bovril Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/north-korean-nuclear-test-suspected-as-artificial-earthquake-detected Harrison Ford found unharmed in fridge.
ScouseFox Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 thank the lord it wasnt the f bomb or the n bomb
bovril Posted 6 January 2016 Author Posted 6 January 2016 thank the lord it wasnt the f bomb or the n bomb Not******* For***?
leicsmac Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 No-one is convinced that it was a thermonuclear detonation or if it was it was just a fizzle. Looking like a ploy to angle for more food because an overbloated military budget does tend to leave other priorities...overlooked. Life here, about 60 miles from the border, goes on as usual.
Guest MattP Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 They won't be doing this when Emily Thornberry is in charge of defence.
leicsmac Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 They won't be doing this when Emily Thornberry is in charge of defence. And there was me thinking our invisible nuclear-armed subs were doing the job anyway.
Jaspa Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 How did these manage to get nukes in the first place?
MooseBreath Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 How did these manage to get nukes in the first place? Made them?
AKCJ Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 How did these manage to get nukes in the first place? From the nuke shop.
leicsmac Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 How did these manage to get nukes in the first place? Money from drug trade buying Pakistani scientists and schematics to build them, most likely. Or... From the nuke shop. This.
Tuna Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 They won't be doing this when Emily Thornberry is in charge of defence. Isn't she a cartoon character?
Jaspa Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 Made them? Obviously that but you see how hard it is for some 'advanced' nations to get nuclear going currently yet poverty nations like this and Pakistan have got Nukes in their arsenal. Its like MK Dons having Messi in reserve. I dont know the political history that in depth for Korea but I remember seeing something about dodgy spy's trading in the 70's(?), its just such an odd occurrence
leicsmac Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 Obviously that but you see how hard it is for some 'advanced' nations to get nuclear going currently yet poverty nations like this and Pakistan have got Nukes in their arsenal. Its like MK Dons having Messi in reserve. I dont know the political history that in depth for Korea but I remember seeing something about dodgy spy's trading in the 70's(?), its just such an odd occurrence Up until the 1970's North Korea was pretty advanced both economically and technologically. It was only when the Ruskies and the Chinese began withdrawing their support that they began to shrink to what they are today. They still have a fair bit of money available (largely through the drug trade) which they can use, and bear in mind they have the largest standing army in the world on paper - of course, that doesn't mean much if you don't have the tech to back it though. I don't think the idea of them being able to buy nuclear tech and apply it to make nukes to be that farfetched.
MooseBreath Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 Obviously that but you see how hard it is for some 'advanced' nations to get nuclear going currently yet poverty nations like this and Pakistan have got Nukes in their arsenal. Its like MK Dons having Messi in reserve. I dont know the political history that in depth for Korea but I remember seeing something about dodgy spy's trading in the 70's(?), its just such an odd occurrence Dunno really mate but while the citizens of said poverty countries might be quite poor there's no doubt plenty of pound notes in the boardroom. A nuke or two is probably a tidy investment for a country like north Korea who can use that shit for leverage.
Dr The Singh Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 Obviously that but you see how hard it is for some 'advanced' nations to get nuclear going currently yet poverty nations like this and Pakistan have got Nukes in their arsenal. Its like MK Dons having Messi in reserve. I dont know the political history that in depth for Korea but I remember seeing something about dodgy spy's trading in the 70's(?), its just such an odd occurrence Pakistan got N weapons due to politic reasons. China gave the tech to Pakistan to fend off India who were given the tech from Russia to fend of China.
