back to article Don't want to alarm you, but defence bods think North Korea could nuke UK 'within a few years'

North Korea maintains a hacking base in China, the UK Parliament's Defence Select Committee has been told, while government snooping body GCHQ struggles to retain "cyber-staff". Then there's the slightly greater concern that the communist nation could nuke Britain "within a few years". The House of Commons' Defence Committee …

  1. wolfetone Silver badge

    We were told Saddam could get to us within 45 minutes, and that turned out to be total horseshit.

    We were also told that, beyond doubt, Porton Down said the Skirpal poisoning originated from Russia. Turns out that's not exactly true either.

    So excuse me for taking this news with a vat of salt the size of Argentina.

    1. Tigra 07

      RE: Wolfetone

      The US would have destroyed them years ago for unrelated reasons if they had oil.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: RE: Wolfetone

        "The US would have destroyed them years ago for unrelated reasons if they had oil."

        They already tried and failed when communism was the devil. Hence there are separate states of North and South Korea. There's no reason whatsoever to suggest that the US could do better now considering they still allies of China, with a convenient land border for easy supply routes, not to mention an enormous Chinese nuclear arsenal to deter the US from starting the apocalypse.

      2. TheVogon

        Re: RE: Wolfetone

        "The US would have destroyed them years ago for unrelated reasons if they had oil."

        Apparently it has ~ £7 trillion in mineral resources!

      3. GIRZiM
        IT Angle

        Re: The US would have destroyed them years ago for unrelated reasons if they had oil.

        Humour me for a moment, because I'm not suggesting it ever could be the case, let alone would be, but just for the purpose of making a related point:

        Just suppose North Korea were a successful nation - financially and socially. Imagine some time in the future when the current regime is gone and some local equivalent of Pirate Party mentality infiltrates and takes over The People's Party. A humane, socially liberal collectivist government of the people, by the people and for the people takes over and makes a success of things.

        Maybe people aren't obscenely wealthy. Maybe there isn't a 1% sitting around on yachts made of solid gold, pooping into toilets cut from a single diamond each that everyone can aspire to. But people have a decent standard of living. Let's say it's a bit like one of the Scandinavian countries - horrendous taxes but people get paid enough to be able to afford them and the trade-off benefits are considered worth it. It's not some Marxist/Communist utopia but there have been, and still are, worse places to live.

        Well, the problem with that would be that our own 1% couldn't threaten rest of us with the horrors of collectivism any more, could they? Because people would point to North Korea and say "Well, it works there! It's better than what I've got here anyway."

        So, whether they have oil or not is immaterial because, no matter how miserable life there might be, what we can't have is people agitating for an alternative social contract that means our 1% would have to stop being as obscenely wealthy as they are.

        So, you nip it in the bud, don't you?

        It doesn't matter how unlikely it is that the North Koreans might ever attain the dizzying heights of 'down and out in Scunthorpe', you make sure they don't even start looking like they might ever get that far - or people here will start asking awkward questions about why they can't, themselves, aspire to 'a bedsit Bognor' instead of the 'share of a campbed in a flea-ridden hostel in Eastbourne' they have to put up with today.

        My point is that it's not always about anything directly tangible - sometimes it's about political pork futures.

    2. MyffyW Silver badge

      The problem, as ever, is that the nuances of scientific doubt are polished away by the spin of PR to the point that all that is left is a nugget of purest turd - fine for flinging at the press but not a sound basis for foreign policy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @MyffyW

        The bigger problem is when two members of the Cabinet are basically jumped-up journalists and treat major events like scoops. Johnson's rushing to blame the Russian government with manufactured evidence is basically the behaviour of the kind of journalist who makes up interviews and sends in his copy before it's really known what has happened.

        Like - oh I don't know, when Johnson made up an interview and got sacked from The Times.

        When the Press is embedded in the government, there is precisely zero incentive to call it to account.

    3. codejunky Silver badge

      @ wolfetone

      "So excuse me for taking this news with a vat of salt the size of Argentina."

      Well said. And yet when a legitimate crisis comes up the chances of people taking it seriously because of the 'cry wolf' factor will be very low.

      1. LucreLout

        Re: @ wolfetone

        Well said. And yet when a legitimate crisis comes up the chances of people taking it seriously because of the 'cry wolf' factor will be very low.

        Absolutely. Tony Blair is responsible for the deaths of how many millions of civilians? And to achieve what? After the dodgy dossier, there is nothing Labour could ever say to me that I could ever believe. A sad state of affairs given I helped vote them into power. Its akin to the BBC and Jimmy Savile. The idea that there weren't hundreds or thousands of people within the organisation that knew of the scandal before the public discovered it is laughable.

        No other political party has used my vote to lie to the extent that millions of people died. They are all devious lying shysters, but the impact of some lies are just to big to ever be forgiven.

        Taking responsibility for my part in electing the government that started those questionable wars means I can't simply forgive & forget because they ask me to or plead that they have changed. I can't trust them not to start another war, and yet ironically, I certainly couldn't trust them to start one when it was actually needed.

        I'm disapointed with our politicians. They are scum. All of them. Across the political spectrum they threw away the respect we once had for their position for a few sheckles, and they want us to trust them again? Really? Why?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "We were also told that, beyond doubt, Porton Down said the Skirpal poisoning originated from Russia. Turns out that's not exactly true either."

      We dont know if they did or not. Only that they have NOW said its not 100% proven to be made in Russia. The Russians might have made it in Crimea in the Ukraine for instance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The Russians might have made it in Crimea in the Ukraine for instance.

        Maybe in a toilet in Croydon using flow-chemistry equipment for the safe and convenient production of the micrograms(!) of active material needed, kinda like a "cornucopia device" for nerve toxins one get as part of ones spy-assaination-kit?!

        One design feature of these poisons were that they could be made from "common ingredients" to get out under chemical-weapon bans. Maybe very common ingredients, the kind that one can buy straight off eBay.

    5. Peter2 Silver badge

      We were also told that, beyond doubt, Porton Down said the Skirpal poisoning originated from Russia. Turns out that's not exactly true either.

      No, they identified it chemically as being the Russian Novichok agent. They can't say that it came from Russia because the chemical composition is just that, and it does not include transit logs. However, that the Russians are the only people to have manufactured it which rather narrows it down, doesn't it?

      If you can come up with a plausible explanation for:-

      1) Who else has access to the Russian stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. (which one hopes/assumes to be better secured than business networks that we run)

      and;

      2) Who else had the method, motive and opportunity to assassinate an ex Russian spy who provided SIS with the names and details of Russian spies so they could be deported.

      Then I'm sure everybody would be interested.

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        However, that the Russians are the only people to have manufactured it which rather narrows it down, doesn't it?

