Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Meanwhile .. back in the Good 'ol NK ....

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Meanwhile .. back in the Good 'ol NK ....

Old 9th Sep 2016, 02:38
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,457
True!
This is the location posted by USGS - switch to Earth view and you can see a few sheds that look like the above ground infrastructure.
And what looks like the remnants of a dirty great crater from a previous test back down the track...

Last edited by tartare; 9th Sep 2016 at 02:49.
tartare is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 04:10
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 508
If this a problem or a matter for concern? How?
John Hill is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 06:53
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 67
Posts: 883
Psychologists recognise the use of a question to answer a question as classic signs of dishonesty or deception.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 06:56
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 63
Posts: 619
I just presumed the question was rhetorical.
11Fan is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 06:59
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
And to think there was actually a serious debate in the UK about not renewing Trident. Thank god common sense prevailed and the separatist SNP did not get their way.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 07:47
  #586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 67
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by 11Fan View Post
I just presumed the question was rhetorical.
There is rhetoric, and then there is sophistry.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 07:49
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 508
Why would the UK want to renew the Trident programme?
John Hill is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 08:07
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,457
Starting to look like a regional arms race could be drawing near.
tartare is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 13:51
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 310
Starting to look like a regional arms race could be drawing near.
I can see it now,
North Korea drops a nuke on the South.
South retaliates with 2.5million Samsung incendiary phones.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 15:47
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,132
If this a problem or a matter for concern? How?
John is just stalling while awaiting word from the Yung Fat Un on what the party line will be.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 18:38
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Here
Age: 41
Posts: 13
Why would the UK want to renew the Trident programme?

To keep a deterrent - The UK Trident programme is not a first strike weapon.

Attack the UK with Nuclear weapons, get a retaliatory response in kind.

If Russia attacked and destroyed us and we attacked and destroyed Russia then there'd be a very clear precedent for the rest of the world to view. Nobody wins in nuclear war.

It kind of validates the Mutually Assured Destruction stance.

Or should we just abandon Trident, while other nations develop and test nuclear weapons?

So if the UK did get attacked with nuclear weapons, we should just keep a stiff upper lip, and whatever Govt is left, protest the to the UN, so they can write a strongly worded letter?
BadgerGrowler is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 20:32
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 508
Thank you Growler.

So the UK has nuclear weapons to deter nuclear attacks but is the UK at war with any nuclear powers? No it is not.

However the DPRK is at war (suspended by armistice since 1953) with a nuclear power and this nuclear power has been known to attack regimes it does not favour and for less than valid justification. Is it any wonder a country finding itself in that position seeks to acquire a nuclear deterrent of their own?

Last edited by John Hill; 9th Sep 2016 at 20:59.
John Hill is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 00:21
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Here
Age: 41
Posts: 13
So the UK has nuclear weapons to deter nuclear attacks but is the UK at war with any nuclear powers? No it is not.

However the DPRK is at war (suspended by armistice since 1953) with a nuclear power and this nuclear power has been known to attack regimes it does not favour and for less than valid justification. Is it any wonder a country finding itself in that position seeks to acquire a nuclear deterrent of their own?
You could say the deterrent works then?

I assume the country you are talking about is the USA?

The armistice has held since 1953, despite numerous border skirmishes. I also believe apart from WW2. the USA hasn't used them since (unless you are counting President Eisenhower authorising the use of nuclear weapons during the Korean conflict)
BadgerGrowler is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 04:26
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 508
Countries including Afghanistan and Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and were seen as easy pickings by the US and no doubt this was noticed by the Pyongyang regime who likely saw themselves as candidates for the same treatment.

Recent advances in the North Korean nuclear deterrent can be seen as having reduced the chance of another war on the Korean Peninsular.
John Hill is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 04:50
  #595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,553
Why the passive voice, John, with this "can be seen" of yours?

Do you see this North Korean drive to develop nuclear weapons as "as having reduced the chance of another war on the Korean Peninsular"?

Do you expect the USA to remain relatively passive in the face of a growing real threat of nuclear attack, having already been threatened repeatedly by this rather unstable-seeming Kim Jong-Un? This is not New Zealand you are looking at, reduced to firing off an angry postcard in the face of such threats, or imposing a lanolin embargo.
chuks is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 07:39
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 64
Posts: 57
Is he saying the NKs don't trust China's nuclear deterrent or military proximity to work their behalf?
meadowrun is online now  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 08:15
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 508
No, I am saying that the US has shown a propensity to attack countries they see as weak but they have never attacked a country with a credible nuclear deterrent. If the DPRK has a deterrent it is less likely to be attacked by the US and/or the ROK therefore a North Korean nuclear deterrent is a force for peace on the Korean Peninsula.
John Hill is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 08:29
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 64
Posts: 57
So, no.
But then it's nice to see another country that cannot feed its own people have their own nuclear toys. Makes up for all their other inadequacies.
meadowrun is online now  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 09:05
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,553
Interesting logic on display here ....

" ... [A] North Korean nuclear deterrent is a force for peace on the Korean Peninsula."

I think it makes more sense to say that a North Korea that possesses nuclear weapons is a much greater threat to peace on the Korean Peninsula. After all, it's been Kim Jong Un who's been uttering shrill threats of nuclear attack, with the only thing being that he's not, until now, been capable of carrying out those threats. So far, it's just rhetoric, but once he really has that capability then we might need to do something rather violent to put an end to these threats. Minus the nukes, we can afford to let Kim fester. With the nukes added to the mix, then we can no longer afford to do that, arguably.

John Hill's logic strikes me as somewhat akin to seeing an angry neighbor who had always been threatening me with harm finally get a gun. Yes, it's a lot less likely that I am going to go over there and sort him out in a rather casual way, but he's now a much greater threat.

Should one focus more on North Korean nuclear weapons as a "deterrent" or as a threat? For John Hill, with his long track record of looking only on the sunny side of this rather miserable, grey little land and its tiny freak of a ruler, of course it's got to be a deterrent, no sort of possible threat, but then this is the man in denial about the true nature of North Korea and its ruler, and who actually started the Korean War. It seems clear that John's also in denial about how this war is becoming more likely to end, thanks to increasing threats of nuclear attack coming from North Korea, threats that are becoming much more credible.

It might be that Kim Jong Un is making a gross miscalculation. So far it's just been relatively small miscalculations, such as building a huge hotel with no elevators right in the middle of town where nobody can miss seeing it, stuff we can just laugh off if we want to. Fat Boy sat on a ski lift in street clothing, looking quite lost and out of place, ha-ha; "Kim Jong Un looking at things, " seeming to wonder, "Can I eat this?" https://www.google.de/search?q=kim+j...w=1280&bih=612 Kim Jong Un looking at a real, nuclear-armed ballistic missile, though ... not so funny, suddenly.

Another interesting thing is that our John seems to see this Korean War being continued by the USA and South Korea, as if North Korean intransigence plays no role in its possible conclusion. Yes, I suppose it is correct to say that letting North Korea declare victory is one way to end the war, but it can not be the only way, no matter what John Hill may think about that. Seoul today, Auckland next week! Juche rules okay!
chuks is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 09:21
  #600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 72
Posts: 508
Meadowrun
So, no.
But then it's nice to see another country that cannot feed its own people have their own nuclear toys. Makes up for all their other inadequacies.
Obviously you do not believe in the dogma of peace through nuclear deterrence. You should look around about and consider that even Islamic and Communist countries can be good friends of the USA if they have nuclear weapons.
John Hill is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.