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  
•       •       •

6703 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
 
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.
 
2013-02-15 12:12:40 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.

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


Don't those nukes keep the peace (relatively) between Pakistan and India?
 
2013-02-15 12:17:27 PM
Black Mage unavailable for comment?
 
2013-02-15 12:19:47 PM

RickN99:
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!


Where did I ever say Obama was any better? Bush called Iran, Iraq and Best Korea the axis of evil. Of those three, for some reason we invaded Iraq, which was the LEAST concerning of them. And when you, as head of state of the United States say that something will absolutely not be tolerated, then you go ahead and just tolerate it, you squander any credibility the USA might have left.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the reasons for not wanting to go to war with Best Korea, mostly the potential for Seoul to come under heavy fire before we have time to destroy every single piece of artillery they own. But if you have no intention of doing anything about them, DON'T SAY THAT YOU DO. That's my point.
 
2013-02-15 12:21:07 PM

Mugato: 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.


North Korea is sitting on the goldmine. The northern side of the Korean peninsula is well known for its rocky terrain with 85% of the country composed of mountains. It hosts sizeable deposits of more than 200 different minerals, of which deposits of coal, iron ore, magnesite, gold ore, zinc ore, copper ore, limestone, molybdenum, and graphite are the largest and have the potential for the development of large-scale mines. After China, North Korea's magnesite reserves are the second largest in the world, and its tungsten deposits are almost the sixth-largest in the world. Still the value of all these resources pales in comparison to prospects which promise the exploration and export of rare earth metals.

Rare earth metals are a group of 17 elements which are found in the earth's crust. They are essential in the manufacture of high-tech products and in green technologies, such as wind turbines, solar panels or hybrid cars. Known as "the vitamins of high-tech industries," REMs are minerals necessary for making everything that we use on a daily basis, like smartphones, LCDs, and notebook computers. Some Rare earth metals, such as cerium and neodymium, are crucial elements in semiconductors, cars, computers and other advanced technological areas. Other types of REMs can be used to build tanks and airplanes, missiles and lasers.

South Korea estimates the total value of the North's mineral deposits at more than $6 trillion USD.


www.intellectualtakeout.org
 
2013-02-15 12:21:42 PM
You never go fully Wayne LaPierre.

/ Exempli gratia, Ted Nugent
 
2013-02-15 12:22:22 PM

nekom: Bush called Iran, Iraq and Best Korea the axis of evil. Of those three, for some reason we invaded Iraq, which was the LEAST concerning of them. And when you, as head of state of the United States say that something will absolutely not be tolerated, then you go ahead and just tolerate it, you squander any credibility the USA might have left.



We controlled like 2/3 of the board at that point, the game was already over, who cares if they took their turn or not.
 
2013-02-15 12:23:00 PM
So, MOAR nukes?
 
2013-02-15 12:23:43 PM

RickN99: 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!


Not our fault Bush is a war criminal and started a war on a sovreign country on false pretenses and by lying to you.
 
2013-02-15 12:24:24 PM

RickN99: 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.


Well, as a "lefty" I would have vastly preferred Bush to have started no wars, or to have just focused on Afghanistan. His administration did enough awful stuff domestically that I don't think liberals needed any more reasons to disapprove of him.

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!

As a lefty I'm not in favor of Obama's approach to a number of issues, which are pretty much the same as Bush's approach. I am glad he hasn't been threatening war with North Korea or Iran, and generally seems to be working through diplomatic channels and sanctions.

/I am not your straw man
 
2013-02-15 12:24:53 PM
They should just post a sign that says "Nuclear Weapon Free Zone"

It'll work, I tell ya

/Maybe send a Brady over to negotiate
 
2013-02-15 12:25:19 PM
Anti-bomb is anti-human.
 
2013-02-15 12:25:45 PM

toraque: Obviously, nuclear weapons do not deter war.


They limit the size of war and the directness of war pretty effectively.  Note that we haven't invaded Pakistan proper despite FAR more provocation than we got from either Afghanistan or Iraq, and all our wars with Russia were proxy wars where neither side declared.  Also note that the inevitable next stage with conventional warfare, i.e. a third world war with a European theater, never happened, largely because the probably major participants were all pointing nukes at each other.

Hell, you can basically thank nukes for the existence of the current European state, because pre-nuke the place couldn't go without a major military invasion in half the nations for a decade, much less most of a century.
 
2013-02-15 12:26:17 PM

Theaetetus: South Korea estimates the total value of the North's mineral deposits at more than $6 trillion USD.


