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  
•       •       •

6694 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 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..
 
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