Kim Jong Un's strategy is to out-crazy Donald Trump. He'll succeed on those terms.
China's strategy is more interesting. It wants to push America out of its neighborhood, preferably without going to war. Kim's rhetoric on bombing Guam could go either way in that objective.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
That doesn't necessarily follow. It may be decided that losing SK to NK is not worth the risk of direct attack by NK on the allies' homelands. Which may be why NK has been developing such long-range strategic weapons.
If the North were to launch a surprise attack, with or without nukes, they may 'win'. At least for a few weeks until the US and allies ramp up. But the US and allies can only do that if NK hasn't taken over the entire peninsula. If NK had taken Pusan in September 1950 then the allies would have lost the war.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
I disagree. Put yourself in Kim Jong-Un's shoes. He's seen what happened to Iraq and Libya. His strategy is to develop an effective nuclear deterrent. To do this, he needs to demonstrate his capability - which he is doing. He also needs to show he won't be cowed or bullied - which he is doing.
I noticed Tillerson said, in early August "We are not your enemy" “We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek the collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/rex-tillerson-north-korea-talks-donald-trump Shortly after this, China supported the US resolution on NK at the UN.
KJ is a brutal dictator but he is not crazy. I think he is quite smart and realises that any offensive move would be the end of him. Which is why Guam (and SK) are safe. But he is better practised at high pitched rhetoric than even Trump is.
I think (hope) the end game is that KJ decides that he has established a sufficiently credible deterrent, stops the testing, the rhetoric diminishes and the brutal NK regime continues under tightening economic sanctions.
A smart dictator would surely get out while the going was good, and with his fortune intact.
That's another credible end game. Idi Amin did that, taking refuge with his fortune first in Libya and then Saudi Arabia until his death. Who would give refuge to KJ? China? Iran (if he brings a few nukes with him - not serious!).
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
I was 25 in 1975, more interested in politics than I am now, and a Europhile. The reason? Non-tariff trade seemed a no-brainer. I followed the arguments closely, although the only ones arguing against seemed to be Tony Benn and left-wing Labour. They claimed it was plan to make us into a Super State for the capitalists to control. This was widely ridiculed and no one took it seriously.
Grocer Heath was a figure of fun in Privare Eye, and it was the year I got married.
Now you tell me it was all a mirage? Who is this woman I'm still living with then?
On topic, there is certainly an appetite for a new party amongst Cons voters, members and MPs disillusioned with finding themselves back in the nasty party. And a nasty party with no particular economic USP any more.
(...)
What is preventing a new party is the innate sense of loyalty of many Cons people. But we are by no means at the end of history with our two party system.
If someone presented me with an economically rigorous, socially liberal, non-bonkers, EU-friendly party run by sensible people, I would certainly take a look. I think it would draw support across all current party supporters.
Despite having voted leave I miss the days of Dave and George too.
The Dave and George of tuition fees increases, house price subsidies, disability benefit cuts, Middle Eastern warmongering ?
If you want to look at the 'nasty party' image then try Osborne's decision to freeze for five years the income level at which tuition fees become repayable while increasing the debt at RPI+3% per year.
That decision will likely cost the average graduate £6,000.
That is pretty disgraceful. What also strikes me is really scandalous is the outrageous interest rate charged on student loans. This approaches what a retail bank would charge for a five-year unsecured loan. A student loan is nothing like such a loan. Retail loan rates are high because of the admin cost and default risk. With a student loan the admin cost is largely outsourced to employers, and if there's no employer (eg because no job), the loan is expressly ex ante agreed to be non-collectible anyway while and because that persists. So there is no comparable default risk - non-collection is contemplated and allowed for within the terms.
The risk of non-collection from those who should be paying is also small. If they should be paying, it's because they're earning, and if they're earning, their salary is in effect attached. It is not like they might spend the lot and have nothing left with which to make the payments.
A student loan appears to me to be better for the lender than, say, a mortgage loan secured on property. The mortgagor can default while still earning and you then have to repossess and sell, i.e. loss is still possible. But If a graduate is earning you can collect, and if she's not, you aren't entitled to anyway.
It feels to me like there should be a variable interest rate on student loans akin to the rate charged for ten-year mortgages, i.e. base rate plus 1.5% or so, and meanwhile the threshold at which payments are triggered should go up on some basis akin to the pensions triple lock.
