North Korea

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/16/the-guardian-view-on-north-korea-apocalypse-not-right-now

www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/04/george-bush-hide-crimes-paintings-170412132618197.html

This is why Bush and Blair started the Iraq War - so Bush could paint pictures about it.

Abonet, have you not realised that weapons have become more and more powerful since World War 11?
Perahps you need to reread 1984 to see what's happening now.
The two superpowers facing off against each other, okay, but now we have two mad leaders if you count North Korea as well as Trump.
Putin will let them carry on daring each other until one of them cracks.

www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/04/bombs-wag-dog-170412081501253.html

There have been weapons since the world began or thereabouts I guess.
And no end of the world yet!

What is wrong with the idea of no weapons?
Because it is just that. Merely an idea. As far from reality as it is possible to get.

I dont think I have it in me to talk ad infinitum with people that deal in non reality.

Your conclusion is the end of the world. Have you thought that through?

What is wrong with the idea of no weapons?
The opposite is that if we have more and more nuclear weapons, we cannot use them as every other country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons as well.
We did sign up to a non-proliferation treaty a while ago.
Non-proliferation doesn't mean you can replace each weapon you have by a more powerful one, although some people seem to think so.
How many countries is the UK at war with - usually using the US as proxy?
Our drone specialists are in America, teaching theirs. Is that good?
Our armed forces train Saudi forces. We sell them planes and bombs. Is that aceptable to you?
War by proxy is just as evil as war.

I could go on and on about this but not sure I am in the mood.

What about answering my previous question[you probably didnt see it before you posted yours].

Plus what about weapons for defence. Or is all the world doing the same, ie have no weapons.

And dont you then think they would pick up axes or hand made swords or whatever?

Or has the world gone peaceful too?

You need to take things through to their conclusion.

You can call it naive,Abonet, I call it moral. I am sure you will have something derogatory to say about morality, too, but I don't care.

And all other countries follow suit?
Do you perceive that the end game or result is no weapons??

Nothing naive about refusing to sell arms to someone who are intent on using them to target children and women and innocent civilians. Everything to do with a moral stand - it's called the high ground.

I always think that calling for a country not to sell arms in the hope or expectation that other countries wont do it either, is naievity in the extreme.

I think some people feel they have to have an answer to a problem whatever a problem is, and this is what they come up with for war.

From the film I watched earlier.
"Don't attack Russia or America. Let them attack each other, then clean up afterwards."
Fortunately in the film, nuclear armageddon was averted, but not before Baltimore was destroyed by a single nuclear bomb, put in a cigarette machine.
In real life..... bombs the size of those dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be accidentally detonated.

I see that Russia have moved troops to Vladivostok.

Someone has to start the moral line of not selling arms, niggly. Why not the UK?
The UK is being investigated about the morality of selling arms to Saudi to kill children in Yemen.

Oh dear, MawBroon. I'll be worried with you until they get back. The school my son and his wife used to teach in had boys going to China every Easter along with staff.
I don't know about this year, but if I were a parent in that situation, I would hope the school would cancel.

DJ, Not easily, the exhibition is up and running, SIL may well be supervising dismantling it and the buying trip is DD's last one for her present company before moving to her new job. The whole buying team are flying out so I am hoping that if they have any reservations they will indeed cancel,it.

How on earth would you ever be able to persuade every country in the world to cease selling arms?!!! Can't see Russia or China boarding that magic roundabout!!! Never mind the Middle East!! Unrealistic forlorn hope!!

Can't they be cancelled or postponed, MawBroon?

Just keeping a wary eye on events, DD flies to Hong Kong on Tuesday and thence to mainland China for a 2week buying trip for work, SIL flies off to Japan for an exhibition he has been responsible for.
I know the Far East is a big place but I will be glad when they are back.

So don't sell arms.
Find something else to sell insteadf. Those of us who object to the UK selling arms usually object to any country selling arms. CAAT is not just about the UK arms trade.

Whoever you sell arms to it's a risk as to what they'll be used for and who they'll be used against. Governments come and go and a benign state today can become an aggressive one tomorrow.

I think as well as the moral issue whether killing methods should be sold at all. The important thing is who you sell them too surely

Whether wiki is reliable I don't know but it puts UK behind both France and Germany as an arms exporter. It puts the UK as 6th. Oddly China and South Korea seem to both be in the top 10 exporters and importers.

There really is no need to shout, paddyann. The UK's participation in arms dealing has been highlighted many times on the political threads. No one is denying its culpability in that respect.