If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   Best Korea goes all NRA: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"   (newyorker.com) divider line 129
    More: Scary, Kim Jong, global citizens, North Koreans, NRA, supreme leader  
•       •       •

6714 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2013 at 11:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-15 07:14:12 AM  
"Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people who don't have nuclear weapons."

Peace out.

/I laughed
 
2013-02-15 08:16:02 AM  
+1.  Nice gag.
 
2013-02-15 08:20:45 AM  
Ok, that's actually good satire.  Actually, I'm not sure it's really satire when I can imagine NRA hacks actually saying something like that.
 
2013-02-15 10:07:52 AM  
I read that sober.  Can we have someone give their take after reading it stoned?

You know, from Kim Jong Un's point of view.
 
2013-02-15 10:09:13 AM  
Mutuality Assured Destruction (MAD) only works if both sides want to live.


"sovereign right of every nation on the planet to engulf that planet in a hellish inferno"
Arn't nukes mostly just a blast wave? Is there really a lot of fire? I know Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned but I thought that was mostly do to buildings make out of bamboo with household fires in them.
 
2013-02-15 10:13:50 AM  
I mean, if they wanted to kill you, they could still kill you with a knife! Banning nukes will do nothing.
 
2013-02-15 10:22:08 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mutuality Assured Destruction (MAD) only works if both sides want to live.


"sovereign right of every nation on the planet to engulf that planet in a hellish inferno"
Arn't nukes mostly just a blast wave? Is there really a lot of fire? I know Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned but I thought that was mostly do to buildings make out of bamboo with household fires in them.


Yes, when you split an atom, you
Don't release energy! Instead you release a soothing power of mint berries! The Japanese, in their euphoria, left their irons on and burned down their cities!

Stop getting your physics lessons from Indiana Jones.
 
2013-02-15 10:34:22 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mutuality Assured Destruction (MAD) only works if both sides want to live.


"sovereign right of every nation on the planet to engulf that planet in a hellish inferno"
Arn't nukes mostly just a blast wave? Is there really a lot of fire? I know Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned but I thought that was mostly do to buildings make out of bamboo with household fires in them.


Today's nukes are many times more powerful. Yes, there will be fire.
 
2013-02-15 10:34:38 AM  

lack of warmth: I read that sober.  Can we have someone give their take after reading it stoned?

You know, from Kim Jong Un's point of view.


I'm on it!!!!
 
2013-02-15 10:35:39 AM  
Hey, look what I found!

img42.imageshack.us


I remember the old footage of houses getting sweep away. I knew fire was invoved but I thought it was mostly the blast wave. So sue me I didn't know.

img715.imageshack.us

As you can see this house burned to the ground. oh no wait, that looks like a blast wave.


lack of warmth: You know, from Kim Jong Un's point of view.


With as many handlers as that guy has odds are he thought he wrote it. Well as much as he writes anything. Which is to say, he signed it.
 
2013-02-15 10:45:06 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Hey, look what I found!




I remember the old footage of houses getting sweep away. I knew fire was invoved but I thought it was mostly the blast wave. So sue me I didn't know.



As you can see this house burned to the ground. oh no wait, that looks like a blast wave.


lack of warmth: You know, from Kim Jong Un's point of view.

With as many handlers as that guy has odds are he thought he wrote it. Well as much as he writes anything. Which is to say, he signed it.


It's both. So you get partial credit. The shock wave and the heat. If you look at the picture-the roof is on fire.

The fact that people eyes were melted and reduced to ash shadows on walls indicate temperatures were not balmy.
 
2013-02-15 10:50:11 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: The shock wave and the heat. If you look at the picture-the roof is on fire.


I was of the belief you get the heat blast and then the shock wave puts out the resulting fire.

Whatever the case, a nasty way to go.
 
2013-02-15 10:53:58 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: If you look at the picture-the roof is on fire.


Really? Looks like dust to me...