It is not that graduates pay too much - they pay less tax than I did. What would piss me off would be the open-ended and arbitrary nature of the loan terms.
So Chappers is getting top metrocentric media Brownie points tweeting to his luvvie mates whilst hard grafting journos are getting on with digging up the juice on Junker's expenses to minimal luvvie coverage ?
And people wonder why we voted to leave..
And Chappers tweets are fantastically entertaining in a "car crash" and "my god what a fruitcake" kind of way...
Chapman does come across as unhinged. His comments to Oakshott border on bullying and misogyny. Someone around Mrs May made a mistake by trusting him a year ago.
One wonders what sort of career his thinks he is entering into next ? Restaurateur ?
Well he probably thinks he is guaranteed a job with Osborne. Alternatively he could move to the land of his wife, Greece and hope that tourism keeps coming.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
I'm sure they'll fight as dirty as they can. But, in the cases you cite, the Afghans/Vietnamese were not trying to conquer their Western opponents. They simply had to inflict enough casualties to make them decide the fight wasn't worth it.
In this case, NK does have to fight to conquer, against enemies who would bitterly resist. That's a tougher challenge.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
I'm sure they'll fight as dirty as they can. But, in the cases you cite, the Afghans/Vietnamese were not trying to conquer their Western opponents. They simply had to inflict enough casualties to make them decide the fight wasn't worth it.
In this case, NK does have to fight to conquer, against enemies who would bitterly resist. That's a tougher challenge.
That's essentially my last paragraph!
But I'm not sure NK would care about that difference: from their perspective these cases all show that US military might can be beaten. They are not invincible.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
That doesn't necessarily follow. It may be decided that losing SK to NK is not worth the risk of direct attack by NK on the allies' homelands. Which may be why NK
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
I disagree. Put yourself in Kim Jong-Un's shoes. He's seen what happened to Iraq and Libya. His strategy is to develop an effective nuclear deterrent. To do this, he needs to demonstrate his capability - which he is doing. He also needs to show he won't be cowed or bullied - which he is doing.
I noticed Tillerson said, in early August "We are not your enemy" “We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek the collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/rex-tillerson-north-korea-talks-donald-trump Shortly after this, China supported the US resolution on NK at the UN.
KJ is a brutal dictator but he is not crazy. I think he is quite smart and realises that any offensive move would be the end of him. Which is why Guam (and SK) are safe. But he is better practised at high pitched rhetoric than even Trump is.
I think (hope) the end game is that KJ decides that he has established a sufficiently credible deterrent, stops the testing, the rhetoric diminishes and the brutal NK regime continues under tightening economic sanctions.
A smart dictator would surely get out while the going was good, and with his fortune intact.
That's another credible end game. Idi Amin did that, taking refuge with his fortune first in Libya and then Saudi Arabia until his death. Who would give refuge to KJ? China? Iran (if he brings a few nukes with him - not serious!).
Edit: A luxurious Trump resort if he STFU?
However unjust, it's not a bad idea to offer bolt holes to the world's dictators, where they can live in luxury.
But, for many of them, a life of obscure luxury is no substitute for strutting before their people with a chest full of medals.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
I'm sure you're right, but it doesn't really address what might happen next. Extremely high stakes decisions, and perhaps a matter of hours to make them... blunders can have apocalyptic consequences.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
I'm sure they'll fight as dirty as they can. But, in the cases you cite, the Afghans/Vietnamese were not trying to conquer their Western opponents. They simply had to inflict enough casualties to make them decide the fight wasn't worth it.
In this case, NK does have to fight to conquer, against enemies who would bitterly resist. That's a tougher challenge.
That's essentially my last paragraph!
But I'm not sure NK would care about that difference: from their perspective these cases all show that US military might can be beaten. They are not invincible.
Not sure that NK DOES have to fight to conquer. The claim is that they are resu=isting aggress ion to the South/US isn’t it. And that the South & US are obnjecting to the reunification of Koea under communism.
10. I couldn't really imagine either of them saying this, so I had to guess: "We are willing to have talks in an open-minded manner with anyone who wants peace."
