Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 12:03:12 GMT
I see North Korea has just tested putting a "satellite" into orbit, most of the rest of the World knows its a banned missile test.
US presidential candidate Bush said if he got the gig he would make a pre-emptive strike on the North so the rest of us would be safe...
Just posturing from North Korea & Bush, or, should we be getting worried Korea are getting closer to full nuclear power?
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 7, 2016 13:11:20 GMT
I see North Korea has just tested putting a "satellite" into orbit, most of the rest of the World knows its a banned missile test. US presidential candidate Bush said if he got the gig he would make a pre-emptive strike on the North so the rest of us would be safe... Just posturing from North Korea & Bush, or, should we be getting worried Korea are getting closer to full nuclear power? It's slightly worrying for sure that a complete nut case "could" have the ability to launch nuclear weapons just because his jim jams weren't ironed properly. Hopefully China will step in, but I doubt it. So what do we do? How on earth do you stop him? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 14:00:03 GMT
I see North Korea has just tested putting a "satellite" into orbit, most of the rest of the World knows its a banned missile test. US presidential candidate Bush said if he got the gig he would make a pre-emptive strike on the North so the rest of us would be safe... Just posturing from North Korea & Bush, or, should we be getting worried Korea are getting closer to full nuclear power? It's slightly worrying for sure that a complete nut case "could" have the ability to launch nuclear weapons just because his jim jams weren't ironed properly. Hopefully China will step in, but I doubt it. So what do we do? How on earth do you stop him? That's the main question, how do we stop him? It seems at the moment all were doing is going through the UN, which, in turn, doesn't seem to be doing much help. Should we go through Bush's idea and make a pre-emptive strike on them? But then we'll be taking on the two biggest armies in the world, as China will surly side on Korea's. A war which neither side will win. My biggest fear RE:nuclear war hasn't got anything to do with US Vs Russia, its as you called it a nutcase or some backwards country what used to be part of Russia getting their hands on them. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 7, 2016 14:21:47 GMT
It's slightly worrying for sure that a complete nut case "could" have the ability to launch nuclear weapons just because his jim jams weren't ironed properly. Hopefully China will step in, but I doubt it. So what do we do? How on earth do you stop him? That's the main question, how do we stop him? It seems at the moment all were doing is going through the UN, which, in turn, doesn't seem to be doing much help. Should we go through Bush's idea and make a pre-emptive strike on them? But then we'll be taking on the two biggest armies in the world, as China will surly side on Korea's. A war which neither side will win. My biggest fear RE:nuclear war hasn't got anything to do with US Vs Russia, its as you called it a nutcase or some backwards country what used to be part of Russia getting their hands on them. The UN will do nothing, as usual. Russia v the US isn't really there anymore and to be honest, anyone who goes up against the US in any sort of all out conflict is watering in the wind. Someone needs to step forward and let North Korea know that anymore Dam about with stuff like this and it's adios. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 7, 2016 17:52:09 GMT
Now I'm not for a second defending the dictators in North Korea, but it raises a point that interests me.
Whenever any smaller nation starts to develop nukes, the established military powers are outraged. America froths at the mouth, France condemns the nation, Britain checks what America thinks and then copies that, and Russia makes threatening noises. Unless it's Israel, of course, where the USA support anything they do.
All this strikes me as a bit hypocritical. We've stockpiled thousands of nuclear warheads as our deterrent, but we don't think it's right that anyone else has them.
Isn't that a bit like our government making everyone become vegetarian while the Cabinet chomp away on cheeseburgers all day?
From the point of view of North Korea and Iran, it must seem like breathtaking arrogance that we can try and stop them developing weapons that we have enough of to destroy the world many times over.
Now if we were disarming, then I could see that the moral outrage is justified. But we're not disarming, and I'm not saying we should. But then it looks like one rule for us and another for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 7, 2016 20:28:41 GMT
I wouldn't get too concerned just yet. This happens often and is normally seen as North Korea reminding people they are there. China is the key player here as they are the ones with a porous border that allows materials to get in. If Kim Jon Un gets too wayward the Chinese will have a 'word'.
The concern though is when North Korea start to get itchy feet and whatever China say they will start to ignore it. That is when things will likely start getting serious.
The North Korean armed forces are pretty much a one shot military and unless they overwhelm the South then South Korea has a large and modern armed forces who could theoretically hold them until US reinforcements arrive.
