back to article Can North Korean nukes hit US mainland? Maybe. But EMP blast threat is 'highly credible'

When they said a week is a lifetime in politics, they weren't kidding. One moment, President Donald Trump talks of "fire and fury," the likes the world has never seen, in response to an increasingly aggressive North Korea, which is trying to menace the US with nuclear weapons. Then that's shoved to the side by neo-Nazis …

Page:

  1. Paul Crawford Silver badge
    Unhappy

    "Suppose they launch it and it does no damage," he posited. "What do we do then? No one is asking that."

    I strongly suspect that massive retaliation would be under way before the damage had been assessed, not that it is going to help anyone else in the world (least of all those moderately close to NK).

    The issues here of power grid resilience to major country-wide effects though are something the whole world should be considering, not just the fast EMP effects on electronics, but rather that risk of a solar flare causing extensive power grid damage. It would only take a couple of days without fresh water, sewage disposal, or fuel pumping for food delivery to seriously cripple any nation for decades.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

    1. Phil W

      "I strongly suspect that massive retaliation would be under way before the damage had been assessed, not that it is going to help anyone else in the world (least of all those moderately close to NK)."

      I think that very much depends on whether Trump decides the strategy or someone with more intelligence i.e. one of his Generals. Nuking the entirity of North Korea would be bad for everyone, neighbouring countries would be worst off but the fallout from that kind of sustained strike would have global effects.

      Nuking the capital with a few lower yield warheads, to hopefully take out most of the leadership, followed by conventional airstrikes on military facilities rounded off with ground invasion would be far more effective and have far less impact on the neighbouring countries and none (directly anyway) on the rest of the world.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Generals (and other stuff too)

        "very much depends on whether Trump decides the strategy or someone with more intelligence i.e. one of his Generals."

        http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Nuking the capital with a few lower yield warheads, to hopefully take out most of the leadership, followed by conventional airstrikes on military facilities rounded off with ground invasion would be far more effective and have far less impact on the neighbouring countries and none (directly anyway) on the rest of the world.

        Except that the moment the first American soldier steps into North Korea from the south, ten PLA soldiers will enter from the north-west - taking us all back to where we left off in 1953, except with nuclear arms all around.

        Hopefully, American generals will have enough moral fibre left to refuse to follow an insane order from a deranged commander-in-chief, so we won't ever go there.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Why would China start a war with the US to protect a state that had just nuked the US? Bearing in mind a war with the US would disrupt their trade (not to mention risking nuclear war) - and if China's economy goes South then the people may decide they no longer want the Communist Party in charge. The "experts" have been saying for a while that China needs to keep growth above 5% in order to avoid social unrest, and that's a pretty widespread view so far as I can tell. The Party may not entirely share it, but I don't think they'd feel safe entirely ignoring it either.

          Anyway if China was pushed a choice between having diplomatic and trade relations with their largest trading partner and the world's leading military power or the North Korean rogue regime that had just nuked them, it's basically a no-brainer. They support North Korea now, only because it's perceived as less trouble than not doing so.

          I'm sure China wouldn't be happy about an invasion of North Korea, and might well give covert help in order to keep the US on the hop. But then the US can't invade North Korea on its own anyway. They've only got 1 division in South Korea, and that's not enough - and I'm sure they've got national agreements that they can't attack from Korean bases without permission. They always did in Europe.

          The US has the troops and airpower to invade, given time to build up, and permission of the South Korean government. Or obviously say 5 carrier battle groups and their strategic bombers can reach almost anywhere in the world, with nobody's permission. That's at least 300 front-line fighter-bombers and lots of heavies and cruise missiles - with which you can't win a war, but you can make a point.

          1. Mad Mike

            Chinese control

            I think people are missing the point a bit about the relationship between North Korea and other countries, most notably China. In the past, China has exerted massive control over North Korea and has been able to use them as a deniable asset to do various things for them. This might just be generally keeping people on their toes, but also other stuff. What about cyber attacks. North Korean attacks are often traced back to China. This and other information implies a good deal of cooperation. For China, this means North Korea can do things for them (such as cyber warfare) and if things get a bit hot, they can simply be cut loose or sacrificed. Not so if the PLA are doing it.

