Dr D Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35515207 One step closer. The North Koreans launch a long range rocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35515207 One step closer. The North Koreans launch a long range rocket. They'd need a far bigger missile than that to fit their primitive warheads on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Ah well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Were they ever to launch in anger, history will say of their country, “And this is where the greasy spot used to be”! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 God help our soldiers if there is a ground war! the taliban and daish abide by no rules and conventions, nor I suspect would Russia, China or North Korea, our troops end up in court and/or prison for engaging/killing the enemy.........someone should tell the politicians when we are forced to go to war the object is to win by all means......not be tied by rules and conventions that our adversaries do not recognise, let alone abide by! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 In war a soldier’s most pressing imperative is the lethality of the situation, involving neutralisation of the immediate threat. Any subsequent issues arising in dispute as to the legality of actions taken during an engagement should be assessed under battlefield conditions with the court exposed to the same life threatening conditions under which the accused found themselves, performing their duty in defence of the realm! “Another trouser change M’lud”? “Er, in the interests of justice case dismissed”! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear-uk Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 I don't think China were to impressed with the little cockwombles actions. Hopefully they will reign the little twonk in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 I feel sorry for South Korea to be joined to the skid mark that is North Korea. If it did kick off I think the whole of Korea would disappear beneath the sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunza Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 its the re entry of a icbm thats the problem and they or not even close Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 its the re entry of a icbm thats the problem and they or not even close Re-entry isnt particularly complicated, some variants of the SCUD fly exo-atmospherically for part of their flight and so have to re-enter, and they arent exactly high tech. Plus North Korea already has indigenously designed missile systems, Hwasong 13 and Musudan, which have viable re-entry vehicles. They've done the difficult bit in getting the payload into orbit on a system capable of intercontinental range. Whilst North Korea havent got a great track record where the reliability of its technology is concerned, that they have done this is a big deal, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 its the re entry of a icbm thats the problem and they or not even close That's funny my wife said something very similar to that the other night!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) God help our soldiers if there is a ground war! the taliban and daish abide by no rules and conventions, nor I suspect would Russia, China or North Korea, our troops end up in court and/or prison for engaging/killing the enemy.........someone should tell the politicians when we are forced to go to war the object is to win by all means......not be tied by rules and conventions that our adversaries do not recognise, let alone abide by! You know, I find these sorts of views disturbing. They come up every time there is a debate around subjects like this on PW. The corrolary is Thrumpism, US style. The rules of war are important. They are there to protect civilians and combatants. The fact others don't abide by them doesn't mean we shouldn't. The Geneva conventions are important because in the end those who don't abide can be held to account. From Nuremberg to Cambodia to the horn of Africa to Bosnia. Time again, those who don't abide by the rules have been brought to book. Just not often in enough. I am proud to live in country that respects international humanitarian law and expects our troops to behave according to the highest standards! Edited February 7, 2016 by Dr D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 You know, I find these sorts of views disturbing. They come up every time there is a debate around subjects like this on PW. The corrolary is Thrumpism, US style. The rules of war are important. They are there to protect civilians and combatants. The fact others don't abide by them doesn't mean we shouldn't. The Geneva conventions are important because in the end those who don't abide can be held to account. From Nuremberg to Cambodia to the horn of Africa to Bosnia. Time again, those who don't abide by the rules have been brought to book. Just not often in enough. I am proud to live in country that respects international humanitarian law and expects our troops to behave according to the highest standards! That's all well and good, and I admire your principals. However, just how many of the troops lying in cemeteries due to having their hands tied by red tape and moral obligations would agree with you ? I never served in any of the armed forces, and I don't know if you have, I do know though that principles and morals would be the first thing I would dump if some Arab was shooting at me on a battlefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Re-entry isnt particularly complicated, some variants of the SCUD fly exo-atmospherically for part of their flight and so have to re-enter, and they arent exactly high tech. Plus North Korea already has indigenously designed missile systems, Hwasong 13 and Musudan, which have viable re-entry vehicles. They've done the difficult bit in getting the payload into orbit on a system capable of intercontinental range. Whilst North Korea havent got a great track record where the reliability of its technology is concerned, that they have done this is a big deal, Or miniaturised nuclear warheads, that's the difficult bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 That's all well and good, and I admire your