With regards our own deterrent, we have reduced our stockpiles quite a lot. From nearly 600 warheads in the Cold War to around 120 now. We have also lost the smaller battlefield weapons and the air launched bombs so Trident is our only nuclear weapon. The 1 submarine on patrol has 8 missiles and 40 warheads (source -House of Commons written statement in January 2015).
Also, don't forget we have a no first use and no use against a non nuclear armed nation rule in accordance with various treaties.
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 8, 2016 11:36:10 GMT
I wouldn't get too concerned just yet. This happens often and is normally seen as North Korea reminding people they are there. China is the key player here as they are the ones with a porous border that allows materials to get in. If Kim Jon Un gets too wayward the Chinese will have a 'word'. The concern though is when North Korea start to get itchy feet and whatever China say they will start to ignore it. That is when things will likely start getting serious. The North Korean armed forces are pretty much a one shot military and unless they overwhelm the South then South Korea has a large and modern armed forces who could theoretically hold them until US reinforcements arrive. With regards our own deterrent, we have reduced our stockpiles quite a lot. From nearly 600 warheads in the Cold War to around 120 now. We have also lost the smaller battlefield weapons and the air launched bombs so Trident is our only nuclear weapon. The 1 submarine on patrol has 8 missiles and 40 warheads (source -House of Commons written statement in January 2015). Also, don't forget we have a no first use and no use against a non nuclear armed nation rule in accordance with various treaties. We've only got 1 sub? Really? That can't be right can it? Jeez. Thought we had 4 so 2 could be out on tour whilst 2 were in? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 11:47:48 GMT
I wouldn't get too concerned just yet. This happens often and is normally seen as North Korea reminding people they are there. China is the key player here as they are the ones with a porous border that allows materials to get in. If Kim Jon Un gets too wayward the Chinese will have a 'word'. The concern though is when North Korea start to get itchy feet and whatever China say they will start to ignore it. That is when things will likely start getting serious. The North Korean armed forces are pretty much a one shot military and unless they overwhelm the South then South Korea has a large and modern armed forces who could theoretically hold them until US reinforcements arrive. With regards our own deterrent, we have reduced our stockpiles quite a lot. From nearly 600 warheads in the Cold War to around 120 now. We have also lost the smaller battlefield weapons and the air launched bombs so Trident is our only nuclear weapon. The 1 submarine on patrol has 8 missiles and 40 warheads (source -House of Commons written statement in January 2015). Also, don't forget we have a no first use and no use against a non nuclear armed nation rule in accordance with various treaties. We've only got 1 sub? Really? That can't be right can it? Jeez. Thought we had 4 so 2 could be out on tour whilst 2 were in? One on patrol at any time, we have four in service each with two crews alternating. It takes four to guarantee one always at sea. Normally we have one on patrol, one recovering, one working up and one in refit. Each submarine could take 16 missiles and each missile could take 12 warheads, so theoretically 64 missiles and 768 warheads yet we only have in the region of 58 missiles and 120 warheads. The next generation of submarine planned for the late 2020s is going to have only 8 missile tubes per boat. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 8, 2016 11:59:13 GMT
We've only got 1 sub? Really? That can't be right can it? Jeez. Thought we had 4 so 2 could be out on tour whilst 2 were in? One on patrol at any time, we have four in service each with two crews alternating. It takes four to guarantee one always at sea. Normally we have one on patrol, one recovering, one working up and one in refit. Each submarine could take 16 missiles and each missile could take 12 warheads, so theoretically 64 missiles and 768 warheads yet we only have in the region of 58 missiles and 120 warheads. The next generation of submarine planned for the late 2020s is going to have only 8 missile tubes per boat. Ah right, got it. Something about subs that scare and excite me at the same time. Would you ever get me in one? No chance. A very strange breed. I hear our super duper destroyers keep breaking down and need re-fitting already and our aircraft carriers decks can't handle the engines from the vertical take off jets we're planning to use. Brilliant. Thank God we've got the US. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 12:08:28 GMT
One on patrol at any time, we have four in service each with two crews alternating. It takes four to guarantee one always at sea. Normally we have one on patrol, one recovering, one working up and one in refit. Each submarine could take 16 missiles and each missile could take 12 warheads, so theoretically 64 missiles and 768 warheads yet we only have in the region of 58 missiles and 120 warheads. The next generation of submarine planned for the late 2020s is going to have only 8 missile tubes per boat. Ah right, got it. Something about subs that scare and excite me at the same time. Would you ever get me in one? No chance. A very strange breed. I hear our super duper destroyers keep breaking down and need re-fitting already and our aircraft carriers decks can't handle the engines from the vertical take off jets we're planning to use. Brilliant. Thank God we've got the US. The former is a overhyped story which has been long known and being rectified. The most recent deployment had no issues, for what it is worth. Regarding the carriers, that is an old story peddled by those with an agenda but who should know better. There were issues with the US testing the engine of the F35 in vertical landing mode on their ships but a suitable deck coating has been found. Not a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 8, 2016 12:13:36 GMT
