Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Fox News)   North Korea threatens pre-emptive nuclear strike in retaliation for Dennis Rodman   (foxnews.com) divider line 277
    More: Scary, Dennis Rodman, North Koreans, United States, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, international sanctions, nuclear wars, U.N. Security Council, ballistic missiles  
•       •       •

10616 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-07 08:21:04 AM  
I don't agree with you, North Korea. I'm just saying that I understand
 
2013-03-07 08:22:48 AM  
Imagine if we'd sent RuPaul.
 
2013-03-07 08:27:56 AM  
The only thing holding up North Korea is the Chinese and even they are getting tired of this shiat.  The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.
 
2013-03-07 08:28:00 AM  
Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.
 
2013-03-07 08:30:03 AM  
Pakistan is still angry about our pre-emptive use of Hillary Clinton.
 
2013-03-07 08:30:04 AM  
The mouse that roared.
 
2013-03-07 08:31:31 AM  
As long as they wipe out Seattle, I'm good.
 
2013-03-07 08:31:44 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.


I'm not exactly a pro-war guy, but I'd love to see China stand off to the side and say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own...take your best shot USA, we're not getting involved."  Just park a few destroyers and carriers off the coast and light the damn place up like the 4th of July.  Make sure we've got a STABLE shadow government waiting in the wings.

Then reunification, etc.
 
2013-03-07 08:32:03 AM  
Don't they need some kind of rocket? I'm not talking about the Wiley Coyote type either.
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-07 08:32:58 AM  
I was really hoping when the son got in there he would change things. I didn't expect huge changes at first, but by this time was hoping to see a glimmer of hope.
 
2013-03-07 08:33:00 AM  
Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.
 
2013-03-07 08:34:32 AM  
Then do it, punk!
 
2013-03-07 08:34:34 AM  
Is this a liberal translation, or are they literally saying they are going to nuke us?

I know we've been pretty tolerant, but there comes a point when a president is going to have to be all "You said what now?  Oh hell naw".

I mean... I cant think of anything more threatening than literally publicly stating you intend to nuke us once your bombs are ready.
 
2013-03-07 08:35:27 AM  
So now is probably not the time I should be heading to Hawaii for a vacation, huh? Although, front-row seats on the fail might be fun.
 
2013-03-07 08:36:30 AM  

strangeguitar: I was really hoping when the son got in there he would change things. I didn't expect huge changes at first, but by this time was hoping to see a glimmer of hope.


I still lament that it was Jong Un and not Jong Nam that took over. NK under Jong Nam would be the end of an independent NK.
 
2013-03-07 08:36:35 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.


Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.
 
2013-03-07 08:37:28 AM  
A pre-emptive strike in retaliation would be like closing the barn door after the cows come home.
 
2013-03-07 08:37:55 AM  

great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.


Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?
 
2013-03-07 08:38:12 AM  
Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

www.investitwisely.com

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.
 
2013-03-07 08:39:57 AM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.
 
2013-03-07 08:40:42 AM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


The problem is that they don't really have to hit the US at all. They just have to lob one over the fence at South Korea to get us involved.
 
2013-03-07 08:41:25 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?


Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.
 
2013-03-07 08:41:49 AM  

Smashed Hat: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

The problem is that they don't really have to hit the US at all. They just have to lob one over the fence at South Korea to get us involved.


Yeah, good point you've got there. Hadn't thought of that...
 
2013-03-07 08:41:59 AM  
UN ain't got time for no jibba jabba, you moon-faced fool.  Either launch your windup rocket or shut the fark up.
 
2013-03-07 08:42:16 AM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


They managed to get something into orbit, it's still up there but is believed to be tumbling and out of control.
 
2013-03-07 08:42:33 AM  
A country was mean to his daddy so now that he's in the big chair he's gonna launch a preemptive strike. Wants to be a "war president".

Kim Jong Un or George W Bush.
 
2013-03-07 08:43:24 AM  
BillCo:The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

Or because they have a lot to lose by allowing the US to maintain a large military force too close to a historically disputed border or because they have the most to lose of anybody if N. Korea collapses and millions of starving refugees come flooding into their country, many helpfully trained and armed by Best Korea's bloated military.

/it's almost as if most nations don't base their foreign policy on the same criteria as a first grader on the playground.
 
2013-03-07 08:43:29 AM  

Caelistis: As long as they wipe out Seattle, I'm good.


Hey! fark you with a rusty rake!
 
2013-03-07 08:43:34 AM  
Stealth nuclear missile strike. Need I say more?
 
2013-03-07 08:43:58 AM  
CNN NOW REPORTS A NUCLEAR MISSILE ON THE LAUNCHPAD.

TENS OF NORTH KOREAN SCIENTISTS ARE HUDDLED AROUND IT.

THEY ARE NOW STICKING THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS.

THEY ARE LIGHTING THE FUSE WITH A SPARKLER.

THE FUSE IS BURNING DOWN.

NEVER MIND.
 
2013-03-07 08:45:28 AM  

MmmmBacon: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905044#c82905044" target="_blank">GiantRex</a>:</b> <i>Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.</i>

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.


What if they have one floating around in space....  Maybe they dug a hole all the way to our mainland.... Wait, maybe they replaced Dennis Rodman with a nuclear robot clone. SHIAT!
 
2013-03-07 08:45:29 AM  

Alonjar: Is this a liberal translation, or are they literally saying they are going to nuke us?

I know we've been pretty tolerant, but there comes a point when a president is going to have to be all "You said what now?  Oh hell naw".

I mean... I cant think of anything more threatening than literally publicly stating you intend to nuke us once your bombs are ready.


I'm pretty sure we know the difference between what they say publicly and what they're capable and willing to do. Crazy though they may be, I have a hard time believing that their leader types are willing to give up the pretty good life they have to make a futile gesture like actually attacking us.
 
2013-03-07 08:46:07 AM  
I don't think the current version of Photoshop has enough power to reach the US mainland, so probably nothing to worry about.
 
Skr
2013-03-07 08:47:16 AM  
So if China invaded North Korea in an attempt to take over... would North Korea still unleash the artillery upon Seoul?

something something classic blunders land war in asia
 
2013-03-07 08:47:46 AM  

airsupport: CNN NOW REPORTS A NUCLEAR MISSILE ON THE LAUNCHPAD.

TENS OF NORTH KOREAN SCIENTISTS ARE HUDDLED AROUND IT.

THEY ARE NOW STICKING THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS.

THEY ARE LIGHTING THE FUSE WITH A SPARKLER.

THE FUSE IS BURNING DOWN.

NEVER MIND.


We're getting a surveillance feed now...

hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-07 08:48:03 AM  

great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.


Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?
 
2013-03-07 08:48:17 AM  
Even as a card carrying liberal (it's an expression, I don't have a card) this is the kind of statement that gets me in a bombthebastardsbecausewecan kind of mood.  We're not talking about them counterfeiting US currency, selling weapons, or producing heroin anymore.  Nuclear strike is not something you get to trot out in a pissing contest.  The consequences of that action or the threat of that action are too severe to be the plaything of a fat, petulant, hyper-privileged manboy.
 
2013-03-07 08:48:47 AM  
We should chopper into North Korea, kidnap The Dear Eater, and take him to a warehouse set-up with video equipment.  We then start the cameras rolling and record Dolf Lundgren pulling down Fatty's pants, bending him over his knee, and spanking him.  Then use our broadcast laser to play it on the moon, over and over again, for six weeks.  Then, carpet bomb the entire stretch of desolate shiat farms until every last soldier, civilian, and animal is dead.  Then spray radioactive fluid over every square inch.  Then delete every mention of North Korea from every book on the planet.  Then just wander around, looking at one another, knowing how awesome we are.
 
2013-03-07 08:49:25 AM  
Scary, Subby? I see you don't know much about North Korea. They posture like this in response to our posturing to them -- which is precisely what our joint exercises with South Korea is. We go through this every few years as a prelude to some negotiation. We've been playing this stupid game with them for 60 years. Their beloved leader has to do what is expected of him, but he isn't stupid enough to launch a nuclear weapon at the US (even if he had a vehicle capable of this, which he doesn't). China would would roar over his his boarder within days and Russia, China and the US would wipe every major NK city off the map in retaliation.
 
2013-03-07 08:49:33 AM  

SubBass49: airsupport: CNN NOW REPORTS A NUCLEAR MISSILE ON THE LAUNCHPAD.

TENS OF NORTH KOREAN SCIENTISTS ARE HUDDLED AROUND IT.

THEY ARE NOW STICKING THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS.

THEY ARE LIGHTING THE FUSE WITH A SPARKLER.

THE FUSE IS BURNING DOWN.