        As a chemist by education I can tell you it does not. Even if the synthesis method is unknown, a lab can figure out how to synthesise it from the formula alone. Takes up to a half a year to a year for something like this.

        Who else has access to the Russian stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. (which one hopes/assumes to be better secured than business networks that we run)

        The mob. Files published in the Russian press. Go and read them. All of the loudest scientists carted out by both sides were in the lab involved, one have done jail time and there was a dead body. In 1996. Someone committed a grave violation of the chemical weapons convention by hushing it up between 1998 and 2002. I am not going to name the someone. Guess who it is yourself...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          > " Files published in the Russian press"

          Like that jet fighter that shot down MH17 was?

          FFS, they even have form, Litvinenko was traced to a sodding nuclear reactor and then they lost interest in the investigation. The most likely suspect for that is now an MP in a country where to stand at all requires Putin's consent. Victor Yushenko, also poisoned by the Russians, although no doubt there's something else in the Russian "press" for that too. Goes right back before the Soviet era when they whacked Georgi Markov with an unusual poison - they tried poisoning Rasputin first as well.

          They just like to send a message, so it has to be traceable, and probably didn't expect quite such a robust response after they got away with it last time.

          1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Like that jet fighter that shot down MH17 was?

            FFS, they even have form,

            You mean like going back in time to 1996, killing a banker and his secretary, putting in jail the director of the lab (one of the 3 which are usually referred to when Novichok is mentioned) and opening a criminal investigation in 1996 for grand treason, sale of categorized toxic substances to the mob, Chechen Islamic militants and a representative of a foreign state?

            I knew the Russians a awesome technologically, but I did not know they invented time travel. The scoop is ALL FROM ARCHIVES and all uncovered by their OPPOSITION PRESS. It was NOT taken over by their mainline press for an obvious reason. The several opened files with criminal charges were closed down between 1998 and 2002 and you know who is the only person who could cancel a grand treason investigation in that period. Let he be unnamed. By the way - pressing this would be significantly more damaging to him than anything we are trying to. Chechen Islamic Militant == Devil over there till this day.

            Additionally, the scoop clears cross references and provides what we call in IT "referential integrity" to a number of facts which did not make sense. Namely:

            1. The claims of the scientist which got to the USA on the novichok story ticket that it was worked in Moscow. Shit like that was worked in around Nizhni Novgorod. Never in the capital. The scoop provides the only meaningful explanation so far - the Moscow lab was given access to the project files when the project was closed in 1988. It was never invented there and the whole story about invention there and tests in Uzbekistan is a fluke.

            2. The "hero scientist" which got severely damaged by the substance during a hood malfunction and passed out mid-Moscow. I have worked with shit only a fraction that dangerous and the protocol was specialized hood, gloved access and personal protection. What f*cking hood malfunction if you are working via gloved box access and wearing extra protection? Again - the files explain both. A) the lab to which the project was transferred was actually analysis, purification and separation - chromatorgaphy lab. It never had any proper kit as it did not need to - it was not its job. B) The boss ordered synthesis (according to the file) of a batch to one of his subordinates and left the building (just in case - what a c*nt). Looks like in one of the cases the subordinate suffered from doing it without the right equipment.

            There are some seriously scary corollaries from the files which are all 20 years old and some of them have been in the hands of the press for a while so it would have taken time machine to go back falsify them. The synthesis of the batch which was used in the 1996 killing was done in a relatively basic lab not specialized in synthesis of toxic compounds by a LAB TECHNICIAN. Yep, a middle-aged Russian mamulia with a technical college degree can synthesize this sh*t if given the precursors and procedures. Nation state my arse. 20 Nation states doubly my arse. One being claimed by a humanitarian with an oxford red brick in his rectum, the other one by a similar one with Ленинградский Институт Международных Отношений up his rectum. Both do not know what they are talking about.

            1. Chris G

              One of the things that I find strange about the whole case is that the Skripals are still alive. When I did my basic training in the '70s, we were told about NBC, nerve agents being the C(hemical) and that micrograms of nerve gas were sufficient to cause death in three minutes. So how were the Skripals able to leave their house (which is where one report I read says they were poisoned) and go to a park bench to be found critically ill.

              Our training which included a film of a goat having had a nerve agent administered, described ( within the three minutes) the course from ingestion to death; ingestion via contact, inhalation or ingestion, first symptom runny nose and watery eyes, increased pulse then heightened respiration, cramps and spasms becoming more severe to they point of spastic movement, extreme vomiting and relaxation of sphincters, here I am sure there were a couple of other things and then death.

              In Three Minutes!

              Additionally I am sure I read that investigators found something like two grams of the stuff on a front door handle, two grams would be enough to take out a village.

              We were trained how to use syrettes filled with atropine IIRC which in order to do any good had to be self administered at the first sign of symptoms. That something nasty has happened is clear, what exactly has happened is very unclear due to what seems to be a lot of BS in the media from all directions.

              Smoke and mirrors.

              1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

                One of the things that I find strange about the whole case is that the Skripals are still alive. When I did my basic training in the '70s, we were told about NBC, nerve agents being the C(hemical) and that micrograms of nerve gas were sufficient to cause death in three minutes.

                Concur. We had the same training.

                There is a possible explanation. It also doubles up for an explanation for why the max concentration is in the entrance hall.

                Just to be clear - this is just me hyphothesizing, no evidence for this, just a set of interesting coincidences :)

                The target was never them. The target was the late brother (for whatever reason) who was snuffed a few months ago under suspicious circumstances in St Petersburgh, the attack was there - most likely by Russians but on Russian soil against a Russian there. All we are seeing is collateral damage from microscopic traces in a bag of clothes and personal artefacts brought by Julia back the day before they were found slumped. What supports this:

                1. Times and survival rates (as you noted).

                2. The discovery of traces on the car which brought her from the airport and the search for traces (though very late ones) on the aircraft.

                3. The maximum of the concentration in the entrance hall. That is where a Slavic woman keeps her laundry bin (it is not kept in the bathroom as in the average British house).

                4. The lack of any further criminology evidence - it all went into the washing machine.

                1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

                  One of the things that I find strange about the whole case is that the Skripals are still alive. When I did my basic training in the '70s, we were told about NBC, nerve agents being the C(hemical) and that micrograms of nerve gas were sufficient to cause death in three minutes.

                  It just hit me.

                  What if D1980 (aka Novichok-4) is so specific that it does not affect Nicotinic Receptors and only the Muscarinic ones. The typical picture of Nicotinic receptor inhibition as for example by Sarin or VX gas is exactly that - 3 minute death. They however can be slowed down by atropine as an antidote. While they also hit Muscarinic receptors, that is usually not part of the equation because the subject is already 6 feet under.

