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.

(NBC News)   North Korea warns the US that it faces "miserable destruction," which as destructions go is one of the worst kinds   (worldnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 214
    More: Fail, North Koreans, military drills, United Nations Security Council, commanders, KCNA, Pak Rim Su, Security Council resolutions  
•       •       •

9242 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 7:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 09:15:49 PM  

johnny_vegas: Glancing Blow: Reverend J: I'd be more apt to believe your scenario if their last rocket wasn't hand-welded. Plus we do have surface-to-air ICBM intercept missiles and whatnot

That program has met with very very limited success.  As you may recall Bush stopped allowing the testing and results from being public in early 2003, I believe.  Even the new Israel iron-dome is only 80-90% effective.  In my judgment, the biggest hurdle they face will be landing it where they want it to go.  I don't really know the technology, but I think not taking this threat seriously is a grave error.

i think if you google "Missile Defense Agency", "AEGIS BMD" , or "Ground Based Midcourse Defense" you should get a lot of data.
I agree with limited success..AEGIS being far more successful than THAAD or GMD...but it's hard..it is really rocket science and is the best we have right now.


Putting something INTO orbit is actually much, much easier than de-orbiting it with any semblance of accuracy.
 
2013-02-23 09:16:40 PM  

Fecal Conservative: phojo1946: Everyone keeps underestimating the North Koreans, just as we did with the Japanese prior to December 7th, 1941 and with the Viet Cong & North Vietnamese in 1965 when Johnson sent in the Marines.   We must not go off on our own dreams about these people...they were bastards to fight against in 1951-53 ands will  be so again as they have been training for the day they can take us on since then...training for 60 years.

What they are going to do is build missiles to reach the US and then put nukes on them.  When they get to this point, they are going to come rushing out of thosse tunnels thay have been building fdor the past 60 years under the DMZ and hit the South with all they've got as well as telling the US not to interfere or they will fire their missiles at LA, San Francisco, et al.  Do you really think Obama has the cajones to risk the US cities then?  Especially not LA/Hollywood as that is one of his core supporter areas.  He couldn't get re-elected again if he loses Hollywood.  This is what lil Kim is planning..get nukes, invade the South and blackmail the US.

Obama is not goinga to do anything about it and then will retreat when threatened.  Just remember, you saw it here first!

2/10 a little heavy on the Obama lack of resolve.


Obama, the Muslim atheist, the spineless totalitarian, the fool mastermind.
 
2013-02-23 09:25:33 PM  

LavenderWolf: Argue with the details, but the day will come in the not too distant future when they can and may launch nuclear missiles.

There are nuclear weapons that do not leave significant radioactive fallout, and they are in the US's arsenal


tomahawk cruise missiles can carry up to 1,000 lbs of conventional explosives, can be targeted tightly, launched from submarines near Japan. i don't think going full nuclear is necessary, even if they tag us with one.
 
2013-02-23 09:27:57 PM  

NutWrench: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x250]
I choose Mr Stay-Puft.


Stay Puft sent the signal to my wife's plate last weekend.
Alert the key master.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-23 09:28:49 PM  
North Koreans suck at programming.  They can never write the damned destructor correctly.
 
2013-02-23 09:34:12 PM  

Nightjars: North Koreans suck at programming.  They can never write the damned destructor correctly.


INC A
DEC A
INC A
DEC A
JMP Reactor_Core
RET
 
2013-02-23 09:42:24 PM  

clowncar on fire: Ima4nic8or: Why do we put up with crap from those roaches? We should drop a few dozen nukes on their asses then ask them if they'd like to talk some more shiat.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 420x451]

Better yet, let's just drop a few of these babies on them instead and really teach them the fear of Jesus.


KAANEEEEDDAAAAAAAA! TETSUOOOOO!

Seriously though, why did you do that?
 
2013-02-23 09:47:59 PM  

Glancing Blow: Reverend J: I'd be more apt to believe your scenario if their last rocket wasn't hand-welded. Plus we do have surface-to-air ICBM intercept missiles and whatnot

That program has met with very very limited success.  As you may recall Bush stopped allowing the testing and results from being public in early 2003, I believe.  Even the new Israel iron-dome is only 80-90% effective.  In my judgment, the biggest hurdle they face will be landing it where they want it to go.  I don't really know the technology, but I think not taking this threat seriously is a grave error.




No, we have actual ICBM's whose purpose is to get within "close enough" distance to the incoming ICBM, and detonate our own nuke in order to knock theirs out of the sky.

That's been our plan since the beginning, when shiat started with the ruskies. Star Wars is a more "let's not scorch the earth" method, which we would prefer.
 