NEVER MIND.

We're getting a surveillance feed now...

[hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com image 446x336]


+1

/Good 1 you!
 
2013-03-07 08:49:48 AM  
LOL.  They aren't even close to having that capability.  It's like a farking yappy dog, quite annoying.
 
2013-03-07 08:51:06 AM  

MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.


Why do you people keep prattling this derpy nonsense.

"Omg NK might send a container ship to San Francisco! how ever will stop this great menace."

I dunno, our huge navy, satellite surveillance, or one guy with a tug boat and some farking binoculars. Jesus fark this container ship thing you tards keep repeating is the dumbest thing ever.
 
2013-03-07 08:54:23 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.

Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?


Oh shiat!  You better back the fark up, bro!  I think he'd really do it!
 
2013-03-07 08:54:39 AM  
shiat could get real. His father wasn't this stupid.


I blame video games and soda pop.
 
2013-03-07 08:55:41 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.

Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?


I do. I thought you were just throwing anything against Bush and hoping it stuck.
 
2013-03-07 08:55:55 AM  
i1168.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 08:56:51 AM  
Never more appropriate

In response, what does our country do now?

Do we preempt their attack now?

Never thought I would actually see nuclear war. WWIII is at our doorstep.
 
2013-03-07 08:57:20 AM  

great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.

Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?

I do. I thought you were just throwing anything against Bush and hoping it stuck.


Purple #3 it is!
 
2013-03-07 08:59:07 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.

Are you Sarah Palin? Do you not know what the Bush Doctrine was and why it destabilized foreign relations with our enemies?

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't about W, I know it is easy to dump everything on him. Congrats, while still piling on Bush, you are failing to recognize the opportunity for peaceful resolution on the behalf of Obama. If you're going to hold Bush to the standard, make sure you do it for Obama too.

Your point is not my point. I understand your point. It's correct. It's also irrelevant to my point.

So we're at an impasse. I'm blaming Bush for legitimizing pre-emptive attacks as a means of foreign policy. You're trying to whitewash that by blaming Obama for letting things simmer for 4 years.

I agree with you. Now do you agree with me? Or do I get to give you a nice red background for being a Republican partisan?

I do. I thought you were just throwing anything against Bush and hoping it stuck.

Purple #3 it is!


thumbs.dreamstime.com
 
2013-03-07 09:01:05 AM  

tom baker's scarf: Even as a card carrying liberal (it's an expression, I don't have a card) this is the kind of statement that gets me in a bombthebastardsbecausewecan kind of mood.  We're not talking about them counterfeiting US currency, selling weapons, or producing heroin anymore.  Nuclear strike is not something you get to trot out in a pissing contest.  The consequences of that action or the threat of that action are too severe to be the plaything of a fat, petulant, hyper-privileged manboy.


thepowerofwordss.files.wordpress.com

But seriously, this is what nuclear armed nations do when they get into pissing matches.  It's normal.  Hell, America has openly postured with nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations.  America has been leading a global effort to turn the screws on the DPRK leadership in an effort to cause rebellion, making military conquest easier.  This is the logical end-game of the sanctions.

How many times has Fark called for the "glass parking lot" treatment of nations full of tens of millions of people in the middle east?  Feeling threatened because a nuclear-armed nation is posturing against America?  You'll get over it.
 
2013-03-07 09:01:15 AM  
Looks like the final countdown has reached un.
 
2013-03-07 09:07:07 AM  

great_tigers: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

Last time I checked, W hasn't been in office in four years. Obama had an opportunity to explore a peaceful resolution to this situation and refused. If you have an opportunity to make amends with a country that has hated your guts for 60 years I think you at least explore it.


A state of war still exists between North and South. Thought you knew...
 
2013-03-07 09:07:57 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 09:08:33 AM  

spentmiles: We should chopper into North Korea, kidnap The Dear Eater, and take him to a warehouse set-up with video equipment.  We then start the cameras rolling and record Dolf Lundgren pulling down Fatty's pants, bending him over his knee, and spanking him.  Then use our broadcast laser to play it on the moon, over and over again, for six weeks.  Then, carpet bomb the entire stretch of desolate shiat farms until every last soldier, civilian, and animal is dead.  Then spray radioactive fluid over every square inch.  Then delete every mention of North Korea from every book on the planet.  Then just wander around, looking at one another, knowing how awesome we are.


A little harsh but I like your enthusiasm.
 
2013-03-07 09:08:56 AM  
Love the Bush hate on the thread.  Because you know, for the thousands of years civilization has existed, no armed power ever threatened anyone else with a pre-emptive attack or invented a reason to go to war out of thin air.   And certainly before Bush there were never any power mad dictators who got too big for their britches with inevitable results.
 
2013-03-07 09:09:56 AM  
Well crap, India and China are going all first world on us so we're gonna need to take over NK in order to find enough warm bodies to manufacture some cheap shiat for us for a generation or two.  We're not gonna stand around and watch him exploit his people when our conglomerates could be profiting from their misery.  Walmart needs some more dollar towels and tires.

Come at us bro.
 
2013-03-07 09:10:30 AM  

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Do we preempt their attack now?


No. Now is the time for us to protect out precious solidly fluids so that the communists can't sap them and prevent women from robbing us of our essence.
 
2013-03-07 09:12:21 AM  

JackieRabbit: yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Do we preempt their attack now?

No. Now is the time for us to protect out precious solidly fluids so that the communists can't sap them and prevent women from robbing us of our essence.


Solidly fluids. That's what bizarro superman ejaculates. I hear it hurts like a sonofabiatch.
 
2013-03-07 09:12:57 AM  

I_C_Weener: Imagine if we'd sent RuPaul.


You don't even wanna know how much I'd have paid to see that.
 
2013-03-07 09:13:54 AM  
EMP

Look it up.  No fireball of destruction, but oh the misery.

Tip: Fark.com will be down.

hmmm, maybe if we unplug the hipster-juiceboxers, might be a good thing
 
2013-03-07 09:20:07 AM  

Community Agitator: EMP

Look it up.  No fireball of destruction, but oh the misery.

Tip: Fark.com will be down.

hmmm, maybe if we unplug the hipster-juiceboxers, might be a good thing


Have you seen a pic of NK at night?  EMP would mean very little to them.
 
2013-03-07 09:21:02 AM  

SubBass49: Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

[www.investitwisely.com image 300x225]

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.


So we should drop cakes on them instead of nukes? Or big red staplers? Your strange metaphor confuses and frightens me.

/I'm just a caveman
/I will sue you and your whole crummy airline!
 
2013-03-07 09:21:09 AM  

DanInKansas: Love the Bush hate on the thread.  Because you know, for the thousands of years civilization has existed, no armed power ever threatened anyone else with a pre-emptive attack or invented a reason to go to war out of thin air.   And certainly before Bush there were never any power mad dictators who got too big for their britches with inevitable results.


So you admit Bush was a power mad dictator...
 
2013-03-07 09:21:30 AM  

my lip balm addiction: Caelistis: As long as they wipe out Seattle, I'm good.

Hey! fark you with a rusty rake!


That's exactly what living in Seattle feels like. It would be no great loss.
 
2013-03-07 09:23:55 AM  

Voiceofreason01: BillCo:The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

Or because they have a lot to lose by allowing the US to maintain a large military force too close to a historically disputed border or because they have the most to lose of anybody if N. Korea collapses and millions of starving refugees come flooding into their country, many helpfully trained and armed by Best Korea's bloated military.

/it's almost as if most nations don't base their foreign policy on the same criteria as a first grader on the playground.


Those are all very valid points, but I also think that using the Koreas as surrogates is a way for the US and China to wave their dicks at each other without really risking any actual confrontation between the two super-powers. We don't really like each other, but we are pretty damn dependent on each other economically and a direct confrontation would be devastating for both countries.
 
2013-03-07 09:25:50 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905127#c82905127" target="_blank">SubBass49</a>:</b> <i>Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

[www.investitwisely.com image 300x225]

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.</i>

So we should drop cakes on them instead of nukes? Or big red staplers? Your strange metaphor confuses and frightens me.

/I'm just a caveman
/I will sue you and your whole crummy airline!


Drop the entire 1996 Chicago Bulls Team on them.
www.nba.com
 
2013-03-07 09:26:14 AM  

Bored Horde: How many times has Fark called for the "glass parking lot" treatment of nations full of tens of millions of people in the middle east?


Fark is not the chief executive officer of the country's military. You can tell I'm not because Cuba is still embargoed. If I were in charge of the US, even for a day, I'd try to lift the sanctions against Cuba and encourage casinos.
 
2013-03-07 09:26:18 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Go ahead.  Skin it.  Skin that smokewagon and see what happens.
 