principals. However, just how many of the troops lying in cemeteries due to having their hands tied by red tape and moral obligations would agree with you ? I never served in any of the armed forces, and I don't know if you have, I do know though that principles and morals would be the first thing I would dump if some Arab was shooting at me on a battlefield. Living by the principles is why those buried in the ground are hero's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Living by the principles is why those buried in the ground are hero's. And not alive to be with their loved ones ! Very good choice I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Maybe, but thats we should remember them. We are better than those who carry out war crimes. And those who were willing to pay the ultimate price to prove that and keep us safe are probably better than most of us. Edited February 7, 2016 by Dr D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 You know, I find these sorts of views disturbing. They come up every time there is a debate around subjects like this on PW. The corrolary is Thrumpism, US style. The rules of war are important. They are there to protect civilians and combatants. The fact others don't abide by them doesn't mean we shouldn't. The Geneva conventions are important because in the end those who don't abide can be held to account. From Nuremberg to Cambodia to the horn of Africa to Bosnia. Time again, those who don't abide by the rules have been brought to book. Just not often in enough. I am proud to live in country that respects international humanitarian law and expects our troops to behave according to the highest standards! This is the sort of limp opinion that costs soldiers their lives! If you are going to go to war you have to be more determined and ruthless than your adversaries, it's not a game....its war and war is a life or death struggle.....this idea of the gallant loser is only for those who sit back and watch others die! Ask anyone who has lost a loved one in war and most would rather have a live victorious soldier.......than a dead hero! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Living by the principles is why those buried in the ground are hero's. Fighting for a principle allows one to be buried with them, fighting without principles lessens the opportunity to be buried by them! The soldier tasked to kill the enemy and survive/perish, he alone decides if victory in upholding a principle is a valid excuse for death/defeat in battle! The conclusion of his peers regarding justification usually occurs in the ‘cold light’ of success/failure after an action. “War is Hell” William Tecumseh Sherman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningB525 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Or miniaturised nuclear warheads, that's the difficult bit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) Kyska is referring to the miniaturization of full scale powerful warheads, not just making small ones. You're not going to bother triggering a nuclear war to deliver something with such a small yield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) This is the sort of limp opinion that costs soldiers their lives! If you are going to go to war you have to be more determined and ruthless than your adversaries, it's not a game....its war and war is a life or death struggle.....this idea of the gallant loser is only for those who sit back and watch others die! Ask anyone who has lost a loved one in war and most would rather have a live victorious soldier.......than a dead hero! First, it is a principle not an opinion. And because you happen to not agree with it does not make it limp other than in your opinion! Particularly since it was those who witnessed, led and fought in wars made the laws that underpin them. Second, I don't think anyone is so stupid as to think that the objective is to gallantly lose. Third, I am also sure we all know that it is preferable to keep people alive. But thanks for the relevation. Edited February 7, 2016 by Dr D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 If nukes are a deterrent then why shouldn't North Korea have them ? Surely the same rationale that entitles America and its allies to own thousands of warheads can be applied to them, maybe they fear us attacking them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 This is the sort of limp opinion that costs soldiers their lives! If you are going to go to war you have to be more determined and ruthless than your adversaries, it's not a game....its war and war is a life or death struggle.....this idea of the gallant loser is only for those who sit back and watch others die! Ask anyone who has lost a loved one in war and most would rather have a live victorious soldier.......than a dead hero! Rather than being a "limp opinion", it's a reasoned and intelligent view. To scrap the "rule book" is to give carte blanche to those who would perpetrate the sorts of atrocities that occured during the Holocaust; on WW2's Eastern Front; at My Lai; in the Balkans; and in innumerable other places at innumerable other times down mankind's long and bloody history. How are war criminals to be held to account if their actions are no longer regarded as crimes under the international law that you would, presumably, delete? It's all very well to advocate all-out total war in far-away places whoses names you can hardly spell, and which you'd be hard-put to identify on a world map. It's fine for the fantasy world of computer games. It's an entirely different matter when war comes to your doorstep and suddenly you and yours stand a very good chance of becoming those casualties that you would previously have simply dismissed as "collateral damage". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sle Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Why shouldn't North Korea have a nuclear capabilitie or Iran for another matter. Nutters like the Americans and Isrealis have them and they are the only idiots on the planet stupid and self absorbed enough to use them. Nuclear war will only ever be started by USA or Israel they are by far the most dangerous terrorists on the planet . FACT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.