ForumGarden

The French deploy more nuclear missiles than the Chinese, the British, the Israelis or the Indian Subcontinent.

Some of the French nuclear missiles are carried on strategic submarines.

Perhaps I could ask a what-if question.

What if the French decide it is in their own strategic interest, given that North Korea now has a presumed ability to detonate a nuclear warhead in French Polynesia, to destroy the North Korean leadership and its associated nuclear construction and launch sites. What if they unilaterally fire their multiple warheads against North Korea with that objective, with no prior consultation with any other country?

Is the world at large going to applaud, or will the headlines express disapproval.

Always provided that the whole world survives in order to express an opinion. These are extremely touchy times.

As soon as the missiles were launched, automatic alarms would be going off in many countries. The French missiles would, depending on where they were launched, probably cross the air space over the US, China, or Russia. Without prior warning, how would those countries know that they are not the intended target? Would semi-automatic retaliation begin at the same time the country(ies) were trying to shoot down the missiles?

Even if the above scenario was avoided, I would predict that the response from the rest of the world would be anger followed by some form of non-military retaliation. "How dare they!"

It would be a very dangerous thing to do.

I'm quite sure Le Terrible could manoeuvre itself to 300 miles off the North Korean coast without anyone detecting it, they'd get a clear shot from there without anyone's airspace being compromised. It's what they're for, these strategic nuclear-armed submarines.

Would it be more dangerous for the French to do than for, say, the British?

Even from 300 miles, the alarms would go off in S.Korea and China, until the flight path made clear what the target was.

I think it would be equally dangerous for the French or British to do a unilateral strike. Can you imagine the huge egos of Trump and the US politicians being bruised and upstaged? I think there would be UN sanctions as well as economic and other blowback from such an action.

How do you think the French and British citizens would feel/react if their country was to suddenly and unilaterally use nuclear weapons?

That leaves me wondering why the current White House thinks is can do it and be popular in the aftermath. I quite agree with you the White House would play merry hell with the French or Brits is we upped and went and did it ourselves without their Presidential say-so.

The north korean missile debarcle over japan...imho, was a bullying tactic ,putting a toe over the drawn line so to speak. Japan has a history of disquiet with china..... im sure the world just thinks its another spit from north korea which leaves it squarely on the shoulders of china. ( because lets face it, china is the parent of a very spoilt and naughty boy.

I believe though, if that missle had of gone over a very western white country it would be a very different crisis.

Say if theyd done it over Australia? Immediate condemnation, trade crisis, absolute sanctions and more of our ships in their waters. (Which we are diing at the moment but the anti would sky rocket

You just used "current White House" and "thinks" in the same sentence. That's pretty funny!

I don't think that the rest of the world would react well to any country using nuclear weapons in a first strike. Doing so would present dangers for everyone. Some of the US missile silos are so far out of date that they boot with 7" floppies. That is downright scary. Since the defense systems have never had a real world test, I am not confident that semi-automatic overreaction wouldn't occur.

magentaflame;1512114 wrote: Japan has a history of disquiet with china.....My word, you can be very euphemistic when you feel the need.

You mean the Japanese armed forces spent fifteen years or so on Chinese soil killing millions of unarmed Chinese civilians within living memory. I don't recall that there has ever been a single Japanese citizen, either civilian or military, killed in Japan by a Chinese soldier.

If anyone ever needs to apologize, it's not those on the mainland.

Hmmmm. See? ****ting down my leg and telling me its a purring kitten.

So far the world has seen this incident as a regional situatiin. And yes the japs have a hard time aquiring sympathies because of the "living memory atrocities....remember my grandfather was a pow in changi for three years after churchills giving up on singapore! So back off mr. Brit.)

Annnnd...hence me mentioning if it had of been a white western country who has a history of war in korea (in living memory) it would be a totally different situation.

magentaflame;1512114 wrote: I believe though, if that missle had of gone over a very western white country it would be a very different crisis.


I had thought the rule is that Japan's under US protection, and that the US would bring down any missile over Japan before the missile could detonate. I may be wrong. Is that not the agreement? That the US provides a defensive shield for Japan and South Korea?