2013-03-07 09:26:35 AM  

neongoats: JackieRabbit: yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Do we preempt their attack now?

No. Now is the time for us to protect out precious solidly fluids so that the communists can't sap them and prevent women from robbing us of our essence.

Solidly fluids. That's what bizarro superman ejaculates. I hear it hurts like a sonofabiatch.


You have obviously never seen a Russian drink water, have you? OF COURSE NOT! BECAUSE THEY DRINK VODKA!
 
2013-03-07 09:27:19 AM  

mytdawg: Well crap, India and China are going all first world on us so we're gonna need to take over NK in order to find enough warm bodies to manufacture some cheap shiat for us for a generation or two.  We're not gonna stand around and watch him exploit his people when our conglomerates could be profiting from their misery.  Walmart needs some more dollar towels and tires.

Come at us bro.


www.danklyn.com

I admire the seaming and construction of your nautical propulsive tarpaulin
 
2013-03-07 09:27:29 AM  

WinoRhino: So now is probably not the time I should be heading to Hawaii for a vacation, huh? Although, front-row seats on the fail might be fun.


Hawaii would be safe from a missile attack from Best Korea; it would be too small of a target for their technology. Mainland USA would be the target as a nuke would cause significant (if not massive) damage anywhere it lands.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:58 AM  

Theory Of Null: TheShavingofOccam123: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905127#c82905127" target="_blank">SubBass49</a>:</b> <i>Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

[www.investitwisely.com image 300x225]

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.</i>

So we should drop cakes on them instead of nukes? Or big red staplers? Your strange metaphor confuses and frightens me.

/I'm just a caveman
/I will sue you and your whole crummy airline!

Drop the entire 1996 Chicago Bulls Team on them.
[www.nba.com image 350x240]


Can we drop ship the entire world supply of air Jordan's on them too? Motivate our urban minded youths to invade.
 
2013-03-07 09:28:25 AM  

H31N0US: The mouse that roared.


Do they have a Q bomb?
 
2013-03-07 09:30:54 AM  

Theory Of Null: TheShavingofOccam123: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905127#c82905127" target="_blank">SubBass49</a>:</b> <i>Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

[www.investitwisely.com image 300x225]

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.</i>

So we should drop cakes on them instead of nukes? Or big red staplers? Your strange metaphor confuses and frightens me.

/I'm just a caveman
/I will sue you and your whole crummy airline!

Drop the entire 1996 Chicago Bulls Team on them.
[www.nba.com image 350x240]


This is way off topic but there is a stunning lack of tattoos in that photo. Also, who the fark is #54 and #34? Looks like they picked those guys right out of my local YMCA.
 
2013-03-07 09:31:34 AM  

ferretman: Mainland USA would be the target as a nuke would cause significant (if not massive) damage anywhere it lands.


ಠ_ಠ

Have you never heard of Ohio?
 
2013-03-07 09:32:22 AM  

SubBass49: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

I'm not exactly a pro-war guy, but I'd love to see China stand off to the side and say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own...take your best shot USA, we're not getting involved."  Just park a few destroyers and carriers off the coast and light the damn place up like the 4th of July.  Make sure we've got a STABLE shadow government waiting in the wings.

Then reunification, etc.


You're onto a great idea: sit off the coast with a couple of battleships and launch fireworks to explode high in the sky over Kimmy's house for the whole night. Then we send our ambassador over to knock on his door and ask him how the nuke Program is going. Make Rodman the ambassador...
 
2013-03-07 09:34:08 AM  

MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.


you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.
 
2013-03-07 09:35:16 AM  

ferretman: you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.


ಠ_ಠ

Have you never heard of Ohio? the midwest?
 
2013-03-07 09:35:27 AM  

deanis: Theory Of Null: TheShavingofOccam123: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905127#c82905127" target="_blank">SubBass49</a>:</b> <i>Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

[www.investitwisely.com image 300x225]

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.</i>

So we should drop cakes on them instead of nukes? Or big red staplers? Your strange metaphor confuses and frightens me.

/I'm just a caveman
/I will sue you and your whole crummy airline!

Drop the entire 1996 Chicago Bulls Team on them.
[www.nba.com image 350x240]

This is way off topic but there is a stunning lack of tattoos in that photo. Also, who the fark is #54 and #34? Looks like they picked those guys right out of my local YMCA.


Only if your local YMCA tends to have 7 footers running around. I'm pretty sure 34 is Bill Wennington
 
2013-03-07 09:36:40 AM  

Bored Horde: tom baker's scarf: Even as a card carrying liberal (it's an expression, I don't have a card) this is the kind of statement that gets me in a bombthebastardsbecausewecan kind of mood.  We're not talking about them counterfeiting US currency, selling weapons, or producing heroin anymore.  Nuclear strike is not something you get to trot out in a pissing contest.  The consequences of that action or the threat of that action are too severe to be the plaything of a fat, petulant, hyper-privileged manboy.

[thepowerofwordss.files.wordpress.com image 450x386]

But seriously, this is what nuclear armed nations do when they get into pissing matches.  It's normal.  Hell, America has openly postured with nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations.  America has been leading a global effort to turn the screws on the DPRK leadership in an effort to cause rebellion, making military conquest easier.  This is the logical end-game of the sanctions.

How many times has Fark called for the "glass parking lot" treatment of nations full of tens of millions of people in the middle east?  Feeling threatened because a nuclear-armed nation is posturing against America?  You'll get over it.



#1 I'm not a supporter of the Dubya, or how he dealt with other countries, or for that matter how he handled just about anything.

#2 Not advocating a glass parking lot, never have. I think the best thing to do would be to blanket the country with letter bombs that say something along the lines of "We dropped this on your house and BestestFearless Leader couldn't do a thing to stop it. Have a pleasant evening."

#3 I recognize the manboy comment applies to Dubya as well and Best Korea's BestestFearless Leader.  It was done intentionally.

#4 Posturing is one thing and nuclear brinksmanship isn't commonplace. Threatening to wipe out 100K people is how things get out of hand in a hurry.
 
2013-03-07 09:37:01 AM  
Best Korea:
www.nicklasholmgren.com

They think they want our attention. They don't.
 
2013-03-07 09:37:20 AM  

ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.


No, sorry. Stupid scenario is stupid. Really stupid, and you are stupid for not calling it stupid to its stupid face.
 
2013-03-07 09:39:04 AM  

ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.


But don't you actually have to be sending shipments of things to a country first before you can run the nuke in a container ship gambit. They have no trade with the US, so sending a container ship to us seems a bit suspicious. Maybe they could sneak something in through China, but you'd think the Chinese would frown upon shenanigans that threaten its global trade.
 
2013-03-07 09:41:15 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
imghumour.com
 
2013-03-07 09:41:36 AM  

Mad_Radhu: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

But don't you actually have to be sending shipments of things to a country first before you can run the nuke in a container ship gambit. They have no trade with the US, so sending a container ship to us seems a bit suspicious. Maybe they could sneak something in through China, but you'd think the Chinese would frown upon shenanigans that threaten its global trade.


Only a few of the eleventhousandmillionbillion reasons why the entire "OMGZ Container ships!!11eleventy!!" scenario is so completely retarded that only the criminally stupid keep bringing it up.
 
2013-03-07 09:43:07 AM  

BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.


No, look at a map.

Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.

That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.
 
2013-03-07 09:44:00 AM  

deanis: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82906000#c82906000" target="_blank">Theory Of Null</a>:</b> <i>TheShavingofOccam123: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905127#c82905127" target="_blank">SubBass49</a>:</b> <i>Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

[www.investitwisely.com image 300x225]

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.</i>

So we should drop cakes on them instead of nukes? Or big red staplers? Your strange metaphor confuses and frightens me.

/I'm just a caveman
/I will sue you and your whole crummy airline!

Drop the entire 1996 Chicago Bulls Team on them.
[www.nba.com image 350x240]</i>

This is way off topic but there is a stunning lack of tattoos in that photo. Also, who the fark is #54 and #34? Looks like they picked those guys right out of my local YMCA.



34 Bill Wennington was the center. 54 was just some dude named Jack.
 
2013-03-07 09:44:28 AM  
well there's some spicy kim-chi.
 
2013-03-07 09:45:11 AM  
Unidentified Spokesman?  Who, Kyong Lee in farming village #347?
 
2013-03-07 09:45:46 AM  

Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

No, look at a map.

Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.

That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.


Uh, look at that map again, and realize that Seoul is just about as close already.
 
2013-03-07 09:45:47 AM  
For a long time, the US feared the Soviets would detonate a nuclear device underwater in New York harbor.

