japan , in particular ?

 

I said that it was certain that plans for a pre-emptive strike were in place not that it was certain that one would take place.


My note on Japan included a note on what Japan had in attack weapons as I don't know.


Would you like me to substantiate that the earth is round or the sun is a hot ball of flames? Your demands about substantiation are childish and naïve. Most of what I said is blindingly obvious.


Or are you just playing semantics? Please keep that for less serious subjects.


David

 

Most of what you say is blindingly stupid. Try keeping to subjects you know something about, which should limit your topics considerably.

 

Neither of you know what the capabilities or intentions are ffs

 

What like the Japanese military. A subject you seem to of read up on in the 1970s?