South Korean naval ship 'sinking' possibly from North Korean torpedo

[marriott0.01]

I don't think he had to, I think he's a pathetic push-over who will go to any lengths to attempt to make peace throughout the world, even risking his own nations and allies security, and the funny thing is, he isn't even close to bringing peace anywhere.

I was referring to a China vs USA war, a hypothetical situation. If it was North Korea vs USA, I very much doubt we would be needed, most probably it would be all over before we could even reach Korea anyway.

When I said had to, I meant it in terms as 'he just had to' not he was forced to, but that he a gullible idiot of a leader.

Ah, I see. China vs USA would be more of a serious war, but I doubt the war would get serious enough for Britain to be obliterated. Britain's defence system is state of the art, and it's good it's an island because it's more isolated. The World, especially Britain, have learnt a lot about defence from the World Wars, and Britain has only been hit twice by a foreign power since 1066, and both of them were the World Wars.

[Jordy]

Because eventually if you dont stand upto something, it'll get you in the end.

Adding onto that, we may be a small island but we have one of the biggest economies in the world and hence as a result we are one of the richest countries in the world. In World War II and World War I millions from across the British Empire died to defend the Empire, of which the mother country was 'this little island'. Size and numbers dont count for everything, especially when it comes to nations and wartime (as the various battles have shown).

When it comes to nuclear war, the size of your country matters very much. A nuke hitting, London, Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh would wipe this entire nation out. The difference with WWII is, we were defending and fighting for survival, Nazi Germany began attacking us. There would be no point involving ourselves in a nuclear war we didn't need to be involved in, if we joined, I have no doubt we would lose absolutely everything, seeing as it would take so few missiles to wipe us out.

It's all very well standing up for something, but if you're unnecessarily getting involved in a conflict where your country is guaranteed to be wiped out, what's the point?

[-:Undertaker:-]

When it comes to nuclear war, the size of your country matters very much. A nuke hitting, London, Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh would wipe this entire nation out. The difference with WWII is, we were defending and fighting for survival, Nazi Germany began attacking us. There would be no point involving ourselves in a nuclear war we didn't need to be involved in, if we joined, I have no doubt we would lose absolutely everything, seeing as it would take so few missiles to wipe us out.

It's all very well standing up for something, but if you're unnecessarily getting involved in a conflict where your country is guaranteed to be wiped out, what's the point?

Hang on, you have in the past said you supported a strike on Iran and military action if need be if my memory serves me. So in reality you support strikes on countries which pose very little threat and cannot smack us back, but when it comes to defending our friends (the United States and South Korea) against an enemy that can smack us back, its a different story?

That is exactly the same type of foreign policy we had under Bush and Blair and its what I detest, double standards.

[xxMATTGxx]

The chances of them hitting us successfully is quite low anyway isn't it? We have early warning systems and god knows what else to prevent such attacks. Anyway back to the ship. I just got this through twitter:

"Update: 'Several' dead on sunken S. Korean ship - Yonhap news agency"

[Jordy]

Hang on, you have in the past said you supported a strike on Iran and military action if need be if my memory serves me. So in reality you support strikes on countries which pose very little threat and cannot smack us back, but when it comes to defending our friends (the United States and South Korea) against an enemy that can smack us back, its a different story?

That is exactly the same type of foreign policy we had under Bush and Blair and its what I detest, double standards.

I'm unsure on Iran for the moment, however I do think they pose a very real threat to Europe, they have the capability to fire missiles at us, and if they get nuclear missiles too we risk becoming their *****. More recently though, I'm more in favour of stopping all diplomatic relations with Israel and pressuring the US into doing the same. This way, I suspect Iran would support the UK with this decision, and if the West began ignoring Israel rather than bowing to it, then they may not feel so much to make nuclear weapons.

I still stick by my point though, I'd stick up for allies in most situations, however if the nation is assured destruction, there's no point. The point of war is to save your own people, not sacrifice them for someone else's.