The resulting tsunami would have scraped most of NYC bare.

nctr.pmel.noaa.gov
 
2013-03-07 09:46:03 AM  
Is there psychedelics in the water over there? Or has the food shortage finally reached the upper levels of their society?
 
2013-03-07 09:46:40 AM  
if north korea nukes washington, or if anyone nukes washington really...  Does that mean we can stop paying federal taxes?
 
2013-03-07 09:47:47 AM  

Mad_Radhu: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

But don't you actually have to be sending shipments of things to a country first before you can run the nuke in a container ship gambit. They have no trade with the US, so sending a container ship to us seems a bit suspicious. Maybe they could sneak something in through China, but you'd think the Chinese would frown upon shenanigans that threaten its global trade.


I'd figure China would be monitoring for radiation as well in their shipping hubs, unless they secretly sponsored doing this... which would be economic suicide for them, not to mention if it traced back would be even more suicidal...

Chinese leadership isn't interested in suicide, unlike their NK pets are...
 
2013-03-07 09:47:55 AM  

Theory Of Null: shiat could get real. His father wasn't this stupid.


I blame video games and soda pop.


It may be stupid, but you have to wonder if Man-boy here is trying to show he's more of a boss than his daddy and grand-daddy. He may be so totally convinced of his nation's superiority that he truthfully feels that he can push the world around and come out standing on top.
 
2013-03-07 09:48:05 AM  

Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

No, look at a map.

Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.

That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.


If Korea were to reunite, the most likely result is far fewer US troops there, not more.
 
2013-03-07 09:48:07 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.


Congratulations. This is the first "I blame Bush" whine I've seen in at least a month or so. We need more people like you to stay on point and keep old and busted memes alive and well. Seriously, do you actually think you can keep it going until 2016? Please respond; serious bet money is riding on it.
 
2013-03-07 09:48:53 AM  

ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.


Here's your scenario mapped out.  I was generous and gave them a 25 kT bomb (larger than anything they've tested so far) smuggled into the harbor in San Francisco and detonated on a docked ship.  You'd probably lose a few city blocks around the immediate blast area and have a lot of broken windows but it wouldn't be the conflagration you're making it out to be, especially in a major West Coast city with earthquake-hardened buildings.  Sure people would be killed and everybody would be pissed off but we wouldn't lose a city by any stretch of the imagination.

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=37.80437,-122.3 96 58&yd=25&zm=11&op=156
 
2013-03-07 09:48:55 AM  

mytdawg: Well crap, India and China are going all first world on us so we're gonna need to take over NK in order to find enough warm bodies to manufacture some cheap shiat for us for a generation or two.  We're not gonna stand around and watch him exploit his people when our conglomerates could be profiting from their misery.  Walmart needs some more dollar towels and tires.

Come at us bro.


Walmart has dollar tires? I'm outta here, time get a fresh set.
 
2013-03-07 09:51:32 AM  
i280.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 09:54:10 AM  
Isn't that kind of like a guy standing in the middle of the street with a pellet gun surrounded by swat, threatening to shoot everyone dead. Ok then N Korea.....draw.
 
2013-03-07 09:54:20 AM  

Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

No, look at a map.

Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.

That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.


Well the States can always agree to keep their armed forces firmly behind the existing DMZ once the Norks are defeated and quite frankly keeping the peace in a former NK should be the problem of the UN or SK. It's not an unsurmountable problem.
 
2013-03-07 09:56:33 AM  

pag1107: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

Here's your scenario mapped out.  I was generous and gave them a 25 kT bomb (larger than anything they've tested so far) smuggled into the harbor in San Francisco and detonated on a docked ship.  You'd probably lose a few city blocks around the immediate blast area and have a lot of broken windows but it wouldn't be the conflagration you're making it out to be, especially in a major West Coast city with earthquake-hardened buildings.  Sure people would be killed and everybody would be pissed off but we wouldn't lose a city by any stretch of the imagination.

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=37.80437,-122.3 96 58&yd=25&zm=11&op=156


Yes, I think San Francisco has four of them.
 
2013-03-07 09:56:57 AM  

Zenith: Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

No, look at a map.

Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.

That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.

Well the States can always agree to keep their armed forces firmly behind the existing DMZ once the Norks are defeated and quite frankly keeping the peace in a former NK should be the problem of the UN or SK. It's not an unsurmountable problem.


Technically speaking NK is at war with SK and the UN, not the US...

i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-07 09:57:07 AM  

SuperChuck: deanis: Theory Of Null: TheShavingofOccam123: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905127#c82905127" target="_blank">SubBass49</a>:</b> <i>Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

[www.investitwisely.com image 300x225]

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.</i>

So we should drop cakes on them instead of nukes? Or big red staplers? Your strange metaphor confuses and frightens me.

/I'm just a caveman
/I will sue you and your whole crummy airline!

Drop the entire 1996 Chicago Bulls Team on them.
[www.nba.com image 350x240]

This is way off topic but there is a stunning lack of tattoos in that photo. Also, who the fark is #54 and #34? Looks like they picked those guys right out of my local YMCA.

Only if your local YMCA tends to have 7 footers running around. I'm pretty sure 34 is Bill Wennington


I have never seen a one foot tall person, let alone 7 of them! Go home Superchuck, you are drunk!
 
2013-03-07 09:57:55 AM  

spentmiles: We should chopper into North Korea, kidnap The Dear Eater, and take him to a warehouse set-up with video equipment.  We then start the cameras rolling and record Dolf Lundgren pulling down Fatty's pants, bending him over his knee, and spanking him.  Then use our broadcast laser to play it on the moon, over and over again, for six weeks.  Then, carpet bomb the entire stretch of desolate shiat farms until every last soldier, civilian, and animal is dead.  Then spray radioactive fluid over every square inch.  Then delete every mention of North Korea from every book on the planet.  Then just wander around, looking at one another, knowing how awesome we are.


Ooh, kinky. What are you doing Saturday night?
 
2013-03-07 10:00:25 AM  

SubBass49: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

I'm not exactly a pro-war guy, but I'd love to see China stand off to the side and say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own...take your best shot USA, we're not getting involved."  Just park a few destroyers and carriers off the coast and light the damn place up like the 4th of July.  Make sure we've got a STABLE shadow government waiting in the wings.

Then reunification, etc.



www.thewhirlingwind.com
 
2013-03-07 10:00:57 AM  

MythDragon: Best Korea:
[www.nicklasholmgren.com image 850x531]

They think they want our attention. They don't.


That's just all kinds of awesome!

And spentmiles has another awesome post. I feel bad that a little part of me likes the idea.
 
2013-03-07 10:02:51 AM  

wraithmare: MythDragon: Best Korea:
[www.nicklasholmgren.com image 850x531]

They think they want our attention. They don't.

That's just all kinds of awesome!

And spentmiles has another awesome post. I feel bad that a little part of me likes the idea.


You like the spanking part.
 
2013-03-07 10:02:56 AM  

doglover: ferretman: you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

ಠ_ಠ

Have you never heard of Ohio? the midwest?


:)
Best Korea's ballistic missile technology can not reach that far...yet.
 
2013-03-07 10:03:30 AM  

DanInKansas: Love the Bush hate on the thread.  Because you know, for the thousands of years civilization has existed, no armed power ever threatened anyone else with a pre-emptive attack or invented a reason to go to war out of thin air.   And certainly before Bush there were never any power mad dictators who got too big for their britches with inevitable results.


Take a deep breath, and say this out loud:

"Fark is a left-wing echo chamber."

Any time you get the urge to reply to a b-b-b-b-but Bush post, stop what you're doing, and say it out loud again. It'll help you get a grip on the political tone of Fark.

/For the love of FSM stay out of the Politics tab
//It's the left-wing version of Freepers
 
2013-03-07 10:04:32 AM  

Mad_Radhu: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

But don't you actually have to be sending shipments of things to a country first before you can run the nuke in a container ship gambit. They have no trade with the US, so sending a container ship to us seems a bit suspicious. Maybe they could sneak something in through China, but you'd think the Chinese would frown upon shenanigans that threaten its global trade.


or through their ally Iran.
 
2013-03-07 10:05:10 AM  
They've certainly got a better claim of clear and imminent danger really: the US than the US has had about any of the countries it has sacked in the past couple decades.
 
2013-03-07 10:06:42 AM  
img.photobucket.com
SUBASS49 You inspired me.
 
2013-03-07 10:07:22 AM  

pag1107: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

Here's your scenario mapped out.  I was generous and gave them a 25 kT bomb (larger than anything they've tested so far) smuggled into the harbor in San Francisco and detonated on a docked ship.  You'd probably lose a few city blocks around the immediate blast area and have a lot of broken windows but it wouldn't be the conflagration you're making it out to be, especially in a major West Coast city with earthquake-hardened buildings.  Sure people would be killed and everybody would be pissed off but we wouldn't lose a city by any stretch of the imagination.