Odds are you're right, like I said I dont know. I'm learning stuff today!!

Diogenes: Whatever the case, a nasty way to go.


If I had to die because of a nuke I have to vote for the blast zone. Being just close enough to get poisoned would be a death I wouldn't wish on anyone.
 
2013-02-15 11:00:49 AM  
From Wikipedia:

Blast - 40-50% of total energyThermal radiation - 30-50% of total energyIonizing radiation - 5% of total energy (more in a neutron bomb)Residual radiation - 5-10% of total energy
 
2013-02-15 11:01:34 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Darth_Lukecash: If you look at the picture-the roof is on fire.

Really? Looks like dust to me...

Odds are you're right, like I said I dont know. I'm learning stuff today!!

Diogenes: Whatever the case, a nasty way to go.

If I had to die because of a nuke I have to vote for the blast zone. Being just close enough to get poisoned would be a death I wouldn't wish on anyone.


Oh, I gotta agree. A long painful radiation poisoning is so way to go.

Give me instant disintegration!
 
2013-02-15 11:08:06 AM  
Firstly, I realize this is satire but it is a real issue so

1) Who the fark wants to nuke North Korea? The US and its allies would destroy them in any conventional warfare. Do they think anyone wants to take over their shiathole country? North Korea sounds like the 350lb chick with the wall eye and clubbed foot who wants a bottle of pepper spray because she's afraid of rape.

2) Then again, who are we to say they can't have nukes? What exactly is the authority we have over them that says, "We all can have them but you can't"? Not that I want them to have them because I think Kim Dong...whatever is a lunatic I just want to know what authority we have over them to tell them they can't.
 
2013-02-15 11:11:22 AM  

Mugato: Firstly, I realize this is satire but it is a real issue so

1) Who the fark wants to nuke North Korea? The US and its allies would destroy them in any conventional warfare. Do they think anyone wants to take over their shiathole country? North Korea sounds like the 350lb chick with the wall eye and clubbed foot who wants a bottle of pepper spray because she's afraid of rape.

2) Then again, who are we to say they can't have nukes? What exactly is the authority we have over them that says, "We all can have them but you can't"? Not that I want them to have them because I think Kim Dong...whatever is a lunatic I just want to know what authority we have over them to tell them they can't.


I'm pretty sure the reason the US and China both allow the status quo that is North Korea is because neither nation wants to be responsible for cleaning up that mess.  How many millions of starving people?  A complete and total lack of 20th century infrastructure?  Yeah, lets march right in and claim it.
 
2013-02-15 11:16:58 AM  

Mugato: I just want to know what authority we have over them to tell them they can't.



Mugato: The US and its allies would destroy them in any conventional warfare.


It's really that simple. Same with Iran. As long as they think someone is going to protect them from Western Aggression TM they will talk and do as they please. If they lose that feeling life would change.


Darth_Lukecash: Give me instant disintegration!


don't sound so happy about it!
 
2013-02-15 11:25:00 AM  

Mugato:
2) Then again, who are we to say they can't have nukes? What exactly is the authority we have over them that says, "We all can have them but you can't"? Not that I want them to have them because I think Kim Dong...whatever is a lunatic I just want to know what authority we have over them to tell them they can't.


What have we done about it? One of the more overlooked blunders of the Bush administration was Bush stating that we absolutely would NOT tolerate them having nukes. They tested a nuke and.... crickets. But hey, thank god we got Saddam out of power, right? Anyway the message we've sent is crystal clear: You can test nukes, and we won't do a thing about it, other than shaking our tiny fists and having the U.N. write a strongly worded letter or two.

If the shiat hits the fan, having a couple deliverable nukes (which they do NOT yet have) isn't going to turn the tide, it's just going to increase the casualties, which I'm sure Worst Korea is VERY concerned with, but the USA doesn't really have anything to worry about for now
 
2013-02-15 11:28:58 AM  

born_yesterday: I'm pretty sure the reason the US and China both allow the status quo that is North Korea is because neither nation wants to be responsible for cleaning up that mess.  How many millions of starving people?  A complete and total lack of 20th century infrastructure?  Yeah, lets march right in and claim it.