            However, the above only works if China has positive control of what goes on. In the past (prior glorious leaders), this always seemed to be the case. However, with this latest change of North Korean leadership, Chinese control seems to be waning. The glorious leader seems to be doing things that are annoying China and even directly against their wishes. In other words, China is loosing positive control of North Korea. At this point, North Korea becomes a significant issue to China and if anyone is going to invade North Korea, China is best placed to do so. They could even sell it as a humanitarian act.

            Comments about China being worried about a US influenced state on their borders (if say South Korea invaded north or whatever) are really wide of the mark. China knows nobody is going to try and invade them. Their forces are so numerous that nobody stands any chance of victory and would be dragged into a massive war of attrition. So, China isn't worried at all about who's on that border. Even if it was a unified Korea with the USA standing behind them, it wouldn't worry Beijing.

            North Korea is a handy puppet for China, but when they become too hard to control, China will deal with it, probably through leadership change. Be in no doubt about that.

            1. Bubba Von Braun

              Re: Chinese control

              If one looks at the history of the region, Chinese interest has been in securing the border with a buffer. In some respects this is no different to the Soviet approach to eastern Europe.

              While the North started the fight, and took it up to the then deployed forces pushing them south to the Pusan peninsula, a counter-offensive cut-off the North forces in the south and headed to the Yalu River. At this point China felt directly threatened and given Gen. MacArthur behavior at the time requesting nuclear weapons, may have had some cause to be concerned.

              The Chinese crossed at Yalu en-mass and then this turned into a war of attrition, the Chinese objective met, the land buffer from the west forces established its the status quo they sought.

              Prediction is if the glorious-leader/nut job does indeed target the US or US interests, expect China to invade and take control rapidly, replacing the regime with a more friendly puppet, just as they have in Tibet. The last thing China wants/will allow is reunification as it wants the buffer, having western forces on a land border is unacceptable to China.

              US wont nuke the North, the fallout would impact key allies, and ultimately the US itself.

              BvB

          2. Timmay

            > "Why would China start a war with the US to protect a state that had just nuked the US?"

            They wouldn't - they actually said they would only attack the US if it was a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. If it was a retaliatory attack, they'd remain neutral.

            1. Mad Mike

              @Timmay

              "They wouldn't - they actually said they would only attack the US if it was a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. If it was a retaliatory attack, they'd remain neutral."

              Do you really think the Chinese would go through with this? Start a nuclear war (in which they would suffer badly) to avenge some tinpot dictator? I think this is diplomatic speak of the highest order and a completely meaningless threat.

          3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Why would China start a war with the US

            Both China and USSR (and as a consequence Russia) have a mutual assistance treaty with North Korea and are obliged to assist it in the event of an aggression by a foreign power. In fact, if memory serves me right, China is in the unenviable position where they are obliged to assist even if NK is the aggressor provided that the attack is coming from USA/South. Russia is supposed to be upon aggression. Both have classified annexes which are not available for public consumption so we do not know exactly what is in each of them.

            Neither has rescinded sections or withdrawn in entirety from their treaties. They may do so if Fat Kim The Third does something really stupid, but have not done it so far.

            In any case - finally someone saw the same thing I saw when we were discussing their last nuclear test. They do not need any fecking reentry vehicles. All it takes is 4-5 nukes to take out 95%+ of USA infrastructure. Two above East coast, one or two above West Coast, one above Texas.

        2. Mad Mike

          @AC

          "Except that the moment the first American soldier steps into North Korea from the south, ten PLA soldiers will enter from the north-west - taking us all back to where we left off in 1953, except with nuclear arms all around."

