North Korea launches new missile...

North Korea has finally done it...

Yesterday they launched their latest ICBM,  this one with a predicted range of 13,000 kms,  compared to 10,000 kms for the previous model..

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-fires-ballistic-missile/news-story/ac1a65e2487b5d8cfbfd60dc7a516cd2

That means that NK now has the capability to reach Washington D.C. to the east, whereas last week they would have landed in the Pacific.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-safe-is-the-us-from-a-north-korea-nuclear-attack-20171129-gzvjws.html

That previous 10k mark also meant that they now also could hit Tasmania to the south (and LA and Alaska to the east..) --  before this year,  their other missiles would have landed still well north of New Guinea..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/north-korea-missile-range-map/8880894

Without a doubt, North Korea will be wiped out within the first day or two if they did attack anyone --  but they could still do a lot of damage if they launch a few pre-emptive hostile strikes...

http://www.smh.com.au/world/kim-jongun-will-be-utterly-destroyed-in-war-haley-20171130-gzvqaw.html

I saw that. And to think, Trump cheered them on.

Well, what now Donald? Get out the ole diplomacy manual, what?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

North Korea has finally done it...

Yesterday they launched their latest ICBM,  this one with a predicted range of 13,000 kms,  compared to 10,000 kms for the previous model..

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-fires-ballistic-missile/news-story/ac1a65e2487b5d8cfbfd60dc7a516cd2

That means that NK now has the capability to reach Washington D.C. to the east, whereas last week they would have landed in the Pacific.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-safe-is-the-us-from-a-north-korea-nuclear-attack-20171129-gzvjws.html

That previous 10k mark also meant that they now also could hit Tasmania to the south (and LA and Alaska to the east..) --  before this year,  their other missiles would have landed still well north of New Guinea..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/north-korea-missile-range-map/8880894

Without a doubt, North Korea will be wiped out within the first day or two if they did attack anyone --  but they could still do a lot of damage if they launch a few pre-emptive hostile strikes...

http://www.smh.com.au/world/kim-jongun-will-be-utterly-destroyed-in-war-haley-20171130-gzvqaw.html

Anyone?

While the US has agreements to defend other countries, it is not required to use nukes (That's why the UK has their own).

Hopefully we don't find out what Trump decides to do if NK hits SK, Japan or Australia with one.

There is no doubt what he will do if NK hits the US with one.

The US has military based in South Korea, Japan,  the Phillipines and Darwin;  as well as their own bases in Guam, Western Samoa and Hawaii...

The US also has mutual defence arrangements with South Korea, Japan, Oz and NZ;  with Japan and Australia the key cornerstones in the NW and SW Pacific respectively..

The USA nuking North Korea if they attacked any of these would effectively be 'defending their own..', as well as recognising existing defence pacts.

(Also,  while Oz and NZ are technically non-nuclear-armed countries, we do have US-designed weapons that can take nuclear warheads --  and how long would it take the US Navy's South Pacific Fleet to drop off a few warheads onto Aussie vessels --  probably a matter of hours ?).

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The US has military based in South Korea, Japan,  the Phillipines and Darwin;  as well as their own bases in Guam, Western Samoa and Hawaii...

The US also has mutual defence arrangements with South Korea, Japan, Oz and NZ;  with Japan and Australia the key cornerstones in the NW and SW Pacific respectively..

The USA nuking North Korea if they attacked any of these would effectively be 'defending their own..', as well as recognising existing defence pacts.

(Also,  while Oz and NZ are technically non-nuclear countries, we do have US-designed weapons that take nuclear warheads --  and how long would it take the US Navy's South Pacific Fleet to drop off a few warheads onto Aussie vessels --  probably a matter of hours ?).

Maybe. I didn't say that the US wouldn't launch an attack on N. Korea. They would. The question is, does the US launch nukes against a country that hasn't launched nukes against it?


I agree that the US would give the Aussies nukes.

How come Australia and New Zealand are non-nuclear countries? Out of curiosity.

eddie wrote:How come Australia and New Zealand are non-nuclear countries? Out of curiosity.

Believe it or not, the majority of countries don't have nukes. They tend to be the saner ones. I absolutely believe now that Trump is stupid enough to start a nuclear war. Fortunately some of the military have come rich out and said they would stop him doing it.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:How come Australia and New Zealand are non-nuclear countries? Out of curiosity.

