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 28
    More: Scary, Kim Jong, global citizens, North Koreans, NRA, supreme leader  
•       •       •

6691 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-15 11:45:57 AM
2 votes:
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 11:35:28 AM
2 votes:
"Good Guys" don't starve millions of their own citizens to death or put them in labor camps.
2013-02-15 11:32:57 AM
2 votes:
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 11:11:22 AM
2 votes:

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 11:08:06 AM
2 votes:
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 10:13:50 AM
2 votes:
I mean, if they wanted to kill you, they could still kill you with a knife! Banning nukes will do nothing.
2013-02-15 07:14:12 AM
2 votes:
"Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people who don't have nuclear weapons."

Peace out.

/I laughed
2013-02-15 02:10:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:48 PM
1 votes:

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 01:46:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:17:24 PM
1 votes:

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 01:16:41 PM
1 votes:

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 01:02:06 PM
1 votes:

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 12:32:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:25:45 PM
1 votes:

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 12:22:22 PM
1 votes:

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 12:19:47 PM
1 votes:

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 12:09:14 PM
1 votes:
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 11:45:38 AM
1 votes:
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 11:25:00 AM
1 votes:

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 11:01:34 AM
1 votes:

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 11:00:49 AM
1 votes:
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 10:53:58 AM
1 votes:

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 10:50:11 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:08 AM
1 votes:

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 10:09:13 AM
1 votes:
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 08:20:45 AM
1 votes:
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 08:16:02 AM
1 votes:
+1.  Nice gag.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report