          Why would the PLA risk this? A direct confrontation. Do they need North Korea? Do they have any loyalty to the leadership or people of North Korea? No. They would simply bolster their border defenses on their side of the border and wait. If anything, a merging South/North Korea would hamper South Koreas economy and political leadership for several decades, much like with Germany. China don't need the land or anything else. Risking conflict with the USA would be for nothing China wants.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "Except that the moment the first American soldier steps into North Korea from the south, ten PLA soldiers will enter from the north-west - taking us all back to where we left off in 1953, except with nuclear arms all around."

            Not likely. Remember, just THREE WEEKS AGO, China issued a "warning" that the U.S. should not shoot first. The implication is clear that they expect the U.S. to defend herself AFTER first attacked. If North Korea launches an atomic weapon, I suspect that the PLA is going to be pulling WAY back from the front for a while.

        3. JEDIDIAH
          Mushroom

          > Hopefully, American generals will have enough moral fibre left to refuse to follow an insane order from a deranged commander-in-chief, so we won't ever go there.

          You sound like the unhinged Congresswoman who allegedly was whining about Trump dragging us into a nuclear war after a North Korean attack.

          If NK decides to lash out then there's really no other option than to deal with them. Otherwise we're just betraying all of our friends in the region.

          Is that really how you think? Things get tough so you abandon your friends. Sucks to be your friend then.

      3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "Nuking the capital with a few lower yield warheads, to hopefully take out most of the leadership,"

        Unlikely. The Norks know they are on to a hiding to nothing if they do a first strike. All the leaders and senior military will be scattered and underground long before they launched anything. No doubt the USA have a number of satellites and maybe one of their space planes tasked with surveillance of the Norks and will be very carefully watching the movements of anyone "important". I'd expect a very highly targeted response with conventional missiles, aircraft and drones.

      4. IGnatius T Foobar

        military strategy

        I think that very much depends on whether Trump decides the strategy or [...] one of his Generals.

        If recent events are any indication, President Trump (PBUH) knows he needs to listen to the Generals when it comes to anything involving the military. From Syria to North Korea to Afghanistan right down to deciding whether to allow trans to serve, he seems to be perfectly willing to listen to what the Generals are recommending.

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      One thing China are worried about is that they would likely bare the brunt of the refugee crisis if/when the NK state collapses.

      1. Mad Mike

        @phuzz

        "One thing China are worried about is that they would likely bare the brunt of the refugee crisis if/when the NK state collapses."

        That presupposes the Chinese have anything approaching morals. We all know most politicians are pretty lacking in morals and the Chinese more than many. If this really happened, I would expect to see the Chinese close the border and simply deal with it in North Korea. I can't imagine they'd allow millions of refugees across the border.

  2. a pressbutton

    Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

    Why not just put it into a s. korean shipping container - or a chinese one - or a vietmanese one etc

    Put it in with other heavy engineering components, Use thick lead etc.

    Send many

    Better yet, don't use nukes, just send 2,000,000 norks in groups of 50 in little boats and only arm one in 5 boats.

    The world gets to see the us navy killing 500,000 unarmed starving people.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

      Or better still, bang both leaders heads together in some diplomatic approach?

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

        Just bang Kim Jong "Fatass" Un's into a wall someplace. It's obvious who the aggressor is.

        Didn't anyone learn how to STAND UP to a bully, especially when he's basically "all talk"?

        Trump is doing the right thing, up to and including having CHINA involved in this, in an actual good way. The USA isn't going to pre-emptively "glass" N. Korea, so having China threaten us just let's them 'save face' on the issue. The REAL issue is China "going neutral" if N. Korea launches missiles at the USA (including Guam, I might add) or an ally (like Japan or S. Korea). THAT should have Kim Jong "Cartman" Un relieving himself without the benefit of a toilet bowl. And THAT is what we want. Because _SANE_ negotiations don't work with people who are INSANE. Like Kim Jong "fat boy" Un.

        We (the world) have been collectively appeasing and paying this ass-hat (and his ass-hat father, Kim Jong "So Wonewy" Il) off with various deals, favors, etc. expecting proper response, i.e. NOT developing their nuke program. Of course, we kept OUR end of the bargain. The Kim family doesn't keep THEIR end of ANY bargain. So it's time to play HARDBALL with these idiots. And China _IS_ with us (even if they won't admit it).