2013-02-23 09:52:02 PM  

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: RATS.

I was hoping for "destruction by chocolate."


we are doing a pretty good job of doing that by our selves, wouldn't you say?
 
2013-02-23 09:53:21 PM  

BumpInTheNight: I'd settle for destruction by Snu-Snu.


even if it was from rosie o'donnel? and she rolled over onto you? or you were on the bottom of missionary?
 
2013-02-23 09:55:52 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Summa cum loudly: Mr. Eugenides: Glancing Blow: Do they have rockets that can reach the US? Yes, within 5 years - some think now.

As soon as you have the ability to put something in orbit, you can hit anywhere on earth.

You do realize how utterly and completely wrong you are, right?

Honestly, no, I don't.  A shallow north-south orbit can be de-orbited anywhere on the globe.  So once you have the tech to put something into orbit you have the tech to drop it anywhere.  How is that wrong?


It's OK...I didn't think you did.

/more worried about meteors destroying life on earth than I am about Best Korea Nuking US
 
2013-02-23 09:57:17 PM  
There are some sick Farkers in this thread. I'm seriously considering emigrating to NK now. Thanks, morons with computers.
 
2013-02-23 10:05:10 PM  

The Snow Dog: There are some sick Farkers in this thread. I'm seriously considering emigrating to NK now. Thanks, morons with computers.


Good luck with that. Let us know how starvation treats you =D
 
2013-02-23 10:06:32 PM  
Isn't it time we gave these idiots a little bit of what they keep asking for?  I don't mean anything big, I just mean waiting until dark and bombing anything with the lights on.  Hell, we could just drop flyers from Food World and federal minimum wage brochures and let the starving population do the rest.
 
2013-02-23 10:07:18 PM  
Bring it biatches, it's about time we finish the smack down you started long ago. Just make sure to have the cameras ready, i wanna watch.
 
2013-02-23 10:07:37 PM  

The Snow Dog: There are some sick Farkers in this thread. I'm seriously considering emigrating to NK now. Thanks, morons with computers.


Not sure if troll/poe, or really - really- really stupid.
 
2013-02-23 10:08:11 PM  
We have paranoid psychotic rednecks with AR-15's to protect us, so there's that.
 
2013-02-23 10:08:37 PM  
I wonder if the average North Korean even realizes just how BIG America is. As in total surface area big. Do they think that even with the 4th (or is it 5th now?) largest army in the world that they will be able to land on the shores of California and capture the entire country? I know that these people are indoctrinated from birth to hate America and the "American puppet regime in South Korea", and that their version of history is tainted (to put it mildly), but surely they have to look at the landmass of the US and think "gee, how are we going to cripple the entire place?"

I have read a lot of books and watched many documentaries lately about North Korea and the one consistent fact is the sheer hatred of America. There is a scene in one where a North Korean was captured by Americans and was convinced that they were going to eat him after brutal torture, and was amazed when they fed him and treated him better than his own military did. There is another documentary (I think it is "Don't Tell My Mother I'm In....") where a North Korean is walking by the host and just clocks him because he thought that he was an American (solely on the basis that the guy was speaking English).

Even if we were to "liberate" the North Koreans from the rule of the Kim dynasty, I seriously doubt that they would be grateful. They would rely upon their Juche philosophy, not bending, not asking for the help of others. While I think those who live closest to the border regions can understand that their lives are going to improve, those further in the country without access to any information from the outside world will probably rebel.

Oh, and it has been said before: China doesn't want to slap down the craziness that is Kim Jong Un because they do not want to deal with a huge influx of North Korean refugees. That is why they also catch and return any who escape and repatriate them back to North Korea, even knowing that they will be tortured, imprisoned, possibly killed, and if pregnant, have a forced abortion in addition to other cruelties. It is easier for them to turn a blind eye to the crazy than to deal with "fixing" a downfallen regime.
 
2013-02-23 10:08:55 PM  
What are they going to do?

Sneak a million Best Koreans into our borders to vote GOP in 2014?
 
2013-02-23 10:08:56 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: As soon as you have the ability to put something in orbit, you can hit anywhere on earth.


Um, no. Not even a little bit close.
 
2013-02-23 10:10:10 PM  

Anastacya: Oh, and it has been said before: China doesn't want to slap down the craziness that is Kim Jong Un because they do not want to deal with a huge influx of North Korean refugees. That is why they also catch and return any who escape and repatriate them back to North Korea, even knowing that they will be tortured, imprisoned, possibly killed, and if pregnant, have a forced abortion in addition to other cruelties. It is easier for them to turn a blind eye to the crazy than to deal with "fixing" a downfallen regime.