What does that have to do with the quality of life of its citizens or their infrastructure? This isn't a game of Civilization we're talking about.
 
2013-02-15 12:30:03 PM
Nuts with guns are a problem. Nuts with nukes are a problem.

More nukes and  guns solves neither problem.
 
2013-02-15 12:30:20 PM

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


So hiding OBL and arming the militants on the border is stabilizing?  We only need them for airspace to get into Afghanistan from the ocean.  If not for nukes, we would've spanked them pretty hard for their helping OBL.  Pretty much anything to do with the ISI would've been bombed, we would've propped up the more secular branch of the military until we left Afghanistan.  We're afraid of the whole country falling to hard liners, we wouldn't care if they didn't have nukes though.

schubie: Don't those nukes keep the peace (relatively) between Pakistan and India?


There's been a number of conventional battles, wars even, between the two since they've had nukes.  Nukes also allow brinkmanship, which is expensive and destabilizing.  Kashmir might be better off if neither side was armed, or if only one was, the issue would be more settled.  The nukes just allow them to endlessly antagonize each other without a resolution.
 
2013-02-15 12:31:55 PM

Mugato: Theaetetus: South Korea estimates the total value of the North's mineral deposits at more than $6 trillion USD.

What does that have to do with the quality of life of its citizens or their infrastructure? This isn't a game of Civilization we're talking about.


You asked why anyone would want to take over their country, not why anyone would want to improve the quality of life of its citizens or take on their infrastructure. That you're moving the goal posts doesn't make my answer to your earlier question incorrect.
 
2013-02-15 12:32:39 PM

cefm: 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 image 450x312]


home.swipnet.se
 
2013-02-15 12:35:12 PM
WARNING: Satire
 
2013-02-15 12:35:14 PM

Mugato: Theaetetus: South Korea estimates the total value of the North's mineral deposits at more than $6 trillion USD.

What does that have to do with the quality of life of its citizens or their infrastructure? This isn't a game of Civilization we're talking about.


The Iraqi oil fields will fund the invasion!

Seriously though, if people are worried about the cost of reunification, South Korean industry could utilize those mineral deposits to help offset costs.  Keeping the NK people in their relative geographic area and giving them a job and food would probably make it work a little easier.  I'm not of the opinion that reunification would be impossible or a drain on SK.  They're adults, they'll figure it out.  Not without a huge headache, but not impossible either.
 
2013-02-15 12:35:22 PM

StrangeQ: Ambitwistor: Ever hear of nuclear winter?

So what you're saying is that if we want to stop global warming...


Something similar has been proposed (without the actual nuclear war), under the name "aerosol geoengineering" or "solar radiation managment".  Turns out to have some drawbacks ...
 
2013-02-15 12:40:56 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.


stuffy: If its true. That's some serious derp right there.


fireclown: 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.


FuryOfFirestorm: 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.


Some of you may need to get your satire meters checked.
 
2013-02-15 12:46:51 PM
How quick before this shows up on Snopes with some poor bugger wondering if it's real?
 
2013-02-15 12:55:46 PM

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.


Yeah, rots of ruck, Hans Brix.
 
2013-02-15 01:02:06 PM

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.


No. You know very little. Houses were/are not made of bamboo. Most houses were wood framed and built to a precision that is seldom seen in the western word. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not burn to any significant  degree. The  shock wave extinguished most all fires caused by the heat of initial blast. If you want to understand burning a city to the ground research the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden.
 
2013-02-15 01:11:43 PM

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.


upload.wikimedia.org

50 to 150 million degrees Fahrenheit at flash.  It burns so hot, any humans within 1-5 mile radius are instantly turned into carbon .  And those are the ones from world war 2.  Todays nukes are much, much more powerful.
 
2013-02-15 01:16:41 PM

ltdanman44: 50 to 150 million degrees Fahrenheit at flash.  It burns so hot, any humans within 1-5 mile radius are instantly turned into carbon .  And those are the ones from world war 2.  Todays nukes are much, much more powerful.


:o  Where the hell'd you get <i>that</i> number?  Heck, even <i>wikipedia</i> isn't making that claim (wiki)!
 
2013-02-15 01:16:46 PM
mm.. all these witty comments seem ridiculous until you flip sides on the situation. What if North Korea had all the nukes and the US had none? All your illogical witty diatribes no longer have validity.
 
2013-02-15 01:17:24 PM

schubie: 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.