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=37.80437,-122.3 96 58&yd=25&zm=11&op=156


Windows can break at 0.1 so everyone within a dozen miles is going to need new pants.

/Smuggling a nuke is a horrid, high-risk way of doing business, and it's incredibly unlikely
 
2013-03-07 10:07:24 AM  

deanis: SuperChuck: deanis: Theory Of Null: TheShavingofOccam123: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7630360/82905127#c82905127" target="_blank">SubBass49</a>:</b> <i>Basically North Korea is the global version of Milton from Office Space.

[www.investitwisely.com image 300x225]

Everybody thinks his mumbling threats are full of shiat...and usually they are...but one of these days something bad will probably happen if something doesn't change.</i>

So we should drop cakes on them instead of nukes? Or big red staplers? Your strange metaphor confuses and frightens me.

/I'm just a caveman
/I will sue you and your whole crummy airline!

Drop the entire 1996 Chicago Bulls Team on them.
[www.nba.com image 350x240]

This is way off topic but there is a stunning lack of tattoos in that photo. Also, who the fark is #54 and #34? Looks like they picked those guys right out of my local YMCA.

Only if your local YMCA tends to have 7 footers running around. I'm pretty sure 34 is Bill Wennington

I have never seen a one foot tall person, let alone 7 of them! Go home Superchuck, you are drunk!


Shesh! You sound like my boss!
 
2013-03-07 10:07:35 AM  
That's it! This has to stop. I'm sending in that cocksucker Hans Brix!
 
2013-03-07 10:07:50 AM  
Re: the us.

Fugging spell check.
 
2013-03-07 10:08:54 AM  

neongoats: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

Why do you people keep prattling this derpy nonsense.

"Omg NK might send a container ship to San Francisco! how ever will stop this great menace."

I dunno, our huge navy, satellite surveillance, or one guy with a tug boat and some farking binoculars. Jesus fark this container ship thing you tards keep repeating is the dumbest thing ever.


You know how I know you don't know how shipborne containers are tracked (which is to say, barely tracked at all)? North Korea couldn't send a ship from its ports to SF without being stopped, sure. But with enough bribes to the right Chinese bureaucrats, they conceivably could sneak a container into China, put it on a ship full of crap headed for Wal-Mart, and accomplish the same purpose. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's practicable.
 
2013-03-07 10:09:25 AM  

pag1107: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

Here's your scenario mapped out.  I was generous and gave them a 25 kT bomb (larger than anything they've tested so far) smuggled into the harbor in San Francisco and detonated on a docked ship.  You'd probably lose a few city blocks around the immediate blast area and have a lot of broken windows but it wouldn't be the conflagration you're making it out to be, especially in a major West Coast city with earthquake-hardened buildings.  Sure people would be killed and everybody would be pissed off but we wouldn't lose a city by any stretch of the imagination.

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=37.80437,-122.3 96 58&yd=25&zm=11&op=156


You have to take into account the radiation as well...look how many died from radiation in Japan in WWII.
 
2013-03-07 10:09:44 AM  

Daercoma: [img.photobucket.com image 300x225]
SUBASS49 You inspired me.


Well done!
 
2013-03-07 10:09:59 AM  

JackieRabbit: Scary, Subby? I see you don't know much about North Korea. They posture like this in response to our posturing to them -- which is precisely what our joint exercises with South Korea is. We go through this every few years as a prelude to some negotiation. We've been playing this stupid game with them for 60 years. Their beloved leader has to do what is expected of him, but he isn't stupid enough to launch a nuclear weapon at the US (even if he had a vehicle capable of this, which he doesn't). China would would roar over his his boarder within days and Russia, China and the US would wipe every major NK city off the map in retaliation.


You realize we do these joint exercises with the South Koreans damn near every year right?  My dad did Team Spirit back in 1989, And I did UFL back in the late 90's/Early 00's.  They're our allies.  We run exercises with lots of other countries too.  I participated in some exercise in Norway once.  We train with the Brits, the Thais, and a stack of other countries.  It isn't posturing, it's good training.  Hell, the Soviets used to run yearly exercises in East Germany, and we'd do the same in West, but I don't remember anyone threatening preemptive nuclear attacks.
 
2013-03-07 10:10:02 AM  

Ring of Fire: A country was mean to his daddy so now that he's in the big chair he's gonna launch a preemptive strike. Wants to be a "war president".

Kim Jong Un or George W Bush.


As an American, I am sad that this comparison is even possible, sadder that it is reasonable.
 
2013-03-07 10:10:13 AM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


Problem I see is they don't really need an ICBM if they have cargo freighters; not THAT hard to get a dirty bomb near our coastline, upwind.
 
2013-03-07 10:11:04 AM  

spentmiles: We should chopper into North Korea, kidnap The Dear Eater, and take him to a warehouse set-up with video equipment.  We then start the cameras rolling and record Dolf Lundgren pulling down Fatty's pants, bending him over his knee, and spanking him.  Then use our broadcast laser to play it on the moon, over and over again, for six weeks.  Then, carpet bomb the entire stretch of desolate shiat farms until every last soldier, civilian, and animal is dead.  Then spray radioactive fluid over every square inch.  Then delete every mention of North Korea from every book on the planet.  Then just wander around, looking at one another, knowing how awesome we are.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-07 10:11:09 AM  

mbillips: neongoats: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

Why do you people keep prattling this derpy nonsense.

"Omg NK might send a container ship to San Francisco! how ever will stop this great menace."

I dunno, our huge navy, satellite surveillance, or one guy with a tug boat and some farking binoculars. Jesus fark this container ship thing you tards keep repeating is the dumbest thing ever.

You know how I know you don't know how shipborne containers are tracked (which is to say, barely tracked at all)? North Korea couldn't send a ship from its ports to SF without being stopped, sure. But with enough bribes to the right Chinese bureaucrats, they conceivably could sneak a container into China, put it on a ship full of crap headed for Wal-Mart, and accomplish the same purpose. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's practicable.


There are so many obstacles to overcome that the physical practicality of trying to get a container with a nuke in it to the US is the least of the hurdles.
 
2013-03-07 10:11:13 AM  
I know NK missle cannot reach Florida, so no worries.
 
2013-03-07 10:11:48 AM  
And here I thought it would be Gandhi that got us:

i212.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 10:12:39 AM  

Pick: I know NK missle cannot reach Florida, so no worries.


Maybe we could help them with that.
 
2013-03-07 10:12:47 AM  

neongoats: Mad_Radhu: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

But don't you actually have to be sending shipments of things to a country first before you can run the nuke in a container ship gambit. They have no trade with the US, so sending a container ship to us seems a bit suspicious. Maybe they could sneak something in through China, but you'd think the Chinese would frown upon shenanigans that threaten its global trade.

Only a few of the eleventhousandmillionbillion reasons why the entire "OMGZ Container ships!!11eleventy!!" scenario is so completely retarded that only the criminally stupid keep bringing it up.


So..... are you saying that the Obama administration is criminally stupid for quietly ramping up, over the last 4 years,  the container inspection programs at Long Beach and San Francisco.... and at sea through USCG intercepts?
 
2013-03-07 10:12:50 AM  

SuperChuck: Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

No, look at a map.

Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.

That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.

If Korea were to reunite, the most likely result is far fewer US troops there, not more.


That's what I'm thinking, or if China were to stabilize NK by installing a puppet government or making it an unofficial province. most US troops would leave, at the moment China is holding them there by propping up NK.
 
2013-03-07 10:13:21 AM  

PunGent: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

Problem I see is they don't really need an ICBM if they have cargo freighters; not THAT hard to get a dirty bomb near our coastline, upwind.


A dirty bomb isn't a terribly useful weapon.

And there are reasons countries generally develop missiles rather than arming stealth cargo containers, and it's not because missiles look more like penises.
 
2013-03-07 10:14:08 AM  

Pick: I know NK missle cannot reach Florida, so no worries.


NK surely is not worried about Florida...The citizens of that state are nuking themselves....
 
2013-03-07 10:14:19 AM  

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Never more appropriate

In response, what does our country do now?

Do we preempt their attack now?

Never thought I would actually see nuclear war. WWIII is at our doorstep.


kunochan.com

I hate to interrupt your panic, but North Korea neither has a viable strategic nuclear weapon to deploy, nor has a delivery mechanism in place. Unless you think that they are going to load an experimental bomb into a panel truck and drive it into Seoul.

