Cameron: UK at Korea risk

[Lee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9972193/Cameron-fact-that-North-Korea-has-technology-for-nuclear-strike-against-the-UK.html

The Prime Minister said he was “very concerned” about the threat from North Korea and warned that Pyongyang now has capabilities to strike the United States and Britain.

I thought they couldn't reach the UK with their missiles @-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233);


Speaking to workers in Scotland, the Prime Minister said the threat from North Korea showed that Britain needs to keep the Trident nuclear deterrent.

Another thing, why would the UK be at risk surely we can stay calm until atleast the USA gets struck then they turn to us :P

Asked if he was concerned about North Korea the Prime Minister said: “How concerned am I about North Korea? Very concerned, it has extremely dangerous technologies in terms of nuclear and its weapons.”

Not added the full story, click the link for an interesting read on cameron scaring the nation.

Thoughts?

[dbgtz]

I think he's trying to justify his support for the trident programme. North Korea's military is barely better than Ethiopia's.

[Kardan]

For Korea to strike the UK, wouldn't they need the best missiles in the world to do that? Very unlikely that that would happen, sounds like he's just using the situation to try and convince people to support Trident.

[xxMATTGxx]

The UK gov would be concerned of course - Why wouldn't they be? Even if the missiles can't hit at us. They can hit at other targets which if they do then would cause some sort of "war". Although the country isn't at risk of being hit from North Korea but is wanting to get the support to keep the Trident programme going in case anything does happen with Korea and Iran in the future.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As far as i'm aware, North Korea don't have the capability to reach the British Isles, no - and even if it did, its nuclear arsenal is so small that anything fired at us would be shot down. For a country to have a capable nuclear strike capability, it needs better tracking/stealth capabilities than the target country (NK doesn't have) and it requires hundreds if not thousands of 'dud' missiles which would be fired at the same time otherwise that one single missile would simply be shot down and taken out. I would ask Mr. Cameron to name the rocket that NK has that can reach us.

I say this as a staunch supporter of our nuclear weapons too. Under no circumstances would I ever have them scrapped.

[GommeInc]

There's no evidence that North Korean missiles would reach the British Isles. As far as I remember reading, they can get as far as the east coast of the United States and that's about it. The actual concerns is that the missiles could hit and reach targets which are of some importance to the UK, such as overseas military personnel.

Also, why has Trident been dragged up again? What good would it do to scrap it?

[xxMATTGxx]

There's no evidence that North Korean missiles would reach the British Isles. As far as I remember reading, they can get as far as the east coast of the United States and that's about it. The actual concerns is that the missiles could hit and reach targets which are of some importance to the UK, such as overseas military personnel.

Also, why has Trident been dragged up again? What good would it do to scrap it?

I think it's due to the tories supporting the replacement for Trident while Lib Dems and I think some other party disagree with it? Not 100%

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think it's due to the tories supporting the replacement for Trident while Lib Dems and I think some other party disagree with it? Not 100%

It's been an issue for Liberal Democrats ever since Nick Clegg brought it up at the leaders debates, claiming the sum of £18bn to £30bn for a sysem that provides national security and lasts decades was dragging us to bankruptcy - the people who make such a big deal of Trident aren't fiscal conservatives as once you get to know them you'll usually find they support more EU (and more costs), love splashing out £11bn a year in foreign aid, wouldn't cut back the welfare state and are usually the spendthrift types anyway.

In other words, its a left-wing political campaign thats been warmed up from the Cold War and redressed as an economic argument.

Conservatives want to re-commission Trident.
Labour want to re-commission Trident, although i'd say most of their supporters don't.
UKIP want to re-commission the system but make it independent of the US.
Liberal Democrats want it scrapped altogether.
Green Party want it scrapped altogether.

[Sarah]

There's no evidence that North Korean missiles would reach the British Isles. As far as I remember reading, they can get as far as the east coast of the United States and that's about it. The actual concerns is that the missiles could hit and reach targets which are of some importance to the UK, such as overseas military personnel.

Also, why has Trident been dragged up again? What good would it do to scrap it?