        1. jimdandy

          Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

          Bob - just exactly what are your qualifications for dealing with international, and I might add, Nuclear opponents in our so-called Free World? I know exactly how nuclear EMP attacks on the West Coast will arrive, and how much chaos they will cause. That's why I have both solar and battery-backup

          "stupid" systems that can survive said EMP.

          You may live somewhere east of the targeted areas, and that may make you feel safe. But I suggest you re-think that idea. Unless you do as I did, and have 30 - 60 days of clean water, frozen/dried foods and a big-assed tank of gasoline at your farm, you are going to suck big time when that pissant chump/tool of China rubs his missile hard enough to make it go off.

          Say good bye to that massive amount of food that is grown in California that normally feeds your family. I hope you and your kids can get out there and do more than reap wheat or corn, because you can't live off of that - at least not for long. Your cows can (oh, wait - you don't have cows?), but how many of your family know how to milk cows? By the way, try not to milk the male cows; they have a weird way of showing their appreciation. Then again, you may like that.

          1. Richard 81

            Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

            "just exactly what are your qualifications for dealing with international, and I might add, Nuclear opponents in our so-called Free World?"

            One might ask you the same question.

        2. Farnet

          Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

          I thought Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump are interchangeable.

          Both fat, small handed, stupid, egotistical and liars, and they both want to press the nuke button, just finding an excuse.

          Looking forward to the negs from the obvious 'members'

    2. Smooth Newt Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

      Better yet, don't use nukes, just send 2,000,000 norks in groups of 50 in little boats and only arm one in 5 boats.

      The world gets to see the us navy killing 500,000 unarmed starving people.

      I don't think that would happen because the North Korean government rules by terror and is doubtless loathed by most of its population. Instead virtually all of those people would immediately ask the nearest US naval vessel for political asylum.

      1. Craigie Bronze badge

        Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

        'doubtless loathed by most of its population' - sadly I think you have underestimated the leadership cult and brainwashing in NK. From what I have seen, most of the populace are true believers.

      2. fajensen Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

        rules by terror and is doubtless loathed by most of its population

        This is not how people out in the real world works. What most people actually want is Meaning and Purpose, something that can convince them that their existence is not useless, futile and wasted. This "rule by terror thing" is totally subjective - if there are predictable rules and stable structures yielding predictable outcomes, then people will see the meaning and buy into the project.

        The Roman Empire, Medieval Catholic Church, Sharia Law - people are totally fine with those kinds of terror and totalitarianism. The rebellion comes when the rulers become corrupt and capricious so that the structure and order decays, outcomes become unpredictable, not over any atrocities; that's family entertainment, in many cases.

        The North Koreans no doubt love their great leader for purging the weak, protecting them from the evil Americans and generally making the sun rise each and every morning. Every North Korean alive has had a grandparent who was bombed or napalmed by the Americans, it will not be the Americans they will seek out for protection.

        Kim Young Un made one mistake though in killing his relatives. It shows people that Gods can be killed, which is never a good thing for the current God and it is capricious too, outside of the normal rules which will lead to doubts, also not a good thing for the current God.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

      A fiction story in the 1970s postulated a Chinese prawn trawler arriving at the US coast and unloading its catch into a lorry - together with a nuclear bomb. Said truck then drove to Washington DC.

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

        @AC

        A fiction story in the 1970s postulated a Chinese prawn trawler...

        In "The Fourth Protocol" by Frederick Forsyth, a device is assembled from parts smuggled into the country

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Protocol"

        also a 1987 film with Michael Caine...

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093044

        and Pierce Brosnan, before he was turned and started working for MI6 recruitment

        1. Patrician

          Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

          It was also a computer game....

