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

[Jordy]

The funny thing is even China are putting sanctions on the North because they are scared as well, if it does ever equate to anything, it'll be a world war not a just a small petty Korean War like last time.

I don't think the Koreans would appreciate you calling it a "small petty" war. 3.5 Million people died, it was one of the biggest and most devastating conflicts of the 20th century.

This actually scared the hell out of me :\ We could be on the verge of Nuclear War. Well, this has occurred a few times, but this is by far the most serious..

Not it's far from it, first of all North Korea's nuclear weapons probably don't even work, they've had very few successful tests, they've probably failed dozens of times too, except we wouldn't hear about them. Plus North Korea has done similar things to this before and things haven't escalated.

These two points are far closer to Nuclear War for example, first of all the Cuban missile crisis and when Norway sent a rocket it up, except the Soviets thought it was a nuclear missile heading for them and almost raised the alarm. I'm tired of people shouting "Nuclear War" all the time.

Chances are Britain wouldn't be involved in any conflict anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The funny thing is even China are putting sanctions on the North because they are scared as well, if it does ever equate to anything, it'll be a world war not a just a small petty Korean War like last time.

China aren't scared, China only put sanctions on North Korea because they get pressured into doing so;- and even then they are pathetic sanctions because the rest of the world hardly trades with North Korea as it is and China funds them anyway so its just keeping the status quo. You are right though, if NATO dare involves itself in North Korea then China would most likely do so as well, thus WW3 if we didnt back down because the Chinese most likely wouldn't.

If they were a big enough threat they would.

China is a big threat, a far bigger threat than North Korea. In the Korean War, as we approached the Chinese-Korean border (and we were so close to ending the war) China send hundreds of thousands of troops across the river to push us back, they ended up pushing us back past the halfway line and its only because of China that North Korea exists today. Theres nothing that says to me or reassures me that China wouldnt do the same again, especially when its in a far better position now than it was back in the 1950s just after the PROC was born and there was still infighting.

[marriott0.01]

I don't think the Koreans would appreciate you calling it a "small petty" war. 3.5 Million people died, it was one of the biggest and most devastating conflicts of the 20th century.

Not it's far from it, first of all North Korea's nuclear weapons probably don't even work, they've had very few successful tests, they've probably failed dozens of times too, except we wouldn't hear about them. Plus North Korea has done similar things to this before and things haven't escalated.

These two points are far closer to Nuclear War for example, first of all the Cuban missile crisis and when Norway sent a rocket it up, except the Soviets thought it was a nuclear missile heading for them and almost raised the alarm. I'm tired of people shouting "Nuclear War" all the time.

Chances are Britain wouldn't be involved in any conflict anyway.

Okay maybe my wording 'petty war' was a bit exaggerated as all wars are not petty, what I meant it was nothing compared to the scale of World Wars.

And I get what you mean about people crying Nuclear War, I'm guilty of doing it, because any country like North Korea is just crazy, it should have been taken down ages ago. The people of North are not the people I blame, it's their leader, the psychotic leader Kim Jong Il.

I also agree with you there has been closer things, and North Korea seems like a country who tease more than they do act. Then again, what if they did happen to get involved into a Nuclear War? Then you'll look stupid if you just took the position of thinking everything is hunky dory.

Also, Britain may not be in the war to start with, but that's exactly the same as saying America wasn't involved in World War II at the start, they waited to get attacked before joining a war, which could easily happen if this does happen to become a conflict of 'NUCLEAR WAR'.

[Jordy]

Okay maybe my wording 'petty war' was a bit exaggerated as all wars are not petty, what I meant it was nothing compared to the scale of World Wars.

And I get what you mean about people crying Nuclear War, I'm guilty of doing it, because any country like North Korea is just crazy, it should have been taken down ages ago. The people of North are not the people I blame, it's their leader, the psychotic leader Kim Jong Il.

I also agree with you there has been closer things, and North Korea seems like a country who tease more than they do act. Then again, what if they did happen to get involved into a Nuclear War? Then you'll look stupid if you just took the position of thinking everything is hunky dory.

Also, Britain may not be in the war to start with, but that's exactly the same as saying America wasn't involved in World War II at the start, they waited to get attacked before joining a war, which could easily happen if this does happen to become a conflict of 'NUCLEAR WAR'.

The thing is, I won't look stupid as there won't be nuclear war, the people who continually shout Nuclear War are the stupid looking ones

I'm sure if a true nuclear war ever did happen between China and the US we wouldn't get involved, it would be far better to stay out and just side with the winner seeing as there'd be little to gain and everything to lose. Either that or become the world superpower if they were both devastated by it.

[marriott0.01]

The thing is, I won't look stupid as there won't be nuclear war, the people who continually shout Nuclear War are the stupid looking ones

I'm sure if a true nuclear war ever did happen between China and the US we wouldn't get involved, it would be far better to stay out and just side with the winner seeing as there'd be little to gain and everything to lose. Either that or become the world superpower if they were both devastated by it.

But most countries of the world would get dragged in if it was US vs China, as they both have lots of allies. Which I think is stupid, considering the US helped China out in WW2.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We are legally bound as a NATO member to defend any NATO country which is under attack, not to mention the fact the US has nuclear bases on the UK mainland anyway so we'd be buggered whether we offically joined in any combat or not. I would support standing by our allies even if it meant the threat of serious consquences;- we stood upto Nazi Germany and we should not shy away from defence of ourselves in the future. Although this particular flashpoint will come of nothing I suppose.

[Jordy]

We are legally bound as a NATO member to defend any NATO country which is under attack, not to mention the fact the US has nuclear bases on the UK mainland anyway so we'd be buggered whether we offically joined in any combat or not. I would support standing by our allies even if it meant mass death;- we stood upto Nazi Germany and we should not shy away from defence of ourselves in the future. Although this particular flashpoint will come of nothing I suppose.

While you're right that we probably would be involved, I still don't think it's the right thing to do. What's the point in standing up for something when you're entire nation will be wiped out with just a few nuclear missiles, we're a small island. There's no point sacrificing this entire country to support the "US". I'm sure they'd feel the same way about us too, understandably.

[marriott0.01]

While you're right that we probably would be involved, I still don't think it's the right thing to do. What's the point in standing up for something when you're entire nation will be wiped out with just a few nuclear missiles, we're a small island.

For every nuclear missile North Korea has, Britain and it's allies have about 100 more. And we would have been better protected from Nuclear Attacks if Russia had allowed the USA put a missile defence system in Poland, but Obama had to comply with Russia's demands.

[Jordy]

For every nuclear missile North Korea has, Britain and it's allies have about 100 more. And we would have been better protected from Nuclear Attacks if Russia had allowed the USA put a missile defence system in Poland, but Obama had to comply with Russia's demands.

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

While you're right that we probably would be involved, I still don't think it's the right thing to do. What's the point in standing up for something when you're entire nation will be wiped out with just a few nuclear missiles, we're a small island. There's no point sacrificing this entire country to support the "US". I'm sure they'd feel the same way about us too, understandably.

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).