Not even sure if they can reach the east coast of the US anymore - they've moved some missiles to N.Korea's East coast which can reach 4,000km (affecting Japan, S. Korea & the US Base on Guam).

Is this just a way of justifying trident?

[GommeInc]

Not even sure if they can reach the east coast of the US anymore - they've moved some missiles to N.Korea's East coast which can reach 4,000km (affecting Japan, S. Korea & the US Base on Guam).

Is this just a way of justifying trident?
Hmm, perhaps I read it as the East Coast of the US when it is somewhere in the mid-Pacific. Not very impressive but potentially damaging non-the-less. I think the US are distracting the world from the real problems by making themselves out to be the victims when other countries who are less prepared and much closer with a denser population should be the real concern :P

As our discussions hints - definitely not a reason to justify Trident with this particular circumstance. I'm on the fence with Trident purely as I do not know much about it other than it being a nuclear deterrent. I'd need details on how it works as a deterrent and what countries hate us which have potential to cause problems if we were to remove it. That said, if a country were to attack us, Europe would retaliate and have our backs, as would the US and a handful of other countries. It would cause global shame to whoever attempts it, which seems to be what's happening with North Korea at the moment :P

[Sarah]

Is there not an effective way of stopping missles before they hit us rather than having our own? As GommeInc mentioned if someone was to attack us other countries would probably take up arms on our behalf...

[-:Undertaker:-]

That said, if a country were to attack us, Europe would retaliate and have our backs, as would the US and a handful of other countries.

Would they? do we really want to outsource our national defence to France (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9767736/Thatchers-blistering-attack-on-French-over-Exocets-during-Falklands.html), the European Union (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274640/Gibraltar-Tensions-grow-Royal-Navy-confronts-Spanish-warship.html) or the United States (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html)?

Part of being an independent nation is that you are independent in defending your national sovereignty from outside powers in a military manner, otherwise you're no more than a overseas protectorate or large military base of a foreign power.

[GommeInc]

Is there not an effective way of stopping missles before they hit us rather than having our own? As GommeInc mentioned if someone was to attack us other countries would probably take up arms on our behalf...
The problem is though, we could use Trident to protect other countries, commonwealth states and overseas territories. Without it, we'd lose the responsibility to protect and deter.

[Sarah]

The problem is though, we could use Trident to protect other countries, commonwealth states and overseas territories. Without it, we'd lose the responsibility to protect and deter.

oh right, so its about us protecting other countries too... hm.

[GommeInc]

oh right, so its about us protecting other countries too... hm.
Potentially. Not sure about officially, though.

[xxMATTGxx]

Potentially. Not sure about officially, though.

I think it would depend on the situation at the time. But yeah potentially like you've said.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Potentially. Not sure about officially, though.

It is with our membership of NATO - if another NATO country is attacked, we're required to respond. With Trident as well, i'm sure it's part of the American integrated system (meaning its not really independent) although i'm unsure as to whether the Americans can actually fire them - but I certainly think the US has the power to disable British missiles as it operates under their network, being an American weapons system.

[Sarah]

It is with our membership of NATO - if another NATO country is attacked, we're required to respond. With Trident as well, i'm sure it's part of the American integrated system (meaning its not really independent) although i'm unsure as to whether the Americans can actually fire them - but I certainly think the US has the power to disable British missiles as it operates under their network, being an American weapons system.

surely its not doing what you said then?


Part of being an independent nation is that you are independent in defending your national sovereignty from outside powers in a military manner, otherwise you're no more than a overseas protectorate or large military base of a foreign power.

If america can disable them? And that our defense is already outsourced practically...

[GommeInc]

It is with our membership of NATO - if another NATO country is attacked, we're required to respond.
I'd imagine there would be a lot of debate before that were to happen :P It may be a requirement, but an immediate response would be foolish.

Anyone interested in the capabilities of their missiles may find this Washington Post article interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/04/map-this-is-how-far-those-north-korean-missiles-can-actually-reach/

[Sarah]

I'd imagine there would be a lot of debate before that were to happen :P It may be a requirement, but an immediate response would be foolish.