It's a long way to go from this:

nnsa.energy.gov

To This:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-07 10:15:20 AM  
So when will the U.S. take these threats seriously? Why aren't we at like DEFCON 2 or something? Is it just because we think they are full of shiat? Yeah we are pretty sure they don't have the capability of launching an ICBM at us, but we been wrong before. After all we were damned sure Iraq had WMD's that we never found.

I guess it's because we are used to their ramblings
 
2013-03-07 10:15:33 AM  
The thing I find amusing about the Norks is that let's say they do launch a bomb at Seoul or place a bomb in a container ship and set it off on the US coast.  Yes, innocents will die.  But they lack the ability to sustain a lengthy war.  We would turn that country into glass, as would Worst Korea and China.  They can barely feed their massive army.  They sure as hell could not continue to do so if major instructive is taken out by targeted bombings on our part.
 
2013-03-07 10:16:24 AM  

KarmicDisaster: SuperChuck: Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

No, look at a map.

Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.

That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.

If Korea were to reunite, the most likely result is far fewer US troops there, not more.

That's what I'm thinking, or if China were to stabilize NK by installing a puppet government or making it an unofficial province. most US troops would leave, at the moment China is holding them there by propping up NK.


The question isn't what we're most likely to do, but what the Chinese think we're most likely to do. China has good reasons not to trust foreigners, and they still smart from the century of humiliation.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:22 AM  

Homer Elmer: So when will the U.S. take these threats seriously? Why aren't we at like DEFCON 2 or something? Is it just because we think they are full of shiat? Yeah we are pretty sure they don't have the capability of launching an ICBM at us, but we been wrong before. After all we were damned sure Iraq had WMD's that we never found.

I guess it's because we are used to their ramblings


No, it's because Benghazi, that's why.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:32 AM  

Homer Elmer: So when will the U.S. take these threats seriously? Why aren't we at like DEFCON 2 or something? Is it just because we think they are full of shiat? Yeah we are pretty sure they don't have the capability of launching an ICBM at us, but we been wrong before. After all we were damned sure Iraq had WMD's that we never found.

I guess it's because we are used to their ramblings


The US has 60 years of experience dealing with Nuclear posturing and threats. First from Russia, then from China before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

60 years of dealing with coming within one person and one computer error away from starting a nuclear war and annihilating the entire human race.

It's hilarious to think that the US would blink because of North Korea.
 
2013-03-07 10:18:20 AM  

Endive Wombat: The thing I find amusing about the Norks is that let's say they do launch a bomb at Seoul or place a bomb in a container ship and set it off on the US coast.  Yes, innocents will die.  But they lack the ability to sustain a lengthy war.  We would turn that country into glass, as would Worst Korea and China.  They can barely feed their massive army.  They sure as hell could not continue to do so if major instructive is taken out by targeted bombings on our part.


North Korea is more rational than people give it credit for.
 
2013-03-07 10:18:30 AM  
At least we will get rid of all those annoying hipsters in Seattle...
 
2013-03-07 10:22:04 AM  

devildog123: JackieRabbit: Scary, Subby? I see you don't know much about North Korea. They posture like this in response to our posturing to them -- which is precisely what our joint exercises with South Korea is. We go through this every few years as a prelude to some negotiation. We've been playing this stupid game with them for 60 years. Their beloved leader has to do what is expected of him, but he isn't stupid enough to launch a nuclear weapon at the US (even if he had a vehicle capable of this, which he doesn't). China would would roar over his his boarder within days and Russia, China and the US would wipe every major NK city off the map in retaliation.

You realize we do these joint exercises with the South Koreans damn near every year right?  My dad did Team Spirit back in 1989, And I did UFL back in the late 90's/Early 00's.  They're our allies.  We run exercises with lots of other countries too.  I participated in some exercise in Norway once.  We train with the Brits, the Thais, and a stack of other countries.  It isn't posturing, it's good training.  Hell, the Soviets used to run yearly exercises in East Germany, and we'd do the same in West, but I don't remember anyone threatening preemptive nuclear attacks.


And UFL is done as a computer-only exercise just to AVOID irritating Best Korea. We have absolutely no reason to poke at North Korea with a stick, and they have every reason to pretend that we ARE provoking them, both for domestic and international PR reasons.
 
2013-03-07 10:22:05 AM  
RIP, Korean Hookers
 
2013-03-07 10:23:09 AM  

spentmiles: We should chopper into North Korea, kidnap The Dear Eater, and take him to a warehouse set-up with video equipment.  We then start the cameras rolling and record Dolf Lundgren pulling down Fatty's pants, bending him over his knee, and spanking him.  Then use our broadcast laser to play it on the moon, over and over again, for six weeks.  Then, carpet bomb the entire stretch of desolate shiat farms until every last soldier, civilian, and animal is dead.  Then spray radioactive fluid over every square inch.  Then delete every mention of North Korea from every book on the planet.  Then just wander around, looking at one another, knowing how awesome we are.


Why do almost every one of your posts come off as the script to some oddly high budgeted fetish porn movie?

I mean, I know that sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar, but I gotta ask....
 
2013-03-07 10:24:49 AM  
They would launch a nuke aimed at us. It would blow up on the launchpad. Then, they will tell the rest of the world that we shot a nuke at them, and are the aggressor.
 
2013-03-07 10:25:33 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: neongoats: Mad_Radhu: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

But don't you actually have to be sending shipments of things to a country first before you can run the nuke in a container ship gambit. They have no trade with the US, so sending a container ship to us seems a bit suspicious. Maybe they could sneak something in through China, but you'd think the Chinese would frown upon shenanigans that threaten its global trade.

Only a few of the eleventhousandmillionbillion reasons why the entire "OMGZ Container ships!!11eleventy!!" scenario is so completely retarded that only the criminally stupid keep bringing it up.

So..... are you saying that the Obama administration is criminally stupid for quietly ramping up, over the last 4 years,  the container inspection programs at Long Beach and San Francisco.... and at sea through USCG intercepts?


I think you underestimate how poorly overseen Chinese regional authorities are. Throw enough cash at a Chinese bureaucrat, sell him some believable story about how you're smuggling spies or blood diamonds or something, and your container whisks straight through. And once it's in the legitimate trade pipeline, just about nobody checks on it other than to scan the bar code. Obama has increased container inspections, but it's still a VERY porous barrier.
 
2013-03-07 10:27:49 AM  
I gotta say, I can't see this happening.

And if it did happen, I probably wouldn't see it coming.

So, fear level = 0.
 
2013-03-07 10:28:10 AM  
I came here for a "Back To School" reference or at least a "Beneath The Planet of The Apes" reference or even a "Dr. Strangelove" reference and left disappointed.
 
2013-03-07 10:28:36 AM  

shaunmark: They would launch a nuke aimed at us. It would blow up on the launchpad. Then, they will tell the rest of the world that we shot a nuke at them, and are the aggressor.


And most of the world's governments with more than a $10 budget would know they are lying. Some would say so. Others would say they have no opinion. Still others would confirm it either because the lie is useful or they really don't care what the truth is. And a whole bunch of people here would believe it because their own internal view of the world is confirmed by it, and they will spend years repeating the lie on fark, causing me to cancel my TF and leave forever.

So... win?
 
2013-03-07 10:29:04 AM  

mbillips: I think you underestimate how poorly overseen Chinese regional authorities are. Throw enough cash at a Chinese bureaucrat, sell him some believable story about how you're smuggling spies or blood diamonds or something, and your container whisks straight through. And once it's in the legitimate trade pipeline, just about nobody checks on it other than to scan the bar code. Obama has increased container inspections, but it's still a VERY porous barrier.


I  think you highly overestimate the technological prowess of the North Koreans in this. Their technology level is basically pre-level of the Trinity Shot that US did in 1945, and they have no viable weapon - strategic or tactical - deployed in any capacity with any delivery mechanism at this time.
 
2013-03-07 10:29:11 AM  

SubBass49: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

I'm not exactly a pro-war guy, but I'd love to see China stand off to the side and say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own...take your best shot USA, we're not getting involved."  Just park a few destroyers and carriers off the coast and light the damn place up like the 4th of July.  Make sure we've got a STABLE shadow government waiting in the wings.

Then reunification, etc.


Two things wrong with your senario.  First, no one in South Korea wants reunification.  It would economically cripple them.  Second is North Korea has literally millions of pieces of artillery pointed at the south many of which that can reach Seoul.  Even if only 10% of them work thousands of South Koreans will die.

No one is saying North Korea wouldn't lose badly.  But it would be horribly bloody for the South.
 