Because you're the type of person who purposely chooses an idiot to argue with to boost their ego. For one thing no one is claiming that arming "everyone" is the "solution to life's problems". It's an exaggeration and an inaccurate description of gun owners. You are simply building a straw man.

There is a glaring difference between a government possessing a nuclear weapon and an individual with a firearm. The difference is that it is generally agreed upon that individuals have the right to self defense. That right doesn't necessarily extend to a coalition, government, etc. Governments, gangs, religions, and other groupings that divide the human species are man made entities and are in many ways fictitious. The argument about owning firearms doesn't necessarily scale up to the level that this satire portrays.

A nuclear weapon, will almost always kill many people who are neither a direct theat to or in any type of conflict with anyone. It is not a weapon that can be used to defend oneself or another from an immediate threat without killing many others and yourself in the process. It is not a personal defense weapon.

The types of weapons that should be considered for personal defense of individuals are those that are in common use and have been proven to work for the intended purpose. For this I will use the police as a model. They are not military. Local police are a civilian law enforcement agency. They are usually the first responders when any type of violent crime is taking place. They tend to choose proven technologies to carry out their job. Most patrol officers carry a standard issue pistol that varies from department to department. What they have in common is that they are semi-automatic and usually 9mm or .40 cal. Depending on the model they may have a magazine capacity of up to 18 rounds. For more specialized situations the police usually have semi-automatic AR-15 rifles much like the ones in common civilian use. For the most part they don't use fully automatic weapons because 1. They don't need them and 2. They waste ammunition. Fully automatic weapons are used on the battlefield mostly for suppressive fire (they keep the enemy from coming out from behind cover).

Civilians should be able to defend themselves with the same types of firearms that the police use and police should be limited to the same types of firearms that civilians are allowed to own. For the most part police should only use their firearms defensively just like a civilian. They don't need M240G or M249 Saws to carry out their duties. The military is offensive in purpose. Their purpose is to seek out and kill enemies.
 
2013-02-15 01:18:39 PM
ltdanman44:
50 to 150 million degrees Fahrenheit at flash.  It burns so hot, any humans within 1-5 mile radius are instantly turned into carbon .  And those are the ones from world war 2.  Todays nukes are much, much more powerful.

Except for Best Korea. I have not read an analysis of their latest, but prior efforts did not reach the levels achieved during WWII.
 
2013-02-15 01:20:37 PM

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.


First, I don't blame them for being afraid of invasion. No dictator wants to be dethroned, and I bet even the wingnuttiest Tea Partiers don't want Cuba or Russia invading the US to topple Obama. And look what a freaking mess we made in Afghanistan and Iraq by "liberating" them.

Given those facts it's "natural" for the Kim Jong-Il clique to want a nuclear deterrent, even a small pathetic one: it helps to reassure normal North Koreans that they're protected from the Big Bad USA, and it might give the USA a bit of pause before invading. Even if their puny missile would only go as far as Japan or at least South Korea that would still be something Uncle Sam might regard as a unwanted side-effect.

And no, the USA /NATO imperialist alliance does not have the right to dictate who ese has nukes. Unless the US/NATO chooses to disarm as well this "non-proliferation" bullshiat is just hypocritical bullying.

"How about you get rid of your means of self-defense and let me come in to make sure you did it? I'll leave my gunbelt on the front porch, really. You know you can trust me, right?"

Sheesh. Personally I think if the US & its lackeys allies want to invade they should do it ASAP before those weirdos have a credible nuke; if they're not going to do that they should STFU and instead "nice" North Korea into a better policy. Maybe give them food through the Chinese: let the Chinese be the Nice Guys going peacefully in on worldwide TV to personally feed the drought-stricken Koreans (especially civilians). Nobody but the US, Chinese and NK governments has to know where the food came from either; I can't see the Best Korean wingnuts agreeing any other way.
 
2013-02-15 01:21:20 PM

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.


Dude, my nukes...are so HUGE.
 
2013-02-15 01:25:07 PM

numbquil: There is a glaring difference between a government possessing a nuclear weapon and an individual with a firearm. The difference is that it is generally agreed upon that individuals have the right to self defense. That right doesn't necessarily extend to a coalition, government, etc.


Except for the places where it does. Like Earth, for example. A state's right to defend itself from attack is a pretty big keystone in international law.
 
2013-02-15 01:27:13 PM
numbquil:
A nuclear weapon, will almost always kill many people who are neither a direct theat to or in any type of conflict with anyone. It is not a weapon that can be used to defend oneself or another from an immediate threat without killing many others and yourself in the process. It is not a personal defense weapon.


