North Korea vows "annihilating strike" if attacked

This does not do well for my nerves.

On a slightly related note: G8 gives Iran deadline of 05/07/06 for nuclear programme - this date vexes me somewhat, namely 'cause it's my friggin' birthday! Besides, the Americans reading this will reckon it's a day late for the fireworks...

Thoughts?

Aslong as they don't have an intercontinetal rocket who do they think they are gonna hit?


If the rocket get to the maximum of it's range we might hit the most eastern bit of Alaska. For some reason I doubt North Korea is planning on calling the wrath of Russia / China on itself. With neighbours like that I think they will be very motivated to "behave".

---

by Chambler
For some reason I doubt North Korea is planning on calling the wrath of Russia / China on itself. With neighbours like that I think they will be very motivated to "behave".

---

Exactly, this atomic posturing is nothing new. We were in more danger every single day from 1950 to 1989. North Korea might be run by lunatics, but there's a sense to their madness. They know that America doesn't do "pre-emptive strikes" on people who can fight back. Hence why Iran's so desperate to develop nukes and the US is so desperate to stop them. It's not good for the nerves but nothing's going to come from it. Ultimately the North Koreans have a country to loose. The threat comes from people with regular weapons and nothing to loose.

---

by Chambler
If the rocket get to the maximum of it's range we might hit the most eastern bit of Alaska. For some reason I doubt North Korea is planning on calling the wrath of Russia / China on itself. With neighbours like that I think they will be very motivated to "behave".

---

dont forget that india and pakistan also have nukes, and are quite liable to hammer north korea if a) they are attacked, or b)the US/ US-friendly target is attacked and any potential retaliation coiuld go off course and hit them.
even given the extreme range of taepodong-2, the most likely target would be the extreme south of south korea (that way there would little if any radiation hitting the north), with a secondary of japan.
apart from that, theres no particular targets of note (just places like indonesia, malaysia, borneo, papua new guinea, and all the other small island-nations scattered accross the indian ocean and pacific rim.
hang on - pacific rim - the US navy conducts a sereis of major anti-submarine exercises every year called RIMPAC (Pacific rim) - RIMPAC2006 is due to kick off in a couple of days, i believe...

Either way, Japan's getting a bit antsy and has "said it would ban the entry of North Korean officials [and] chartered flights" and also requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council - click here for the full article.

All this posturing about weaponry--who has what missle, and what one country is going to do to another country if they test this weapon or that weapon, or who is or isn't going to sit down at whatever table with whatever country if they don't stop this or that weaspons program, and blah, blah, blah. I just get so sick of all this crap. Not discussion of it, just the crap itself.

While the leaders of all the major powers, including the American ones, are wasting time and money and endangering everyone pissing back and forth at each other trying to prove whose is bigger, there are just so many important human problems in this world that don't get addressed.

If these poor excuses for leaders would spend half as much time on trying to provide food for people who are hungry, getting medicines to those all over the world who need them, stopping unnecessary armed conflicts that are killing thousands of innocent people, or stopping some of the environmental damage to our air and oceans that is threatening the survival of the whole planet, maybe they'd earn their keep for a change.

I don't want to see the spread of any type of dangerous weaponry--to anyone. And I think the only solution is for everyone to just disarm. But ok, I can come down long enough from Fantasy Land to agree that this is never going to happen. But all that being said, I've never understood the concept that one sovereign nation can tell another sovereign nation what weapons they can and cannot have. It's just arrogance of the first order. "If I can kick your ass, I'll tell you what you can have?" I'm just so tired of it, I'd like to vote the whole lot of the world leadership onto a small island--with all their weaponry--and let them just blow each other the hell up and leave the rest of us to find something useful we can do to solve some of the world's problems.

---

by Sandia
All this posturing about weaponry--who has what missle, and what one country is going to do to another country if they test this weapon or that weapon, or who is or isn't going to sit down at whatever table with whatever country if they don't stop this or that weaspons program, and blah, blah, blah. I just get so sick of all this crap. Not discussion of it, just the crap itself.

While the leaders of all the major powers, including the American ones, are wasting time and money and endangering everyone pissing back and forth at each other trying to prove whose is bigger, there are just so many important human problems in this world that don't get addressed.

If these poor excuses for leaders would spend half as much time on trying to provide food for people who are hungry, getting medicines to those all over the world who need them, stopping unnecessary armed conflicts that are killing thousands of innocent people, or stopping some of the environmental damage to our air and oceans that is threatening the survival of the whole planet, maybe they'd earn their keep for a change.