Believe it or not, the majority of countries don't have nukes.  They tend to be the saner ones.  I absolutely believe now that Trump is stupid enough to start a nuclear war.  Fortunately some of the military have come rich out and said they would stop him doing it.

I honestly think he's full of hot air and his own self-importance. He knows he'd be (even more) stupid and (even more) extremely unpopular if he ever started a nuclear war.

It ain't gonna happen.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

Believe it or not, the majority of countries don't have nukes.  They tend to be the saner ones.  I absolutely believe now that Trump is stupid enough to start a nuclear war.  Fortunately some of the military have come rich out and said they would stop him doing it.

I honestly think he's full of hot air and his own self-importance. He knows he'd be (even more) stupid and (even more) extremely unpopular if he ever started a nuclear war.

It ain't gonna happen.

Well, let's hope you are right and I am wrong. Because I think he is deranged enough to think he will be popular whatever he does. After all, he's convinced he's popular now, when the evidence shows he is the most unpopular president ever, (which rather shows there are some Americans with brains who can't be fooled).

all down to that pussy obama not sorting it out when he had the chance

now the god emperor trump will have to save mankind

smelly-bandit wrote:all down to that pussy obama not sorting it out when he had the chance

now the god emperor trump will have to save mankind

if you were on twitter you would be classed as a parody account and give people a good laugh.

sassy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:all down to that pussy obama not sorting it out when he had the chance

now the god emperor trump will have to save mankind

if you were on twitter you would be classed as a parody account and give people a good laugh.

twitter

*chortle*

twitter is even more Sieg Heil than this place is sassy, a free thinker such as myself would find himself booted so fast it would make lord foul look like a sloth

Anyone who does not believe that US air, sea and land commanders already have the necessary target coordinates and launch codes is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I'm as concerned now as I was at the time of the Cuban missile crisis; the only difference is that then I was in the RAF reserve and had already received my recall instructions.

smelly-bandit wrote:

sassy wrote:

if you were on twitter you would be classed as a parody account and give people a good laugh.

twitter

*chortle*

twitter is even more Sieg Heil than this place is sassy, a free thinker such as myself would find himself booted so fast it would make lord foul look like a sloth

Thinker? I don't consider thinking can be attributed to anything you do.

Surely if nukes are used there is no winner.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Anyone who does not believe that US air, sea and land commanders already have the necessary target coordinates and launch codes is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I'm as concerned now as I was at the time of the Cuban missile crisis; the only difference is that then I was in the RAF reserve and had already received my recall instructions.

bah!!!

it will be alright, get your shades on, a bit of factor 30 and it will be nice sunny day out, beers and barbies

magica wrote:Surely if nukes are used there is no winner.  

That's why it won't happen.
It's the same old story but different characters imo.

sassy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

twitter

*chortle*

twitter is even more Sieg Heil than this place is sassy, a free thinker such as myself would find himself booted so fast it would make lord foul look like a sloth

Thinker?  I don't consider thinking can be attributed to anything you do.

well i think you're an asshole.

see??? im very thoughtful

magica wrote:Surely if nukes are used there is no winner.  

errrrrr

ever heard of the end of WWII???

ended with a bang, millions of lives saved and all that good stuff

smelly-bandit wrote:

sassy wrote:

Thinker?  I don't consider thinking can be attributed to anything you do.

well i think you're an asshole.

see??? im very thoughtful

See smelly I was right, if you had used thought you would have come up with a much better description. Don't confuse reaction with thought.

smelly-bandit wrote:

magica wrote:Surely if nukes are used there is no winner.  

errrrrr

ever heard of the end of WWII???

ended with a bang, millions of lives saved and all that good stuff

I'm talking of a world war

eddie wrote:

magica wrote:Surely if nukes are used there is no winner.  

That's why it won't happen.
It's the same old story but different characters imo.

You are missing out the most important point. In the case of the Cuba crisis, those on both sides used brinkmanship, but both were people capable of thought and weighing up the consequences. In this case, both leaders are mad as hatters and seemingly.incapable of giving a damn about anything but their egos.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Anyone who does not believe that US air, sea and land commanders already have the necessary target coordinates and launch codes is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I'm as concerned now as I was at the time of the Cuban missile crisis; the only difference is that then I was in the RAF reserve and had already received my recall instructions.

bah!!!

it will be alright, get your shades on, a bit of factor 30 and it will be nice sunny day out, beers and barbies

That's what I used to say to myself throughout the Cold War when my house was one and a half miles as the crow flies from a US base widely suspected of being the old USSR's number three target.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

magica wrote:Surely if nukes are used there is no winner.  