                  One thing in the stuff so far published by Russian opposition press (which is all so far confirmed) and specifically the interview with one of the real guys to design this sh*t (from a numbered town near Nizhny Novgorod) is that there is no antidote. It is repeated by UK press so far too, so it might as well be true. That means a Muscarinic receptor type specific inhibitor. That fits.

                  1. It is slow. It is not 3 minutes. It may take up to half an hour to act.

                  2. It has no antidote - atropine does not work. It has, however an easy way to counteract it which the doctors in Salisbury hit unintentionally. Just put the subject into an artificial coma. As long as there is little or no nerve activity trying to go down via the blocked pathways the nerves cannot damage themselves by "short-circuiting" and breaking the glia. Over time the body synthesizes replacement receptors and voila - the subject which should have been long six feet under is now talking, coherent and may in fact be OK after that.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                I think that the 'three minutes' thing is (a) if you get a realky big dose, such as if you're a soldier and someone is hurling munitions full of it at you, and (b) a way of encouraging you to act *really quickly* just in cas (a) is true.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              > "You mean like going back in time..."

              Not really.

              Proper tin-foil-hat rant that one.

              Perhaps consider what your sources are before you regurgitate Russian media and facebook posts as if it's anything other than propaganda.

              The reason the UK has so much support on this, is because the Russians have also been killing people in other countries and their own intelligence blames Russia too.

            3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

              Like that jet fighter that shot down MH17 was?

              FFS, they even have form,

              The file on the 1996 novichok murder and the mob involvement as well as the fact that both cia and MI5 had access to it is finally on the front page of the guardian.

              Only 14 days after it was published by the Russian press. Only 11 days after I send it to them. And after a total of around 500 down votes on the register for daring to mention it.

              Damn... Why is it so difficult for people to admit that a liar ten times called Boris is most likely lying the 11th.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Voland,

          ... "However, that the Russians are the only people to have manufactured it which rather narrows it down, doesn't it?"...

          ... "As a chemist by education I can tell you it does not."....

          As I'm sure you know, there are a great many "fingerprints" that can be and generally are left in the composition of complex molecules.

          -- A practising industrial chemist

      2. heyrick Silver badge

        "No, they identified it chemically as being the Russian Novichok agent. They can't say that it came from Russia because the chemical composition is just that, and it does not include transit logs. However, that the Russians are the only people to have manufactured it which rather narrows it down, doesn't it?"

        One important piece of the puzzle missing. In order to positively identify it, you would need to have either a sample or the precise chemical composition. And if you have either of those and happen to be involved with a biological weapons testing facility, it is not going to be out of the realms of possibility of them making some of their own.

        1. fajensen
          Pint

          It would be professional incompetence if Porter Down didn't run some batches of the stuff. At least enough for NMR, RAMAN spectroscopy and whatever else one uses to identify chemicals quickly.

          Working out how it kills and maybe countermeasures would also be within the scope of Porter Down. It is a bloody disgrace that we need to have such a facility but since we do need it, it has to keep up with developments.

          ---

          I bet everyone working there always brings their drinks with them to the loo. I would!

        2. TheVogon

          "In order to positively identify it, you would need to have either a sample or the precise chemical composition"

          Vil Mirzayanov gave them all the details years ago.

      3. heyrick Silver badge

        "2) Who else had the method, motive and opportunity to assassinate an ex Russian spy"

        Since you raise the point, am I the only one who finds this to be a horribly messy excuse for an assassination that appears to have "Russia did it" written all over the place in magic marker? I'm quite sure a country with the resources of Russia (not to mention the history of spy/KGB cloak and dagger bullshit) could devise a hundred ways of killing this bloke without the apparently ridiculously obvious trail.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I'd really like to agree with you, but Polonium says otherwise.

        2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          "2) Who else had the method, motive and opportunity to assassinate an ex Russian spy"

          One looking for pardon and carrying the goods needed for said pardon to be granted?

          His employers whoever they maybe - yes. Whoever was to grant the pardon - not really.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I'm quite sure a country with the resources of Russia (not to mention the history of spy/KGB cloak and dagger bullshit) could devise a hundred ways of killing this bloke without the apparently ridiculously obvious trail.

          Exactly. They WANTED it to be clear they'd done it. Revenge, of itself, is a worthless thing because it doesn't undo a betrayal, and Putin and his his equally clever, equally charmless acolytes know that But by tracking down and killing every single person who's crossed you, if necessary decades later, and on the other side of the world, that is (to these people) a useful message that persuades people that they can betray you, but they will be found and killed.

          If the bloke had just died in an apparently accidental car crash, that's achieves nothing and could/would have been overlooked. In this case, Putin has had a field day, by recognising beforehand that the bumbling fuckwits of the British government would react the way they did, and choosing to try and kill the bloke in manner that they couldn't overlook even if they wanted to.

          1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

            by recognising beforehand that the bumbling fuckwits of the British government would react the way they did

            I suspect that. in this case at least, they badly miscalculated. They probably expected the UK government to respond like they did in the polonium incident (ie lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth and very little else).

            The fact that this incident has lead to lots of other countries expelling Russian spies^W diplomats will have disrupted things considerably for the FSB & GRU. And most countries don't do that lightly - better the devil you know and all that!.

          2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

            They WANTED it to be clear they'd done it

            There are far better ways of doing that, making it obvious they did it with greater plausible deniability than using Novichok.

            Putin could be on TV saying "I guess that's the sort of thing which could happen if we wanted it to", giving a wink while knowing there would never be the evidence to prove they had, and there would be far less of a case the international community could get behind.

            I don't buy it. It's no more convincing than claiming Ahmadinejad or the Kim Jongs are utterly insane and reckless, desire to kill us all even if it means their own country's annihilation.

        4. veti Silver badge

          I'm quite sure a country with the resources of Russia (not to mention the history of spy/KGB cloak and dagger bullshit) could devise a hundred ways of killing this bloke without the apparently ridiculously obvious trail.

          Yes, of course they could. But that would miss the point.

          Rubbing out one measly agent, who has long since shot his payload and done his damage, was not the point. The point was the message it sends: to other defectors ("you're not safe, we can get you anywhere"), to potential defectors ("we do not forgive"), and to Russian voters ("we're so strong, you're only safe in Russia"). The message to the UK public ("your crappy 'democracy' can't protect you") was a bonus.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            The point was the message it sends: to other defectors ("you're not safe, we can get you anywhere"), to potential defectors ("we do not forgive"), and to Russian voters ("we're so strong, you're only safe in Russia"). The message to the UK public ("your crappy 'democracy' can't protect you") was a bonus.

            Can you stop the "Vlad cooks children on neurotoxic gas" nonsense - this is not the daily mail. It actually achieves Vlad's aims by the way. He is playing the long game (as usual).