I don't want to see the spread of any type of dangerous weaponry--to anyone. And I think the only solution is for everyone to just disarm. But ok, I can come down long enough from Fantasy Land to agree that this is never going to happen. But all that being said, I've never understood the concept that one sovereign nation can tell another sovereign nation what weapons they can and cannot have. It's just arrogance of the first order. "If I can kick your ass, I'll tell you what you can have?" I'm just so tired of it, I'd like to vote the whole lot of the world leadership onto a small island--with all their weaponry--and let them just blow each other the hell up and leave the rest of us to find something useful we can do to solve some of the world's problems.

---

I think I speak for at least 90% of the global populace when I say "HEAR HEAR!", complete with rapturous applause.

---

by Sandia
...I'd like to vote the whole lot of the world leadership onto a small island--with all their weaponry--and let them just blow each other the hell up and leave the rest of us to find something useful we can do to solve some of the world's problems.

---

*applauds*

Those are pretty much my sentiments, I really never did understand why certain nations suddenly decided who should have what capabilities, and technology, and what would happen to them if they didn't share their resources to the umm.. lowest bidder..

Let's not for get that Israel also do not have any knowledge of their own nuclear programme.. umm.. oops..

bah, it's all no better than playground squabbling, just on a whole lot bigger scale, hell, most political esablishments are exactly the same whenever you see footage of it..

(Edited by Stoo 06/07/2006 21:45)

[devils advocate mode]
*Applauds Sandia*
So inspired yet so naive. I think you might actually be in a Fantasy Land as well.

Lets cure / feed the world! C'mon people snap out of it! Very nobble but oh so stupid. That's like Aliens coming to earth and curring all deceases. I don't think I've ever seen a movie with that storyline that had a happy end.

It took us centuries to get where we are now in which our society slowly evolved to
accept the chances these advances brought with it, thinking we can do the same for Africa in a couple of years (even decades) is just plain stupid. And that's not the only thing wrong with the idea of "cure / feed the world".

Lets first get one taboo out of the way. Not everyone wants to live the same way we do! 95% of the time people in Africa are very happy with their existence. They might not have a microwave, 20.000 pounds in student loans and a car they can't really afford but still drive anyways as the neighbours drive that new car too. Sure people die of deceases "we know" how to cure and have the resources to cure and some starve while we throw away billions of pounds worth of food each years. It all sounds so unfair doesn't it? But only 30 or so years ago we couldn't do many of the things we can do now.... did this make us unhappy? I never hear my parents talk about how horrible their life was because they didn't have a microwave or a personal computer with msn on it, not to mention the lack of an ipod!

As long as society is adapted for something it's normal and people can live very happy lives even though we would find it horrible. Change can only be successful when it takes place gradually. So help a little bit here and there but if you start doing it for them you are opening a whole new can of worms.

If we open that can of worms we'll see that Africa would go through an accelerated process of industrialization. Which would mean a shitload more pollution as African governments wouldn't care as much as they don't have the luxury to. Not to think about a few million cheap and dirty cars adding to the pollution.

Not to mention that in that case Africa would compete for the same set of resources we currently still compete for causes the prizes of almost all raw materials to sky rocket. This would be seriously bad for our economies and countries have gone to war over less.

So unless change takes place gradually and we can move over to other resources and the demand only increases slowly enough so the supply can keep up we are in trouble. So why would any leader invest billions of dollars in another countries economy if this would most likely bit him in the ass 10 years down the line? Investments in better rockets etc are investments in research / production in your own country however which stimulates your economy. This makes more sense to most people than investing enough money in for example Africa so they can bite you in the ass 10 years down the line.

I don't honestly think that people are willing to first pay lots of money in foreign aid (which is money which effectively doesn't flow into your economy (when done correctly, not talking about the expensive consultants here)) and in the back of their minds know that those high prices in the shops and at the pump are due to those investments.