That's why it won't happen.
It's the same old story but different characters imo.

You are missing out the most important point.  In the case of the Cuba crisis, those on both sides used brinkmanship, but both were people capable of thought and weighing up the consequences.  In this case, both leaders are mad as hatters and seemingly.incapable of giving a damn about anything but their egos.

We shall see. I will panic when I know there is something to panic over.

eddie wrote:

magica wrote:Surely if nukes are used there is no winner.  

That's why it won't happen.
It's the same old story but different characters imo.

Agree .

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

You are missing out the most important point.  In the case of the Cuba crisis, those on both sides used brinkmanship, but both were people capable of thought and weighing up the consequences.  In this case, both leaders are mad as hatters and seemingly.incapable of giving a damn about anything but their egos.

We shall see. I will panic when I know there is something to panic over.

As a Brit, you have little to worry about. I doubt a NK nuke would miss by that much.

Now a Canadian on the west coast may need to worry.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

You are missing out the most important point.  In the case of the Cuba crisis, those on both sides used brinkmanship, but both were people capable of thought and weighing up the consequences.  In this case, both leaders are mad as hatters and seemingly.incapable of giving a damn about anything but their egos.

We shall see. I will panic when I know there is something to panic over.

For once I have to agree with Sassy: "...in this case, both leaders are mad as hatters."

Kim, in my humble opinion ("humble" only because I'm not a psychiatrist) is clinically insane and probably hears the voice of his father Kim Jong-il in his head telling him that he is some sort of deity whose destiny is to rule the world. Not entirely dissimilar to Hitler.

That means that he will continue with his nuclear ambitions, no matter what, and his generals and scientists will not dare to question any decision that he makes with regard to North Korea's present programme of inter-continental missile development...and testing.

But one - just one - technical error in loading coordinates into a missile's internal navigation system and there could be an unintended strike against South Korea, Guam, Japan or even Honolulu.

The missile may not be nuclear tipped, but US tracking systems are - so far as I know - incapable of differentiating between an armed nuclear ICBM an one with a dummy warhead. And if the US Defence Department's systems flag up "incoming nuclear strike" , then Trump would have little alternative but to punch in the Presidential code and set in train an irreversible sequence of retaliatory measures.

Anyone remember that 2000 film "Fail-Safe" starring Henry Fonda and Walter Matthau?

Be afraid, folks. Be very afraid. And that advice comes from someone who has been through this once in his lifetime, and would not care to witness it again, even though I have far fewer years left in front of me than most in this forum.

smelly-bandit wrote:all down to that pussy obama not sorting it out when he had the chance

Obama had no choice. Under the US Constitution, it's up to the House of Representatives to initiate war. That's why presidents go to Congress to start one.

Obama had a war bill on the desk of the House of Representatives since 2013. For three years, the do-nothing Republican House refused to call it to the floor.

Republicans own that one.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:all down to that pussy obama not sorting it out when he had the chance

Obama had no choice.  Under the US Constitution, it's up to the House of Representatives to initiate war.  That's why presidents go to Congress to start one.

Obama had a war bill on the desk of the House of Representatives since 2013.  For three years, the do-nothing Republican House refused to call it to the floor.

Republicans own that one.

And presidents of both parties have ignored that.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:all down to that pussy obama not sorting it out when he had the chance

Obama had no choice.  Under the US Constitution, it's up to the House of Representatives to initiate war.  That's why presidents go to Congress to start one.

Obama had a war bill on the desk of the House of Representatives since 2013.  For three years, the do-nothing Republican House refused to call it to the floor.

Republicans own that one.

So Obama was a useless lame duck is what you're saying

Good thing we have the god emperor trump who seems to be kicking ass and taking names

smelly-bandit wrote:
all down to that pussy obama not sorting it out when he had the chance

now the god emperor trump will have to save mankind

More totally ubstantiated bulldust...

From one of the stupidest racist trolls on the internet..

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Obama had no choice.  Under the US Constitution, it's up to the House of Representatives to initiate war.  That's why presidents go to Congress to start one.

Obama had a war bill on the desk of the House of Representatives since 2013.  For three years, the do-nothing Republican House refused to call it to the floor.

