Fullerene

Wary of your neighbours maybe, but would you dispose of your own family members because you no longer trusted them Kim had his uncle put in front of a firing squad and they used an anti-aircraft missile to get the job done. What a lovely family - eh.

This is the sort of thing those nasty Americans got up to against those lovely people in North Korea. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/world/clinton-approves-a-plan-to-give-aid-to-north-koreans.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=1 Yet, the North Koreans would still describe the US has filthy capitalist pigs at the same time as accepting their help.

Yes, Korea - not North Korea and South Korea - just plain old Korea. My point is why would modern Japan be seen as more of a threat to North Korea than South Korea.

The same could be said for South Korea but they are not seeking nuclear weapons. Yes, the Japanese were total shits in the Second World War but back then it was not North Korea and South Korea - it was just Korea. Where is the evidence that Japanese is likely to attack them? Their postwar constitution prevents them adopting a military stance on anything. Where is the evidence that China would not intervene if anyone threatened North Korea. North Korea does concern me because it is a dictatorship and a paranoid one at that.

If that were true, why wait a few years? Why not do it now? In fact, why did they not do it years ago? The living standards in most of North Korea (outside of Pyongyang) are really poor - even compared to China and Russia. Why would China want a few million North Koreans to make their stuff when they have a population of more than a billion people. Even if China had fifty million millionaires that would still leave a lot of other Chinese to do the dirty work.

If you were talking about Iran or Iraq or Libya or Syria or even Cuba, I might be inclined to agree with you. Not so with North Korea. If North Korea really can count on the Chinese for protection then why do they need a deterrent at all? Why not feed their people instead? North Korea has a very short border with Russia, a longer border with supposed ally China and one of the most impenetrable borders of all with South Korea. Who would invade North Korea and how? Without the threat of these nuclear weapons - why would anyone bother?

Okay, we need to accept that Kim is not going to be incredibly stupid and/or suicidal. For example, he would never dream of detonating a hydrogen bomb when his country is next door to China and they are trying to convince the world that they can control him. Also, there is no question he is paranoid - like most communist leaders. Trump can talk tough but I really can't see him doing anything without China being in on it - and probably Russia as well. I think Trump's rhetoric is aimed at China - i.e. do something or we will.

Yeah it is conjecture but I think of numerous plane crashes that occurred because subordinates refused to challenge the captain (such as the Tenerife air crash). I get the impression that nobody challenges Kim - or at least they risk death if they do. Whatever you might think of Trump - I doubt he would order the immediate execution of anyone who dared to question his opinion. If Kim is anything like Stalin or Hoxha or numerous other communist leaders - I am not so sure. I remember Ronald Reagan joking "Tomorrow we bomb Russia." It was a poor joke but at least everybody knew it was a joke. Would the same be true of Kim?

You would think the Chinese would tell them not to bother with nukes in the first place. Who would risk attacking North Korea if it might mean retaliation from China?

Yeah but Trump being crazy is not enough to launch his missiles. He needs the co-operation of a lot of people who agree that the missiles should be launched. Kim is a dictator who kills anyone who is a threat to his power including his uncle and his half-brother. In a country where blind obedience is demanded - there is a risk that the mechanism would be there but no individual would have the courage to use it.

In Euro 88, England lost to the Republic of Ireland. Then England lost to the Netherlands while the Republic of Ireland drew with the Soviet Union. In those days when there was not dozens of channels to choose from, it was then the game between the Republic of Ireland and the Netherlands that was shown, instead of England being beaten by the Soviet Union.

Yeah. I was there in July. Nice place. So was Seattle. Saying that, I was also in other parts of the USA and didn't see anyone with horns or pitchfork or pointed tail. I guess your average Trump supporter might look outwardly normal. Bit of a scary thought that I would say.

Is it possible to get a flight from Boston to Seattle?

So people were rebelling against people like (former city broker) Nigel Farage by voting exactly how he wanted them to vote. Not sure I can follow your logic there. Similar to Americans protesting about the super-rich by voting for Donald Trump - I guess

The American President plays two roles at the same time: the political head of Government and the ceremonial head of state. In the U.K., these are two separate roles - namely the Prime Minister and the Queen. When the head of state shows up at some disaster - local people cheer in as much as to say - "hey you have noticed that this has happened to us". They are actually cheering their own country for taking notice of their plight as symbolized by the appearance of their own head of state. (Similar to the Queen visiting Grenfell Tower - compared to the prime minister) That would happen for any president and even if these people thought he was the worse president in history. Americans have been known to get fairly patriotic from time to time, flying the flag, singing the nation anthem and all that. That is what they are like.

What exactly happens after that? "Okay, if we can't talk about trade, my flight home isn't until Thursday, any sightseeing you might suggest. I quite like a good walk."

The American public did not want to get involved in somebody else's war but President Roosevelt certainly did. He knew there was more at stake than all that. A Nazi-ruled Europe and a Japanese ruled East Asia was not going to be good for trade and might obstruct America becoming the world superpower that it now is. Still seems strange at times - Japan actually attacks America whereas Germany merely declares war but it is agreed from the start that defeating Germany is the priority.

There was also an attitude of "What's it got to do with us? We left the old world (which typically meant Europe) to start a new life here. Why should we send our sons and daughters away to die in somebody else's war?" That attitude also applied to the war in Vietnam decades later.

Yes. I recall one book where a German soldier said "The Russians are coming. If they are half as bad to us as we were to them then we are in serious trouble." A million people died in the Battle of Stalingrad, thousands were dying every day, the Germans regarded the Russians like vermin, Twenty million people in the Soviet Union died in the war and they weren't all soldiers

I was simply pointing out that Germany had to lose all its ill-gotten gains - and rightly so whereas the Western Allies were unable to convince Stalin that he should give up territory he gained when Germany and the Soviet Union were allies - such as eastern Poland which was incorporated into the Ukraine and Lithuania.

Happy to shake hands with anyone

No they didn't. They were in it from day 1 in 1939 and invaded Eastern Poland at the same time that Germany invaded Western Poland. Also, they declared war on Finland. It was their poor performance against the Finns that persuaded Hitler that they would be no match for the Germans. Stalin was very willing to befriend Hitler and was still sending him supplies the day before German betrayed him. Unlike Germany, at the end of the war, Stalin insisted on keeping all his gains - even at the expense of Poland, who were compensated for by land from Germany. Hence Churchill's remark that "Poland is a nation on wheels."

You might, just might, be able to argue that the German soldiers were more disciplined than the Russians. After all, Stalin had most of the top ranks shot before they started fighting the Germans. However, there was not too many people who saw the Germans coming and said "Great, here come the good guys." In a few cases, like Ukraine and Lithuania, they may have thought the Germans would liberate them from the Soviets but soon discovered they were worse. During the war, for a German soldier, behaving professional meant killing all Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables. The war on the Eastern Front was one of annihilation. I doubt good behaviour was displayed much by either side.

Reminds me of the contestants for the Miss Universe contest. What ever happened to that guy who use to run that? I think he said something about the Mexicans. Oh blast - his name escapes me.

I was there only last month. Now getting e-mails saying prices for hotel rooms in Corpus Christi have gone right down this week.