So we help enough to make our conscious stop screaming.... but that's it. Africa is the richest continent in the world when it comes to resources! They also have the most corrupt governments so all the money we send is hardly gonna do any good.... and didn't we just say recently that the west (America) shouldn't police the world? Let them take the first steps, we did centuries ago, and if they do we might give them a hand here and there but we shouldn't do it for them.
[/devils advocate mode]

(Edited by Chambler 07/07/2006 11:38)

while i agree with the sentiments several people have expressed, chambler has hit the nail on the head.
as nice as it would be to level the p[laying field between the west, most of africa, and parts of asia & south america, the fact is that that it just aint gonna happen.
and the fact that several people have said that they dont want the west to police the world in one sentence, then gone on to say that we should take the money spent on weapons and use that to feed the starving - erm, if its immoral & illeagal for the US and UK to invade a soverign nation to remove a dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, invaded several neighbouring countries, and destabilised an entire region, then how can you justify the US and UK invading a soverign nation (because thats what they would effectively have to do) to feed hundreds of thousands of people that their national leaders dont care about - in many cases, the leaders of the countries involved see their starving millions as an inconvenience, and are more interested in taking the millions of dollars in aid they receive and using that as a downpayment on another airliner.
remember last year when the UK sent troops to pakistan to aid in the rebuilding of infrastructure in the wake of the earthquakes - british forces initially werent allowed in - then they were only allowed access to certain areas, but were refused permission to use their own transport - eventually, they were allowed to use their own, far more capable helicopters, rather than the russian-built helos the pakistani military has.
loads of obstacles were put in the way of people who were only trying to help the locals get back on their feet - and this is a country that is, nominally at least - an ally.
how, then, would you expect the goverment of, say, somalia to react if the US or UK was to offer massive amounts of aid sufficient to feed all its people.
theres 3 ways it could go.
1) give them a shed load of money, and allow the goverment to choose what supplies it bought to support its own people.
but just remember that the last time this was tried (in ethiopia), the goverment took the money and used it to buy a fleet of jet fighters from (where else!!) russia, which it then used to decimate some of the opposition forces - who, funnily enough, included a lot of people in the areas that the money was given to provide for in the first place...
2) give the aid to the goverment in the form of supplies, and let them decide how to distribute it.
but time and time again, this has been shown not to work - the supplies make their way onto the black market, or are sold on - little if anything gets through to the people in need.
2a) give the aid in the form of supplies to organisations such as the red cross, red crescent, or oxfam.
up to a point, this is more succesful than any option so far - at least this way, the aid gets past the goverment...
but thats as far as success goes - as the supplies move towards those who need them, time and time again we have seen local leaders"taxing" shipments, taking large chunks of supplies before letting the rest go through.
as the convoys pas through more areas on their way, more and more stuff is removed, until finally next to nothing reaches those who need it.
3) send the military in to distribute it.
and this is where i ask - how is this any different from sending in the troops to topple saddam or the taliban?
it may be for the good of the people, but youre sending troops into another country, against the wishes of its leaders, to do something those leaders dont particularly WANT you to do.

moving on - the pace of technological advance in the civilian world is incredibly slow - in the military, technoliogy advances much faster, and in war time, it accelerates almost to light speed.
for example - the first stable, repeatable manned flight occured in 1903 - by the time WWI kicked off, most planes were still lucky to get off the ground, those that stayed up didnt always come down in one piece, and nothing had a range over 150 miles. by the end of the war, we had relatively safe air transport, planes with ranges in excess of 1000 miles, and the ability to carry relatively large numbers of people long distances at high speed, cheaply and safely.
by the start of WWII, the UK still had large fleets of bi-plane fighters and bombers - by the end of the war we had several different jet fighters in service, more were due to enter service, jet transports were almost ready to fly, jet bombers with transatlantic ranges were on the drawingboard, and plannin was well underway for supersonic jet fighters.
before WWII, the average time from initial design to first flight of a fighter aircraft was around 18 months - there was 1 fighter in germany ( <a href="http://members.tripod.com/Air_Museum_ww2/id43.htm">heinkel 162</a> ) that went from a sketch to maiden flight in 69 days - and many projects didnt take much longer...
fast forward to the first gulf war - precision munitions traditionally used laser designation - but this required a big, expensive laser which could only be carried by larger fighters, and they couldnt carry any other weapons - when it was decided to send forces from the UK to the gulf, one british company came up with an idea, test-flew it, demonstrated it to the RAF, the RAF tested it and demonstrated it to the goverment, and by the time the war started, they had a small pod that took up no more space than a small air-to-air missle, could designate targets for multiple other aircraft, and which allowed the carrier aircraft to self-designate as well - and several squadrons had these in service by the time the war started.
its not just wapons, though...
t'internet started as a computer connection between universitys - but you couldnt use it the way you can now
oh no, you had to dial-in to each site, you had to know the precise location of any file you wanted, and it was S...L..O..W...
DARPA (defence advanced research projects agency - part of the US military, responsible for testing new technology) invested money in the fledgeling net, and it soon speeded up, covered more locations globally, and (after an idea by an englishman working at a european research establishment working with the american) became the entity we all know and love today...
in fact, the amount of stuff we use in day-to-day life that directly stems dfrom research by the military is staggering - in fact, the only thing that comes close in terms of numbers is stuff that has been influenced by science fiction...