            He, quite deliberately, has allowed everyone opposed to him to move out to London. Russia experienced 12 years of disorganized mob rule under Eltsin. During those years fortunes were made and none of them was made by honest means. There was always a dark side and only the toughest motherf*ckers with the best mob soldiers survived. Instead of fighting them, he allowed them to move to the UK. A lot of them took some "family atomics" with them. It was trivial to obtain them during those years. Salaries in research institutions were not paid for 6+ months, people were starving and had nothing to feed their children with. So cases like selling 9 sealed 0.2g batches of Novichok to the Chechen Islamist terrorists, mob and a NATO rep (this is from the 1996 archive criminal file of the director of the lab which worked on it) was part of the daily routine. There is a LOT of that sitting in freezers around Kensington and Chelsea.

            This way he has solidified his rule without a single open conflict bar Yukos. There is however a silver lining for all of his opponents. When your assets are obtained via mob means and you are not there to enforce the iron fist you lose them over time. That is what has been happening for the last 7 years or so. They are now down to a couple of bank accounts and their mansions resulting in them being rather unsurprisingly at each others throats. The sanctions and the tightening up of regs on money transfers from Russia have accelerated the process as well.

            In addition to this, he has successfully poisoned UK politics. The remaining lot will sponsor anything in the name of getting back to their assets and paying Boris and Cameron 150k for a "tennis match" is frankly in the "small change" range. Election money. Referendum money. You name it - it is all there and it is all legal now as we have granted them citizenship. That makes Vlad immensely happy because the strength of the UK "pull" is getting to the point when it will split off from the rest of the Eu. There is a substantial difference between UK and the rest of the Eu - UK one of the few countries which is not dependent on something from Russia. Nearly everyone else is importing something - commodities, raw materials, energy, etc. Once UK is out (which is achieved naturally) Vlad will achieve his aim. And have the last laugh.

            At that point he will completely shut off the flow to the mob he has successfully moved to the UK and that is when the real fun (including shootouts with Ak47s in Kensington and Chelsea) will begin.

            So please, continue helping him by repeating the Daily Mail statements. You are an excellent soldier to his cause.

        5. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          could devise a hundred ways of killing this bloke without the apparently ridiculously obvious trail

          Unless they wanted it to be obvious (to the right people[1]) that it was them. As a warning to others..

          [1] Ex-spies, former oligarchs now living in the West and anyone else who might have the ability to embarass Putin..

        6. GIRZiM

          >I'm quite sure a country with the resources of Russia (not to mention the history of spy/KGB cloak and dagger bullshit) could devise a hundred ways of killing this bloke without the apparently ridiculously obvious trail.

          I'm not saying you don't have a good point but, actually, culturally that's quite typically Russian. It is, historically speaking, very Russian to do the whole 'scorched earth' excessive force thing - a man must be seen to be powerful and so must the nation. As, ZanzibarRastapopulous said, they like to send a message.

          Also, it's equally Russian to be surprised when you learn that the fellow attacking you is doing so because you cut his brother's head off with a chainsaw. You understand that he has to defend his family's honour, yes, but he doesn't need to get so emotional about it. I think it's because they make such a fuss themselves, make such emotional displays, that they attribute a certain amount of 'theatre' to everyone's actions and words - or so said my Russian friend in the past anyway (of course it's entirely possible he was a sociopath himself - he was Russian after all ; )

          So there's quite probably a certain amount of "What are you making such a fuss about? Everybody does it. We do it, You do it. You know we know you know we know you do it. Why all the theatre?" on the part of Russia.

          Did they do it? Very possibly..

          Why? Because they're Russian and one of their own betrayed them and it's a matter of honour and pour encourager les autres: you can run but you can't hide; betray us and we will get you, no matter how long it takes - we'll get your family and your dog too and the man who gave your young daughter an apple from his stall in the market when she smiled at him (because the community was made aware not to help them in any way and he did).

          You can't help having a bit of grudging admiration for them for that actually - if you're gonna send a message to people, don't mess around and leave it open to question, say it loud and say it proud: YOU'RE DEAD, MUTHAF*CKA!

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > they identified it chemically as being the Russian Novichok agent.

        Or did they actually say it was substance of a type like Novichok?

        > Who else has access to the Russian stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

        Where is the proof it came from a Russian stockpile? Porton Down and others have enough to kill someone. No need for a stockpile.

        > Who else had the method, motive and opportunity

        Any state actor who wanted to suggest Russia is a threat to the west. Including ourselves.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Peter2 - As an ex-soviet republic

        Ukraine had access to a lot of military stuff made by soviets. Just saying!

      6. martinusher Silver badge

        @Peter2

        The formula for this agent was first published decades ago.

        >Who else has access to the Russian stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

        "Stockpile" is a bit meaningless when you're talking microgram quantities. It was probably made in a lab somewhere (although given its potency, or rather, lack of, it could have been made anywhere.)

        >Who else had the method, motive and opportunity....

        Just another random theory. Like "Who had the method, motive and opportunity" to create a heightened Cold War mindset with a false flag attack?". If you want plausible, but unproven, theories there are a lot about, including these two being involved in investigating links between companies like Cambridge Analytica and leading politicians. I daresay the truth will come out in time.

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Russians

        First, I do find it the more likely explanation that the Russians are behind this.

        But to say they are the only ones to have manufactured it.. I am sure that is incorrect. The reason being that the UK has an antidote/cure/treatment for it, and that it was promptly applied to the victims.

        So we know for sure how to make it, and how to cure it..

        The first one allows us to make it, should we want to, and the second means that either we were given he antidote by someone who had manufactured and tested it or we already had it, so we have made it, at least in the past.

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: Russians

          The reason being that the UK has an antidote/cure/treatment

          Having a treatment/antidote does not mean having the ability to make the poison in the first place. Once the physiological method of action is known then the treatment can be derived.

          1. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

            Re: Russians

            "Having a treatment/antidote does not mean having the ability to make the poison in the first place."

            Especially if the antidote isn't very specific (having been designed as an antidote for one specific poison).

            Atropine has been available for many decades if not more. Well, definitely longer, because it's an extract of the deadly nightshade. Strong poison by itself. But it's useful against a good number of conditions, like pesticide poisonings and some heart problems.

            I don't know whether ambulance crews in the UK carry it, but it's still part of the standard ambulance kit in my neck of woods.

        2. TheVogon

          Re: Russians

          " The reason being that the UK has an antidote/cure/treatment for it, and that it was promptly applied to the victims."

          No they dont, and no it wasnt. There is no known antidote to Novachok.

      8. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "1) Who else has access to the Russian stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. (which one hopes/assumes to be better secured than business networks that we run)"

        On the other hand, why would Russia use a weapon so easily and obviously directly traceable with a high level of certainty back to them with other possible methods available to them which would be untraceable in the noise other than the suspicion that no one else would likely have motive to go after Skripal?

