The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

So the new missile can, according to the N Korean media, hit the US.
Therefore if you change the trajectory Europe and the UK are in scope too. Perhaps a re-think is on the cards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42162462

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Why would NK want to bomb the UK or EU in presidence to the US, Japan or South Korea?

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

I never said NK was going to bomb the EU or UK but the threat and possible intent is there. It is the whole idea of a deterent that nuclear weapons have not been used so far but a threat of use and a push south by NK would possibly have a serious different reaction.

neil-h

So why are we (the West) allowed a nuclear deterrent and yet the North Koreans (or indeed any other country attempting to develope nuclear weapons) aren't? Are they supposed to just trust that we'll never use them (I'm not sure i'd put that much faith in the Americans)?

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

EddScott

NK regime has a goal. To make Korea whole again and that involves invading SK.

If NK have nuclear weapons, any country that tries to defend SK will have the threat of nuclear weapons.

Whilst I agree who should we (the west) dictate who does and doesn't have them, the problem with NK is that they do have a want of conquest (rather than just "me too")

wayne9t9

Totally agree, after all which is the only country thats ever used a nuclear weapon against another.

dpb

how does anyone really know this for sure ? more likely those at the top want maintain their tyranical corrupt grip on power within

the real problem is there's only one guy at the helm unlike other places with nuclear, but i doubt china will ever allow him to get that far

RAGGY DOO

iTrader: (1)

look at what happened the last time you preached about weapons of mass destruction.
The brits are almost as bad as the Americans can’t mind your own buisness

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Good for them... now USA will have to think long and hard before attempting to bully them... Fair play I say.

Martin2005

The problem is that they destabilise already dangerous places/regions. The NK leader is not accountable to anyone, which makes the situation doubly dangerous.
Nuclear weapons completely alter the status quo.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Apart from the direct and immediate multiple deaths, even a 'local' nuclear exchange would plunge the world into severe climate change leading to widespread famine and damaged ecosystems. Applauding NK's joining of the nuclear club is plain stupidity.

Tidgy

can only echo whats said above, a few nukes goes off in the world and were all pretty much fooked.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Cage. Rattled. Defeated. Trolling.

neil-h

You say that like it's a bad thing. If we're realistic the Americans are only making such a fuss because they've finally come up against someone they can't bully into complying and they don't like it.

I don't believe NK would ever actually use a nuke, the implications are far to well known for anyone to even contemplate it in this day and age. It's just a huge distrust in the west/America leads the government to feel they will always be at risk unless they have nuclear capability, which given the history of nuclear weapons is quite reasonable.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Willing to take that chance are you? Because if you're wrong it won't end well for the human race, or anything else much on planet Earth.

EddScott

AFAIK I think it's fairly well accepted that NK's intentions are to unify Korea even with a recourse to violence.

"World peace and to maintain the interests of NK" is pretty much their reasoning for having long range weapons. However, if NK's "Interests" include invading SK then what can we do (Assuming "we" should get involved) if we get involved and get warned off by the threat of nuclear attack.

The problem with NK is that having nukes isn't just for the "me too" and being able to sabre rattle with a little more gusto. They are likely for their own protection if/when they go on the offensive against SK.

Tidgy

Have to say i disagree, fatty acts like a petulant child, any coup or chance he looses power and he would launch them out of spite. He should never be allowed to have them.

Not to mention how many of his people have died at his and his crackpot fathers hands

Paben

iTrader: (5)

The certainty of the outcome of nuclear war wouldn't stop Isis from exploding a device if they got their hands on one. Why would anyone imagine that the similarly odious NK dictator would hold back? The Doomsday clock is now set at 2.5 minutes to midnight, the closest it's been to global catastrophe since the 80s. We should all be very nervous.

neil-h

Yup, it's pretty much the way the world has been since the arms race.

Your assuming that based on what you see in the western media though. Personally I'd be more worried about Trump because America already has usable nukes.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Not really, there was a balance of power with the US and Soviet Union, with MAD a certain outcome of nuclear war. This was a potentially deadly situation but fortunately lunatics weren't in control of either super power. We now have a petulant ego-driven US President and a provocative leader in NK, a very different situation.



And you're assuming the Western media is wrong, a dangerous assumption. On Friday the Russian Security Council put itself on a war footing in case it all goes horribly wrong. That's a fact, not media speculation.
We should all be worried about the idiot Trump, and until/unless he is impeached and ousted any leader that rubs him up the wrong way has to be a serious concern. And Kim Jong-Un is a very serious concern in that respect.

Tidgy

actually i read various sources, even those that are supportive of fatty are worried

stevebt

iTrader: (8)

Because this idiot will use them and he is already launching missile over countries. Developing them isn’t an issue, no one has used a nuclear bomb since Hiroshima but North Korea are on the verge of changing this hence why they shouldn’t have them!

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

are you people on here actually believing that trump runs the good old us of a, pleeeeeeeaaase do me a favour and wake up

Paben

iTrader: (5)

I've woken up - educate us, who does run the USA in your opinion?

Mr Fuji

We do not know this. Having them and using them are two totally different things. I suspect that even NK realise that first strike means the end for them and their regime. The sabre rattling is to show that any US ambitions for regime change are now dead in the water without severe loss of life for both sides.

The US knew no one could retaliate with a nuke, it was a safe bet for them, that is not the situation now.

Edited to add: Actually, no one has used a nuke since Nagasaki

Mr Fuji

Actually, the chief of the US Strategic Nuclear forces has openly come out and said that he will not launch on the direct orders of the President if the order is illegal. Of course, that is not the same as launching in retaliation, but I think a pre-emptive strike by the US is extremely unlikely. I also think one by NK is unlikely as they know it would be met by an overwhelming response which they could not possibly survive.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

But the fear is not that the US would open a nuclear exchange but that they would certainly respond with one if NK did the unthinkable and launched a first strike.

Mr Fuji

Indeed, but I have already twice stated why I think that is unlikely. Of course we cannot rule it out, but still......

Paben

iTrader: (5)

And that's the caveat that has everyone holding their breath; the NK leader is not celebrated for his rational behaviour. We live, for the time being at least, in hope.