The Joker Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 If they finally develop a deliverable nuclear bomb it may finally force countries to act. DPRK love to make very strong threats against the west, well if they can back that threat up with nuclear weapons there's a chance the western countries will act first and remove their nuclear capability. If anyone would do it, it'd be Trump. He's not exactly known for his diplomatic prowess. Thanks for the reply. Happily, I think North Korea are a long way off from building an accurate nuclear missile delivery system. Yes, Kim Jong Whatsisface does like to big himself up and threaten his neighbours, but I think it's all a lot of hot air and that China will act first to negate North Korea's excesses before Western armies do. The whole "Trump is gonna bomb NK" farce smells similar to Saddam's non-existent WMD again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Ignoring the politics, the Russians have some absolutely awesome aircraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFjO-kWuBBE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 The whole "Trump is gonna bomb NK" farce smells similar to Saddam's non-existent WMD again. I was thinking the same as I typed it to be honest, but then again the USA was being run by the Republican's when they decided to invade Iraq. Yes, Kim Jong Whatsisface does like to big himself up and threaten his neighbours, but I think it's all a lot of hot air and that China will act first to negate North Korea's excesses before Western armies do. The longer the status-quo is maintained the better really. A substantial amount of their military is 1950's/1960's era stuff, not only is it out of date and outclassed by modern equipment it's also very unreliable being so old. Not that anyone really wants to get in a scrap with NK, there is really nothing to be gained by anyone. I'm sure in a proper military engagement alot of their forces would be swept aside, either outclassed or just simply out of commission due to mechanical failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 The longer the status-quo is maintained the better really. <snip> Not that anyone really wants to get in a scrap with NK, there is really nothing to be gained by anyone. every time Kim Whatsisface runs low on spending money, he threatens the rest of the world, so we cough up a few $million in bribes overseas development aid to keep him quiet for a couple more years. It ain't pretty, but it's significantly cheaper and less messy than all out war, or regime change - both of which the Chinese wouldn't be happy about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa2900 Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share Posted December 7, 2016 Ignoring the politics, the Russians have some absolutely awesome aircraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFjO-kWuBBE Although rather less than they had a month ago. It seems the farce with the aircraft carrier rather backfired. The smoking heap of junk that sailed through The Straits of Dover probably did so because it wasn't fit to go out into open water, rather than as an act of strength. It is always escourted by tugs for when it breaks down and apparently now only has 12 working toilets for the 2000 crew due to frozen and corroded pipes. It is the same age as the UK carrier which today is sailing to the scrap yard. But the biggest problem is there are no working catapults and the arrester gear rarely works. It took 15 aircraft to the Med and 2 were lost over the side last month when the arresters failed. The remaining aircraft have been flown to land bases. It's not what you expect from a public display of the navy's flagship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 The longer the status-quo is maintained the better really. A substantial amount of their military is 1950's/1960's era stuff, not only is it out of date and outclassed by modern equipment it's also very unreliable being so old. Not that anyone really wants to get in a scrap with NK, there is really nothing to be gained by anyone. I'm sure in a proper military engagement alot of their forces would be swept aside, either outclassed or just simply out of commission due to mechanical failure. Apart from the millions of people starving and living under a brutal regime of course... They'd gain quite a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Apart from the millions of people starving and living under a brutal regime of course... They'd gain quite a lot. Dont forget, you are only getting our version of the news.... here in the UK we have people living rough on the street, some freezing to death http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/homeless-man-found-dead-coldest-12279457 “Thousands of people in the West Midlands will face the trauma of waking up homeless this Christmas. “Decades in the making, this is the tragic result of a nation struggling under the weight of sky-high rents, a lack of affordable homes, and cuts to welfare support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Apart from the millions of people starving and living under a brutal regime of course... They'd gain quite a lot. They would, but we (the West) wouldn't. Interestingly the South Korean's are very much against a war and unity, it would see their country flooded with peasants from the North looking for a better life. They'd then be responsible no only for the 24 million people in the North, but then the complete re-development of all infrastructure up there as well. It'd be a killer for their economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Unless you think we, the west, gain something by helping millions of people. A slight sense of accomplishment perhaps? Oh, and longer term, once the country isn't a rogue state, bent on creating illegal nuclear weapons, and starving it's population to death. Once it's a functioning member of the international community we all benefit from trade and security of course. ---------- Post added 08-12-2016 at 09:38 ---------- Dont forget, you are only getting our version of the news.... here in the UK we have people living rough on the street, some freezing to death http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/homeless-man-found-dead-coldest-12279457 “Thousands of people in the West Midlands will face the trauma of waking up homeless this Christmas. “Decades in the making, this is the tragic result of a nation struggling under the weight of sky-high rents, a lack of affordable homes, and cuts to welfare support. The UK has about 2500 living on the streets. The homeless are mostly living in temporary accommodation (which whilst not great, is not the same as living on the street). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) Putin is backing a democratically elected government, (Syria) and we are the ones trying to undermine it Is Syria in the EU as I cleared said "Russia is engaged in a sort war right now with the EU...." ---------- Post added 08-12-2016 at 10:49 ---------- Dont forget, you are only getting our version of the news.... here in the UK we have people living rough on the street, some freezing to death http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/homeless-man-found-dead-coldest-12279457 “Thousands of people in the West Midlands will face the trauma of waking up homeless this Christmas. “Decades in the making, this is the tragic result of a nation struggling under the weight of sky-high rents, a lack of affordable homes, and cuts to welfare support. This has already been shown to be misleading and heavily reported by RT, the government run Russian news agency. You choose to believe a blatantly biased news report. Why? Edited December 8, 2016 by Berberis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now