Add to that (yes, it is selfish), they really do not have much in the way of natural resources that makes it worth while.  Yes, we collectively should be motivated my the human aspect of it all, but we are not.  They lack modern infristructure, modern farming techniques, etc.  Hell, they only export about $2B worth of stuff a year.
 
2013-02-15 11:32:30 AM  
My job in Vault-Tec assures me a place in a Vault, so I'm cool.
 
2013-02-15 11:32:57 AM  
Correct.
Get a nuke, nobody messes with you anymore.
or
That's Nork speak for, "It's winter here in North Korea and we need food and heating oil."
 
2013-02-15 11:33:49 AM  

nekom: Mugato:
2) Then again, who are we to say they can't have nukes? What exactly is the authority we have over them that says, "We all can have them but you can't"? Not that I want them to have them because I think Kim Dong...whatever is a lunatic I just want to know what authority we have over them to tell them they can't.

What have we done about it? One of the more overlooked blunders of the Bush administration was Bush stating that we absolutely would NOT tolerate them having nukes. They tested a nuke and.... crickets. But hey, thank god we got Saddam out of power, right? Anyway the message we've sent is crystal clear: You can test nukes, and we won't do a thing about it, other than shaking our tiny fists and having the U.N. write a strongly worded letter or two.

If the shiat hits the fan, having a couple deliverable nukes (which they do NOT yet have) isn't going to turn the tide, it's just going to increase the casualties, which I'm sure Worst Korea is VERY concerned with, but the USA doesn't really have anything to worry about for now


The other problem that we face is let's say that they do lob a nuclear bomb or two into Seoul...so the US, Worst Korea and China decide to retaliate.  You know what Best Korea will do?  They will use women and children as human shields.  They will fill Pyongyang with thousands upon thousands of people then win the bombs drop, they will claim that the West has specifically targeted women and children.

I do honestly wonder how long this regime can last.  I would be surprised if it was around in another 25 years.  With they way technology is progressing, I suspect that Best Korea at some point will want to join the modern world.
 
2013-02-15 11:35:28 AM  
"Good Guys" don't starve millions of their own citizens to death or put them in labor camps.
 
2013-02-15 11:38:14 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mutuality Assured Destruction (MAD) only works if both sides want to live.


"sovereign right of every nation on the planet to engulf that planet in a hellish inferno"
Arn't nukes mostly just a blast wave? Is there really a lot of fire? I know Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned but I thought that was mostly do to buildings make out of bamboo with household fires in them.


Yes. The reality is that most nukes aren't that big or bad.
Nasty things, yes, but not as horrific as, say, the Yellowstone or Mount Lassen erupting again.
 
2013-02-15 11:38:23 AM  
U M.A.D. bro?
 
2013-02-15 11:40:37 AM  
So, NRA and their supporters agrees, right?

They will defend S. Korea's right?

Will a snake start eating its tail?
 
2013-02-15 11:42:12 AM  
I've said it before - Everyone get's a mini nuke.  Nukes don't kills people, people kill people.
 
2013-02-15 11:43:39 AM  
If Iran gets to have a stealth jet, N. Korea should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
 
2013-02-15 11:45:38 AM  
I've actually used this argument on NRA types who think arming everyone is the solution to life's problems. It makes their head spin.
 
2013-02-15 11:45:56 AM  
If its true. That's some serious derp right there.
 
2013-02-15 11:45:57 AM  
If Pakistan didn't have nukes, we would've destroyed every military installation they had for hiding OBL.  It's pretty clear that if you have nukes you can get away with anything.