        It's very puzzling. Especially if the Wikipedia article on Novichek is accurate since that implies a number of states, including the US and Iran might well have the capability to create and use it to stir up shit.

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          why would Russia use a weapon so easily and obviously directly traceable with a high level of certainty back to them

          To discourage others. It's not rocket science: "cross us and you'll die in a horrible fashion".

      9. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Who else had the method, motive and opportunity

        Last time I commented on that, I didn't see any strong motive for either the UK or Russian government to create a big diplomatic spat.

        Now we've seen ...

        - in domestic UK politics, Corbyn once again at war with his party. And they threw the antisemitism row at him while he was off-balance with the Russian story. Corbyn-haters have demonstrated a motive.

        - the second-stage brexit agreement has escaped any substantial media scrutiny, as they all focus on the Russia spat instead. That's a huge motive for those involved in negotiating brexit.

        Both those should have been predictable to people close enough to the relevant action.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Alert

          Now we've seen ...

          Wow!

          On this morning's Today programme[1], just after seven, John Humphreys interviewing Malcolm Rifkind. Rifkind beautifully avoided saying anything (apart from the customary ad-hominems about Russia and Putin), while also avoiding refusing to answer Humphreys. Just insinuating an attack on Corbyn, and insinuating seeds of doubt about the cousin Victoria Skripal.

          A masterly performance compared to the squirming to which Humphreys customarily reduces evasive politicians when they stick to a script. This disingenuous behaviour from the UK government is precisely what convinces me they're being dishonest about this.

          [1] BBC radio flagship news&current affairs programme.

          1. EnviableOne

            Malcolm Rifkin is a seasoned professional, and skillful practionioner of the politions art, having been through the benches of parliment, he's seen the games and played them all.

            John Humphrys is a buldog, not one to work his way round an opponent, which is why he never got to do newsnight.

            Paxo, Kirsty Walk or Evan Davis would have got more from him.

      10. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I'm sure it was the Russians. But that's not the point: we were initially told that Porton Down said something which they didn't say (and, obviously, can not say), and that kind of bullshit from politicians just corrodes trust.

        'On bullshit' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit) is well-worth reading on this: it seems to describe exactly what is going on here.

      11. Not also known as SC
        Headmaster

        They can't say that it came from Russia because the chemical composition is just that, and it does not include transit logs.

        Years ago while studying chemistry for my degree I attended a talk about chemical analysis. One method, which IIRC was liquid gas chromatography, was claimed to be so sensitive that it could measure impurities in the chemicals created by the material the reaction vessel was made from. This lead on to who had manufactured the vessels and all sort of other things. Assuming that this wasn't just hype, it should be possible with a sample of the chemical to determine quite accurately where it came from.

    6. This post has been deleted by its author

    7. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      We were told Saddam could get to us within 45 minutes, and that turned out to be total horseshit.
      .

      No we weren't. The dossier said that Saddam could reach Cyprus, there was even a map with range circles drawn on it. Which was well within range of the SCUDs that he still had (in breach of UN resolutions and the 1991 ceasefire). And we know he had those, Iraq fired some of them in 2003.

      The intelligence that was wrong, was that he had remaining useable chemical weapons stocks and the warheads to use SCUDs to launch them. The document said that we had intel suggesting this, which according to a documentary I saw on the BBC actually came from German intelligence. The original MI6 submission to the JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) stated that there was uncorroborated evidence to sugges this, or some other such wording with caveats. The caveats got dropped for the dossier.

      Nobody who'd looked at the 1990s history of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq seriously believe Iraq didn't still have some chemical weapons kicking around. The inspectors got kicked out in around 97 and hadn't yet destroyed all the stocks they knew existed. Iraq also had the scientific know-how to rebuild the program, as it was pretty much entirely home-grown. The only question was, were those stockpiles in a usable condition and were they a threat.

    8. heyrick Silver badge

      wolfetone: +1 billion. Wanted to say exactly that. I'm glad it was the very first comment.

    9. Mark 85

      So who's right this time? One side says the NORK's are a threat. The other side says "We're good buds and buds don't attack buds.".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Norks "are a threat" using purely 1950's technology

        ICBM (possibly)

        crude inefficient A-bomb (probably)

        but according to rumors, their bomb is still too big to fit on an ICBM!

        think of the tragedy should a novichuck land on Big-Ben, parliament would have to take a recess for a month or so.

        Anyway, surely a small angry poor nation that is a bit unhappy - using 1950's technology, aren't there already established adult protocols for how to treat this sort of threat? - I'd suggest sending Boris there immediately for several years of discussions, and then perhaps urgently hand out a few NaI tablets like the belgians have done

        http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2018/03/07/97001-20180307FILWWW00083-la-belgique-distribue-des-pastilles-d-iode-face-au-risque-nucleaire.php

        1. emmanuel goldstein

          Wonder what would happen if a nuclear weapon detonated in your area?

          Now you can find out.

          Enter a postcode, choose your preferred weapon, select ground or air burst and away you go.

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The Russians at the UN just said this,

      "We all know what the worth of British intelligence information is based on the experience of Tony Blair."

      Once you lie it's difficult to get anyone to believe you.

      1. LucreLout

        The Russians at the UN just said this,

        "We all know what the worth of British intelligence information is based on the experience of Tony Blair."

        Once you lie it's difficult to get anyone to believe you.

        Quite. I often wonder if I'm the only former labour voter who can remember and appreciate the scale of damage that idiot did to our country, our reputation, and our future. And I wonder if there will ever be an end to it.

        I don't believe Blair was a war criminal based on the evidence provided to date, but I do believe he has questions to answer and that the correct procedure and location for those questions to be asked & answered is in a trial, at The Hague.

        For a man I once held in such high regard, respected, and trusted to have fallen so far in my estimation is unprecedented. I may be the only ex-labour voter with a bottle of champagne in the fridge waiting for news of his passing, but when the day comes, his legacy will be one of death and destruction and nought more.

        1. Blitheringeejit
          Flame

          Lies, damn lies, and lawyers

          "I don't believe Blair was a war criminal based on the evidence provided to date ..."

          I do, on the basis that he treated Parliament like a courtroom, delivering a case for the prosecution exactly as if he was engaged by one side in an adversarial encounter. This is what happens when you allow lawyers to enter Parliament - and why we desperately need more MPs with a scientific background.

          Lawyers are trained to argue the case for their side, and therefore to disengage any objectivity or sense of natural justice which they might otherwise possess. Once Blair chose to be effectively retained by the Bush/Cheney axis on Iraq, it was inevitable that he would argue the case for the war they wanted using every scrap of evidence which supported his case, but carefully ignoring, or seeking to discredit, every scrap of evidence which might count against it. This enabled him to ignore the highly public and well-evidenced findings of the UN on the issue of Saddam's WMD (or lack thereof), while asserting the truth of his "dodgy dossier".