I beg to differ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCFmSFvIZw
 
2013-02-15 01:27:37 PM

Theaetetus: You asked why anyone would want to take over their country, not why anyone would want to improve the quality of life of its citizens or take on their infrastructure. That you're moving the goal posts doesn't make my answer to your earlier question incorrect.


And what did taking over Iraq do to the price of oil?
 
2013-02-15 01:28:15 PM
wow i'm dumb today it took me like a few words in till i realized that this wasn't real and was satire
 
2013-02-15 01:39:30 PM

numbquil: There is a glaring difference between a government possessing a nuclear weapon and an individual with a firearm. The difference is that it is generally agreed upon that individuals have the right to self defense. That right doesn't necessarily extend to a coalition, government, etc. Governments, gangs, religions, and other groupings that divide the human species are man made entities and are in many ways fictitious. The argument about owning firearms doesn't necessarily scale up to the level that this satire portrays.

A nuclear weapon, will almost always kill many people who are neither a direct theat to or in any type of conflict with anyone.


www.pslweb.org
Much the same could be said of guns.
 
2013-02-15 01:43:37 PM
Sure, and when some psycho starts shooting people up in your daughter's school, I'm sure he'll stop if you just ask him to, right?
 
2013-02-15 01:46:08 PM

Mugato: Theaetetus: You asked why anyone would want to take over their country, not why anyone would want to improve the quality of life of its citizens or take on their infrastructure. That you're moving the goal posts doesn't make my answer to your earlier question incorrect.

And what did taking over Iraq do to the price of oil?


businessforecastblog.com
money.cnn.com checksandbalancesproject.files.wordpress.com

Did you really think that these companies were struggling as a result of the war?
 
2013-02-15 01:49:35 PM

Flakeloaf: numbquil: There is a glaring difference between a government possessing a nuclear weapon and an individual with a firearm. The difference is that it is generally agreed upon that individuals have the right to self defense. That right doesn't necessarily extend to a coalition, government, etc.

Except for the places where it does. Like Earth, for example. A state's right to defend itself from attack is a pretty big keystone in international law.


I'm not talking about man made laws. I'm talking about nature. The individual right to life and liberty should be put before the survival of a state which as I stated before is a fictitious and man made seperation. It is an illogical man-made grouping of human beings. Many of the problems that the world is facing today is that people have had this ass backwards for too long. The individual comes first. Look at an image of Earth from outer space. You will see no borders.

I don't think that any government should possess nuclear weapons and if people were smart any government who does possess them would be overthrown.
 
2013-02-15 01:49:48 PM

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


See for instance: The Republicans in Congress.
 
2013-02-15 01:50:02 PM
Now that is just priceless. Part if me would expect heads to explode but the pessimist in me knows that there will be some "it's not even comparable because we are the good guys" response from the NRA.
 
2013-02-15 01:53:03 PM

numbquil: Look at an image of Earth from outer space. You will see no borders.


Says you.
www.spaceflightnow.com
 
2013-02-15 01:56:37 PM

stevarooni: ltdanman44: 50 to 150 million degrees Fahrenheit at flash.  It burns so hot, any humans within 1-5 mile radius are instantly turned into carbon .  And those are the ones from world war 2.  Todays nukes are much, much more powerful.

:o  Where the hell'd you get <i>that</i> number?  Heck, even <i>wikipedia</i> isn't making that claim (wiki)!


That's at the center. As it expands, it cools down.  But it moves at the speed of light and anything within the epicenter will be instantly vaporized in under a 10th of a second. Even if you somehow survive the heat, your gonna get a lethal dose of radiation and be dead within 48 hours. Then the shockwave comes which moves much slower at 768 mph (speed of sound) blowing up and leveling any structure within its blast radius.

www.cddc.vt.edu
 
2013-02-15 01:58:35 PM
lmao

lets hope he doesnt reach over to hit the snooze button on the alarm on the nightstand, and hit the other button by mistake---probably won't be able to go back to sleep.
 
2013-02-15 02:01:35 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.

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


WTF? Really? Like the Pakis could actually throw a nuke further than the other side of Kashmir.
We don't use nukes for pissy little shiat, you know that.
 
2013-02-15 02:03:02 PM

Theaetetus: Mugato: Theaetetus: You asked why anyone would want to take over their country, not why anyone would want to improve the quality of life of its citizens or take on their infrastructure. That you're moving the goal posts doesn't make my answer to your earlier question incorrect.

And what did taking over Iraq do to the price of oil?