Jaspa Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 Up until the 1970's North Korea was pretty advanced both economically and technologically. It was only when the Ruskies and the Chinese began withdrawing their support that they began to shrink to what they are today. They still have a fair bit of money available (largely through the drug trade) which they can use, and bear in mind they have the largest standing army in the world on paper - of course, that doesn't mean much if you don't have the tech to back it though. I don't think the idea of them being able to buy nuclear tech and apply it to make nukes to be that farfetched. Ahh I always thought they were abit of a rogue under Russia/China's wing through post WWII and the Cold one, always imagined them as mainly self sufficient but if they actually produced and exported well I'm surprised. Their military would be the definition of cannon fodder should things pop off and they mobilise and fight you'd presume - Of course hypothetically, I dont know how China would react to that now. The thing thats odd is you dont see Chile/Argentina or warring states in Africa picking up Nukes, the only place that has happened of note is the middle east with the suspected WoMDs of Iraq and the current issues with Iran/Israel/Saudi Arabia thats more of a standoff in ways. Pakistan got N weapons due to politic reasons. China gave the tech to Pakistan to fend off India who were given the tech from Russia to fend of China. Crazy politics, I can see why some got so scared of the Cold War if this ish was just a mundane development
leicsmac Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 Ahh I always thought they were abit of a rogue under Russia/China's wing through post WWII and the Cold one, always imagined them as mainly self sufficient but if they actually produced and exported well I'm surprised. Their military would be the definition of cannon fodder should things pop off and they mobilise and fight you'd presume - Of course hypothetically, I dont know how China would react to that now. The thing thats odd is you dont see Chile/Argentina or warring states in Africa picking up Nukes, the only place that has happened of note is the middle east with the suspected WoMDs of Iraq and the current issues with Iran/Israel/Saudi Arabia thats more of a standoff in ways. Crazy politics, I can see why some got so scared of the Cold War if this ish was just a mundane development All the reasonable projections for a full scale war between the two Koreas (provided China don't step in, which on current thought they won't) indicate a pretty decisive victory for the South and their allies, but everything within 50 miles of the border (including the greater part of Seoul) will get hit really, really hard. People go on about the loss of life in the various ME conflicts - this would make that look like two kids fighting in a sandpit. But there would only be one winner. From what I can tell pretty much the entire group of South American and African nations took one look at nukes when they first arrived and said "fvck this", and declared all of their continents a "Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone". Interestingly enough, it seems to have worked. Regarding the Cold War, I think Green Lantern said it best: "You wanna talk about fear? When I was a kid I went to bed every night thinking the whole world was gonna blow up. That's just how things were. People just accepted it." That's one of the reasons I have such little time for people who seem to overblow the ISIS threat and say the sky is falling because of it. There were far, far direr threats in the past (and to a degree still exist today) yet the world keeps on spinning.
Guest Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 TBH it should be of little concern to us. Only South Korea should be worrying.
Guest MattP Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 Dunno really mate but while the citizens of said poverty countries might be quite poor there's no doubt plenty of pound notes in the boardroom. A nuke or two is probably a tidy investment for a country like north Korea who can use that shit for leverage. Sad but true, it will be a good long term investment for them, see Iran's development regarding ties with the US over the last few years for proof.
Webbo Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 All the reasonable projections for a full scale war between the two Koreas (provided China don't step in, which on current thought they won't) indicate a pretty decisive victory for the South and their allies, but everything within 50 miles of the border (including the greater part of Seoul) will get hit really, really hard. People go on about the loss of life in the various ME conflicts - this would make that look like two kids fighting in a sandpit. But there would only be one winner. From what I can tell pretty much the entire group of South American and African nations took one look at nukes when they first arrived and said "fvck this", and declared all of their continents a "Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone". Interestingly enough, it seems to have worked. Regarding the Cold War, I think Green Lantern said it best: "You wanna talk about fear? When I was a kid I went to bed every night thinking the whole world was gonna blow up. That's just how things were. People just accepted it." That's one of the reasons I have such little time for people who seem to overblow the ISIS threat and say the sky is falling because of it. There were far, far direr threats in the past (and to a degree still exist today) yet the world keeps on spinning. Tell that to the Yazidis. I always find it strange that the same people (not necessarily you mac) can be so outraged by famine in Africa and just shrug their shoulders at murder, rape and genocide.
bovril Posted 6 January 2016 Author Posted 6 January 2016 We need a 'Leicesmac Potential Apocalypse Thread'.
leicsmac Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 Tell that to the Yazidis. I always find it strange that the same people (not necessarily you mac) that certain people can be so outraged by famine in Africa and just shrug their shoulders at murder, rape and genocide. It's a fair point regarding the double standard, but as far as I'm concerned both ISIS and the varying African genocides and famines resulting from them are strictly local threats (at a high level anyway), whereas the Cold War (and by extension the still-viable nuclear stockpiles) was a genuine, legitimate global threat to not only humanity but a large part of the biosphere.
bovril Posted 6 January 2016 Author Posted 6 January 2016 Sad but true, it will be a good long term investment for them, see Iran's development regarding ties with the US over the last few years for proof. Well theyre obviously batshit crazy but can you really blame them for wanting a bomb when you see what's happened to other small, anti-NATO countries?
leicsmac Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 We need a 'Leicesmac Potential Apocalypse Thread'. Black comedy regarding the end of the world is my speciality. I've got a manuscript written on it somewhere. But I'm an idealist, honestly.
MooseBreath Posted 6 January 2016 Posted 6 January 2016 The supermarket ran out of potatoes. The delivery driver got lost. Nobody gave him directions. If we don't start working together then you know what will happen. We'll go extinct. - leicsmac
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.