Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

To hot to touch maybe Dil. :-)

Est-ce que cet homme baise vraiment les moutons?

:o)

he'll leave that to the welsh contingent!

So is the lightning striking near to where you live? Maybe it isn't or hasn't....

Use t'Internet to find out: http://www.lightningmaps.org/?lang=en#x=-0.2925;m=sat;r=1;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=9.85;n=0;y=51.8657;z=8;d=7;dl=7;dc=0;i=0;

Play around with the settings and zoom in and out as to how you like.
Also check out the Facebook and Twitter links.

As I post this, it seems Telford and the areas around Oxford are/have been getting hit quite a bit.

There are thunderstorms and lightning strikes happening just over the English Channel in France too.

31/5/2018

Marine Corps Lieutenant General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., joint staff director at the Defense Department, told reporters Thursday that, although he would not compare the threats posed to the U.S. by China and North Korea, "we are prepared for both." The two Asia-Pacific allies have drifted apart in recent years as Pyongyang accelerated its nuclear program, but China remains a staunch opponent of expanding U.S. military activity in the region and especially in the South China Sea.

"We take both threats seriously. Certainly, China has a much larger nuclear capability and you've got to take that into account, China has a much larger economic engine that you have to take into account so the threats are very different," McKenzie told reporters at the Pentagon.

"When you consider North Korea, the first thing you look at is their capricious and unpredictable behavior spanning back several decades," he added.
.........

Hmmm?

So there you have it. As Defense Secretary, James Mattis, heads to Singapore for a major international security conference, the Pentagon tell the world the USA is prepared to take on both China and North Korea.

it`s all a question of who wants to rule the world - or blow it all to pieces either way we all come to the same end.

Hils , my only recollectin of 2 years of French studies was that Madame Masaud was always dans la cuisine where she belongs and Monsieur Masaud was always dans le jardin avec Marie-France , Jean Paul et Claudette but I can guess what mouttons are.

So cest la vie , cest la vie :-)

ExecLine,

Not being prepared would be a story.

Cheers,
KidA

Well, I wouldn't want to read the one about the USA taking on both countries.

So then you would have 3 nuclear 'tooled-up' countries at war with each other and, since we are an ally of the USA, we might have to get involved ourselves.

Nah, the UK would just tear up any previous agreements with the USA or any other allies and just get on with trading!

I agree with Fred , Britain first.

Agreed Fred, the UK would never use shuch a weapon, unless someone lobed one our way first. The UK would as you suggest get only with selling survival kits etc.(regardless of the fact that they are not likely to be effective).

The UK would use Chemical Weapons to sort them all out if push came to shove imo. We most probably have developed an antidote for Novichok by now, thanks to the Skripal incident.

ExecLine,

Agreed, North Korea and China attacking the USA isn't something I want to read.

Cheers,
KidA

---

On the weapons; any country, person, other animal will use whatever it has when it comes to the life or death moment - sanctimony will be out the window.

Novichok v Chuck Norris; only one way to decide...

Check out some of China's super weapons: HERE

I particularly like (dislike?) the Type 81 MRLS



They say:

"The Chinese invented the multiple rocket launcher system way back in the 11th century, but they have vastly improved upon it since then. With the People’s Liberation Army’s Type 81, the military is able to shoot a massive barrage of 40 122mm missiles at any target, which is basically enough to flatten a medium sized town from about 30 miles away. This is far enough away that most artillery would not even be able to accurately hit it.

A giant waste of resources building these weapons - one thing to build a small number to prove their value and confirm their technoglogy but to build vast numbers of tanks that are unlikely to be of any use beats me. One or two nukes and were all stuffed as every man and his dog would set them off to show their power. Then hunker down in a bunker and hope it all blows over.

Chemical weapons are the only way forward, not causing any lasting damage to anything/anybody that is left standing. What is the real diffrence - killing is killing, as long as it is quick anf painless but do the leaders really care anyway?

anthrax????

Anthrax is slow and painful I understand - it also lasts around 40 years in the soil. I suggested something that kills quickly and moves on as quickly leaving the land in reasonable condition.

Cheerful thread this. Must be all that sun. Never mind, it may not happen.
I have been pleasantly surprised by how well my plants and shrubs have been doing this year. Also the trees have been magnificent in their blossom. Must be something to do with the weather, can't be pure coincidence. Shrubs that hardly flowered last year have been in full flower. I never can remember the names of them unless I leave a name tag on them. Otherwise it is the yellow ones, or the pink ones or the spikey one.

anthrax - quite so
i thought you were advocating the development of chemical warfare in general


IT - wet winter and though we had a very late spring, the sun has certainly been hot and plentiful once we got in to may

I am against all wars cynic but I do believe in self defense. However, I do think chemical weapons will be the choice of weapon rather than nukes - and frankly if the killing is as rapid what is the difference when it comes down to mass warfare when the choice is either nuking the innocent population or killing by chemical weapon ( if it is as instant)?

One destroys and contaminates the land for xxxx number of years, the other may become safe far more quickly,leaving the victor (if there are any) with a resource they can use.