[businessforecastblog.com image 850x608]
[money.cnn.com image 220x291] [checksandbalancesproject.files.wordpress.com image 460x420]

Did you really think that these companies were struggling as a result of the war?


Right but the whole selling point of this war was that gas prices would go down. Of course the oil companies can charcge whatever they want but the promise was that the war would pay for itself via gas prices.
 
2013-02-15 02:03:43 PM

ltdanman44: That's at the center. As it expands, it cools down.  But it moves at the speed of light and anything within the epicenter will be instantly vaporized in under a 10th of a second. Even if you somehow survive the heat, your gonna get a lethal dose of radiation and be dead within 48 hours. Then the shockwave comes which moves much slower at 768 mph (speed of sound) blowing up and leveling any structure within its blast radius.


That's a far cry from "It burns so hot, any humans within 1-5 mile radius are instantly turned into carbon."  Nuclear hyperbole is hyperbolic.  :o|
 
2013-02-15 02:04:54 PM

johndalek: lmao

lets hope he doesnt reach over to hit the snooze button on the alarm on the nightstand, and hit the other button by mistake---probably won't be able to go back to sleep.


500daysasunder.files.wordpress.com
Man, that's one heck of a nurse!
 
2013-02-15 02:10:39 PM

loki see loki do: WTF? Really? Like the Pakis could actually throw a nuke further than the other side of Kashmir.
We don't use nukes for pissy little shiat, you know that.


Whoa, slow down there tard.  Pakistan has launched satellites into LEO, they could probably manage to hit someone with a nuke.  We would've retaliated against their military installations using conventional weapons, not nukes. And the blowback we're worried about isn't them using nukes against us, it's the fear of us emboldening the hardliners to take more control of the country and by effect their nuclear arsenal.
 
2013-02-15 02:14:26 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Hey, look what I found!

[img42.imageshack.us image 410x305]


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 image 500x394]

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.


Military planners usually rely on AIRBURSTS, not the ground burst that explains.

Airbursts produce destruction over a much wider area.  They also leave considerably less localized fallout, because the massive updraft carries a lot of the radioactive byproducts away, but the primary motivation is to get a greater radius of destruction..
 
2013-02-15 02:14:59 PM

stevarooni: ltdanman44: That's at the center. As it expands, it cools down.  But it moves at the speed of light and anything within the epicenter will be instantly vaporized in under a 10th of a second. Even if you somehow survive the heat, your gonna get a lethal dose of radiation and be dead within 48 hours. Then the shockwave comes which moves much slower at 768 mph (speed of sound) blowing up and leveling any structure within its blast radius.

That's a far cry from "It burns so hot, any humans within 1-5 mile radius are instantly turned into carbon."  Nuclear hyperbole is hyperbolic.  :o|


ill send ya some info when I get home
 
2013-02-15 02:15:49 PM
The previous comment was the 99th baloon.

The best defense still is put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.
 
2013-02-15 02:17:28 PM
Want to see what defense professionals have used?   Someone made an app with it.
Overpressure is the chief problem.
 
2013-02-15 02:22:55 PM

toraque: 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.


Wait until Iran has theater range nuclear missiles, then we'll see if you are correct.  There's also something to be said for why suddenly the Arab nations stopped trying to invade Israel after 1973 and instead funded terrorism against Israel as a means of warfare (not that they hadn't previously, but it became more of a point of emphasis).  Israel with a conventional force capable of kicking their ass didn't stop them from trying before, but Israel with that same conventional force back by nuclear weapons suddenly became something that Syria, Jordan, et al. wanted no part in taking head on.
 
2013-02-15 02:24:16 PM
another gov't employee-
if I could get down there to kiss my arse
I could reach more important body parts
 
2013-02-15 02:26:18 PM
You can get much farther with a kind word and a nuke than you can with a kind word alone.
 
2013-02-15 02:29:20 PM

Isildur: Some of you may need to get your satire meters checked.


Here's a much funnier satire of Kim Jong Un: The Adventures Of Kim Jong Un
 
2013-02-15 02:35:15 PM

Odoriferous Queef: 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.

No. You know very little. Houses were/are not made of bamboo. Most houses were wood framed and built to a precision that is seldom seen in the western word. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not burn to any significant  degree. The  shock wave extinguished most all fires caused by the heat of initial blast. If you want to understand burning a city to the ground research the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden.