Republicans own that one.

So Obama was a useless lame duck is what you're saying

Good thing we have the god emperor trump who seems to be kicking ass and taking names

You are both wrong. It was Clinton that was to Blame. Obama will be to  blame for Iran gaining Nukes.

On October 18, 1994, at 5:09 PM in the White House Briefing Room, President Bill Clinton announced an agreement with North Korea which he said “agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.” He declared the deal would help put “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”

Experts believe North Korea now has at least ten nuclear weapons.

Most of the mainstream media has ignored the striking similarity to the Iran situation or only briefly referenced it.

Below are President Clinton’s remarks at the time. As you read, mentally swap out “North Korea” for “Iran” and “South Korea” for Israel.

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea's nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

I want to begin by thanking Secretary Christopher and our chief negotiator, Ambassador at Large Bob Gallucci, for seeing these negotiations through. I asked Bob if he'd had any sleep, since he's going to answer all your technical questions about this agreement, and he said that he had had some sleep. So be somewhat gentle with him. After meeting with my chief national security advisers, and at their unanimous recommendation, I am instructing Ambassador Gallucci to return to Geneva on Friday for the purpose of signing an agreement.

The United States has been concerned about the possibility that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons since the 1980's. Three administrations have tried to bring this nuclear program under international control. There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And the United States has an unshakeable commitment to protect our ally and our fellow democracy South Korea. Thirty-eight thousand American troops stationed on the Peninsula are the guarantors of that commitment.

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation.

From the start of the negotiations, we have consulted closely with South Korea, with Japan, and with other interested parties. We will continue to work closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with North Korea develops.

Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we've made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure.

The current Iran accord will have permanent repercussions and could end exactly as the North Korean deal did – with an American enemy in possession of the most dangerous weapons on earth. Yet… Where’s the coverage?

eddie wrote:How come Australia and New Zealand are non-nuclear countries? Out of curiosity.

Because of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, under the treaty the US is meant to nuke anyone that nukes Australia.

If the USA didn't fulfill it's side of the treaty there would be serious diplomatic repercussions

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:How come Australia and New Zealand are non-nuclear countries? Out of curiosity.

Because of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, under the treaty the US is meant to nuke anyone that nukes Australia.

If the USA didn't fulfill it's side of the treaty there would be serious diplomatic repercussions

Who is going to waste a nuke on Australia??

magica wrote:Surely if nukes are used there is no winner.  

in this circumstance the USA would win hands down
It would take about 5 on the best Russian nukes just to flatten Greater LA.
NK would not be able to actually destroy a major city
it could still kill millions so it sees them as a deterrent to the USA

at this point no one will defend NK if Pyongyang got nuked China and Russia would not retaliate, so it's not like the cold war where the retaliatory launches ensure mutual destruction.

smelly-bandit wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:How come Australia and New Zealand are non-nuclear countries? Out of curiosity.

Because of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, under the treaty the US is meant to nuke anyone that nukes Australia.

If the USA didn't fulfill it's side of the treaty there would be serious diplomatic repercussions

Who is going to waste a nuke on Australia??

no one, hopefully.

But we are still a possible target to the big players for our natural resources, so China or Russia would have been the potential threat when the deal was made. But We have very little to do with Russia due to geography and we're on Good terms with the Chinese

veya_victaous wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Who is going to waste a nuke on Australia??

no one, hopefully.

But we are still a possible target to the big players for our natural resources, so China or Russia would have been the potential threat when the deal was made. But We have very little to do with Russia due to geography and we're on Good terms with the Chinese

What resources??

Kangaroos??

Or your beloved sheep??

besides fuck tonnes of iron ore, coal, timbre and copper we also have the worlds largest uranium deposits

And the 100's of millions of head cattle and sheep are also significant resources that China might want (it does buy them from us

Australia is the worlds largest exporter of iron ore, coal, uranium, natural gas, wool, opals...

In the top five for beef meat, sheep meat, gold, diamonds, copper, honey, livestock exports (live sheep, cattle, horses, honeybees..), and pharma' grade opium..

We also host American military and intelligence units;  while regularly acting as 'America's deputy' in the South Pacific.

And we have kangaroos, emus and koalas roaming free..

You also have xxxx, lovely

nicko wrote:You also have xxxx,   lovely

Now I know you are a troll Nick!
Gotta be Fursty Ferret or Coors light.

