day-break Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Hes told us all in a press conference that N korea have missiles that can strike europe, so therefore can hit the uk...when clearly n korea dont... Hes clutching at straws now for votes because, hes going to try and make us think that hes protecting us... Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ousetunes Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Just like Blair and weapons of mass destruction. Red or blue it matters not. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 It's funny how in the face of most North Korean threats the reaction is to shrug them off as yet more rabid meanderings of a tin pot loon. But when Cameron is trying to justify the monumental cost of replacing Trident then North Korea is suddenly just a small step away from obliterating us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 What about the range of the KN-08? Well, here’s the thing about that: It sure looks like an intercontinental ballistic missile, and North Korea claims it can reach about 6,000 miles, which puts Los Angeles in range, except that no one knows if it works because it’s never been tested. And that means it probably can’t hit squat at long range, if it can even take off. LINK As I have mentioned before though, North Korea has been experimenting with EMP weapons and these could be delivered from a container ship offshore. Even an old fashioned Scud missile could achieve the necessary 200 mile height for airbust (well, just about). There's even a Russian delivery container ship based delivery system for sale which could be used for this purpose, the Club-K. Deadly new Russian weapon hides in shipping container [Reuters Apr 26, 2010] The Club-K Container Missile System in its advertised version is designed for launching six cruise missiles, but it could obviously be converted for a long-range ballistic missile. A Scud-D ballistic missile would fit quite easily into this container. Scuds are very primitive missiles, though. Producing an intermediate range ballistic missile is not a project of any major difficulty. By re-stating the often-mentioned idea of an EMP attack from a container-ship missile system, I do not want to imply that I think that this is in any way a likely event. There are many additional, and much more clever, possible methods of executing an EMP attack, and many other ways that the perpetrator could avoid forensic identification. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 It's funny how in the face of most North Korean threats the reaction is to shrug them off as yet more rabid meanderings of a tin pot loon. But when Cameron is trying to justify the monumental cost of replacing Trident then North Korea is suddenly just a small step away from obliterating us all. Trident replacement is meant to be the nuclear deterrent for decades to come, who is to say a state like NK or Iran won't have the capability in 15-20 years time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 If NK is prepared to sabre rattle vs. the US with their enormous nuke stockpile and history of wading into situations all guns blazing I hardly think that the poxy few missiles we have (well I say we have more we pay for and America graciously stations on and operates from our submarines) is going to make them stop and think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Trident replacement is meant to be the nuclear deterrent for decades to come, who is to say a state like NK or Iran won't have the capability in 15-20 years time? Thats a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Trident replacement is meant to be the nuclear deterrent for decades to come, who is to say a state like NK or Iran won't have the capability in 15-20 years time? And of course they are going to be scared of the UK arnt they? There is NO point to Trident except to give the americans more money. Dumping that is a sure fire way of saving 20 bill, but camloon wont do that because it would reduce the excuses he is trying to come out with to continue to screw the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I think you will find that NATO and our seat as a permanant SC member require us to have an effective credible nuclear deterrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I think you will find that NATO and our seat as a permanant SC member require us to have an effective credible nuclear deterrence. Since when? The permanent members of the security council are the victors in WW2 and has no requirement to be nuclear armed. Nor has membership of NATO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.