Has America tried continually for the last sixty years to bring an end to North Korea's political and military capability?

I see nothing objectionable about North Korea's political leadership securing its future in the face of that unending external aggression. A deliverable nuclear capability would provide that long-term security while Korea works toward reunification.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -peninsula is relevant, I think.

I'll go further, I'll propose a possible solution.

Reunification of the single nation, Korea, which was torn in two by the proxy war of the early 50s fought across the Korean peninsula, would bring an end to this international crisis.

Firstly I suggest it is entirely an internal Korean matter and needs no other participants than North and South Koreans. It needs no advisers, no guarantors, just the political leadership of the two halves of Korea.

Secondly, Korea before the 50s had a capital, Seoul. I don't see why the reunified country needs to change that, it's been the capital since 1392. On the other hand Pyongyang would be a lot more practical and has far more elegant government buildings.

Thirdly, reunification cannot possibly be accomplished without removing all occupying forces from Korea. America cannot stand in the way by refusing to leave.

Fourthly, the Truth and Reconciliation system which was prematurely closed down for political reasons needs to be reconvened with guarantees that it can complete its work.

Fifthly, I suggest a general unqualified amnesty covering all political actors but excluding corrupt profiteering.

I suggest the constitutional basis of the reunited Korea will need to reflect only the aspirations of the country. It cannot rely on the pre-war state which was under Japanese rule, it cannot look back to the 19th century and it cannot merely copy the constitution of either the North or the South.

Nobody would want the social system of either the North or the South to be the model for the new country. The opportunity to design a new social compact should be an incentive for both parties.

Finally, I see no reason why a reunified Korea should not be nuclear-armed to guarantee its unaligned independence if it chooses.

I suppose if south korea wants to be annexed by china. Have you noticed that America is there purely as a barrier between China and the south pacific? What is happening in the China sea at the moment has a lot to do with nth korea's behaviour. They want a piece of the action.

spot;1512226 wrote: I'll go further, I'll propose a possible solution.

Reunification of the single nation, Korea, which was torn in two by the proxy war of the early 50s fought across the Korean peninsula, would bring an end to this international crisis.

Firstly I suggest it is entirely an internal Korean matter and needs no other participants than North and South Koreans. It needs no advisers, no guarantors, just the political leadership of the two halves of Korea.

Secondly, Korea before the 50s had a capital, Seoul. I don't see why the reunified country needs to change that, it's been the capital since 1392. On the other hand Pyongyang would be a lot more practical and has far more elegant government buildings.

Thirdly, reunification cannot possibly be accomplished without removing all occupying forces from Korea. America cannot stand in the way by refusing to leave.

Fourthly, the Truth and Reconciliation system which was prematurely closed down for political reasons needs to be reconvened with guarantees that it can complete its work.

Fifthly, I suggest a general unqualified amnesty covering all political actors but excluding corrupt profiteering.

I suggest the constitutional basis of the reunited Korea will need to reflect only the aspirations of the country. It cannot rely on the pre-war state which was under Japanese rule, it cannot look back to the 19th century and it cannot merely copy the constitution of either the North or the South.

Nobody would want the social system of either the North or the South to be the model for the new country. The opportunity to design a new social compact should be an incentive for both parties.

Finally, I see no reason why a reunified Korea should not be nuclear-armed to guarantee its unaligned independence if it chooses.


Well, I can't really argue with any of that.

Though the idea of Kim Jong Un in charge of Samsung, AND nukes would scare me a bit

The Korean people voiced a strong opinion that Korea should be one country when the US unilaterally decided to split it in 1945. The UN wanted to re-unite the country in 1948 but the US had veto power. The problem now is that N.Korea has been under a dictatorship since 1948. The current dictator is 3rd generation - his grandfather was the first. How many times in recent history has a dictator voluntarily relinquished power to let a country govern itself?

South Koreans would not want to be governed by Kim Jong Un and adopt that way of life. Thus, the reunification of Korea would not happen by a peaceful process.

But I fully agree, in principle, with everything you said. The US should remove its occupation troops and weaponry. Even though the problem of the division of Korea was caused by external parties, it is a matter to be settled internally.