          I'm no expert on war crimes law, but he was definitely guilty of lying to Parliament by any meaningful definition of the term, and by doing so he obtained authorisation to order lethal military action against a foreign power. That's a criminal offence under UK law, if not at The Hague - and I don't particularly care where he stands trial, as long as it happens somewhere.

          @Lucrolout: you are not the only one with champagne waiting in the fridge - but I have two bottles. My own Labour constituency MP, for whom I voted in 97, wrote in a letter to me that she "would have the greatest difficulty" supporting a vote in Parliament for military action in Iraq without a second UN Security Council resolution to back such action. Two weeks later, after Blair had failed to obtain a second resolution, she did exactly that. So the other bottle awaits her demise.

          1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

            Re: Lies, damn lies, and lawyers

            I'm no expert on war crimes law, but he was definitely guilty of lying to Parliament by any meaningful definition of the term, and by doing so he obtained authorisation to order lethal military action against a foreign power.

            A standard tactic. Having achieved that goal he could then hide behind the fact that everyone else was as convinced of the so-called evidence as he was.

            It was the same when parliament were manipulated to treat the brexit referendum as if binding rather than advisory, the same trick May has used with "Russia did it" in getting many in the international community to agree with her assertion.

            It is wilfully co-opting defendants into the matter to protect themselves; 'everyone believed it, not just me'.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "We all know what the worth of British intelligence information is based on the experience of Tony Blair"

        But the issue there was with American intelligence!

    11. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      We live in bizarro world

      Where the right is making excuses for Russia, trying to point the finger pretty much anywhere else and seeing conspiracies behind conspiracies, and the left already has them tried and convicted and is ready to recall the ambassadors and start Cold War II.

      Reagan would be horrified to see today's republican party, and McGovern would be horrified to see today's democratic party.

    12. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      So excuse me for taking this news with a vat of salt the size of Argentina

      Just reading the news. More like the size of South America.

      The cat freely roaming the house while the cops had it sealed survived and was only severely malnourished. At which point Porton Down put it down conveniently erasing the evidence. After the Russians asked for it at the United Nations Security Council.

      This breaks even the boris mark on the Pinocchio meter.

      A cat surviving in a nerve gas attack site? Utter ratshit. Can boris and Co stop lying and can we see some evidence that was not tampered with please.

    13. Florida1920

      We were told Saddam could get to us within 45 minutes, and that turned out to be total horseshit.
      Saddam didn't have ICBMs. Kim does. Saddam did, however, have a better haircut.

  2. pɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
    Coat

    was this written by.....

    was the report written by the same people that told us about Iraq and its WMD's......

    Mines the one with the pocket full of co-proxamol....

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ask North Korea

    They'll probably say they're definitely able to do that already.

  4. Tom 7

    The BBC were saying a missile could hit us 'in a few months'.

    That's not a missile that's a pedallo.

    1. Dr_N

      Re: The BBC were saying a missile could hit us 'in a few months'.

      Nukes in shipping containers, circling the globe. Waiting .....

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: The BBC were saying a missile could hit us 'in a few months'.

        Nukes in shipping containers I can believe. North Korea have got the tech for that. Though as they're not plugged into global shipping routes, and there are radiation detectors at some major container ports, it's not quite as easy as all that. But I'm sure it could be done.

        The last missile they tested could supposedly reach Alaska and Hawaii. I don't believe they've got one that can reach here yet.

        Then there's the warhead size issue. It's one thing making a warhead that goes bang. It's more work to get that down to a useable size. Then they've got to do the heat shielding.

        Seems like quite a lot of work to get done in 2 years.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: The BBC were saying a missile could hit us 'in a few months'.

          "Nukes in shipping containers I can believe. North Korea have got the tech for that. Though as they're not plugged into global shipping routes, and there are radiation detectors at some major container ports, it's not quite as easy as all that. But I'm sure it could be done."

          Oh, it could certainly be done. I doubt there would be any reason to wait for it to be offloaded and possibly checked for content. ISTR a short SF story titled something like "A message to Howard Hughes" that involved a billionaire making and delivering small nuclear bombs to the worlds major capital cities and holding the world to ransom, the "ransom" being to destroy all nuclear weapons and create an organisation to police it.

  5. Roj Blake Silver badge

    Even if it's True...

    Assuming this is true, then there's no need to worry as we have have a nuclear deterrent.

    Anyone who says we need to worry is admitting that deterrents don't deter.

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: Even if it's True...

      Anyone who says we need to worry is admitting that deterrents don't deter.

      Even if you assume that North Korea has nuclear weapons that can hit the UK & US then as you note they would have to accept that their using those weapons against us could (and probably would) result in North Korea being reduced to a series of glowing and somewhat radioactive craters.

      If you accept that the people holding the "nuclear button" are sane responsible adults then one assumes that they won't push the button. Then you look at Trump on the one hand, and Kim (missile boy) on the other.

      But I don't know about you, I did worry somewhat that during the cold war that we were within a dozen miles of something that could conceivably have been on the Kremlins target list.

      So yes, nuclear weapons are scary. But not as scary as a world without them unless you've never noticed that rulers have a very well documented record of being rather loose with the lives of their people when sending them off to war and that dates back to pre-history. Our Glorious Leaders do worry somewhat about sending people off to war against a country that might retaliate by landing a nuke on them personally which has resulted in the peace that we have enjoyed in our lifetimes.

      1. DJO Silver badge

        Re: Even if it's True...

        result in North Korea being reduced to a series of glowing and somewhat radioactive craters.

        No it wont. The problem with nukes is the damage can spread to neighbouring areas, Pyongyang is reasonably central so that could be reduced to dust but most of the military bases are near the borders and SK really doesn't want to to become collateral damage, the other side of NK is close to Vladivostok and causing damage there would not be a wise move.

        I suppose a narrow central strip could be eliminated making SK into an island and allowing Russia to expand into the other side.

    2. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: Even if it's True...

      "Anyone who says we need to worry is admitting that deterrents don't deter."

      Deterrents deter semi sane (*) people who understand that striking a country with MAD (**) means you'll get nuked in return and, usually, any eventual victory will be pyrrhic.

      Such deterrents don't work on the nutcases that either don't believe or don't give a crap.

      * - only "semi" as properly sane people should know better than to involve nuclear weapons

      ** - if even in the history of mankind there was an appropriate acronym, Mutually Assured Destruction is it

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Even if it's True...

        "Such deterrents don't work on the nutcases that either don't believe or don't give a crap."