Even ignoring the Chinese, the SOUTH doesn't want reunification for the simple fact that it would bankrupt their country trying to bring North Korea into the 20th century.
 
2013-02-23 10:18:24 PM  

johnny_vegas: from my laymans perspective: putting it into orbit means giving it enough boost and in the proper direction. ICBMS do not go into orbit, they are fired and then they "coast" in a paraballa (sp? terminology?) until they hit what they are going after.


Orbit IS coasting in a parabola.   The not hitting anything part is in designing the parabola, and the thrust necessary to achieve it, correctly. Every orbital thing that falls to the earth is an ICBM.
 
2013-02-23 10:23:35 PM  

Summa cum loudly: Mr. Eugenides: Summa cum loudly: Mr. Eugenides: Glancing Blow: Do they have rockets that can reach the US? Yes, within 5 years - some think now.

As soon as you have the ability to put something in orbit, you can hit anywhere on earth.

You do realize how utterly and completely wrong you are, right?

Honestly, no, I don't.  A shallow north-south orbit can be de-orbited anywhere on the globe.  So once you have the tech to put something into orbit you have the tech to drop it anywhere.  How is that wrong?

It's OK...I didn't think you did.

/more worried about meteors destroying life on earth than I am about Best Korea Nuking US


Ahh, so you're actually full of shiat.  Thanks for the clarification.
 
2013-02-23 10:31:53 PM  

NutWrench: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x250]
I choose Mr Stay-Puft.


Are you a god?
 
2013-02-23 10:33:58 PM  

Bane of Broone: We're already dealing with the GOP. How much more miserable can it get?


You could get down with OPP, which is even more miserable.

/Yeah you know me.
 
2013-02-23 10:34:12 PM  
images.wikia.com
 
2013-02-23 10:39:39 PM  

Glancing Blow: Do they have nuclear weapons?  Yes.
Do they have rockets?  Yes.
Do they have the ability to place nuclear weapons on rockets?  Yes, within 5 years.
Do they have rockets that can reach Japan?  Yes.
Do they have rockets that can reach the US?  Yes, within 5 years - some think now.
Can the US respond with nuclear weapons?  No, not without massive radioactive fallout on Japan.

Argue with the details, but the day will come in the not too distant future when they can and may launch nuclear missiles.


They HAVE nuclear weapons that CAN reach Seoul RIGHT NOW. Have they done it yet? No. Why? Because the rest of the world would annihilate them.

So in five years they might be able to reach the US with a couple of nukes. Would they? No. Why? Because the rest of the US would annihilate them.

It's never a question of CAN your enemy hit you with A nuke. It's can your enemy hit you with enough nukes to utterly cripple your ability to retaliate in kind. There was about one time when this issue was in doubt, and that was about the mid-1970's when the US and USSR were roughly at parity in the nuclear arms race. ("Roughly" because the US still had the edge in conventional weapons, while the USSR had the edge in manpower) So who cares if Best Korea has the ability to drop one or even two nukes someplace on earth, and who cares if the US was too polite to nuke them back in case we irradiated Japan more than it already is? We've still got the conventional firepower to  dig a trench from the 38th Parallel to the Manchurian border.

And it's not as if Best Korea can put together a US-demolishing arsenal of nukes in five years. After China, the next-biggest arsenal currently on-line is India, with somewhere under a hundred. After forty years of making bombs. And they're pretty good at it. I just don't see Best Korea as being in the same league somehow.
 
2013-02-23 10:41:48 PM  
Following my green article with "Best Korean leader" in the title, I garnered attention from the Republic of Korea.


img801.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-23 10:42:04 PM  
North Korea: Proof of why you should never believe your own hype.
 
2013-02-23 10:44:03 PM  
for all we know this is fabricated propaganda. trust no one. especially government.
 
2013-02-23 10:46:33 PM  

KrispyKritter: for all we know this is fabricated propaganda. trust no one. especially government.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-23 10:54:02 PM  

KrispyKritter: for all we know this is fabricated propaganda. trust no one. especially government.


I'm sure it's fabricated, all right. Made from whole cloth, as it were.
 
2013-02-23 10:58:25 PM  

Aquapope: johnny_vegas: from my laymans perspective: putting it into orbit means giving it enough boost and in the proper direction. ICBMS do not go into orbit, they are fired and then they "coast" in a paraballa (sp? terminology?) until they hit what they are going after.

Orbit IS coasting in a parabola.   The not hitting anything part is in designing the parabola, and the thrust necessary to achieve it, correctly. Every orbital thing that falls to the earth is an ICBM.