I think you'll find the South Koreans have been attempting reunification talks for several years, quite earnestly.

spot;1512240 wrote: I think you'll find the South Koreans have been attempting reunification talks for several years, quite earnestly.


Then I fully agree with you. Let them work it out without outside military presence.

I'll make two other observations while I'm at it.

Guam is situated among the Marshall Islands, an independent nation-state in the Pacific. Guam itself is a US colony with no form of self-government and no vote in either House and no vote for the Presidency. It also has an indigenous movement pressing for Guam to be given its rightful independent place among the Marshall Islands. If Guam were handed to the Marshall Islands where it belongs, no US territory would be within range of North Korea's weapons. The US has no justifiable claim to retain sovereignty over Guam.

My other observation is that before North Korea's enhanced missile could incrementally improve and target for example Los Angeles or San Francisco, London would already have come into range. The whole of Europe is closer to North Korea than the US West Coast is. So is Australia.

A Dictatorship is unlikely to yield to a Democratic form of Government. I imagine the preferred method of attack would be a single sniper. I don't think anyone really disagrees that the main threat to World Peace at the moment is the madness of Kim Jong Un. The obvious solution would seem to be to eliminate the problem.

At the moment I don't think China are feeling too comfortable with his actions either. Much of their economy now relies on trade with the West. Apple, for instance, rely on their products being built by China's Child Labour Sweat Shops, as well as having them work in the open cast mines. Being drawn into a war would seriously affect their ability to continue with this.

FourPart;1512313 wrote: A Dictatorship is unlikely to yield to a Democratic form of Government.I refer the honorable gentleman to the former German Democratic Republic.

I imagine the preferred method of attack would be a single sniper. I don't think anyone really disagrees that the main threat to World Peace at the moment is the madness of Kim Jong Un.A sniper would be illegal. The main threat to world peace for the last sixty years has been the USA and still is, especially in the context of Korea.

You do know that if you were recommending a sniper as a solution to President Trump you'd become a documented threat as far as US agencies are concerned? In my opinion recommending it as a solution for any head of state you happen to dislike is equally unethical.

Destroying the governments of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have all proved disastrous moves for the world at large as well as the citizens of the countries concerned. Doing the same to North Korea would be just as counter-productive.

'A' sniper & a single target is illegal, but illegal invasions of other countries, despite being condemned by the UN is ok?

Perhaps it would be better to have 2 snipers & 2 targets.

FourPart;1512336 wrote: 'A' sniper & a single target is illegal, but illegal invasions of other countries, despite being condemned by the UN is ok?


Are you trying to suggest Korea, or either part of Korea, has invaded other countries?

Its not too bad if a member of his own countrymen did it. Remember the two women who assasinated a man at an airport that the nth wanted knocked off.

But my thinking is.... if china hasnt already thought of it or carried it out yet then its obviously a better thing to leave assasination alone for the time being

spot;1512340 wrote: Are you trying to suggest Korea, or either part of Korea, has invaded other countries?
No - I'm saying America has.

FourPart;1512343 wrote: No - I'm saying America has.


Then I don't know what you mean by "despite being condemned by the UN". When did that happen? I only ask because I can recall no instance.

The security council is part of the UN isnt it?

magentaflame;1512352 wrote: The security council is part of the UN isnt it?


Yes, and America has a permanent seat on it. You can't think there's been a security council resolution condemning America given that America has a veto over all UN security council resolutions. I think you've failed to correctly interpret the last seven posts.

America went into Iraq in the face of the UN voting against it.

FourPart;1512388 wrote: America went into Iraq in the face of the UN voting against it.


That cannot possibly be true! Can you find any news account which describes this?

FourPart;1512388 wrote: America went into Iraq in the face of the UN voting against it.If memory serves I recall the now infamous Powel UN speech, which was mostly a pack of lies from the US intelligence community and Bush administration. The question has been whether or not Powel was aware he was lying. But The UN did, in fact, sanction the invasion.

spot;1512390 wrote: That cannot possibly be true! Can you find any news account which describes this?


Ok - I'll rephrase - Intention of voting. Knowing that the vote on the resolution would go against him, Bush ordered the invasion regardless.