Total bull.  Well, yes, Japanese didn't build houses out of bamboo, they used wood (and paper).  It was not "shoddy", the framing was great, but it remains a tremendous volume of highly flammable material.  Compare with modern wood framing, the mass of wood studs is relatively low, gypsum drywall doesn't burn at all, and in fact is a barrier to prevent the wood from catching fire and even when turned to debris it's somewhat capable of isolating the wood to slow the fire's spread.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE consumed by a firestorm.  The wood construction was vulnerable to disintegration over a much larger radius, but it was the resulting firestorm which leveled the place to ash.  Consequently, the photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are difficult to distinguish from the photos of the firebombing of Tokyo.

The few buildings showing in the old photos are the concrete ones.  In fact AFAIK all the concrete buildings still stood to some degree.  The concrete Genbaku Dome was only 150M laterally from ground zero, the roof caved down but most of the walls stood (no one inside survived), it's preserved as a memorial today.

A landscape of cement buildings would not be leveled quite like the pics of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at least not by the size of the bombs used for those attacks. Most weapons are much larger now, and also use the MIRV strategy of spreading out several smaller bombs rather than one larger one.  It's pretty awful and does pretty much guarantee the area is "destroyed" and won't continue in its prior use, but it's not quite the same mechanism of devastation in Japan.
 
2013-02-15 02:42:44 PM

toraque: 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.


Nuclear weapons obviously deter nuclear war. Ever since more than one country has had them, they've never been used.

/I don't expect someone with your limited intellectual capacity to comprehend.
 
2013-02-15 02:52:13 PM

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

They will defend S. Korea's right?

Will a snake start eating its tail?


Yes, because a rifle and a nuclear weapon are the exact same.
 
2013-02-15 02:53:28 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Hey, look what I found!

[img42.imageshack.us image 410x305]


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 image 500x394]

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


I've often wondered about this film- If the house sustained that much damage, why wasn't the camera filming the event destroyed too?
 
2013-02-15 03:03:40 PM
numbquil:

There is a glaring difference between a government possessing a nuclear weapon and an individual with a firearm.

That is true of governments that are designed in a democratic or even semi democratic way, with all their checks and balances. Even the nuclear state of Pakistan has a political stage which is often full of battles between their Supreme Court, politicians, and their armed forces. Kim Jong-Un and North Korea are another thing altogether. North Koreans at all levels can't even pick their nose without Kim Jong-Un giving them permission (a metaphor used to illustrate my point).

This is why most other governments with nuclear weapons are different from an individual with a gun. For me, though, North Korea with a nuke is EXACTLY like Christopher Dorner or Lee Boyd Malvo with a gun, because the only authority in North Korea is the renegade Kim Jong-Un.
 
2013-02-15 03:18:07 PM
My country (the United States) operates on this same principle. Only most of the "bad guys" don't even have nukes.
 
2013-02-15 03:42:37 PM

numbquil: Civilians should be able to defend themselves with the same types of firearms that the police use and police should be limited to the same types of firearms that civilians are allowed to own.


Why?

I've heard this chestnut bandied about lately but no one doing the bandying has been able to articulate a reason why.  Let me rephrase,  a good reason why.
 
2013-02-15 04:00:25 PM

susler: numbquil: Civilians should be able to defend themselves with the same types of firearms that the police use and police should be limited to the same types of firearms that civilians are allowed to own.

Why?

I've heard this chestnut bandied about lately but no one doing the bandying has been able to articulate a reason why.  Let me rephrase,  a good reason why.


Because, at the end of the day, those governments, militaries, and police allowed to use force the rest of the people are banned from, are still people, and just as corruptible.  More corruptible, in fact. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. My statement to getting rid of "assault" weapons: start with the military.
 
2013-02-15 04:00:26 PM

Oznog: Odoriferous Queef: 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.

No. You know very little. Houses were/are not made of bamboo. Most houses were wood framed and built to a precision that is seldom seen in the western word. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not burn to any significant  degree. The  shock wave extinguished most all fires caused by the heat of initial blast. If you want to understand burning a city to the ground research the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden.

Total bull.  Well, yes, Japanese didn't build houses out of bamboo, they used wood (and paper).  It was not "shoddy", the framing was great, but it remains a tremendous volume of highly flammable material.  Compare with modern wood framing, the mass of wood studs is relatively low, gypsum drywall doesn't burn at all, and in fact is a barrier to prevent the wood from catching fire and even when turned to debris it's somewhat capable of isolating the wood to slow the fire's spread.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE consumed by a firestorm.  The wood construction was vulnerable to disintegration over a much larger radius, but it was the resulting firestorm which leveled the place to ash.  Consequently, the photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are difficult to distinguish from the photos of the firebombing of Tokyo.

