[Closed] Should we be worried? Korea

technically israel [s]has never admitted to it nor denied it iirc[/s] [i]got given nukes by the US for shits and giggles[/i]

Am I the only person that just connot take NK seriously since watching Team America?

I'm so ronley,,,,,,!

[img] [/img]

What could possibly go wrong?
[img] [/img]

And while we're 'worrying' about NK having nukes, shouldn't we be asking ourselves why we, the UK, possess them? What are we paranoid about? Who exactly are we defending ourselves against, given that we had nukes long before the 'rogue' states of Iran, NK and ****stan had them?

I'm pretty sure no one in our government thinks we do need nuclear weapons for defence or deterrent. They're just worried that getting rid of them might not go down well with the electorate (seen as weak), the US (might damage our special relationship) and industry (billions of £ spend in engineering on the UK).

it was France and the UK and not the US that gave them nukes
US donations paid for some of it

thx1138: Argentina, of course, silly !

shouldn't we be asking ourselves why we, the UK, possess them?

D'uh. So we annoy the SNP. 🙄

it was France and the UK and not the US that gave them nukes
US donations paid for some of it

Gave who?

Having nukes doesn't automatically mean a nation is paranoid. NK are a paranoid nation with or without Nukes.

Argentina?

[img] [/img]

Would have taken more than a nuke to stop him.

What with China rapidly becoming a capitalist country, via the "back door" so to speak, i suspect that NK will start to have it's hands full with local issues quite soon. And as the vast Chinese population start to attain the luxury "western" lifestyle then the people of NK will soon want the same. In the end, communism is always over thrown by the people, not by politics, and there's a kind of just iron ronney in that 😉

NK are more likekly to nuke their own population when the rebellion comes imo.

That German keeper 'Schumacher' would have smashed him to pieces!

[img] [/img]

Gave who?

Israel - I guess

Although I can understand those who appear to be in favour of NK having nuclear weapons as a means of defence but bear in mind (edit):

1. This strong defence keeps a rather nasty regime in place
2. This regime needs hard currency to survive (starving the population only gets you so much), how much can they generate through selling both this weapon and rocket technology?

And for all those saying that China will do something about this, they will not. The existence of NK is an irritant to South Korea (a major trading rival), Japan (an historical adversary) and America (an ideological enemy) without affecting their business with all 3 nations plus if South and North Korea did peacefully merge then chances are American bases would be even closer to their border.

And as for us having nuclear weapons I thought that was explained years ago, its because the French have 🙂

@thx1138 - if everyone has a gun there's more chance of one person getting twitchy or loosing something off in error. If we all put our guns down it's so much harder for someone to get shot - if we extend the metaphor.

I can understand those who appear to be in favour of NK having nuclear weapons as a means of defence you have to remember

This strong defence keeps a rather nasty regime in place

And for all those saying that China will do something about this, they will not. The existence of NK is an irritant to South Korea (a major trading rival), Japan (an historical adversary) and America (an ideological enemy) without affecting their business with all 3 nations plus if South and North Korea did peacefully merge then chances are American bases would be even closer to their border.

That actually makes a lot of sense, realpolitik Beijing style

Keep NK just the right side of crazy as it pisses off all your rivals

if everyone has a gun there's more chance of one person getting twitchy or loosing something off in error. If we all put our guns down it's so much harder for someone to get shot - if we extend the metaphor.

Yeah, but the west isn't putting it's 'guns' down (quite the opposite in fact), hence why other nations that feel threatened are taking up arms.

NK will eventually succumb to external pressures, but it will be China's poodle, not the USA's.

Hello Kim Jong-un, would you like to play a game?

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

D'uh. So we annoy the SNP.

I'm more worried about Ikea than Korea.

You're wise to be. A Billy bookcase falling on you poses a greater threat to your safety than does North Korea.

Too right, that Gangnam Style song makes me fear more for the future of the human race than any of the Kim Jongs.

When did Ikea get nukes? The bloke who runs that international tyranny drinks over a bottle of vodka a day. Norway must be shitting itself 😯

This thread has reminded me of one of my favourite games from the eighties. 😀
[url= http://boardgamegeek.com/image/196812/nuclear-war ]Nuclear War anyone?[/url]

Well, we shall see I guess....watch this space!

That actually makes a lot of sense, realpolitik Beijing style

Keep NK just the right side of crazy as it pisses off all your rivals

The problem with North Korea is that they have been so bat-shit crazy for so long (and when I say they, I mean the dictatorship) that intergrating the people into a modern society would be difficult.

Hence South Korea are quite happy to keep them as they are too. Where do you put several million people who suddenly discover the world has moved on 50 years in advance of them?

It's messed up. And I agree, I doubt they're a threat to anyone. It's all propaganda. Their biggest threat will be to their neighbours when they eventually allow people to leave the country.

[img] [/img]

Everyone knows how nuclear deterrent's work:

[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!

[b]Hacker:[/b] I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!

[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] It’s a deterrent.

[b]Hacker:[/b] It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it.

[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.

[b]Hacker:[/b] They probably do.

[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know.

[b]Hacker:[/b] They're probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t.

[b]Sir Humphrey:[/b] Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!