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
That speech was sixty years ago, and Mao is long dead. The current Chinese leadership want to become world leaders, and that involves many things such as commerce and diplomacy that they will not want imperilled.
Mr. Jessop, indeed, but it's worth recalling that one of the first things Xi Jinping did was to beef up the military even more. Since then there have been disputes with Japan over the islands, with India over their border, and a massive land grab in the South China Sea.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
The old joke:
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops. General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
That speech was sixty years ago, and Mao is long dead. The current Chinese leadership want to become world leaders, and that involves many things such as commerce and diplomacy that they will not want imperilled.
Mao used the appearance that he was mad to achieve some kind of strategic equivalence with the real superpowers of the time. Modern China doesn't need to play such games.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
The old joke:
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops. General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
Is that so different from some British Generals during WW1 ?
Back on Brexit this article gives a clear explanation of what is at stake with leaving the EU customs union, including the key point that single country FTAs aren't worth the paper they are written on because you rarely meet the local content thresholds with just two countries, and that product certainly wouldn't meet the thresholds on an FTA between a different pair of countries. Also if tariffs are less than 5% companies will typically pay them to avoid the red tape. Brexit and customs union — what’s at stake for Britain
The first Brexit delusion - that the EU wants to give us the same deal as before without the bits we don't like - has fallen away. People are still holding onto the idea that we can compensate for the EU with third party countries. The third delusion - that Brexit will resolve things, we can do it and move on - is the most stubborn of all.
I suspect politicians will see an ever decreasing upside in owning Brexit and will pass the job onto civil servants of the sort who James Chapman dealt with, who will come up with a compromised illusion of Brexit on a sub-Norway or sub-Canada arrangement
I suspect politicians will see an ever decreasing upside in owning Brexit and will pass the job onto civil servants of the sort who James Chapman dealt with, who will come up with a compromised illusion of Brexit on a sub-Norway or sub-Canada arrangement
A sub-Norway or sub-Canada do not provide an adequate answer to the question of what to do with Northern Ireland. Political leadership cannot be abdicated simply because it's complicated and bureaucratic solutions will not do.
And here was me thinking Journalists are all off on their jollies (or should that be trollies) in August?
I don't see why he thinks it is interesting that journalists are the most energised - they need stories and this is august. He should known, he's a former journalist.
An advert warning of FGM... no mention of the I or M words of course. People will be reporting Polish & Lithuanian girls who go home for holidays...
twitter.com/barnardos/status/892626163482361858
Some signs they might be at risk....They won't look anything like the girl in the picture....Another example of the ridiculous game of hide the ball when it comes to "sensitive topics".
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
The old joke:
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops. General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
Is that so different from some British Generals during WW1 ?
Police missed chance to catch Asian sex gang SIX YEARS ago while officer was sacked for releasing 'dangerous' predator who went on to abuse more than 10 vulnerable girls as young as 11
And here was me thinking Journalists are all off on their jollies (or should that be trollies) in August?
He's in Spetses with his wife - just enjoyed lunch.....how liquid it was.....who knows?
I bet Mrs Chappers is pleased to be on holiday with her husband and have him spend all his time in seemingly drunken Twitter spats with Isobel Oakshott!
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
The old joke:
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops. General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
Is that so different from some British Generals during WW1 ?
And here was me thinking Journalists are all off on their jollies (or should that be trollies) in August?
He's in Spetses with his wife - just enjoyed lunch.....how liquid it was.....who knows?
I bet Mrs Chappers is pleased to be on holiday with her husband and have him spend all his time in seemingly drunken Twitter spats with Isobel Oakshott!
Given the way the piece starts, perhaps 'where the Tories go next' should have consisted of travel advice about good walking destinations. "Nothing brings the mind into focus like a fortnight's hiking in Tierra del Fuego."
Police missed chance to catch Asian sex gang SIX YEARS ago while officer was sacked for releasing 'dangerous' predator who went on to abuse more than 10 vulnerable girls as young as 11
Aren't the two front runners for UKIP leader both gay?
It looks like internal party political manoeuvring. Leave.EU supports David Kurten. The two front runners, who as you say are both gay, are both taking a much more anti-Islam approach than Nigel Farage and Arron Banks approve of. So this looks like an attempt to attack them on a pink flank.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
The old joke:
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops. General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
Is that so different from some British Generals during WW1 ?