The few buildings showing in the old photos are the concrete ones.  In fact AFAIK all the concrete buildings still stood to some degree.  The concrete Genbaku Dome was only 150M laterally from ground zero, the roof caved down but most of the walls stood (no one inside survived), it's preserved as a memorial today.

A landscape of cement buildings would not be l ...


Actually, wait, Nagasaki didn't qualify as a "firestorm".  Hiroshima yes, Nagasaki no.  There were isolated fires but it didn't reach a critical mass that created its own weather system, the criteria of a "firestorm".

Why is unclear, there's several possibilities, including that the time of day at Hiroshima was when stoves were lit for breakfast.  I don't think it's plausible, though.  There was definitely a lot of fire near the epicenter, and isolated fires started elsewhere.  With little to extinguish it, it SHOULD have resulted in a firestorm.  I'm guessing maybe there's just not a critical density of combustible material, also the hilly terrain may have changed the weather dynamics.
 
2013-02-15 04:15:18 PM

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


[snip]

 

The few buildings showing in the old photos are the concrete ones.  In fact AFAIK all the concrete buildings still stood to some degree.  The concrete Genbaku Dome was only 150M laterally from ground zero, the roof caved down but most of the walls stood (no one inside survived), it's preserved as a memorial today.

A landscape of cement buildings would not be l ...


No. I lived in Japan for a bit better than 6 years. My extended family is Japanese. There were fires in the blast zone. Nothing like the fire bombings though. Typical housing was not constructed from bamboo. I was in the Kansai region during the great Hanshin earthquake. Coworkers and myself spent weekends helping the victims in Kobe. Beautiful two and three hundred year old houses reduced to rubble. The only hint of bamboo was interior decorations.  The majority of the houses I observed  were pier and beam and construction with
mortise and tenon joints.
 
2013-02-15 04:18:31 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Hey, look what I found!

[img42.imageshack.us image 410x305]


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 image 500x394]

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.


Nuclear weapons are primarily fantastically powerful incendiaries  Blast and radiation are really secondary. Also, they are generally airburst weapon, so I am not sure why we care about surface detonations.
 
2013-02-15 04:26:54 PM

BoothbyTCD: Nuclear weapons are primarily fantastically powerful incendiaries  Blast and radiation are really secondary. Also, they are generally airburst weapon, so I am not sure why we care about surface detonations.


The overpressure is what determines your survivability if you are indoors.

We care about surface burst because you generally only get airburst from missiles and bombers.  The rise of terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons by nations incapable of delivering a nuke by air has renewed interest in ground-burst results.
 
2013-02-15 04:39:37 PM

vygramul: BoothbyTCD: Nuclear weapons are primarily fantastically powerful incendiaries  Blast and radiation are really secondary. Also, they are generally airburst weapon, so I am not sure why we care about surface detonations.

The overpressure is what determines your survivability if you are indoors.

We care about surface burst because you generally only get airburst from missiles and bombers.  The rise of terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons by nations incapable of delivering a nuke by air has renewed interest in ground-burst results.


1) the article is about NK, who would deliver a weapon via the missiles they are concurrently testing.
2) The idea of a 1 MT 'suitcase nuke' being developed by terrorists is science fiction
 
2013-02-15 04:49:47 PM

BoothbyTCD: 1) the article is about NK, who would deliver a weapon via the missiles they are concurrently testing.
2) The idea of a 1 MT 'suitcase nuke' being developed by terrorists is science fiction


1) They're not going to be delivering them to Washington DC on the missiles they are currently trying to get to work.  Not that they need to, but that's why people care.

2) First off, the idea of a 1 MT suitcase nuke being developed by Iran or North Korea anytime soon is science fiction, too.  I didn't say it was particularly rational, I said it was why people are talking about ground-burst.  People think that Iran or NK would hand over one of their nukes to a terrorist to smuggle into the US in a bale of Marijuana - but I see that as pretty much absurd as well, not because it's not technically doable, but because no one is going to give away one of their few warheads to someone outside their control to attempt delivery in a high-risk method with little ability to abort the mission.
 
2013-02-15 04:52:00 PM
Anyone else notice
that the formatting button
for center
looks like a
miniature mushroom cloud?
 
2013-02-15 06:00:04 PM
I had no idea that number was that low. I think we spend more than that on crap for farmville &co.
 
