Am now thinking of hiring a caravan in the remotest part of the highlands and stocking it with everything i could need.......must look on ebay to see if i can actually get an NBC suit that
2. Is new and not washed out
3. Comes with all the right accessories
The threat of a nuclear response to a bio-chemical attack isn't new. Before the kick off of Desert Storm Iraq was warned that America would send their country "back to the pre-industrial age in a way that would take centuries to recover from" should they use bio-chems. According to some studies into the Persian Gulf War that I've read a good percentage of America's nuclear attack/missile subs were sat around Iraq that night along with the command and control aircraft orbiting with the instruction book open at page 2.
Where's the lunatic lone gunman or 3 when you really need one?
Bluppets got his eye off the ball. It's time for him to grow a pair, and remind the Muppet in Casa Blanca, that the best armed forces in the world, are itching to get stuck into terrorists and people trying to do UK PLC harm, NOT making sure his oil buddies and election financiers get a nice dividend.
This country is sick. I watched petrol prices zoom up by 5p a litre over Crimbo, as the greedy little children of Thatcher got stuck in. Fcuking oil company bastards, at the end of the day, they're the ones behind this.
I joined to fight Marges ENEMIES, wherever they are, and I'm happy to go and do that. I am fcuked, if I want to go and fight Dubyas shitty little crusade .
Now stick a proper fcuking enemy in my SUSAT , and by that I mean, any bastard who wants to hurt me and mine.
Eagle, glad you said that. Were I work, no one wants to talk about the possibility of a nuclear conflict, because the thought scares the pants off them. I mention the fact that if a conflict starts between America and North Korea, America and the world should worry more about what China will do. Yeah, N Korea will give as good as it gets, but my own belief is that China must be itching to give the Americans a good kicking.
Hopefully Im not scare mongering here, but another belief I hold is, that Mankind just cant go for more then (around) 50 years at a time without having a major conflict in which 1000s are killed. Surely were due this? We have the 'usually one' every ten years or so (GW1, Falklands, Vietnam, Korea, WW1 & WW2). 9/11 is the start of the slow build up towards a major conflict.
Constructive thoughts please. I know many of you have had enough of what is going on in the world, but its not going to go away.
North Korea, get back in there and get them to open up. Ok, you can have Nuclear power, because all your oil is so hard to get at. But, it will be under close supervision. We will also help your international trade, and try and reduce your pariah status if you play ball, as suggested by Madeline Albright. The alternative, is we bomb your reactors off the face of the planet, as suggested by Bill Clinton.
We can't go another 50 years without a major conflict, because we haven't instituted proper resource management, in spite of the fact , that everything we need to survive, oil, water. food, is a finite resource if not managed properly.
So, as we start to run out of items, we cannot permit the Third World to hold us to ransom, for our staples, therefore, we go to war. It doesn't seem to be an option, to negotiate.
Senior politicians need to be reminded, that Planet Earth is only a Spaceship. Carefully manage resources, and it will carry on forever. Rape those resources in the name of profit, and one day, Mother nature is going to get the arrse.
Who or what gives us the right to tell any country what power (or weapons for that matter) they can and can't have? It's using them or threatening to use them against us that we should be concerned about.
It's this type of arrogance that is setting the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East, against the West and is leading us inexorably to global conflict.
....we cannot permit the Third World to hold us to ransom, for our staples.....
If the NK's do develop nukes, all I can see happening is a new "mini" Cold War resulting form the Sceptics almost guaranteed provision of Nukes or a Nuke shield to the SK's.
The concept of MAD worked perfectly well for us for 50 years, so it should work perfectly well for them.
Whilst I am in no way overjoyed at the prospect of the commies in Pyongyang getting their hands on Nukes, I cannot see them chucking one over the border the minute that they build the first one; neither can I see them ever being stupid enough to threaten another nuclear armed nation with them.
I don't think that the Sceptics or the Chinese are stupid enough to start anything major over what is in effect an age long and relatively stagnant civil war.
After all, what have the SK's or the NK's got that we want that they don't already gladly give or sell to us?
Nope, the NKs do not figure in my list of countries to be worried about.
Iraq, on the other hand, is most definitely on the list. Whilst I know that the popular opinion is that this will be an oil war (which I have no doubts is a major contribution), I do believe that Mr Insane is actually barking mad enough to use a WMD if he could build one big enough to have a major effect. The thought of him having a Nuke & a delivery system for it most definitely puts the willies up me. As he proved prior to GW1, he is more than happy to use the buggers if he thinks that he can get away with it.
Surely it is better to make sure that he hasnt got them than to wait until he gives one to Bin Hidin or similar before we find out? Or even worse, drops one on Israel, who then retaliates with the real thing, followed by all the muslim nations joining in, followed by Israel reducing most of the worlds oil fields to a big skating ring etc, etc.
Sooner or later NK is going to either implode (when Kim Jong Il dies for example) or explode and attack south.
Given the state of the place now with much of the population starving to death and a million+ strong Army under the sway of a paranoid dictator we can't afford to ignore it. We are after all permanent members of the UN Security Council.
I agree, despite Saddam being top of the current list of International baddies we can't ignore the regional threat posed by NK. When the place does either collapse or invades SK it will without any doubt involve its neighbours (China, Japan and Russia) in varying degrees.
The Americans have roughly 37,000 troops permanently based in SK who would be sucked into dealing with either scenario. On top of that, I THINK (but am not 100% sure) that we have some form of residual commitment to provide troops in the event of an attack by NK on SK, based on our previous role in the 1950-3 war which still binds us as the ceasefire that ended it is still in place and a peace treaty has never been signed. Won't that be fun.
North Korea has accused the US of imposing economic sanctions which are tantamount to war. The comment came in an official response to the seizure of a ship headed for Yemen last month carrying North Korean missiles.