Ah right, got it. Something about subs that scare and excite me at the same time. Would you ever get me in one? No chance. A very strange breed. I hear our super duper destroyers keep breaking down and need re-fitting already and our aircraft carriers decks can't handle the engines from the vertical take off jets we're planning to use. Brilliant. Thank God we've got the US. The former is a overhyped story which has been long known and being rectified. The most recent deployment had no issues, for what it is worth. Regarding the carriers, that is an old story peddled by those with an agenda but who should know better. There were issues with the US testing the engine of the F35 in vertical landing mode on their ships but a suitable deck coating has been found. Not a problem. So we rule the waves again? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 12:22:09 GMT
Don't have the numbers for that anymore, something we gave up some time ago. We rule the bit we sail in :-)
Quality wise, we are up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 8, 2016 12:27:27 GMT
Don't have the numbers for that anymore, something we gave up some time ago. We rule the bit we sail in :-) Quality wise, we are up there. Oh yes, agreed. As far as engineering is concerned, I'd argue we're actually the best in the World. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 12:53:37 GMT
I try to avoid hyperbole but from what I have read our submarines and submariners aren't just respected by other nations, they are feared. Possibly partly thanks to the Falklands War but memories are long.
Our T45 destroyers (the ones in the news about their engines) have looked after US carriers, not something they do lightly. Many other areas are top notch too although replacements will be needed in time. Just the carriers and aircraft to get married together in the few years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 13:11:12 GMT
Let's not forget about the quality of the men (and women) on board. Rear Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, Commander of the British Fleet in the Falklands, did something nobody else has done. It was (from memory) about two years before the Falklands, and he was in command of a Destroyer. During an exercise with US ships, he took the Destroyer, from 200 miles out, on a clear day with calm seas, to within 15,000yds of an American Carrier, and fired off five torpedos before the Carrier Group even knew the British Destroyer was there. Top top man.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 13:23:14 GMT
Let's not forget about the quality of the men (and women) on board. Rear Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, Commander of the British Fleet in the Falklands, did something nobody else has done. It was (from memory) about two years before the Falklands, and he was in command of a Destroyer. During an exercise with US ships, he took the Destroyer, from 200 miles out, on a clear day with calm seas, to within 15,000yds of an American Carrier, and fired off five torpedos before the Carrier Group even knew the British Destroyer was there. Top top man. It was in his autobiography I think. He was only chosen because he was closest (at Gibraltar on exercise). Nobby - were you serving at the time? |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 8, 2016 13:33:45 GMT
Wasn't there a story where one of our subs went out to, ahem, glean information from a newly launched Russian destroyer and ended up sitting about 10m below it's keel for weeks without being detected?
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 8, 2016 13:34:47 GMT
Let's not forget about the quality of the men (and women) on board. Rear Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, Commander of the British Fleet in the Falklands, did something nobody else has done. It was (from memory) about two years before the Falklands, and he was in command of a Destroyer. During an exercise with US ships, he took the Destroyer, from 200 miles out, on a clear day with calm seas, to within 15,000yds of an American Carrier, and fired off five torpedos before the Carrier Group even knew the British Destroyer was there. Top top man. It was in his autobiography I think. He was only chosen because he was closest (at Gibraltar on exercise). Nobby - were you serving at the time? Correct, Nobby was serving at the time, sausage and mash mainly. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 13:42:12 GMT
Wasn't there a story where one of our subs went out to, ahem, glean information from a newly launched Russian destroyer and ended up sitting about 10m below it's keel for weeks without being detected? Is this the one you are thinking of? Operation Barmaid (no, not that sort) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_(S48)#Operation_Barmaid |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 13:46:35 GMT
It was in his autobiography I think. He was only chosen because he was closest (at Gibraltar on exercise). Nobby - were you serving at the time? Correct, Nobby was serving at the time, sausage and mash mainly. I'll have you know that the Chef's Course is the toughest course in the whole of the British Military.......because no fecker has ever passed it ! |
|