2013-02-15 06:59:09 PM
For NK, nukes =

Dramatically reduced chances that they would risk retaliation for more low and mid-level acts of aggression, such as sinking Worst Korean ships and bombing South Korean islands.
The possibility to "Outwait" the US and SK.  There's no guarantee we'll have the same relative capabilities in 20, 50, 100 years.  And all they have to do is threaten nuclear "incidents" or "accidents" periodically to avoid consequences of their more extreme actions.
 
2013-02-15 07:22:17 PM
i2.ytimg.com
 
2013-02-16 06:03:43 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.


And you are of course, referring to the US as the party in possession of nukes, with no will to live?  Because the religious right, which frequently finds themselves in possession of this arsenal, firmly believes that  Armageddon is a positive thing...
 
2013-02-16 07:59:52 AM

susler: numbquil: Civilians should be able to defend themselves with the same types of firearms that the police use and police should be limited to the same types of firearms that civilians are allowed to own.

Why?

I've heard this chestnut bandied about lately but no one doing the bandying has been able to articulate a reason why.  Let me rephrase,  a good reason why.


I don't expect your chestnut sized brain to understand because if you were paying attention you would already have your answer.

1. Civilians and Police both need the firearms for the same reasons. That reason being defense. Police are not supposed to go around shooting people unless there is an immediate threat. For civilians you would surely be convicted of a crime if you shoot someone and there was no immediate threat to life or limb. This is what is called defense.

2. These types of firearms are are the best for the job. They are selected by police because they are reliable, accurate, and have adequate stopping power. All of these are qualities you would look for in a defensive weapon. Machine guns like the ones that Rambo uses because he has a small penis are not suited for police or civilians as defense weapons. In the types of situations a police officers are likely to get into you want well-placed shots, not high volume of fire. Same goes for a civilian defending themselves. This is my argument against people who say "If we can bear arms how come there is a limit on nukes and rocket launchers." The reason is that those weapons are not suited for self defense purposes. The 2nd amendment is about your right to self preservation. It's not really about overthrowing tyranny as some say. It could be if you were a law abiding citizen and agents of the federal or local government were trying to kill you. A "free state" is one where the people have the right to defend themselves against a threat.

3. I don't know where you are commenting from but here in the United States we are supposedly a government for the people, by the people, and of the people. I'm not sure if there is ever a time in history when that was true. It's clear that at this point it is not. How that concerns weapons is that if only agents of governments have the means to use force, it becomes a government against the people, and of the privileged few.

I don't think that a human being should be placed above any other human being and given power over them in hierarchy. Our representatives are not supposed to be priveleged rulers. They are supposed to be the best representative of their respective localities and communities. A sort of spokesperson for the people. The president is supposed to represent the entire country and be the best example of an American at home and abroad. He should set an example for other Americans to aspire to. That is clearly not happening and I don't believe that these people should be armed and have the ability to disarm the average citizen.

I would gladly turn in any firearms that I own. You wouldn't have to pry it from my cold dead hands. I think the world would be better without them. I would only do it under one condition. That is all the military organizations and the police on the entire planet turn theirs in. Every gun in existence is gathered up, thrown into a machine and crushed along with every tank, fighter jet, and bomber. And only after all the industries that produce these weapons are burned to the ground, and these weapons are outlawed for government and citizens alike will I hand them over without a fight.
 
2013-02-16 04:57:59 PM

Mugato: Theaetetus: Mugato: Theaetetus: You asked why anyone would want to take over their country, not why anyone would want to improve the quality of life of its citizens or take on their infrastructure. That you're moving the goal posts doesn't make my answer to your earlier question incorrect.

And what did taking over Iraq do to the price of oil?

[businessforecastblog.com image 850x608]
[money.cnn.com image 220x291] [checksandbalancesproject.files.wordpress.com image 460x420]

Did you really think that these companies were struggling as a result of the war?

Right but the whole selling point of this war was that gas prices would go down. Of course the oil companies can charcge whatever they want but the promise was that the war would pay for itself via gas prices.


Oh! I see... No, my original comment was that some corporations would want to exert influence on the US to take over North Korea for the mineral resources. Not that it would somehow make shiat cheaper for you, the bottom tier consumer. No one cares about you.
 
2013-02-17 01:32:11 PM

Theaetetus: No, my original comment was that some corporations would want to exert influence on the US to take over North Korea for the mineral resources.


No corporation is that stupid.  We took Afghanistan and they didn't get the contracts.  What makes them think they'll get something in China's front yard?
 
Displayed 129 of 129 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report