2013-03-07 10:30:19 AM  
If they have done enough design work to put their weapon on a missile, it would also fit in the Cargo hold of an airplane.  They could just fly it to its destination
 
2013-03-07 10:32:11 AM  

spentmiles: We should chopper into North Korea, kidnap The Dear Eater, and take him to a warehouse set-up with video equipment.  We then start the cameras rolling and record Dolf Lundgren pulling down Fatty's pants, bending him over his knee, and spanking him.  Then use our broadcast laser to play it on the moon, over and over again, for six weeks.  Then, carpet bomb the entire stretch of desolate shiat farms until every last soldier, civilian, and animal is dead.  Then spray radioactive fluid over every square inch.  Then delete every mention of North Korea from every book on the planet.  Then just wander around, looking at one another, knowing how awesome we are.


I was going to say that instead of spanking him, we make him make love to one of his precious rockets.

/I guess I'm every bit the sociopath that he is, but at least I admit it
 
2013-03-07 10:32:25 AM  
Bull shiat. Thay are too addicted to our culture to ACTUALLY bomb us. *YAWN*
 
2013-03-07 10:33:00 AM  
Oh, and I cannot spell either.
 
2013-03-07 10:33:25 AM  

s1ugg0: SubBass49: AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.

I'm not exactly a pro-war guy, but I'd love to see China stand off to the side and say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own...take your best shot USA, we're not getting involved."  Just park a few destroyers and carriers off the coast and light the damn place up like the 4th of July.  Make sure we've got a STABLE shadow government waiting in the wings.

Then reunification, etc.

Two things wrong with your senario.  First, no one in South Korea wants reunification.  It would economically cripple them.  Second is North Korea has literally millions of pieces of artillery pointed at the south many of which that can reach Seoul.  Even if only 10% of them work thousands of South Koreans will die.

No one is saying North Korea wouldn't lose badly.  But it would be horribly bloody for the South.


Really depends on how the scenario unfolds. If they go from standstill and the level of tensions now (not much tension) to shooting as fast as they can, yes. If we decide to fire first in a way that would make Dick Cheney blanche, no.
 
2013-03-07 10:33:32 AM  
Well nice knowing yall. I hope they don't hit my coastal region.
 
2013-03-07 10:35:53 AM  

vygramul: Really depends on how the scenario unfolds. If they go from standstill and the level of tensions now (not much tension) to shooting as fast as they can, yes. If we decide to fire first in a way that would make Dick Cheney blanche, no.


It also depends on how much capability you believe the North has. It's not an unpopular opinion that the mass of death and destruction that NK threatens to unleash on Seoul would never reach the city in the first place (Identification of the gun type and caliber make all but a fraction of them unlikely to reach the city), and it's highly probable that most of the gun encampments along the DMZ are either fakes designed to obfuscate their numbers, unsupplied, or have limited supplies.
 
2013-03-07 10:37:59 AM  

GoldenMetalRaven: I came here for a "Back To School" reference or at least a "Beneath The Planet of The Apes" reference or even a "Dr. Strangelove" reference and left disappointed.


You didn't read the thread carefully enough. My Dr. Strangelove reverence is posted above.
 
2013-03-07 10:41:24 AM  
N.Korea: "Prepare to launch missiles at the USA!"
USA: "Dafuq?"
China: "Whoa there... USA still owes me money!"
N.Korea: "We don't care!"
China: "That's our cash cow you're aiming at there, buddy.  So go put your toy nukes away and go sit in the corner or we'll bury your entire country in tanks.  Like, right now."
 
2013-03-07 10:41:31 AM  
Bored Horde: tom baker's scarf: Even as a card carrying liberal (it's an expression, I don't have a card) this is the kind of statement that gets me in a bombthebastardsbecausewecan kind of mood.  We're not talking about them counterfeiting US currency, selling weapons, or producing heroin anymore.  Nuclear strike is not something you get to trot out in a pissing contest.  The consequences of that action or the threat of that action are too severe to be the plaything of a fat, petulant, hyper-privileged manboy.
thepowerofwordss.files.wordpress.com
But seriously, this is what nuclear armed nations do when they get into pissing matches.  It's normal.  Hell, America has openly postured with nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations.  America has been leading a global effort to turn the screws on the DPRK leadership in an effort to cause rebellion, making military conquest easier.  This is the logical end-game of the sanctions.
How many times has Fark called for the "glass parking lot" treatment of nations full of tens of millions of people in the middle east? Feeling threatened because a nuclear-armed nation is posturing against America?  You'll get over it.


The irony of those who advocate the "glass parking lot treatment' is that all of them would say it is wrong to hold all white people accountable for the actions of a few, yet see no problem with holding all Arabs accountable for the actions of a few.  The hypocrisy of the snowflakes.
 
2013-03-07 10:46:21 AM  
No worries. If they send a missile, Joe Bidet will blast it with his shotgun.
 
2013-03-07 10:46:52 AM  

vygramul: Really depends on how the scenario unfolds. If they go from standstill and the level of tensions now (not much tension) to shooting as fast as they can, yes. If we decide to fire first in a way that would make Dick Cheney blanche, no.


I have no doubt the US Military could apply foot to ass so badly that the rest of the world would stare in horror.  But speaking practically there is simply no way to destroy every potential artillery position before they could fire.

That would require dozens of nuclear bombs which would cast radiation all over our ally.  Not to mention all the political ramifications.  Simply put it will never happen.
 
2013-03-07 10:48:18 AM  
At this point I kind of wish these idiots would just lob a missile at someone so we can kill the shiat out of them and unite the country under the South.
 
2013-03-07 10:49:16 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-07 10:50:07 AM  
To think that we would even be seriously harmed as a nation if the Best Koreans were to nuke us is laughable. Sure, we'd possibly lose a city, but hell, we've already pretty much lost Detroit and we seem to be fine with that.  An external attack would galvanize the American populace into helping that city that was hit, and we'd all be perfectly fine with simply immolating Pyongyang, and it's not like there's anything they could do about it.  A single Ohio-class submarine could launch one of its 24 Trident missiles which contains 4x 475kt MIRV warheads and it would all be over in minutes. That same submarine could really just wipe out the top 24 population centers in NK without any real issue, then sail home and have a banana sandwich.

However, all of this is exceedingly unlikely.  As Hardinparamedic pointed out, we're not going to be goaded into anything by these guys. It's like a seasoned soldier getting goaded by a kid with a cap gun. And it's not like the North Koreans are unaware that we could completely annihilate their entire nation with just a couple submarines. It's all just a game the North Koreans play because China lets them play it. Eventually the Chinese are going to get sick of it (and it seems they've already started) and they're going to stop backing them in the Security Council. At that point NK is going to go completely crazy, act like a petulant child, and then probably going to get backhanded by China until they start acting like a real nation.
 
2013-03-07 10:51:59 AM  
KarmicDisaster:  SuperChuck: Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.
No, look at a map.
Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.
That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.
If Korea were to reunite, the most likely result is far fewer US troops there, not more.
That's what I'm thinking, or if China were to stabilize NK by installing a puppet government or making it an unofficial province. most US troops would leave, at the moment China is holding them there by propping up NK.

I suspect that if this occurred, the U.S. would keep their troops there to ensure that
China doesn't attempt to also make SK an "unofficial province".
 
2013-03-07 10:53:07 AM  

vygramul: Endive Wombat: The thing I find amusing about the Norks is that let's say they do launch a bomb at Seoul or place a bomb in a container ship and set it off on the US coast.  Yes, innocents will die.  But they lack the ability to sustain a lengthy war.  We would turn that country into glass, as would Worst Korea and China.  They can barely feed their massive army.  They sure as hell could not continue to do so if major instructive is taken out by targeted bombings on our part.

North Korea is more rational than people give it credit for.


You are correct.  But at some point, we are going to start taking them seriously and their rhetoric will come back to haunt them in the way of massive economic sanctions, physical blockade of ships coming and going in and out of their ports.  China may choose to stop allowing them to fly in and out of their country...
 
2013-03-07 10:53:31 AM  

Caelistis: As long as they wipe out Seattle, I'm good.


Hey wait one darn minute! Can I get at least 3 months warning please?
 
2013-03-07 10:55:26 AM  
BadChipmunk: A single Ohio-class submarine could launch one of its 24 Trident missiles which contains 4x 475kt MIRV warheads and it would all be over in minutes. That same submarine could really just wipe out the top 24 population centers in NK without any real issue, then sail home and have a banana sandwich.

Wait, wait, wait.  What is a banana sandwich and where do I get one?
 
