• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Nuclear response from North Korea

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Nuclear response from North Korea

    Linky

    North Korea says it will use its "nuclear deterrent" in response to joint US-South Korean military exercises this weekend.
    The BBC's John Sudworth, in Seoul, says this is not the first time that North Korea has issued such a warning.

    Although it is likely to be dismissed as the usual diplomatic brinkmanship, the rising tension will cause concern among governments in the region, he adds.
    Can't see it myself. Still I might be wrong.
    Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

    #2
    Could be exciting. Might move my dollars to pounds though, I imagine nuking the US will strengthen the pound AND raise house-prices as Americans want to emigrate.
    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Originally posted by vetran
    Urine is quite nourishing

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by d000hg View Post
      Could be exciting. Might move my dollars to pounds though, I imagine nuking the US will strengthen the pound AND raise house-prices as Americans want to emigrate.
      I dunno though. If Pyongyang went anywhere near a launch pad I reckon the US would flatten them. It's the counter responses from China that would be the interesting bit.
      Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by d000hg View Post
        Could be exciting. Might move my dollars to pounds though, I imagine nuking the US will strengthen the pound AND raise house-prices as Americans want to emigrate.
        North Korea nuking the US - yeah, right!

        Nuking South Korea - that is different; they may try that.

        Yup, China won't have any of that nonsense and will put an end to it.

        As for USD - the current 'wisdom' is that at any time of doubt or fear, sell everything, including gold (!), and buy US Govt Bonds i.e. this will strengthen the USD against everything else. Idiotic I know, but that's how things work at the moment.
        How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

        Follow me on Twitter - LinkedIn Profile - The HAB blog - New Blog: Mad Cameron
        Xeno points: +5 - Asperger rating: 36 - Paranoid Schizophrenic rating: 44%

        "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office" - Aesop

        Comment


          #5
          If they're crazy enough to nuke anyone, they might be crazy enough to attack the USA... and I think the USA would attack anyone (other than China) who launches a nuke, regardless of the target. NK might as well go for broke.
          Originally posted by MaryPoppins
          I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
          Originally posted by vetran
          Urine is quite nourishing

          Comment


            #6
            Their leaders love luxury lifestyle too much, so they won't do it.

            Iran on the other hand has got enough fanaticism to do it.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AtW View Post
              Their leaders love luxury lifestyle too much, so they won't do it.
              Extreme communism - where everyone is equal - except that some are more equal than others...

              Originally posted by AtW View Post
              Iran on the other hand has got enough fanaticism to do it.
              Actually I think that leaders the world over are pretty much the same - they want to hold onto the power they have - and in Iran, this involves playing up to fanaticism.

              Whether they actually buy into this fanaticism is another matter.

              Just like how the hierarchy of New Labour have spouted socialist principles over the past decade - while behind your backs doing the exact opposite (expenses, outside consultancies, lordships, private healthcare, sending children to private school - the list goes on).

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by centurian View Post
                Actually I think that leaders the world over are pretty much the same
                They are not the same - unlike North Korea they are actually a very active player, ie: supplying arms to Hezbollah, involvement in Iraq/Afganistan.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by AtW View Post
                  They are not the same - unlike North Korea they are actually a very active player, ie: supplying arms to Hezbollah, involvement in Iraq/Afganistan.
                  No, but when push comes to shove, they will choose their own personal survival and power over their stated ideals.

                  That's why these mullahs get other people to be suicide bombers, rather than doing it themselves.

                  Saddam never believed in any of it - he just used it as a means to get (and keep) power. In the end, he was stuck in the middle and miscalculated where the 'optimum position' lie.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by centurian View Post
                    That's why these mullahs get other people to be suicide bombers, rather than doing it themselves.
                    It's common practice for leaders to send others to die - I did not see GW Bush Jnr disaming EFPs in Iraq.

                    Saddam wasn't into religion that much - he was far more secular because it would have eroded his personal power.

                    It was Iran that should have been dealt with in 2003, not Iraq.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X