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
The old joke:
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops. General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
Is that so different from some British Generals during WW1 ?
Aren't the two front runners for UKIP leader both gay?
It looks like internal party political manoeuvring. Leave.EU supports David Kurten. The two front runners, who as you say are both gay, are both taking a much more anti-Islam approach than Nigel Farage and Arron Banks approve of. So this looks like an attempt to attack them on a pink flank.
Not exactly the 'home of queer bashing' then? Arron Banks isn't even part of Ukip!
But how different would a poll of Labour voters at the last election be if the first question was, 'Corbyn won the election and should therefore call a general strike to take power?'
Something is obviously afoot with this 'new party' idea.
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
Something is obviously afoot with this 'new party' idea.
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
About 700,000 eggs from Dutch farms in a contamination scare have been distributed in the UK, up from an earlier estimate of 21,000.
Ah, those watertight EU food standards... envy of the world.
As pesticide in eggs and horsemeat in beef are clearly illegal there wouldn't appear to be any problem with EU food standards. There MIGHT be a problem with enforcement but that's the responsibility of national agencies, including the UK agencies in the case of horsemeat.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too conventionally. Yes, NK probably would get routed in a conventional war. But they'll have seen the might of the US military get fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; Vietnam, the glorious failure of the Tet offensive (glorious from the perspective of NV). Why would NK choose to fight on the US and SK strengths?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
The old joke:
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops. General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
Is that so different from some British Generals during WW1 ?
Dick
No, Peter.
Problem?
Your name couldn't be less of a problem for me.
Sorry, I don't understand, Topping.
You are an intelligent poster. Why have you resorted to name-calling, or am I missing something?
Something is obviously afoot with this 'new party' idea.
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
And you do that by telling them they're stupid and ignorant for having done so.
Something is obviously afoot with this 'new party' idea.
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
I had a thought this morning worthy of our very own William G; every new tweet from this Chapman chap is making the founding of an anti Brexit party more and more difficult...
Something is obviously afoot with this 'new party' idea.
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
I had a thought this morning worthy of our very own William G; every new tweet from this Chapman chap is making the founding of an anti Brexit party more and more difficult...
So you're suggesting the anti-Brexit party will have to be the same one it always was: the party of Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Cockfeld, Brittan, Major, Clarke and Osborne.
I don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
I fear people are thinking too convrengths.
Which is why this heralded Guam 'test' is so dangerous. Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ? What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
IMV China would be sh*t-scared if NK detonated a missile-borne nuke. Such a capability potentially threatens them as well as SK and the US, and makes their difficult relationship with NK even more difficult (at least from their perspective).
"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone."
The old joke:
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops. General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
Is that so different from some British Generals during WW1 ?
Dick
No, Peter.
Problem?
Your name couldn't be less of a problem for me.
Sorry, I don't understand, Topping.
You are an intelligent poster. Why have you resorted to name-calling, or am I missing something?
In which case my turn to apologise; let me state the longer version of my initial response.
I thought that comparing British WWI generals with a mythical Chinese general's view on the expendability of his own forces on the one hand, and the population disparity with his enemy on the other, was inappropriate not to say misguided (hence the response) in the extreme. The British generals didn't treat their own soldiers as cannon fodder to be used up in order to deplete the enemy. Equally, there was no great disparity between the size of forces in WW1.
Something is obviously afoot with this 'new party' idea.
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
I had a thought this morning worthy of our very own William G; every new tweet from this Chapman chap is making the founding of an anti Brexit party more and more difficult...
So you're suggesting the anti-Brexit party will have to be the same one it always was: the party of Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Cockfeld, Brittan, Major, Clarke and Osborne.
Nope, I'm suggesting that continually Remoaning makes Remaining less and less likely.
Something is obviously afoot with this 'new party' idea.
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
And you do that by telling them they're stupid and ignorant for having done so.
Yep. Totally counterproductive strategy. Fuels resentment against your side.
No one sees armaggeddon unfolding as a result of Brexit.
It doesn't affect peoples lives until their jobs are at risk, and there has to be a cause and effect relationship.
IE x event obviously caused by decision to leave the EU.