Really think that dropping leaflets all over NK showing how good the people of SK have it would do the trick.  Just everyday drop a bunch of pictures of their fellow Koreans eating food and enjoying technology. Be cheaper than sanctions or maintaining the DMZ
 
2013-02-15 11:46:39 AM  

lack of warmth: I read that sober.  Can we have someone give their take after reading it stoned?

You know, from Kim Jong Un's point of view.


Hey man, we like share a border with the People's Republic of China.

/imagining Kim (not too) stoned
 
2013-02-15 11:47:10 AM  
Doesn't it undermine the satire a bit if their goofball analogy is actually literally how international politics actually works, and pretty much the sole reason the US didn't deploy nuclear weapons in warfare after 1945?

Also, while N. Korea is a pretty legitimate threat to everybody and demonstrably insane enough to actually start some shiat, I'm all in favor of Iran getting some nukes so that the rest of the world has to start treating them like a real nation, instead of abusing them like a red-headed stepchild in Alabama like we do now.  Like 90% of the west's problems with Iran are our own goddamned fault for abusing the power imbalance, and having to stick them on the UN security council would actually probably clear most of them up.
 
2013-02-15 11:47:51 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Arn't nukes mostly just a blast wave? Is there really a lot of fire?


Ever hear of nuclear winter?
 
2013-02-15 11:49:53 AM  

born_yesterday: Mugato: Firstly, I realize this is satire but it is a real issue so

1) Who the fark wants to nuke North Korea? The US and its allies would destroy them in any conventional warfare. Do they think anyone wants to take over their shiathole country? North Korea sounds like the 350lb chick with the wall eye and clubbed foot who wants a bottle of pepper spray because she's afraid of rape.

2) Then again, who are we to say they can't have nukes? What exactly is the authority we have over them that says, "We all can have them but you can't"? Not that I want them to have them because I think Kim Dong...whatever is a lunatic I just want to know what authority we have over them to tell them they can't.

I'm pretty sure the reason the US and China both allow the status quo that is North Korea is because neither nation wants to be responsible for cleaning up that mess.  How many millions of starving people?  A complete and total lack of 20th century infrastructure?  Yeah, lets march right in and claim it.


If they were allowed free (as in no restrictions) distribution of goods they wouldn't be starving. The insane taxes and benefits for the upper class are the largest issue causing the Best Koreans to starve.
 
2013-02-15 11:54:24 AM  

mayIFark: So, NRA and their supporters agrees, right?

They will defend S. Korea's right?

Will a snake start eating its tail?


Yeah right.

Here is a better one... let's collect some money for the New Black Panther Party to start a campaign using the same rhetoric as their NRA brethren.
 
2013-02-15 11:56:30 AM  
Hammers kill more North Koreans than nukes.
 
2013-02-15 11:57:18 AM  
I sleep safely at night knowing that a loaded nuclear silo is as close as the launch button on my nightstand.


Hah... oh man, he wishes.
 
2013-02-15 11:58:44 AM  
Kim Jong-un,

Don't be trippin.   We ride with W88's and Tridents foo.  Big bada boom melon farmer, you know what I'm saying.  Think before you step to this 'cuz.

The Original Gangster,
Barry - O
 
2013-02-15 12:00:13 PM  

nekom: Mugato:
2) Then again, who are we to say they can't have nukes? What exactly is the authority we have over them that says, "We all can have them but you can't"? Not that I want them to have them because I think Kim Dong...whatever is a lunatic I just want to know what authority we have over them to tell them they can't.

What have we done about it? One of the more overlooked blunders of the Bush administration was Bush stating that we absolutely would NOT tolerate them having nukes. They tested a nuke and.... crickets. But hey, thank god we got Saddam out of power, right? Anyway the message we've sent is crystal clear: You can test nukes, and we won't do a thing about it, other than shaking our tiny fists and having the U.N. write a strongly worded letter or two.