In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast 'no' votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.[1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... e_Iraq_War

Koffi Annan, as UN Secretary General, went on to say that the war was not in conformity with the UN Charter & was, therefore, illegal.

FourPart;1512393 wrote: Ok - I'll rephrase - Intention of voting. Knowing that the vote on the resolution would go against him, Bush ordered the invasion regardless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... e_Iraq_War

Koffi Annan, as UN Secretary General, went on to say that the war was not in conformity with the UN Charter & was, therefore, illegal.


What you asked was whether "being condemned by the UN is ok?". Instead, you're now offering speculation on what might have happened had a resolution been considered by the Security Council, except it wasn't ever considered by the Security Council, it was never discussed by the Security Council because it was never put to the Security Council.

What you wrote was "illegal invasions of other countries, despite being condemned by the UN is ok?". The UN Secretary General saying "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal" is a long way short of the UN condemning the invasion of Iraq, it's the personal opinion of one man as opposed to a formal resolution by a majority of the nations of the world, or even of the Security Council.

If a Government were to call a General Election, then during the campaign see how the polls were going so desperately against them that they decide to call off the Election, wouldn't you consider that to be as good as a vote against the current regime, even though the election never actually got to go ahead? Well, the resolution put forward to the UN was no different. They put it forward, saw how the others were going to vote against it after having expressed strong misgivings about it, thus resulting in a veto, so withdrew the resolution & carried on anyway, albeit still being illegally.

The point is, that they have done it before. There is no reason to believe they would not do it again.

You do presumably know an election can't actually be called off. It can't be done.

What we have here is a disagreement on what words mean. Making a statement that is factually inaccurate can't be helpful. By all means speculate, but phrasing your speculation as a statement of what actually happened at the time is just going to derail any attempt at discussion and misinform anyone who hasn't the advantage of knowing the history. The truth is that America did not go into Iraq in the face of the UN voting against it and you're fiction-writing when you say it did.

Another missile over Japanese territory, and still nobody has deployed any anti-missile defense and brought one down. How much has the US spent so far on anti-missile defense? And they're refusing to deploy it over Japan on missiles which might any of them be nuclear-tipped?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41275614

Theyre waiting.

What i find interesting is the live, right now! "You have 2mins to live" coverage".

Well at least they are informing us to get our papers in order.

He's (kim) will do it.....he will send a live one or make a mistake. Theyre just waiting.

magentaflame;1512464 wrote: Theyre waiting.

What i find interesting is the live, right now! "You have 2mins to live" coverage".

Well at least they are informing us to get our papers in order.

He's (kim) will do it.....he will send a live one or make a mistake. Theyre just waiting.


I honestly do not believe that NK has the ability to place a nuclear warhead of one of its ICBMs.

They can build an ICBM, they can build a nuclear device but the one won't carry the other - that photo' was a fake device, wishful thinking.

Why doesn't the U.S. just shoot down his missiles. That a way to be up in his grill but not actually start a war. We could just say, 'Oh you were testing your missile? So were we! We were testing our missile interceptor!"

Saint_;1512608 wrote: Why doesn't the U.S. just shoot down his missiles. That a way to be up in his grill but not actually start a war. We could just say, 'Oh you were testing your missile? So were we! We were testing our missile interceptor!"
Perhaps because their missile interceptors are not as up to speed as they make out they are. How long is the missile in flight? How long does it take to give the interceptors the order to scramble? How long does it take for the interceptors to reach the missile's location? By this time the missile may well have already reached its target & detonated.

I thought the US military had been bragging for years that they possessed line-of-sight kapow lasers they could explode anything with, regardless of distance, and that they had a secret military micro-shuttle they could mount it in or it could go on a massive Boeing with enough refueling capacity and spare crew to stay in the air for months at a time. Or on a ship to block whatever didn't have a cloud in the way when they needed to fire. Or maybe they could laze through clouds too. The Pentagon fantasists certainly spent billions of tax dollars pretending to make them, anyway. In military circles it's probably a substitute for pussy-grab brags, it's military dirty-talk to excite the fraternity. I expect military lasers don't just fire, they spasm.

I'll never look at shooting stars the same way again...