so, in short - the military is good for us - just not all the time...

i could go on about exactly weho has the right to tell who about nuclear weapons, and comments like that - but my fingers are tired...

(Edited by mad 07/07/2006 20:42)

Interesting last couple of replies--with which I basically disagree. I was gonna skip this, but...

I do wonder, what's with the long diatribes about Africa? I didn't mention Africa in my original post and I wasn't writing specifically about Africa. You don't need to take a long detoour to Africa to find people in need of food, healthcare, and so on. I can find plenty of them right here in North America, and I'm sure there are plenty in Europe, too. The needs and problems I mentioned are worldwide. Some of them are more serious in Africa, but they exist elsewhere as well. And when I write about helping people in need, I'm not singling out Africa.

That said, you've written a lot about Africa--some of it kind of patronizing. But since, as I said, Africa wasn't the point of my post, I'm just going to put a pin in all that and move on.

In a nutshell, my point was that the time and money spent arguing about weapons (and by extension, producing them and so on) is in most cases a waste, and that time and effort could be spent on more productive, life-affirming things needed in the world, such as feeding people, caring for the sick, stopping conflicts, safeguarding our fragile environment, and a whole host of other things I could name. I stand by that. Always will. There's no excuse for the billions of dollars all the nations of the world spend each year on the ability to maim and kill people, and possibly annihilate all life on the planet, while basic human needs are not being met. And "Well, snap out of it, that's just the way it is" isn't a reason to accept it. It is neither naive nor stupid to oppose that very warped set of priorities. And, I'll just quickly add, that I hope I never become so hardened or cynical that I feel the need to mock a suggestion that all the world's people should be fed.

Last, I realize many important advancements in science have come through military research. I think that's where the last post was headed. But many have also come through non-military research. And at this point, the budget for the military--atleast in the US--has become so bloated that it is causing cuts in funding for other areas of research in science and technology. There's no way to put a positive spin on that.


(Edited by Sandia 10/07/2006 15:22)

---

by Sandia
I do wonder, what's with the long diatribes about Africa?

---

I believe you said:

---

by Sandia
If these poor excuses for leaders would spend half as much time on trying to provide food for people who are hungry, getting medicines to those all over the world who need them

---

You cannot do that without addressing Africa at some stage. Sure there are people that require help in other places on this globe as well but if you want to address the issues "all over the world" you'll also have to address Africa and as there has been a lot of research done in the Africa situation and it's on the news on average at least once a week I figured it would be a good a place as any to start how the basic idea is flawed (probably not a good idea to use it as a starting point for your campaign to rid the world of hunger etc though). Of course there are other place where people could do with some help but if you define a good leader as someone that would try to provide food for people who are hungry (etc) a leader cannot do without a "Africa strategy". And if you could tell me how I was patronizing about Africa do tell but I'm pretty sure that if you do your reading you cannot come to any other conclusion than that any decent University graduate in economics or social studies could do a better job at running a country than for example President Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

---

by SandiaThere's no excuse for the billions of dollars all the nations of the world spend each year on the ability to maim and kill people, and possibly annihilate all life on the planet, while basic human needs are not being met.

---

And that's where you are so wrong. This would have worked if we had started out that way but we haven't and now that only works if everyone stops developing / using weapons! And I don't think for a second everyone will. You cannot afford not to develop this type of weapons as long as other people are. And I know that's a ridiculous self reinforcing line of thought but it's true. Before you can help you first need to have your own "home" secured. Whats the point of trying to feed the people of world when someone is trying to invade your country and steal all your resources and you are being killed in the process? Sure America has a major head start so you could debate that as you have a head start you can now spend less, but do you really want countries like Iran / North Korea to catch up? If a few billion dollars means most of your citizens can sleep peacefully at night I think that's money well spent.