If the shiat hits the fan, having a couple deliverable nukes (which they do NOT yet have) isn't going to turn the tide, it's just going to increase the casualties, which I'm sure Worst Korea is VERY concerned with, but the USA doesn't really have anything to worry about for now


You lefties are just pissed Bush didn't start another "illegal" war for you to chant about.  There is NO foreign policy that Bush could have followed to make you happy, so stop pretending how disappointed you are about this choice.

At least Obama came into power and shut those Korean nuke tests down.  He showed the right wing how foreign policy is DONE!  There hasn't been a Nork nuke story in forever.  Just like Iran.  Go Obama!
 
2013-02-15 12:01:22 PM  

DerAppie: born_yesterday: Mugato: Firstly, I realize this is satire but it is a real issue so

1) Who the fark wants to nuke North Korea? The US and its allies would destroy them in any conventional warfare. Do they think anyone wants to take over their shiathole country? North Korea sounds like the 350lb chick with the wall eye and clubbed foot who wants a bottle of pepper spray because she's afraid of rape.

2) Then again, who are we to say they can't have nukes? What exactly is the authority we have over them that says, "We all can have them but you can't"? Not that I want them to have them because I think Kim Dong...whatever is a lunatic I just want to know what authority we have over them to tell them they can't.

I'm pretty sure the reason the US and China both allow the status quo that is North Korea is because neither nation wants to be responsible for cleaning up that mess.  How many millions of starving people?  A complete and total lack of 20th century infrastructure?  Yeah, lets march right in and claim it.

If they were allowed free (as in no restrictions) distribution of goods they wouldn't be starving. The insane taxes and benefits for the upper class are the largest issue causing the Best Koreans to starve.


that and they don't have enough electricity to run any of their factories meaning their production has ground to a halt. It's really what started the famine there in the 1990s
 
2013-02-15 12:02:02 PM  

Ambitwistor: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Arn't nukes mostly just a blast wave? Is there really a lot of fire?

Ever hear of nuclear winter?


So what you're saying is that if we want to stop global warming...
 
2013-02-15 12:04:06 PM  

RickN99: You lefties are just pissed Bush didn't start another "illegal" war for you to chant about.


Why what us "lefties" be pissed about that? That doesn't even make any sense.
 
2013-02-15 12:05:05 PM  
Who is the "good guy with the gun?" Who is the "bad guy with the gun?"It all depends on your point of view. 2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-15 12:06:58 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: As you can see this house burned to the ground. oh no wait, that looks like a blast wave.


well, the important thing is that they didn't INTEND to kill the guys inside. ;)


Kim is pretty much right though.  If you don't have nukes, it's hard to claim that you are a sovereign nation.  They DO keep people from invading you at will.
 
2013-02-15 12:09:14 PM  
Kim Jong Un: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"

Good idea, Kimmy. Let's test that theory out by dropping a nuke on your place.
 
2013-02-15 12:09:39 PM  

Pollexter: Hammers kill more North Koreans than nukes.


And sickles
 
2013-02-15 12:09:54 PM  

Mugato: RickN99: You lefties are just pissed Bush didn't start another "illegal" war for you to chant about.

Why what us "lefties" be pissed about that? That doesn't even make any sense.


I wouldn't think about that post too much; that's how aneurisms happen.
 
2013-02-15 12:11:19 PM  

Champion of the Sun: If Pakistan didn't have nukes, we would've destroyed every military installation they had for hiding OBL.  It's pretty clear that if you have nukes you can get away with anything.


No.  No, we would not have, since we need their help in stabilizing Afghanistan so we can GTFO from there.

Here's a funny thing: every country that's developed nuclear weapons has subsequently been involved in a conventional war, sometimes even with other nuclear armed nations.  In no case save for once by the US, were nuclear weapons actually used.  Obviously, nuclear weapons do not deter war.  They do not give you a license to do anything, other than to make threats and waste trillions of dollars on what amounts to no more than stroking your national ego.

North Korea does not need nuclear weapons to deter the US from invading, otherwise we would have already done so in the 50 odd years since the Korean war.  We're not invading because of China.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report