The idea that you would have to pay £5 for an EU visa and queue up at a passport booth in spain is a relatively small price to pay for the ability to control our borders. The idea it would make people 'rise up' is laughable.
I still think it was the wrong decision. Its a better idea to simply advocate for another way of implementing Brexit (ie EEA/single market + some additional controls on free movement). That would appear to have a clear majority of support amongst both leavers and remainers.
Plus, the guy used to be a daily mail political editor. Guys like him started these fires, which they can't now control. This is all some internal conservative party drama that I don't care the slightest about.
Something is obviously afoot with this 'new party' idea.
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
And you do that by telling them they're stupid and ignorant for having done so.
Yep. Totally counterproductive strategy. Fuels resentment against your side.
No one sees armaggeddon unfolding as a result of Brexit.
They will see the British political class crater because of it. At the end of the day people's opinions on the subject are irrelevant. Leaving the EU off the back of a weak mandate is simply beyond the strategic and political capacity of the British state and that's all there is to it.
George Osborne doesn't need to do much to set the conspiracy theorists off. Since pictures have been circulating today of him on hols with Michael Gove, either the conspiracy is remarkably wide-ranging (entailing a damascene conversion as well) or, and more likely, journalists are in silly season mode.
(...) I thought that comparing British WWI generals with a mythical Chinese general's view on the expendability of his own forces on the one hand, and the population disparity with his enemy on the other, was inappropriate not to say misguided (hence the response) in the extreme. The British generals didn't treat their own soldiers as cannon fodder to be used up in order to deplete the enemy. Equally, there was no great disparity between the size of forces in WW1.
It wasn't actually a mythical Chinese general, it was Chairman Mao! Interestingly, that he said it at all was disputed on the left - for obvious reasons - until very recent times, until it was placed beyond doubt (by Chinese television broadcasting a recording of him saying it). It was widely misquoted before then. I first heard it in the 90s paraphrased as "there are a billion Chinese - so what if we lose 50 million".
I have never really understood the rationale for his saying such a thing, but suggestions above have been informative on the point.
Comments
China's strategy is more interesting. It wants to push America out of its neighborhood, preferably without going to war. Kim's rhetoric on bombing Guam could go either way in that objective.
Edit: A luxurious Trump resort if he STFU?
In fact, if you look at the weapons they have used: the midget submarine believed to have struck the SK warship a few years back, the nukes, and others, they're aiming for a major component of unconventional warfare.
Now, unconventional warfare usually involves unconventional resistance to an invader, not an invader attacking, and so the previous successes may not be applicable. But it's dangerous to assume they'll fight a 'fair' fight on the SK and US strengths.
I was 25 in 1975, more interested in politics than I am now, and a Europhile. The reason? Non-tariff trade seemed a no-brainer. I followed the arguments closely, although the only ones arguing against seemed to be Tony Benn and left-wing Labour. They claimed it was plan to make us into a Super State for the capitalists to control. This was widely ridiculed and no one took it seriously.
Grocer Heath was a figure of fun in Privare Eye, and it was the year I got married.
Now you tell me it was all a mirage? Who is this woman I'm still living with then?
https://twitter.com/barnardos/status/892626163482361858
The risk of non-collection from those who should be paying is also small. If they should be paying, it's because they're earning, and if they're earning, their salary is in effect attached. It is not like they might spend the lot and have nothing left with which to make the payments.
A student loan appears to me to be better for the lender than, say, a mortgage loan secured on property. The mortgagor can default while still earning and you then have to repossess and sell, i.e. loss is still possible. But If a graduate is earning you can collect, and if she's not, you aren't entitled to anyway.
It feels to me like there should be a variable interest rate on student loans akin to the rate charged for ten-year mortgages, i.e. base rate plus 1.5% or so, and meanwhile the threshold at which payments are triggered should go up on some basis akin to the pensions triple lock.
It is not that graduates pay too much - they pay less tax than I did. What would piss me off would be the open-ended and arbitrary nature of the loan terms.
Who is to say, if they actually launch those missiles, that one isn't set to go 'off target' and airburst a nuke to take out the US base ?
What would the US response be - and might China threaten retaliation if the US detonated nukes near their borders... ??
In this case, NK does have to fight to conquer, against enemies who would bitterly resist. That's a tougher challenge.