Having all these weapons and showing that you aren't afraid of using them actually helps in being able to provide the resources to the people that need them. The most aid is needed in areas that aren't the most stable, which puts aid workers at risk, but nobody is gonna attack an aid convoy if they know that the moment they lay a hand on aid workers a tank will pay a visit to their living room before the sun has risen again. So an army when used correctly can be an incredible enablers of effectively deploying aid in unstable areas, plus you need it to keep our people safe.

---

by SandiaThere's no way to put a positive spin on that.

---

Depends which viewpoint, I believe I just put a positive spin on spending a lot of money on an army and I'm sure the marketing department of the different defence contractors have that one sorted out already as well

(Edited by Chambler 10/07/2006 19:42)

i could write a long, rambling post, but instead ill just point at chamblers latest comments and mutter "wot he wrote..."

---

by Sandia
In a nutshell, my point was that the time and money spent arguing about weapons ... is in most cases a waste, and that time and effort could be spent on more productive, life-affirming things needed in the world ...

---

Absolutely. This is not naivety; its common sense. President Eisenhower used his last address to invent, and warn against, the idea of a "military-industrial complex" taking control of the national agenda. If any view is naïve, it's the claim that just because problem is there, it's inevitable.

That rationale has previously been used to justify chattel slavery, imperialism and the workhouse. "That's just the way it is" never has and never will provide a blank cheque for inequality and injustice. Many of the problems afflicting the Third World are not natural: they are the wholly artificial consequence of Western policy.

30 years ago Western citizens were not starving to death. When, a century past, they were, people were far from happy and did something about it. The fact we were unable to cure certain diseases 30 years back is irrelevant. We can now. A vast moral chasm separates an inability to help from an unwillingness to do so, and one should never be used to excuse the other.

Very well said, Byron. I wouldn't add or change a word.

---

by Byron
If any view is naïve, it's the claim that just because problem is there, it's inevitable ... "That's just the way it is" never has and never will provide a blank cheque for inequality and injustice.

---

I totally agree with you but that's not what I said (or intended to say). All I'm trying to say is that when you want to change something "the way it is" should be your point of departure and you should keep the restrictions this lays upon you into account, otherwise you're bound to fail. There is this management saying that states: "Lets aim for the moon, and if we fail at least we'll end up between the stars" that's all good and well but you'll find that doesn't mean you can just leave elementary principles like gravity out of the equation.

---

by Byron
Absolutely. This is not naivety; its common sense.

---

What is naive is that you have a current situation (ist) and you want to achieve a new situation (soll) and you throw out all the boundaries of the current situation and come up with a new situation which although it sounds great is unachievable due to the fact that it doesn't address any of the important boundaries and restricted laid upon it by the current situation.

If we want to play that game I can come up with some very interesting ways to for example solve the world hunger problems. For example lets make the earths orbit around the sun variable and ensure that we can control the spin rate and pitch it's angled at (towards the sun) so we can create the optimal climate for the production of produce on any continent. I think this might actually be more likely than that all the billions that are currently spent on the military will be funneled into solving "the worlds problems".

Sandia I admire the fact that you feel so passionate about the problems of your fellow human being and that you are willing to discuss your viewpoints with us (well mainly me really) and I completely agree that the American military budget is bordering on the insane and that at least some of that money could / should be used differently. However I do think that if you want to be successful in moving from an ist to a soll you need to address the problems and take the ist limitations into account. Until this far the only thing I have seen are very passionate statements of good intent (by anyone) which if you put them on a project achievability scale would easily rate in the clinically insane area.

As long as you do not give ideas like this proper hands and feet by further specify how you would want to go about it and how you would solve the gaps (what to do with the personnel, long term contracts, whole cities which live on the fact they have a military base and what to do for your own defence for starters) between your ist and soll situation these ideas will never become more than just that, ideas.

You can hardly deny that if you would embark on a quest to rid the world of hunger, decease and conflict (by for example redistributing the defence budget) you will have to address at least some of the problems that I brought forward in this thread. Unless you come up with viable solutions to a situation (which make sense on all levels) these problems will never get the attention they deserve.