Anyone interested in the capabilities of their missiles may find this Washington Post article interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/04/map-this-is-how-far-those-north-korean-missiles-can-actually-reach/

Interesting read, it's weird how long they have been building* missiles for and and still are very inaccurate..

*and failed?

[-:Undertaker:-]

surely its not doing what you said then?

[/COLOR]
If america can disable them? And that our defense is already outsourced practically...

I agree, hence why i'd have Trident taken off US operating systems when its renewed.

But having a nuclear defence with some degree of control is better than having none.

[Demi]

North Korea need to calm the hell down!

[Chippiewill]

Even DPRK's longest range missiles BARELY scratch Alaska, and certainly not with any precision or even a payload which could do any kind of damage. (All signs point to DPRK having no missiles capable of even carrying a nuclear warhead, let alone one which could be configured to go off in a sensible place).

I imagine even if DPRK had concealed a missile which could reach the UK it'd be more likely to hit France anyway. And why in the hell would DPRK waste a missile on the UK?! I know they're hardly rationally thinking but any missile they could send our way is better pointed at the US. I really think Mr Cameron has lost it, we have more chance of being invaded by the french.

[Adam]

I think he's trying to justify his support for the trident programme. North Korea's military is barely better than Ethiopia's.

They have a standing army of around 16m.

[AgnesIO]

Would they? do we really want to outsource our national defence to France (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9767736/Thatchers-blistering-attack-on-French-over-Exocets-during-Falklands.html), the European Union (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274640/Gibraltar-Tensions-grow-Royal-Navy-confronts-Spanish-warship.html) or the United States (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html)?

Part of being an independent nation is that you are independent in defending your national sovereignty from outside powers in a military manner, otherwise you're no more than a overseas protectorate or large military base of a foreign power.

I agree with you here. You don't want to rely on others to protect us. Certainly not our so called special friends the United States.. From my understanding that protection only works one way (ie. we help them - NOT the other way around!)

Having said that, NK is making threats that it really cannot sustain. But Cameron is making the most out of these threats possible, as he wants to keep Trident (which I have no problem with) - and this is a perfect opportunity to justify keeping it.

[dbgtz]

They have a standing army of around 16m.

More to strength than just numbers. Also it's not 16m it's around 9.5m (8m of which are reserves).

[Chippiewill]

They have a standing army of around 16m.

Approximately 0 of which have been fed in the last two weeks.

[AgnesIO]

They have a standing army of around 16m.

China has an ACTIVE military of 2.2m, compared to the USA's 1.4m - I still know which one I would fancy in a war.

[Adam]

More to strength than just numbers. Also it's not 16m it's around 9.5m (8m of which are reserves).

Just telling you what I've heard.

Just nuke the worst Korea. No bad will come of all, there's no innocent people there, they've all been brainwashed since birth so as to control any possible uprising - leave the country a baron wasteland. It and they contribute nothing to the world.

[AgnesIO]

Just telling you what I've heard.

Just nuke the worst Korea. No bad will come of all, there's no innocent people there, they've all been brainwashed since birth so as to control any possible uprising - leave the country a baron wasteland. It and they contribute nothing to the world.

Don't destroy it! Some incredible places in NK, that I for one would love to see one day.

They may be brainwashed, but unless they have a leader to tell them to do something, they won't do it - take out the leadership, they won't up rise - they won't know what to do.

[Adam]

There will be another leader. It is a horrible, horrible dictatorship. The people are like programmed drones.

They worship their leader like a God, if he is gone, there will be another, and another, and another... kill them all - no problem.

[AgnesIO]

There will be another leader. It is a horrible, horrible dictatorship. The people are like programmed drones.

They worship their leader like a God, if he is gone, there will be another, and another, and another... kill them all - no problem.

Are they all really brainwashed? Or are they scared to not follow?

I think it is this thread where someone posted a video of an escaped North Korean - clearly she is not totally brainwashed. If they were all truly brainwashed, they wouldn't try and escape as many of them do.