What - incidents like torpedoing a ship?

How would the UK react I wonder if a French submarine torpedoed and sank a British naval vessel?

Actually we would probably do nothing as the French would have the military capacity to invade and overrun us, especially if they had assistance from their Euro chums.

Quote: sally cinnamon "What - incidents like torpedoing a ship? '" Yes. 1967 saw an artillery attack on a South Korean patrol boat. Boat sunk and 39 dead. I would say this is similar to the recent attack. Of course then we have had NK commandos attempting to assassinate the president, then an NK secret agent trying again and killing the president's wife in the process. Bombs in hotels and on aircrafts and hijacks etc. You can inform yourself here. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_p ... 130248.stm

Quote: sally cinnamon "What - incidents like torpedoing a ship? '" Yes. 1967 saw an artillery attack on a South Korean patrol boat. Boat sunk and 39 dead. I would say this is similar to the recent attack. Of course then we have had NK commandos attempting to assassinate the president, then an NK secret agent trying again and killing the president's wife in the process. Bombs in hotels and on aircrafts and hijacks etc. You can inform yourself here. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_p ... 130248.stm

'You two had better behave! DON'T MAKE ME COME DOWN THERE!!!'

Can't Alex Balwdwin and Matt Damon sort out North Korea again?

lock it

why?

its an informative thread..... I have already learnt about north koreas 1967 activities.

LOL.

North Korea is the country (along with Iran) that really scares the US & UN due to the nuclear capabilities & unbalanced nature of the ruler. That is why they do nothing about those two countries and tolerate their sabre rattling. At the same time Kim Jong Il & the Iranian chap will not do anything seriously to upset the superpowers of USA or China as they are fully aware that they will be wiped off the face of the earth, along with most of the rest of the planet.

Such is the international game of brinksmanship & is paradoxically the reason why nuclear deterrants are necessary...

I'd add Pakistan to the list also

So why all the uproar about Iran's nuclear programme? If deterrents are necessary for us they are much more necessary for Iran.

Our argument for spending billions of taxpayers money on Trident is that 'we don't know what could potentially happen in the future with North Korea or China'. I would think Iran has much more risk of being attacked by Israel or the USA than we do by North Korea or China.

There's nothing worse than religious zealots in charge of a nuclear state who God talks to and tells them to go to war. We had enough of this with Bush and Blair.

No doubt when Ahmedinijad starts taking action against Israel on the grounds of them having weapons of mass destruction which could be a threat to Iran within 45 minutes, he will tell everybody "he didn't do it because it was popular, he did it because it was the right thing to do"

What about attacking their own citizens with chemical weapons? Just turn a blind eye, eh?

because as said before if I want to read about world politics/news I would either go to the appropriate forum, buy news paper or listen to the news, there isnt much media coverage of our great game so I come on here for all things rugby not south V north vietnam, for what its worth I dont want our soldiers being dragged into another conflict putting their lives on the line whilst the rest of the world just Postures and false promises, let some one else sort it out, our lads have more than done their bit

Plenty of countries treat their people terribly. China being a good example. We can't solve all the world's problems.

The issue with Iran is that it threatens Israel and upsets Jews. Jews hold an inordinate amount of power in the US.

The uproar over the nuclear issue in Iran is because of the threat it poses to Israel and thus the US' interests in the Middle East. But the US will never attack Iran directly, only really by backing up Israel with weaponry and personnel - not that Israel would necessarily need the support of the US but it would be there nonetheless. The USA has a history of rightly or wrongly getting involved in other peoples' wars when it seems to suit them as "leaders of the free world" and almost universally screwing up that involvement; Korea in the 50's, Vietnam, Afghanistan in 79, Grenada, Colombia, Libya, Lebanon, supporting Saddam in the 80's against Iran, Iraq twice, Afghanistan again, the list goes on and every time the USA will not attack those they see as their true enemy (Russia/China/Iran) due to their fear of unleashing the unspeakable war...