ok, so re-distributing the spending allocated to the military and applying it to solving the problems of world hunger is a good idea in principle - but as i stated earlier - what are you going to do for the people in countries whose own leaders dont want them fed?
i repeat - you want the people of various 3rd world countries feeding, but the only way to do that would be a wholesale invasion and replacement of the existing goverment - and that is something that has been massively upopular with regards to afghanistan and iraq, and is still the source of much complaints from those with a leberal bent.
yes, something has to be done to help the starving billions - but, as lao tzu said - "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
we should be trying to give thses people the tools to get themselves out of the situation they are in - instead of just giving out massive quantities of food aid (that will mostly be looted anyway), give the people the skills needed to grow their own. give them the backing the learn and develop new ways to supplement their existence, preferably in harmony with their existing culture and ways. and, perhaps mnore importantly, give them the backing of the international community to force their leaderships to give as much of a damn about the unwanted people as they do about their families.
there are always going to be those who will sell weapons and other toys to those who abuse their own people (the french, russians, and chinese are famous for this), but if the international community gets together behind this (yeah, like THATS ever gonna happen!!) then pressure could hopefully be brought to bear on those leaders who dont give a damn.
but there needs to be a means of backing up any sanctions against any of these countries - and the only means of doing that is military.
yeah, id like a world where the military isnt neccesary - but that will only happen on the day the police are disbanded due to not being neccesary - and as soon as you do that, some git is going to come up with the idea of knickling your telly rather than going out and buying his own...

---

by Chambler
There is this management saying that states: "Lets aim for the moon, and if we fail at least we'll end up between the stars" that's all good and well but you'll find that doesn't mean you can just leave elementary principles like gravity out of the equation.

---

Yeah, but we all know management-speak is bollocks.

---

What is naive is that you have a current situation (ist) and you want to achieve a new situation (soll) and you throw out all the boundaries of the current situation and come up with a new situation which although it sounds great is unachievable due to the fact that it doesn't address any of the important boundaries and restricted laid upon it by the current situation. ... I think this might actually be more likely than that all the billions that are currently spent on the military will be funneled into solving "the worlds problems".

---

Self-imposed boundaries are no boundaries at all. This argument was used to justify slavery in British colonies. Maybe it was a bit dodgy but, hey, wasn't realistic to get rid of it because of the "boundaries" imposed by its importance to the British economy. Guess what? Parliament abolished it anyway and the economy adapted. Markets do that.

A realistic response to Third World suffering would be to eliminate Third World Debt overnight. The banks could well absorb its loss (they're getting miserable returns anyway) and debt repayment actually exceeds aid -- we are, in effect, repaying our own debts! Now that's bad economics for you. In addition, block imports from war-zones and dictatorships, impose an immediate ban on the arms trade (hang the economic argument, slavery was equally profitable) and work out a Martial Aid-type plan to reward countries digging themselves out the mire. End Structural Adjustment and bring countries into the global economy when they're genuinely ready for it. And most importantly, make it a truly free-market. A firewall of trade tarriffs surrounds the West. Tear it down. Protectionism is long past its sell-by date.

This isn't wishy-washy liberal thinking; it's good, hardheaded liberal economics. If we were trading with strong African nations instead of the current line-up of dictatorships, banana-republics and banditocracies limping along on the crumbs from our table, it would make for a far more stable global economy with bigger returns.

And if a couple of arms dealers go bankrupt in the process, watch me not shed a tear.

(Edited by Byron 12/07/2006 00:20)

---

by mad
ok, so re-distributing the spending allocated to the military and applying it to solving the problems of world hunger is a good idea in principle - but as i stated earlier - what are you going to do for the people in countries whose own leaders dont want them fed?

---

There's many more options than military invasion open. Economic sanctions for a start. Alongside economic incentives, tightly-controlled loans (so we don't get back to the Thrid World Debt fiasco), and heavy investment on the condition of returns.

I agree this is something the world community needs to get behind, and I also agree pouring aid in isn't the answer. But it isn't a zero-sum game between giving fish and teaching how to fish (I do find that quote rather patronising, Africans have been farming their land since before Western civilization existed, its stability and resources they're lacking). Targetted aid can be very effective. (Again, see the Marshall Plan.)

I'm not suggesting we take on "the white man's burden". Many African governments have to take responsibility for their own failings (South Africa could bring down Mugabe in days by cutting off Zimbabwae's electricity and gas supplies), as any government should. (Although we need to remember that African countries were mapped out for colonial convinience with no regard for pre-existing tribal boundaries and loyalties. Most are as fake as Tony Blair's smile.) I'm suggesting it's time we dumped both the colonial mindset and Thatcherite indifference and start working with Africa instead of looking down on it.

As for the military, I actually agree we need strong armed forces for defense and security. But there's a world of difference between that and being captive to the fathomless waste of the military-industrial complex.