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Protocol_(video_game)

    4. Dave 32

      Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

      "Why not just put it into a s. korean shipping container - or a chinese one - or a vietmanese one etc"

      Shipping containers are monitored for gamma/x-ray emissions prior to entering the country:

      https://www3.epa.gov/radtown/shipping-port-security.html

      Given that a fission warhead, based on Plutonium-239 has a fairly high spontaneous fission rate (both from the Pu-239 itself, and from higher order enrichment products), and that the criticality of a bomb core is awfully close to 1.00 to begin with (such that it just needs a slight bit of compression to push the criticality above 1.00), it's going to be sitting there fissioning like crazy (so much so that the core of a fission weapon feels noticeably warm to the touch). And, all of those spontaneous fissions, and the secondary fissions they induce, are going to be spewing gamma rays like crazy. Thus, all one has to do is to look for gamma rays of the energy of those fissions. And, as hot as those gammas are, they're going to be awfully difficult to shield.

      Dave

      1. Blank Reg Silver badge

        Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

        Unless they are checking the containers while the ship is still out at sea then it doesn't help. A ship at port, with a nuke the size of a shipping container would wipe out a large chunk of a city.

      2. TheElder

        gamma/x-ray emissions

        From what? Plutonium that isn't fissioning emits alpha rays. That can be stopped by a piece of paper.

        I worked at the Rad Lab when I was 14. The bomb will NOT be close to fission until triggered. If it was it would change shape. Plutonium is very unstable with even small changes in temperature. I suggest you research plutonium metallurgy.

        1. fedoraman

          Re: gamma/x-ray emissions

          The main decay mode is alpha, true, but plutonium does undergo spontaneous fission, so there are neutrons given off. The daughter products, some of which have quite short half-lives, will be emitting gammas and beta particles, so the warhead will be fairly easy to detect.

        2. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

          Re: gamma/x-ray emissions

          "Plutonium is very unstable with even small changes in temperature."

          I liked the entry in Smithells which shows the phase changes in plutonium with temperature and observes that the specimen was self heated.

      3. samzeman

        Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

        Hold on a sec; If bombs emitted a lot of gamma, even while they were armed, then the submarine pilots that carry and live around nuclear bombs would all have quickly gotten radiation poisoning, right?

        The bombs are probably radioactive, sure, but not fissioning like crazy, and not warm to the touch... They don't have control rods in or anything. They fission like crazy when they explode. That's the point.

        Nuclear armaments are made of Pu-239 and Pu-240. The Pu-240 is the very, very radioactive part, but the 239 has a half life of 24,000 years, so it's not too bad. Supergrade weapons, used in subs because of their prolonged exposure to the crew, have >95% Pu-239 and so are relatively safe to be around (when not exploding).

        Although, I doubt NK could make supergrade bombs, to be fair. So far they're only proven to have weapons grade, which is safe to be in the same plane as for a short flight. I grudgingly have to agree you may not have been entirely wrong, but most modern plutonium bombs aren't "fissioning like crazy"

      4. JeffyPoooh Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

        DAve 32 suggested that "...Shipping containers are monitored for gamma/x-ray emissions prior to entering the country..."

        You're implying that they're scanned 200 miles off-shore.

        They're scanned ON THE PIER AT THE CONTAINER PORT, at the Port of Entry, which is (for example, possibly) just a few km from downtown (some are zero km from downtown). And this is after the container ship possibly steamed right past the downtown core on its way to the container port.

        It's all a bit perfectly stupid.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

        Shipping containers are monitored for gamma/x-ray emissions prior to entering the country:

        ALL Shipping containers, everywhere!? And they are of course doing a better job than the TSA does?

        A professionally designed warhead is not sitting there cooking away really close to the edge, polluting all the good bang-stuff with decay product. Weapons designers simply don't want that, they want stability and they especially want to be sure that the thing goes 'BooM' when needed - with a generous margin for neglect of specified service intervals. Too much radiation degrades all the systems around the warhead.

        If one want to detect a warhead inside it's casing, one usually has to "ping" it with neutrons and see what gamma / neutron spectrum comes back. This is not so easy to do properly, it is the kind of test equipment the specialists use on the verification side of nuclear arms reduction treaties to prove that someone is not sneaking some of the good stuff away and selling on the side. Without having to disclose the nature of the warhead design to the enemy by physical inspection.

