Jump to content

Britain 'prepares for war with North Korea' while 'new carrier could be rushed into service'


webfact

Recommended Posts

Britain 'prepares for war with North Korea' while 'new carrier could be rushed into service'

By Chris Graham 

 

LONDON: -- Britain is reportedly preparing for the possibility of war breaking out with North Korea as concerns rise that another provocative missile test could trigger a military response by the US.

 

North Korea is being closely watched amid fears it could launch another long-range missile test on Tuesday to mark the anniversary of the founding of its ruling party.

 

Bellicose rhetoric from Donald Trump has heightened tensions in the region in recent months, prompting British officials to draw up military plans for a response to a break out of hostilities, it was reported. 

 

Full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/britain-prepares-war-north-korea-new-carrier-could-rushed-service/

 

-- The Telegraph 2017-10-09

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Jesus. We have no money, can't afford to sustain our own emergency services and continually cut down the welfare budget, but we can go to war against a small country on the other side of the world. Or rather we couldn't even do that if we weren't toadying to a more powerful country. It's pathetic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

Jesus. We have no money, can't afford to sustain our own emergency services and continually cut down the welfare budget, but we can go to war against a small country on the other side of the world. Or rather we couldn't even do that if we weren't toadying to a more powerful country. It's pathetic...

 

don't worry the engines won't work as soon as the sea temp hits 18c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

My view is we should finish what we left unfinished 70 years ago...and the sooner the better.

You do realise that the Americans INVITED the soviets to push the Japanese out of Korea at the end of WW2? The Soviets got as far south as the 38th parallel. The Koreans wanted rid of imperialists. (Just like Vietnam?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see both sides of it.  If Britain doesn't assist its long-time ally, Uncle Sam, then it will have no voice in how things unfold in that part of the world - before, during, and after military action.

 

If it does assist, it will be helping to destroy a regime which:

 

A. oppresses its own people, including starvation.   The average N.Korean boy is several inches shorter than the average S.Korean boy of the same age.  There are also forced abortions and severely punishing families for the alleged sins of one member (like seeking asylum in a neighboring country).

 

B.  unabashedly threatens several countries with nuclear war.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I can see both sides of it.  If Britain doesn't assist its long-time ally, Uncle Sam, then it will have no voice in how things unfold in that part of the world - before, during, and after military action.

We won't anyway, not really. Perhaps a little lip service paid until the big boys come in and start divvying up the spoils, leaving the taxpayer the bill.

Our 'special relationship' is nothing more than a British conceit, in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, champers said:

On your own, if you must. UK needs to keep well away.

I might agree.

However, ever thought there might be some kind of connection between NK and Iran plus it's vasals?

Terror deeds plenty in the UK already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hansnl said:

I might agree.

However, ever thought there might be some kind of connection between NK and Iran plus it's vasals?

Terror deeds plenty in the UK already.

Well come on, then. The connection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hansnl said:

I might agree.

However, ever thought there might be some kind of connection between NK and Iran plus it's vasals?

Terror deeds plenty in the UK already.

I see that DJT has the opinion that Iran are aiding N Korea's nuclear programme, so his warmongering now has 2 potential fronts. I am not convinced that bombing the hell out of one country after another reduces the risk of terrorism in the UK; quite the opposite, infact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I can see both sides of it.  If Britain doesn't assist its long-time ally, Uncle Sam, then it will have no voice in how things unfold in that part of the world - before, during, and after military action.

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that reads, to me, to be awfully like 'if we don't get in early, we won't be able to share the spoils'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, baboon said:

Jesus. We have no money, can't afford to sustain our own emergency services and continually cut down the welfare budget, but we can go to war against a small country on the other side of the world. Or rather we couldn't even do that if we weren't toadying to a more powerful country. It's pathetic...

 

It isn't likely to happen in the short term simply because athough we have the carrier there is no complete sea going crew to man it without taking crews from other ships and if it gets that far we actually don't have any aircraft or flight/ground crews for it anyway.

 

The other thing is that you don't send a carrier to sea without a support group of frigates, destroyers, submarines and support vessels. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/britain-prepares-war-north-korea-new-carrier-could-rushed-service/

 

quote "We have plenty of ships to send… the Type-45 destroyers, the Type-23 frigates. Britain’s new aircraft carrier could be pressed into service early if things turn south," a senior Whitehall source told the newspaper."

 

Actually we don't have plenty of ships to send.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Navy_ships

 

As of January 2017, there are 77 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy. 19 of the commissioned vessels are major surface combatants (six guided missile destroyers and 13 frigates) and 10 are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and six fleet submarines). In addition the Navy possesses a landing platform helicopter, two amphibious transport docks, 15 mine countermeasures vessels, 22 patrol vessels, four survey vessels, one icebreaker and two historic warships (Victory and Bristol).

 

There are probably plenty of admirals they could send, and with a bit of work HMS Victory could be brought back into active service but they would have to send the press gangs out on the streets of Portsmouth to get a crew for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, baboon said:

Well come on, then. The connection?

Well if there are actually contemporary connections to be faced up to, one cannot accept those without also acknowledging the historic facts that created the Iran of today. But without any proof, of the former, the latter is clearly off topic. Next move - hansnl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

It isn't likely to happen in the short term simply because athough we have the carrier there is no complete sea going crew to man it without taking crews from other ships and if it gets that far we actually don't have any aircraft or flight/ground crews for it anyway.

 

The other thing is that you don't send a carrier to sea without a support group of frigates, destroyers, submarines and support vessels. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/britain-prepares-war-north-korea-new-carrier-could-rushed-service/

 

quote "We have plenty of ships to send… the Type-45 destroyers, the Type-23 frigates. Britain’s new aircraft carrier could be pressed into service early if things turn south," a senior Whitehall source told the newspaper."

 

Actually we don't have plenty of ships to send.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Navy_ships

 

As of January 2017, there are 77 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy. 19 of the commissioned vessels are major surface combatants (six guided missile destroyers and 13 frigates) and 10 are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and six fleet submarines). In addition the Navy possesses a landing platform helicopter, two amphibious transport docks, 15 mine countermeasures vessels, 22 patrol vessels, four survey vessels, one icebreaker and two historic warships (Victory and Bristol).

 

There are probably plenty of admirals they could send, and with a bit of work HMS Victory could be brought back into active service but they would have to send the press gangs out on the streets of Portsmouth to get a crew for it.

You know when you just sit there, face buried in your hands, rocking gently backwards and forwards...?

Edited by baboon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I can see both sides of it.  If Britain doesn't assist its long-time ally, Uncle Sam, then it will have no voice in how things unfold in that part of the world - before, during, and after military action.

 

If it does assist, it will be helping to destroy a regime which:

 

A. oppresses its own people, including starvation.   The average N.Korean boy is several inches shorter than the average S.Korean boy of the same age.  There are also forced abortions and severely punishing families for the alleged sins of one member (like seeking asylum in a neighboring country).

 

B.  unabashedly threatens several countries with nuclear war.

 

 

You actually believe the UK will have a say if it does assist the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

You do realise that the Americans INVITED the soviets to push the Japanese out of Korea at the end of WW2? The Soviets got as far south as the 38th parallel. The Koreans wanted rid of imperialists. (Just like Vietnam?)

 

I'm not sure what the Soviets and WWII has to do with the N. Korean's invasion of the South and the resulting war some 5 or 6 years later. 

 

Whatever the case, I just think we need to go in and clean-up the mess on the Korean peninsula once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...