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  
•       •       •

6735 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 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 29 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report