Ballistic describes the trajectory of ICBM's not orbital.
 
2013-02-23 10:59:24 PM  

Dokushin: Isn't it time we gave these idiots a little bit of what they keep asking for?  I don't mean anything big, I just mean waiting until dark and bombing anything with the lights on.


www.globalsecurity.org
Good luck finding a target.
 
2013-02-23 11:02:05 PM  

ciberido: Good luck finding a target.


Like a vice president shooting someone in the face, nuclear weapons don't really need to have a precise target to do their job. We're not exactly talking precision munitions here.

They're pretty much fire and forget.
 
2013-02-23 11:03:09 PM  

BronyMedic: ciberido: Good luck finding a target.

Like a vice president shooting someone in the face, nuclear weapons don't really need to have a precise target to do their job. We're not exactly talking precision munitions here.

They're pretty much fire and forget.


"Oops, forgot about that one!"
 
2013-02-23 11:04:40 PM  

BronyMedic: ciberido: Good luck finding a target.

Like a vice president shooting someone in the face, nuclear weapons don't really need to have a precise target to do their job. We're not exactly talking precision munitions here.

They're pretty much fire and forget.


He DID say "anything with the lights on."
 
2013-02-23 11:05:19 PM  

cretinbob: We have paranoid psychotic rednecks with AR-15's to protect us, so there's that.


I know you were being sarcastic, but that is indeed something to consider. That's why I never fear a ground invasion of the States. Not only do we have the best military in the world, but don't underestimate the power of 50,000 rednecks with assault and deer rifles. And I'm sure the thugs in the cities can hold down their end of the fort, too.
 
2013-02-23 11:14:53 PM  

johnny_vegas: Ballistic describes the trajectory of ICBM's not orbital.


Blah, blah, blah.....

6 of one, half dozen of the other. It's all about velocity.

Newtonian physics.....get it going fast enough and, yay, it's in orbit. Slow it down just a bit, and suddenly it's ballistic.

/Internet hair splitting
//not for the timid
 
2013-02-23 11:15:50 PM  

TerminalEchoes: I know you were being sarcastic, but that is indeed something to consider. That's why I never fear a ground invasion of the States. Not only do we have the best military in the world, but don't underestimate the power of 50,000 rednecks with assault and deer rifles. And I'm sure the thugs in the cities can hold down their end of the fort, too.


Well, history has a problem with that when it comes to warfare.

It just depends on how willing you are to throw away your humanity when dealing with the other guy. The Nazis were quite effective in dealing with paramilitary resistance by the occupied populations, unlike how the movies like to portray it, because they had no qualms about exterminating every "non-Aryan" man, woman, and child who dared to defy them.
 
2013-02-23 11:21:30 PM  

Poot beer: johnny_vegas: Ballistic describes the trajectory of ICBM's not orbital.

Blah, blah, blah.....

6 of one, half dozen of the other. It's all about velocity.

Newtonian physics.....get it going fast enough and, yay, it's in orbit. Slow it down just a bit, and suddenly it's ballistic.

/Internet hair splitting
//not for the timid



www.timdrussell.com

/It's a fair cop
//general background on BMD: http://www.mda.mil/system/system.html
 
2013-02-23 11:24:23 PM  

BronyMedic: Like a vice president shooting someone in the face, nuclear weapons don't really need to have a precise target to do their job. We're not exactly talking precision munitions here.


Unless you're talking about a REALLY big one, yes it does matter. From North Korea to California (6,000 miles), a 0.1% miss means 60 miles off.
Or, the difference between San Francisco and open ocean.

Panic and pissed off? Sure. Destruction? Only if you're reasonably close (25 miles).

Calculate your city here.
 
2013-02-23 11:29:27 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Unless you're talking about a REALLY big one, yes it does matter. From North Korea to California (6,000 miles), a 0.1% miss means 60 miles off.
Or, the difference between San Francisco and open ocean.

Panic and pissed off? Sure. Destruction? Only if you're reasonably close (25 miles).


Really, no it doesn't. You can't exactly move a North Korean city, and we're not targeting mobile military targets with our ICBMs in the event the North used nukes against a NATO ally.

As for the destruction part, that's the whole reason we invented the MIRV system in the first place. A single bomb, no matter how powerful, will only be definitively destructive to a small point around the impact area. Even the Tsar Bomba suffers from this limitation. 9 Warheads impacting with a yield of 300kT a piece will cause far, far more damage than a single 2.7mT bomb detonation over a city could ever hope to. The warheads, when used against a single target, detonate in a synergistic fashion, creating a massive, spread overpressure wave and  a firestorm effect against a target.
 