    5. Orv Silver badge

      Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

      Why not just put it into a s. korean shipping container - or a chinese one - or a vietmanese one etc

      While that would work after a fashion, it's not a very effective use of a bomb that powerful. Atomic weapons don't explode at ground level, they're used in air bursts. (You'll notice even in static atmospheric tests, the "gadgets" were invariably on tall towers.) That's not to say it wouldn't be effective as a terrorist weapon -- it would irradiate a lot of dirt and throw it into the air, for one thing -- but it's not the best bang for your buck. At that point you might be better off with a conventional "dirty bomb."

      Also, nuclear weapons are first and foremost about a deterrent effect. If you're trying for a deterrent, having a ship loitering offshore all the time is not ideal, especially since, for a proper deterrent effect, you'd have to make it known you had a ship loitering offshore (although maybe not which one.)

    6. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Never understood the obsession with ICBMs

      Why not just put it into a s. korean shipping container

      Take out 2-3km radius instead of the entire Eastern Seaboard. Unless you use a super-dirty bomb like Russian Status-6 project, but that would require NK to make a 50+ year step technologically so it is not yet on the menu.

    7. Gustavo Fring

      bACK CHANNEL

      I would say that trump is in talks with China regarding NK and saying we'll let you have your south china sea island if you let us attack and destroy NK conevntionally, you can then put ina more stable leadership.I bet even chinese troops could help in the plan, portray NK as a foolish nation needing re-education, patriotism comes to the fore, gets to test all their latest stuff under real battle conditions. What would India and Russia do in all this? stand back and watch I suspect . Why dont they cover the data centres in Tin foil?

  3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    I say Chaps...

    "We'd better dust off all those Cold War Plans."

    "Here's the '2' stamp to update them."

    "Minister? Phillips here. All the preparations are complete."

    "Right team. Who bought the custard creams today?"

  4. Smooth Newt Silver badge
    Meh

    Telecommunications cables

    The telecommunications cables that make up the communications backbone of the US, and the world, would also be extremely vulnerable.

    Twenty years ago perhaps, but most trunk cables are optical now.

    1. jamesb2147

      Re: Telecommunications cables

      Lots of old ones used powered electronics to regenerate the signal, even on fiber optical cables. Modern ones apparently use some kind of photonics regenerative laser pump signal thing, which I 100% don't understand. The old ones would certainly be taken out.

      Now, what's interesting is that very few of these cables are within their designed lifetime anyway (generally 10-15 yrs), so if they're *at all* vulnerable and something happened, they'd probably be more likely to have issues than those few newer cables.

    2. TheElder

      most trunk cables are optical now

      The amplifiers aren't. Neither is the metal shielding. I used to have a nice section of that cable. It had six fibres. Two were in use, the other four were backup. I friend of mine was an installer.

    3. kurios

      Re: Telecommunications cables

      The light sources driving the fiber optics are laser diodes running on power supplies that can be killed by EMP.

  5. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

    "there are still hurdles to overcome – chiefly reentry and targeting."

    As the old saw goes, "close only counts with hand grenades and thermonuclear devices." I think we're in that regime. Anywhere on US territory is fine. Even the ocean, if it sends a "radioactive" tsunami on shore.

    1. TheElder

      close only counts with hand grenades and thermonuclear devices

      And MOABs.

      1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

        Re: close only counts with hand grenades and thermonuclear devices

        "And MOABs."

        Okay, so the full version is now "close only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, moabs, themonuclear devices, meteorites lobbed at the planet from orbit, dumping enough mass in the host star that it goes supernova, or triggering the universe's metastable vacuum state to decay to a lower energy level."

        1. Hero Protagonist

          Re: close only counts with hand grenades and thermonuclear devices

          "Among our weaponry are such diverse elements as..."

          1. Steve Evans

            Re: close only counts with hand grenades and thermonuclear devices

            I wasn't expecting that.

Page:

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019