But I'm not sure NK would care about that difference: from their perspective these cases all show that US military might can be beaten. They are not invincible.
https://qz.com/1050132/quiz-donald-trump-and-kim-jong-uns-nuclear-rhetoric-can-you-tell-them-apart/
I managed 8/12....
But, for many of them, a life of obscure luxury is no substitute for strutting before their people with a chest full of medals.
Apparently the armed police were called to Heathrow after passengers became angry that a British Airways flight was delayed for two days.
I think BA should have been told to use their own security staff. I’m not surprised people were cross.
Extremely high stakes decisions, and perhaps a matter of hours to make them... blunders can have apocalyptic consequences.
I couldn't really imagine either of them saying this, so I had to guess:
"We are willing to have talks in an open-minded manner with anyone who wants peace."
Chinese general, discussing losses vs the Japanese:
Aide: It's bad General, the Japanese lost 50,000, but we lost a half a million troops.
General: pretty soon, no more Japanese.
The first Brexit delusion - that the EU wants to give us the same deal as before without the bits we don't like - has fallen away. People are still holding onto the idea that we can compensate for the EU with third party countries. The third delusion - that Brexit will resolve things, we can do it and move on - is the most stubborn of all.
I suspect politicians will see an ever decreasing upside in owning Brexit and will pass the job onto civil servants of the sort who James Chapman dealt with, who will come up with a compromised illusion of Brexit on a sub-Norway or sub-Canada arrangement
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/895604461481201664
I doubt anyone else has noticed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4777812/Ex-Davis-aide-says-Johnson-JAIL-Brexit.html
Remember all the abuse I used to get when I said Mrs May was crap and not fit to lick the boots of the posh boys.
I was right, as always*, I have nothing more to learn.
*Apart from the times I've been wrong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4777668/Police-missed-chance-catch-Asian-sex-gang-SIX-YEARS-ago.html
https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/895604475490177024
It's not a great lifestyle choice.
It's not a bad lifestyle choice either.
It's not a lifestyle choice at all...
Edit: but he isn't involved with UKIP any more, right? I thought he left before the last election.
Take very careful note of it.
Then do something else. Anything else.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/895589836865900544
Problem?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346000-poll-about-half-of-republicans-would-back-postponing-2020-election-if-trump
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/895626066731032576
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/895626912680247296
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/895610751611809794
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Suspect it won't be as widely quoted as his 2007 New Statesman piece.
http://www.sion-simon.com/torymayor100
...total irrelevance.
But how different would a poll of Labour voters at the last election be if the first question was, 'Corbyn won the election and should therefore call a general strike to take power?'
Food for thought.
The vegan nazis are not going to be happy....
I don't think this guy Chapmans interventions are working, he gets about 50 likes per tweet.
With regard to ending Brexit: You can't just keep trying to rerun the referendum campaign: you have to wait for the people who voted leave to change their mind.
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/895625039885746177
You are an intelligent poster. Why have you resorted to name-calling, or am I missing something?
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/895634431398096896
I thought that comparing British WWI generals with a mythical Chinese general's view on the expendability of his own forces on the one hand, and the population disparity with his enemy on the other, was inappropriate not to say misguided (hence the response) in the extreme. The British generals didn't treat their own soldiers as cannon fodder to be used up in order to deplete the enemy. Equally, there was no great disparity between the size of forces in WW1.
If yours was a lions led by donkeys point then I think there have been enough sensible revisionist WWI histories to disprove that view.
No one sees armaggeddon unfolding as a result of Brexit.
It doesn't affect peoples lives until their jobs are at risk, and there has to be a cause and effect relationship.
IE x event obviously caused by decision to leave the EU.
The idea that you would have to pay £5 for an EU visa and queue up at a passport booth in spain is a relatively small price to pay for the ability to control our borders. The idea it would make people 'rise up' is laughable.
I still think it was the wrong decision. Its a better idea to simply advocate for another way of implementing Brexit (ie EEA/single market + some additional controls on free movement). That would appear to have a clear majority of support amongst both leavers and remainers.
Plus, the guy used to be a daily mail political editor. Guys like him started these fires, which they can't now control. This is all some internal conservative party drama that I don't care the slightest about.
I have never really understood the rationale for his saying such a thing, but suggestions above have been informative on the point.