Right, in which they don't make unsubstantiated claims such as: "The most likely scenario in which the UK finds itself under nuclear attack is not ICBMs. It's a couple..."

I suppose that's true, yes, in that those papers are all referencing the US.

Given that the easiest way for anyone but Canada or Mexico to reach the US is via the sea I don't think it's a stretch to say that maritime nations such as, oh, the UK, might face similar attacks.

Is your objection just to my opinion that it's more likely? Presumably you're not objecting to the possibility entirely?

To suggest that because North Korea regularly undergoes famine in no way supports the idea that the leadership doesn't give a shit about its continued existence. If you think you've in any way substantiated that claim by referencing the wealth of the nation then we may as well stop communicating now as I don't have the patience to explain why you haven't.

I apologise. The explanation was because I assumed you didn't know the difference between North and South Korea.

However I think you'll agree that looking at how that country is run shows that North Korea's leadership place significantly more value on their own desires than those of their people.

That's true in virtually all hierarchical organisations but by the time they're kidnapping foreign film directors to create a socialist Godzilla it's fair to say they're what you or I would call nuts.

That kind of personality cult could easily throw up a leader who was unhinged enough to truly believe that they're the Son of God. That allows them to opt-out of the self-preservation that nuclear deterrence traditionally depends on.

Toothbrushes don't stop your hair falling out, that's not an argument against toothbrushes.

Magic tiger-repelling rocks don't stop your hair falling out either, but that's not an argument for tiger-repelling rocks.