        Especially those who might believe "The Rapture" is due and that their omnipotent and omnipresent God might need a helping hand and may be in the US Presidential line of succession.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    North Korea, China, Russia, Iran... Always the same, just for change can we blame it on New Zealand? They're definitely up to something what with being nice and not having any nukes pointed at them. It's only a matter of time before they weaponize those sheep, ewe better believe it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      And beating England in the recent Test series mustn't go unpunished!

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        And beating England in the recent Test series mustn't go unpunished!

        Not so much them beating us, more us losing to them..

    3. a_yank_lurker

      "we blame it on New Zealand"

      Over here we live in fear of the Canucks beating us up with hockey sticks (lol)

  7. Pen-y-gors

    You want to have something to worry about?

    The USA already has nuclear missiles that can reach the UK - and Trump's little fingers are holding the button.

    1. vtcodger Silver badge

      Re: You want to have something to worry about?

      Your good luck is that, given Trump's knowledge and organizational skills, if he set out to attack England he'd probably launch the missile at New Britain Island in the Bismark Archipelago

  8. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse
    Facepalm

    Christ almighty...

    After 8000'ish years of civilisation building, can't we all just "down weapons" and start to get along with each other for a change :-(

    1. Aladdin Sane

      Re: Christ almighty...

      Down with this sort of thing.

      1. Roj Blake Silver badge

        Re: Down with this sort of thing

        Careful now.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Tigra 07

      Re: Christ almighty...

      Because eventually someone will still get jealous of a nice piece of land their neighbour has.

    3. Paul Herber Silver badge

      Re: Christ almighty...

      42. No, doesn't work.

      1. GIRZiM

        Re: 42. No, doesn't work.

        It does if the question is "How many people will be left after the nutcases have finished pressing buttons?"

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Christ almighty...

      One word, capitalism and no I'm not some socialist loon I would prefer some kind of middle ground. When there is money to made humans will try and make it and that includes weapons and war as for getting along that's down to media, governments, education and the fact that if we all get along there isn't money to be made. Unless we remove haves and have not there will always be fighting.

    5. Jamie Jones Silver badge

      Re: Christ almighty...

      Have you *seen* youtube comments? !

    6. hplasm
      Facepalm

      Re: Christ almighty...

      Sadly, the answer is No, the reason is in the heading*...

      *and the other, competing idols.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Christ almighty...

        After 8000'ish years of civilisation building, can't we all just "down weapons" and start to get along with each other for a change :-(

        Historically, it's actually been done plenty of times by plenty of civilisations. These civilisations are all notable by being extinct. My favourite example was two Polynesian civilisations that completely disarmed and destroyed all of their weapons (knowing/thinking that they were the only two civilisations in the world) only to be invaded by a tribe of cannibals. Oops.

        Essentially, as you give up violence you become increasingly vulnerable internally to increasingly smaller groups of nuts, like ISIS/Daesh, or externally from another civilisation deciding that they'll demolish your police force and take over your country/territory.

    7. LucreLout

      Re: Christ almighty...

      After 8000'ish years of civilisation building, can't we all just "down weapons" and start to get along with each other for a change :-(

      I dearly wish we could.

      Unfortunately, people are fundamentally competetive rather than fundamentally cooperative. Its one of the reasons capitalism works and socialism doesn't. In fact, its the main reason and its the main difference between the two ideas.

  9. scrubber
    Stop

    Oh noes

    That sounds scary, can I give up more of my privacy with a side order of rights so that you can pretend to keep me safe?

  10. Daedalus

    Kiwis can do it. Why not Kim?

    If the Kiwis can put stuff into orbit, then the Norks can't be far behind. If you can get to orbit you can hit anywhere on the planet. The threat was implicit from the git go. It just takes time for the drones to figure it out.

    1. Chris G

      Re: Kiwis can do it. Why not Kim?

      The Kiwis can put stuff into orbit?

      I'm off the buy a hard hat and a shovel, I need to dig a sheep proof shelter.

      Which reminds me, what's the re-entry speed of a sheep in semi-vacuum?

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

        Re: Kiwis can do it. Why not Kim?

        African or European sheep?

        1. rmason

          Re: Kiwis can do it. Why not Kim?

          Laden or unladen?

      2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: Kiwis can do it. Why not Kim?

        what's the re-entry speed of a sheep in semi-vacuum?

        Depends on how recently it's been sheared.

  11. Aynon Yuser

    Hacking is so childish. Why don't they all just grow up, take care of themselves and their people and just innovate on their own. Ridiculous.

  12. alain williams Silver badge

    Could but won't

    The Norks are rational enough to know that if they nuked the UK or anywhere else then they would be reduced to glowing embers -- look at their recent actions. The summary of this report says as much. They will huff & puff and carry out more missile tests just enough to worry people in other countries.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why would they bother nuking the UK when our own government is doing its best to turn the country into a post-apocalyptic wasteland?

    This assumes that the Nork give a damn about us which they almost certainly don't. If he wants to start flinging nukes around there are better targets from his perspective.

  14. Paul Herber Silver badge

    'the communist nation could nuke Britain "within a few years".'

    Must be China then because I'm sure North Korea is not in any way communist!

    1. Mark 85

      Must be China then because I'm sure North Korea is not in any way communist!

      And China is? Not according to Marx.

  15. Joe Harrison

    It is said by many scurrilous doubters that...

    Obviously it is crazy talk but some say that NK is no real threat to anybody. It does though provide a fantastic excuse to put lots of military things near to China with "Behave!" signs displayed on them.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    I'm pretty sure North Korea has no reason to nuke fellow authoritarian regimes...

  17. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    "Could"......

    ...defence bods think North Korea could nuke UK 'within a few years'...

    ...isn't 'Will"....

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: "Could"......

      "...defence bods think North Korea could nuke UK 'within a few years'...

      ...isn't 'Will"...."

      Of course not, because as we well know, everyone gets to "fire at Will"

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: "Could"......

        everyone gets to "fire at Will"

        Especially Americans..

        1. BoldMan

          Re: "Could"......

          ...and Will is getting pretty pissed off now!

  18. Richard Parkin

    Some people here need to look up the distance from NK to USA and U.K.

    This is old news. Some people here need to look up the distance from NK to USA and U.K.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Headmaster

      Re: Some people here need to look up the distance from NK to USA and U.K.

      At last, someone who has looked at an atlas.

      The Meeja have been talking missile range for some time, and speculating on how long before NK has the range to hit mainland US, and eventually whole-of-US. Which instantly implies the range to hit UK.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bandwidth

    The article states the Chinese op is in a hotel, which always have crap internet.

    It then talks about the amount of bandwidth needed as a large amount..... These facts lead me to conclude the report uses the UK measure of internet speed where 10mb is super fast according to the government. Damn those Chinese hotels offering world grade bandwidth to ordinary guests!! Terrorists they must be.