2013-02-23 11:31:22 PM  

Gyrfalcon: They HAVE nuclear weapons that CAN reach Seoul RIGHT NOW. Have they done it yet? No. Why? Because the rest of the world would annihilate them.

So in five years they might be able to reach the US with a couple of nukes. Would they? No. Why? Because the rest of the US would annihilate them.

It's never a question of CAN your enemy hit you with A nuke. It's can your enemy hit you with enough nukes to utterly cripple your ability to retaliate in kind. There was about one time when this issue was in doubt, and that was about the mid-1970's when the US and USSR were roughly at parity in the nuclear arms race. ("Roughly" because the US still had the edge in conventional weapons, while the USSR had the edge in manpower) So who cares if Best Korea has the ability to drop one or even two nukes someplace on earth, and who cares if the US was too polite to nuke them back in case we irradiated Japan more than it already is? We've still got the conventional firepower to  dig a trench from the 38th Parallel to the Manchurian border.

And it's not as if Best Korea can put together a US-demolishing arsenal of nukes in five years. After China, the next-biggest arsenal currently on-line is India, with somewhere under a hundred. After forty years of making bombs. And they're pretty good at it. I just don't see Best Korea as being in the same league somehow.


It's not always that bad when the US military literally send things to North Korea in secret and literally broke the UN-led sanction against North Korea. But as always, North Korea isn't dumb enough to attack the US military and the South Korean military.  I went on a business trip to South Korea not too long ago. It looks like the next South Korean president is more incompetent towards North Korea.One of my Korean counterpart said:  North Korea doesn't need to attack South Korea. The next South Korean president's leadership is better at destroying South Korea than the North Korean military.
 
2013-02-23 11:38:41 PM  

Ima4nic8or: Why do we put up with crap from those roaches? We should drop a few dozen nukes on their asses then ask them if they'd like to talk some more shiat.



Holy blast from the past!

/Said one five digit account number to another.....
 
2013-02-23 11:45:50 PM  

johnny_vegas: Ballistic describes the trajectory of ICBM's not orbital.


Ballistic EXACTLY describes orbit - that's basic physics.  Enough escape velocity and your ballistic thing orbits.  The same ballistic rules that apply to a sub-orbital projectile apply to orbital objects.  Orbit is just a special case of ballistic.  If you can put something in orbit for 1 orbit, it can hit any place on earth, which has always been the fear from ICBMs.  Sure, there are some (most? all?) ICBMs that can't put something in orbit, but all things in orbit are ICBMs.  De-orbit a telecommunications satellite and it's an ICBM, albeit a very poor one for military purposes.
 
2013-02-23 11:52:26 PM  
Kim Jong Un has played far too much of his country's version of Homefront, where you play as an invading Nork who is invincible and irresistible to women
 
2013-02-23 11:54:00 PM  

Githerax: What a strange situation for Kim Jong-un.  He was educated in Europe, then has to go home and run a country in that manner.  He must realize what a sham his life is, how can he stand it?


I've wondered a lot about this myself.  Dude has seen the outside world, he is personally familiar with the west and is accutely aware of the bullshiat being stacked tall and deep by his government.  Then I wonder if maybe, just maybe, he's in his own 24 hour living hell.  Like some kind of horrible deal with the devil where he has to maintain The Big Lie even though he wants to change and knows better.  I mean how the hell else can one explain that haircut??
 
2013-02-23 11:55:07 PM  

LavenderWolf: Putting something INTO orbit is actually much, much easier than de-orbiting it with any semblance of accuracy.


I wonder if that's true anymore.  De-orbiting isn't hard, just kill the forward velocity.  If you do it at the right time you're high enough to target something within a large area.  With simple control fins and GPS you could put a really big chunk of iron on top of something at 10k+mph and do more damage than a "bunker buster".  Larry Niven talked about it a little in "Footfall".  He called them 'flying crowbars'.
 
2013-02-23 11:58:15 PM  

Aquapope: johnny_vegas: Ballistic describes the trajectory of ICBM's not orbital.

Ballistic EXACTLY describes orbit - that's basic physics.  Enough escape velocity and your ballistic thing orbits.  The same ballistic rules that apply to a sub-orbital projectile apply to orbital objects.  Orbit is just a special case of ballistic.  If you can put something in orbit for 1 orbit, it can hit any place on earth, which has always been the fear from ICBMs.  Sure, there are some (most? all?) ICBMs that can't put something in orbit, but all things in orbit are ICBMs.  De-orbit a telecommunications satellite and it's an ICBM, albeit a very poor one for military purposes.


yeah acknowledged my mistake to poot beer, will you stop capitalizing at me now?
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report