Possible war

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Hardwood66

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
6
Location
Crowborough
So the USA flew b2 bombers over north karea and now there threatening with rockets aimed at the states, and a full scale invasion
Do you think this will affect us if they decide to slug it out with each other ?

Russ
 
Interesting question.
IF it goes ahead it will most certainly affect us. It will affect everyone on the planet. The first to drop an atomic weapon will change the planet's climate and ecosystem more than we can imagine.

But it's a big IF. NK is tiny compared with Russia and CHina and I can't se either of them standing back and letting it happen.
S
 
I think that this is just rhetoric from N Korea at present with their leader Kim Jong Un, demonstrating to his own people that he will stand up to the west. They do not yet have a missile and warhead linked together (if what I read in the press is to be believed) that could deliver anything against the USA. I agree that China and Russia would not let them escalate this into a full-blooded nuclear scenario. A cross-border skirmish is much more likely, IMO.
 
Part of the problem is that Kim Jong-Un is relatively young, not well versed in international diplomacy, and because he's new to the top job in North Korea, has to prove to those who would take his place that he's a hard man. He may be gambling that by talking tough and threatening, he'll get concessions from the West. Actually, it's a bit like a Jack Russell terrier yapping at an Irish Wolfhound. He knows, and we know, and he knows that we know, that if he started a serious war, he'd lose. If he started anything nuclear, he lose even quicker. Both the West and China would move very swiftly to snuff out anything as destabilising as nuclear conflict; both have too much to lose by engaging in it, as does Russia.

Still, the brinksmanship makes things tense, and that'll probably continue for a bit. In the end, North Korea will have to eithr back down, or will depose Kim Jong-Un for someone more pragmatic.
 
Cheshirechappie":1pq7v2z7 said:
... will depose Kim Jong-Un for someone more pragmatic.

Unfortunately that won't happen. His father has effectively reduced the nation to infantilism..there is no effective opposition against this fat little megalomaniac.

But no, I don't think there will be any nuclear war. I feel sorry for the North Korean population.
 
As long as the bayonet is scary sharp then it doesnt matter...

I thought the consensus with Kim Jong is that the generals are the ones stiring it up, hes going along with it to look good to his people.
At least thats what political expert Dennis Rodman hinted at :)
 
No skills":2kw1cygr said:
As long as the bayonet is scary sharp then it doesn't matter...

Ah ha that`s falling into the trap of thinking every tool has to be sharp as possible, where really it only needs to be as sharp as the job demands.
Too sharp & if you hit bone the bayonet is liable to enter into it & get stuck, particularly if it`s hollow ground where all of the surface area of the grind could be in contact with the incision, this would take a lot of force to pull out.
Probably best with a rounded bevel, (both sides of the blade) less likely to get wedged in & just sharpened enough to penetrate skin, sinew & organs, maximizing damage but easy & quick to withdraw.
 
Might not be a bad thing if we did, would certainly be a good way of dealing with the problem of social security scroungers ( see previous bigot threads) whilst all the aged Daily Mail readers sit safe at home moaning about how unfair it is that their taxes pay to clothe and feed these layabout conscripts.
 
There are two and a half million unemployed. There are a half a million job vacancies. When there are two million unemployed and NO vacancies, I shall cease to worry about supporting unemployed people. Many of them wouldn't even make cannon fodder, so with the cost of shipping them out there, it would be pointless. I find your petty little left wing, self righteous rants quite amusing.
 
phil.p":3onr4a7t said:
There are two and a half million unemployed. There are a half a million job vacancies. When there are two million unemployed and NO vacancies, I shall cease to worry about supporting unemployed people. Many of them wouldn't even make cannon fodder, so with the cost of shipping them out there, it would be pointless. I find your petty little left wing, self righteous rants quite amusing.


There in lies the rub with communicating via a public forum, you really have no idea with whom you are conversing, any one who does know me will tell you that I am anything but left wing, if I had nail my colours to the mast I would describe myself as slightly right of centre. However I seem unable to stop myself from taking a more radicalised stance on this forum when faced by bigoted and unfounded opinion based largely on an inability to disseminate truth and balance from lurid tabloid generalisation, otherwise known as tarring everyone with the same brush. I happily concede that there are a good number of unemployed who have no intention of returning to work, but to imply they are living the life of Riley is deluded, life on benefits is grim, but if these people are happy to live this way so be it, it's not a life I would be prepared to accept. However the majority of benefits claimants are those for whom the system was designed to help, short term transient unemployed. This is much the same as the impression the same media try to give that all foreign owned companies are not paying their fair burden of corporation tax. True in a few cases but not in the majority, again. I would like to say I find your right wing rhetoric amusing but I'm afraid I don't, rather I find it sad that all you seem to be able to do is repeat half truths and misinformation, distorted to support your own sad view of the world.

While we are on the subject of repeating half truths and misinformation, SammyQ mentioned in another thread the number of knowledgable members we have lost, when I joined this forum there was an abundance of knowledge on all aspects of our chosen subject, sadly no more but what we do have is an abundance of people who do not know the answer to a given question but are only too happy to have a guess, or repeat something someone else said or wrote elsewhere, often out of context. I believe in part the loss of these members was down to petty squabbling within the ranks, so in the interest of all I shall cease to comment on any of the above, I feel I have made my point and leave the floor free for the benefit of the uneducated few.
 
Richard S":14s2qr1j said:
Might not be a bad thing if we did, would certainly be a good way of dealing with the problem of social security scroungers ( see previous bigot threads) whilst all the aged Daily Mail readers sit safe at home moaning about how unfair it is that their taxes pay to clothe and feed these layabout conscripts.

Why oh why would you want to start this all over again when you already have a 6 page thread which as Nev has said is going around in circles?

Cheers

Mike
 
Back
Top