You have to look at this in the context of regional geopolitics and China, particularly their expansionism ambitions potentially being thwarted by having US nukes on their doorstep. Kim/NK is critically dependant upon China - and the will of China to impose UN sanctions, or more likely to use their veto to simply ignore it.
The USA has to learn to let dictators live in peace. If they hadn't invaded Iraq, and toppled Libya, young Kim wouldn't feel the need to escalate in the first place.
So many of our contemporary problems come from the fact the US has seriously mismanaged it's role of "Global Policeman", and in particular the short-sighted Western desire to "spread democracy" (although this is normally just a sham argument to get the electorate to go along with invading other countries).
When Blighty had an empire, we mismanaged that, but the big gamechanger is nuclear weapons. People have largely forgotten about them since the ending of the Cold War, but in the last 20 years the US in particular has been busy developing a new generation of hydrogen bombs. These things are so powerful they can destroy whole countries, never mind cities.
I can't really see a way out of Armageddon, I think it is inevitable, it's just a question of when. But I don't think it will come down to N Korea; I think the Middle East is where the action will be (as predicted by the good book).
These things are so powerful they can destroy whole countries, never mind cities.
Got some info?
My understanding is that modern nukes tend to be lower yield generally but with much better accuracy. The multi megaton city killers aren't really used anymore instead they use a number of smaller warheads to provide the same effect with better precision
These things are so powerful they can destroy whole countries, never mind cities.
I'm not sure Lichtenstein really counts...
@richmtb
This [url= https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/03/20/us-first-strike-advantage-heightens-risk-of-nuclear-war-polanyi.html ]article[/url] by John Polyani summarises recent developments.
Putin's development of a megaton nuke is the big game-changer (in response to the submarine, more targetted nukes you mention).
The risk in the current situation is that the US responds by developing its own megaton nukes.
esselgruntfuttock - MemberI'm sure the Yanks have something 'science fictiony', Lasers & electromagnetic railguns maybe?
The Reagan administration managed to bring down the old Soviet Union by producing a couple of dodgy videos, making the commies bankrupt themselves trying to keep up with a non-existent weapons programme.
Not sure if it would work a second time round though, even with a numbnuts like The Crazy Fat Kid...
Saw this on Twitter...
[img] 
[/img]
What I dont understand is why its ok for current nuclear powers to develop "better" nukes. Its also ok for Israel, India and ****stan to develop them and now have them. But Iran, NK its a big no no.
What I dont understand is why its ok for current nuclear powers to develop "better" nukes. Its also ok for Israel, India and ****stan to develop them and now have them. But Iran, NK its a big no no.
I don't think anyone thinks its Ok for any of them to have nuclear weapons but they have them now and they aint going to give them up.
NK having them in itself is worrying enough as there would be less failsafes in place to stop there launch, say what you like about Trump but he would not be able to arbitrarily launch a nuclear attack on anyone, I suspect that Dear Leader wouldn't have that in place!
And I have said this many times before, just as China ( and some Russian scientists) sold its nuclear tech to ****stan for cash I'm sure NK is also keen on selling this for hard currency also.
say what you like about Trump but he would not be able to arbitrarily launch a nuclear attack on anyone,
actually, its one thing he does have the unilateral authority to order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority
scary, huh.
Scary if you don't read the actual link you provided.
While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense
but in the last 20 years the US in particular has been busy developing a new generation of hydrogen bombs. These things are so powerful they can destroy whole countries, never mind cities.
Not entirely sure what you are on about, badnewz - pretty much all research into new weapons is going into making them smaller in yield, not larger.
The "holy grail" is to create a fusion weapon that does not need a fission ignitor. This would allow for a weapon where a yield larger than a conventional bomb can be delivered against target without all the messy fallout normally associated with current nuclear weapons. Being able to take out a bunker with, say, a 500t weapon that doesn't prevent your own forces subsequently visiting is *very* appealing.
Destroying large parts of countries is entirely pointless and messy. And has been possible since the late 1950's anyway.
Rachel
Scary if you don't read the actual link you provided.
While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. [b]If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it[/b]
short attention span?
So he has arbitrary power to fire...his secretary, even I have that power.
Presumably, he then has to appoint a new secretary, who does concur, before he can fire the missiles?
That could take months to get through HR.
President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary.
I read that as sending Mattis blasting towards Pyonyang!
[img] 
[/img]
Kim Jong Un. The early years...
😆
What I want to know in all this is, what are the US and China trying to get away with in the background? I'm convinced this is all a distraction from some nasty little plot from one or both of the "super" powers. As has been said NK is irrelevant in the great scheme of things.
This is an excellent read and makes done very valid points
How the nuclear-armed nations brought the North Korea crisis on themselves
hit them with flour bombs?
Yeah - Teach those bloody Coeliacs a lesson.
Probabaly fairly accurate!