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

[webfact]

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

[anto]

Yes Britain ,The US lap dog .

[sirmud63]

LOL. nothing like the threat of war to get peoples minds of the important issues,  like brexit .

[julietx]

4 minutes ago, anto said:

Yes Britain ,The US lap dog .

They might have learned their lesson after blindly following the yanks in that illegal invasion of iraq in 2003.

[baboon]

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...

[baboon]

5 minutes ago, julietx said:

They might have learned their lesson after blindly following the yanks in that illegal invasion of iraq in 2003.

If only...

[colinneil]

 

Any person in the UK government with even half a brain, will tell Trump and co to get stuffed.

Let the US arms manufacturers go it alone.

Too many British lives were lost because of lies in 2003.

[julietx]

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

[mfd101]

Better remind the admiral not to head into the Tsushima Strait.

[than]

send an aircraft carrier without fully operational ..... that's a joke...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/f-35-planes-uk-defense-637556

[baboon]

16 minutes ago, than said:

send an aircraft carrier without fully operational ..... that's a joke...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/f-35-planes-uk-defense-637556

Welcome to Britain...

[OMGImInPattaya]

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

[champers]

36 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

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

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

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, anto said:

Yes Britain ,The US lap dog .

Surely we're not still going to buy American aircraft fr the carriers!!!!

Edited October 9, 2017 by Grouse

[Grouse]

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?)

 

[car720]

1 hour ago, than said:

send an aircraft carrier without fully operational ..... that's a joke...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/f-35-planes-uk-defense-637556

They did it with the Hms Hood.

[boomerangutang]

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.

 

 

[car720]

Rule Britannia

Jesus wept  and now I  know why.

[baboon]

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. 

[hansnl]

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.

[baboon]

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?

[champers]

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.

[RuamRudy]

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'.

[billd766]

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.

[RuamRudy]

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

[baboon]

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 October 9, 2017 by baboon

[ilostmypassword]

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?

[OMGImInPattaya]

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.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, champers said:

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

That's fine by me...probably just slow us down and get in the way.

[champers]

12 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

That's fine by me...probably just slow us down and get in the way.

Of course. Too many ships around and there might be accidents.