Coors Light Andy? You disappoint me. I used to like M@B's best Bitter, but I can't get it now.

I am a real ale man. But as I rarely visit real ale pubs, and cannot stand bottled real ale, I savour it even more on the rare occasions  I get a session in.
Coors is clean, and crisp . Perfect to wash down dinner.
It behoves me to say it, but Weatherspoons beer is very good. Got a do in London next week.
Had you down as a Mackeson or milk stout guy.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Obama had no choice.  Under the US Constitution, it's up to the House of Representatives to initiate war.  That's why presidents go to Congress to start one.

Obama had a war bill on the desk of the House of Representatives since 2013.  For three years, the do-nothing Republican House refused to call it to the floor.

Republicans own that one.

And presidents of both parties have ignored that.

Not really.  The president only has the power to act immediately, in response to an attack...it's very limited.  And certainly not without a cooperative House of Representatives.

Even FDR went immediately to Congress the next day after Pearl Harbor, with his 'A Date Which Will Live in Infamy' speech.  Recently, some have cheated--like Trump with his Shayrat air base atttack on Syria--but they eventually have no choice but to approach Congress and seek approval, as GWB did with Iraq in 2003, or Johnson did with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.

It's beside the point, really, because the Republican Congress would never have stood for Dr. Obama initiating action on his own.  Remember, this was the roadblock Congress, that would not cooperate with anything the "black" president proposed.  Such cooperation was not available to a president on the other side.

No...this all has to be laid on the doorstep of the Republican Congress.  Obama is blameless.  There's no getting around the facts.

I quite like a pint or two of Theakston's Old Peculier (and that's the correct spelling before anyone thinks they are going to score a point over me).

Not, I hasten to add, before driving...

Traditional Aussie humour :

Q.  Why do Queenslanders call their favourite beer  'XXXX'  ?

A.   Because they can't spell  'piss'..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Traditional Aussie humour :

Q.  Why do Queenslanders call their favourite beer  'XXXX'  ?

A.   Because they can't spell  'piss'..

That's racist

I also like "Stella Artois " with a dash of lime.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


And presidents of both parties have ignored that.

Not really.  The president only has the power to act immediately, in response to an attack...it's very limited.  And certainly not without a cooperative House of Representatives.

Even FDR went immediately to Congress the next day after Pearl Harbor, with his 'A Date Which Will Live in Infamy' speech.  Recently, some have cheated--like Trump with his Shayrat air base atttack on Syria--but they eventually have no choice but to approach Congress and seek approval, as GWB did with Iraq in 2003, or Johnson did with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.

It's beside the point, really, because the Republican Congress would never have stood for Dr. Obama initiating action on his own.  Remember, this was the roadblock Congress, that would not cooperate with anything the "black" president proposed.  Such cooperation was not available to a president on the other side.

No...this all has to be laid on the doorstep of the Republican Congress.  Obama is blameless.  There's no getting around the facts.

Who authorized the bombing of Libya?

What were the congressional vote numbers?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not really.  The president only has the power to act immediately, in response to an attack...it's very limited.  And certainly not without a cooperative House of Representatives.

Even FDR went immediately to Congress the next day after Pearl Harbor, with his 'A Date Which Will Live in Infamy' speech.  Recently, some have cheated--like Trump with his Shayrat air base atttack on Syria--but they eventually have no choice but to approach Congress and seek approval, as GWB did with Iraq in 2003, or Johnson did with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.

It's beside the point, really, because the Republican Congress would never have stood for Dr. Obama initiating action on his own.  Remember, this was the roadblock Congress, that would not cooperate with anything the "black" president proposed.  Such cooperation was not available to a president on the other side.

No...this all has to be laid on the doorstep of the Republican Congress.  Obama is blameless.  There's no getting around the facts.

Who authorized the bombing of Libya?

What were the congressional vote numbers?

The Iraq Resolution, formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 (Public Law No: 107-243), authorizing military action against Iraq.  It passed by a House vote of 296-133, and passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23.

The Iraq war slipped over into Libya as a result of insurgents taking refuge there in the closing months of the Iraq conflict, and therefore the Iraq Resolution covered it. Kadfhi had fled and Libya became another front of the Iraq war.

And look at the reaction from Congress regardless of the Iraq Resolution.  I believe the operative word the Republicans used was "impeachment".