  20. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Can't say I blame them

    When countries with nukes go threatening others to do as they say it is not surprising those others want their own nukes as well. They want them for the same reasons we say we need to have them.

    I believe we should get rid of all nukes, but if some nations are allowed them I find it hard to say others shouldn't be allowed them as well if they choose that and we can't reassure them otherwise.

    What I find most concerning is the shift in nuclear doctrine under Trump; to have lower yield nukes which can be more readily used with less risk of provoking the Mutually Assured Destruction which comes with bigger nukes. That may be a misguided notion but it suggests a worrying path being walked. Coupled with Trump repeatedly asking 'why can't I use our nukes?' that's shit-scary.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, if NK is going to nuke UK

    who is going to hate Russia ?

    1. Potemkine! Silver badge

      Re: So, if NK is going to nuke UK

      All of its neighbors who had to endure a russian 'liberation" at one time or another.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nuclear option

    Clearly MoD have gone for the nuclear option begging bowl. Perhaps they will need another couple of carrier groups to defend the Hebrides from the imminent threat of being invaded by seals.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nuclear option

      carrier group - bit costly, I'd seriously contribute to a Crowd-Fund call for a few canoes for the RN matelots to paddle around in, to seriously deter the Norks & the KGB

      1. Chris G

        Re: Nuclear option

        " I'd seriously contribute to a Crowd-Fund call for a few canoes for the RN matelots to paddle around in,"

        I'm in, I'm moving soon to an area with no nearby lakes , rivers or sea so they can have my sea kayak as a starter for their new fleet.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nuclear option

        You do realise that there is a Crowd-Fund and you are probably contributing to it: it is generally called Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). This is the revenue raising part of HM Government.

        What MoD is doing is asking for a much larger slice of the income to play with new toys. They are using the same tactics as HMRC - intimidation. Unlike HMRC who can actually act on their threats, MoD can not, so their threats always sound a lot lamer. So they are dressing up the threat significantly.

        Analysing it, MoD fails to mention that between NK and UK are either: continental Asia and Europe, or USA. NATO has recently put in missile defence in Romania and Poland. Also with whom does NK have major beefs: SK, Japan, and USA. UK? not so much.

  23. Potemkine! Silver badge

    GCHQ struggles to retain "cyber-staff".

    Belgacom will be happy to hear about it!

    North Korea could nuke Britain "within a few years"

    Why do people believe a rocket is required to transport a nuclear device? One could be easily hidden in a shipping container for instance. There could be already a NK A-bomb somewhere in a British port waiting to explode.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Why?

      Click.

      Click.

      Click.

      It's kind of a give away.

  24. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Risk Factors

    Personally I'm more concerned about the crazy drivers on the motorways I have to avoid every day.

  25. RobertLongshaft

    Remember when Saddam Hussain could hit the UK with a chemical weapons loaded scud missile in 12 minutes?

    Over 1 million dead bodies later and it turned out to be weapons grade bullshit, this story is exactly the same.

    1. TheVogon

      "Remember when Saddam Hussain could hit the UK with a chemical weapons loaded scud missile in 12 minutes?"

      No I dont. Scuds dont have the range to hit the UK for a start.

  26. Matthew 17

    If they have Nukes then the US won't bomb them

    They only attempt to install US-Friendly leaders in countries without them. I wish them every success. If they'e unable to make them I'm sure Russia will sell them some.

    The politicians and the media will continue to make out he's another cycle path who wants to blow up the world to justify the US blowing the shit out of the country before they have the ability to make the weapons. They'll turn the chosen area into another desert and spend a few $bn in the process and kill/maim a few 100k of people.

    The US is in a panic as they're essentially bankrupt but if they can ensure there are baddies to defend themselves against then maybe they can continue as they always have and bully the rest of the world into submission.

  27. Steve Evans

    Hmmm...

    1 - They don't have much of a track record getting things further than Japan, and even then that's just a rocket, not an warhead with a functional trigger mechanism.

    2 - Why would they want to waste a nuke on us? We haven't been giving it all the mouth unlike some...

    3 - We've had the capability to turn them into a molten puddle for decades.

    1. fajensen
      Mushroom

      Re: Hmmm...

      3 - We've had the capability to turn them into a molten puddle for decades

      Not with Trident, we haven't!

      Odds are that we might nuke ourselves or even that occasional ally who usually does the friendly fire workings.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/23/how-did-the-trident-test-fail-and-what-did-theresa-may-know

  28. Mario Becroft
    Facepalm

    Conspiracy theory central

    I struggle to guess whether the majority of responses to this piece are serious.

    Apply Occam's Razor. Putin is a KGB man who mourns the fall of the Soviet Union and prides himself on doing everything possible to bring it back. The Cold War per se may be over, but the modus operandi remains the same. If anything, the FSB is perhaps more free to act than the KGB ever was; protocols for these things existed, now it is a free-for-all.

    Anyone could throw out conspiracy theories one after another. The Russians have a history of assassinating defectors, or anyone they don't particularly like; I think the body count since the fall of the USSR stands at about 16, these being only those high-profile cases we know about.

    Talk about false-flag and other conspiracies all you like, but the simplest answer remains that Putin's Russia is sending a consistent and clear signal to anyone who crosses them: you are not safe anywhere. This is their entire purpose.

    I hope the Reg readership is above being taken in by the well-documented Russian disinformation machine. To sow discord and doubt has always been the most effective propaganda tool. Rise above it, please.

  29. JaitcH
    Stop

    Why the Hell would the DPRK want to . . .

    waste any of it's limited supply of nuclear material in attacking a militarily nothing of a country?

    As someone who occasionally works in the DPRK, the only country that attracts ill-feeling in the DPRK - the country that has refused to sign a Cease Fire Agreement with the DPRK, is the USA.

    When I present my Canadian passport - with it's 'loose' visa - at the border I have never been treated with other than appropriate behaviour unlike US passport holders. Ask yourself, how many Brits are in DPRK jails?

    Britain should avoid the 'me to' attitude adopted by Australia that simply brown-noses the US policies.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why the Hell would the DPRK want to . . .

      Thank you for pointing out the sniveling approach taken by Australia for its history since colonialisation. Australia has always joined imperial wars, from the war of aggression against the Cape Dutch to the invasion of Iraq.

      Essentially we are a client state of the US and will always act in the interests of the US establishment and not the country’s. The latest example is our willingness to become hostile with our largest trading partner, who has the ability to make Australia more impoverished than our Pacific neighbours.

  30. Spartacus Mills

    same old

    every single year from 2002 to 2017 just called...they all want their "north korea could reach uk with nuke" story back.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    I wonder just how long 'til the UK is inundated with NK ewaste

    in the form of cheap phones, modems and other eTechnica, that'd be a real bomb.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like