2013-03-07 10:55:41 AM  

mbillips: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: neongoats: Mad_Radhu: ferretman: MmmmBacon: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

No, but they can place bombs in a container ship and make San Francisco harbor useless for quite a while. It would be a "blow against the Imperialist Dogs", symbolic and ultimately deadly to the NK leadership. SF wouldn't be destroyed, but a lot of damage near the bay and probably thousands of sick and injured civilians, deaths under 5000 at most.

you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

But don't you actually have to be sending shipments of things to a country first before you can run the nuke in a container ship gambit. They have no trade with the US, so sending a container ship to us seems a bit suspicious. Maybe they could sneak something in through China, but you'd think the Chinese would frown upon shenanigans that threaten its global trade.

Only a few of the eleventhousandmillionbillion reasons why the entire "OMGZ Container ships!!11eleventy!!" scenario is so completely retarded that only the criminally stupid keep bringing it up.

So..... are you saying that the Obama administration is criminally stupid for quietly ramping up, over the last 4 years,  the container inspection programs at Long Beach and San Francisco.... and at sea through USCG intercepts?

I think you underestimate how poorly overseen Chinese regional authorities are. Throw enough cash at a Chinese bureaucrat, sell him some believable story about how you're smuggling spies or blood diamonds or something, and your container whisks straight through. And once it' ...


Lol. Sure.
 
2013-03-07 10:58:14 AM  
Dear Kim,
Beloved leader please nuke Washington while congress is in session, and if you can get the Supreme Court at the same time we the people of the United States of America would be forever grateful. We would shower you and your people with freedom, just like we did with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sincerely,


People of the US.
 
2013-03-07 10:58:38 AM  

s1ugg0: vygramul: Really depends on how the scenario unfolds. If they go from standstill and the level of tensions now (not much tension) to shooting as fast as they can, yes. If we decide to fire first in a way that would make Dick Cheney blanche, no.

I have no doubt the US Military could apply foot to ass so badly that the rest of the world would stare in horror.  But speaking practically there is simply no way to destroy every potential artillery position before they could fire.

That would require dozens of nuclear bombs which would cast radiation all over our ally.  Not to mention all the political ramifications.  Simply put it will never happen.


First off, exclude nuclear weapons from the conversation.

Second, it's not THAT much. And you don't have to even get them all before they fire. You just have to get the major ones before the remaining ones that are combat effective become much less effective. Part of the reason we won 73 Easting was because the air war taught the Iraqi crews that it was safer to be outside of their tanks than in them - which turned out not to be true when an enemy tank battalion arrives. The same thing is true with artillery. The crews start becoming worried about what might be about to fall from the sky and start significantly under-performing.

Get most of the major stuff, and then loiter with a B-2 waiting for something to shoot. Drop a weapon on it. Those nearby might decide it's not worth shooting, and then the war is over. It's probably impossible to bring the number of shells landing in Seoul's suburbs to 0, but you can probably do it for downtown, and you can probably reduce it to the point that it's no longer a bloodbath.

Of course, that assumes we shoot first - hardly a safe assumption.
 
2013-03-07 10:59:11 AM  

ferretman: doglover: ferretman: you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

ಠ_ಠ

Have you never heard of Ohio? the midwest?

:)
Best Korea's ballistic missile technology can not reach that far...yet.


Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.
 
2013-03-07 11:00:55 AM  

BillCo: The only thing holding up North Korea is the Chinese and even they are getting tired of this shiat.  The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.


I'm willing to bet that secretly, a large percentage of the US State Department wishes the Chinese would invade North Korea from across the Yalu and get it over with. Come to think of it, that would solve some problems pretty much overnight.
 
2013-03-07 11:01:47 AM  

Latinwolf: KarmicDisaster:  SuperChuck: Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.
No, look at a map.
Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.
That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.
If Korea were to reunite, the most likely result is far fewer US troops there, not more.
That's what I'm thinking, or if China were to stabilize NK by installing a puppet government or making it an unofficial province. most US troops would leave, at the moment China is holding them there by propping up NK.

I suspect that if this occurred, the U.S. would keep their troops there to ensure that China doesn't attempt to also make SK an "unofficial province".


I think we're past the time of proxy wars. China is in fairly good shape right now and there's no way they'd risk the massive shiatstorm that would ensue if they invaded SK, even if by proxy.
 
2013-03-07 11:01:49 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.


Yes, appeasement was clearly the correct solution.
 
2013-03-07 11:01:57 AM  
Yeah... I am hyper concerned. I take all threats literally, nuclear threats off the charts concerned. Not only theirs, but what is our response to their nuclear preemptive attack message. North Korea either has no idea or does not care what we can do to them.

We need to take out their ability to threaten us with nuclear war. Now.
Like right the fark now.

They have cancelled the ceasefire and openly threatened us with nuclear war.

/not having a good day.
 
2013-03-07 11:02:09 AM  

hardinparamedic: mbillips: I think you underestimate how poorly overseen Chinese regional authorities are. Throw enough cash at a Chinese bureaucrat, sell him some believable story about how you're smuggling spies or blood diamonds or something, and your container whisks straight through. And once it's in the legitimate trade pipeline, just about nobody checks on it other than to scan the bar code. Obama has increased container inspections, but it's still a VERY porous barrier.

I  think you highly overestimate the technological prowess of the North Koreans in this. Their technology level is basically pre-level of the Trinity Shot that US did in 1945, and they have no viable weapon - strategic or tactical - deployed in any capacity with any delivery mechanism at this time.


Oh, I don't think they're a big threat; I'm just saying the container ship threat is real for anyone with a compact nuke. And any idiot with access to sufficiently enriched uranium can make a Little Boy-style shotgun nuke, which would fit just fine inside a shipping container with a believable cover story. The original weighed less than 10,000 pounds; you could say you were smuggling stolen cars and get it onto a legit ship with just a few bribes. (This is how stolen cars get distributed around the world, btw).

Do I think North Korea PLANS to nuke anyone? Of course not. They're screwy, but not that screwy. I think they want a nuke for the same reason that Pakistan has one and Iran wants one: it makes you George W. Bush-proof.
 
2013-03-07 11:02:11 AM  

doglover: Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.


Tsar Bomba is also the prime example of why a single, immensely powerful weapon is not as good as multiple smaller yield, but overlapping targeted MIRV impacts.

7 475kT warheads will do more damage to a large city than a single massive nuclear bomb could ever hope.
 
2013-03-07 11:02:51 AM  

Endive Wombat: vygramul: Endive Wombat: The thing I find amusing about the Norks is that let's say they do launch a bomb at Seoul or place a bomb in a container ship and set it off on the US coast.  Yes, innocents will die.  But they lack the ability to sustain a lengthy war.  We would turn that country into glass, as would Worst Korea and China.  They can barely feed their massive army.  They sure as hell could not continue to do so if major instructive is taken out by targeted bombings on our part.

North Korea is more rational than people give it credit for.

You are correct.  But at some point, we are going to start taking them seriously and their rhetoric will come back to haunt them in the way of massive economic sanctions, physical blockade of ships coming and going in and out of their ports.  China may choose to stop allowing them to fly in and out of their country...


Someday, perhaps. We keep rewarding their rhetoric, and their neighbors are even more pliable to NK's threats than we are. And by rewarding them, we're breaking the system that should be keeping them from hurting themselves in the long-run.
 
2013-03-07 11:05:08 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Dear Kim,
Beloved leader please nuke Washington while congress is in session, and if you can get the Supreme Court at the same time we the people of the United States of America would be forever grateful. We would shower you and your people with freedom, just like we did with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sincerely,


People of the US.


Well....someone just made a US Government list....
 
2013-03-07 11:05:17 AM  

doglover: ferretman: doglover: ferretman: you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

ಠ_ಠ

Have you never heard of Ohio? the midwest?

:)
Best Korea's ballistic missile technology can not reach that far...yet.

Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.


Then we'd have mutant corn attacking Kansas and we wouldn't want that.
 
2013-03-07 11:05:22 AM  

Marine1: BillCo: The only thing holding up North Korea is the Chinese and even they are getting tired of this shiat.  The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

I'm willing to bet that secretly, a large percentage of the US State Department wishes the Chinese would invade North Korea from across the Yalu and get it over with. Come to think of it, that would solve some problems pretty much overnight.


I used to be more sympathetic to this hope, but given China's fairly recent revisionism that argues much of NK is actually part of China, I find the prospect offensive. The Korean peninsula is Korean. Not Chinese, not Japanese, not Russian, not Jurchen - KOREAN.
 
2013-03-07 11:06:01 AM  

hardinparamedic: doglover: Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.

Tsar Bomba is also the prime example of why a single, immensely powerful weapon is not as good as multiple smaller yield, but overlapping targeted MIRV impacts.

7 475kT warheads will do more damage to a large city than a single massive nuclear bomb could ever hope.


But the USSR plan was always to overlap BIG weapons.

Their nuclear strike map of London looked like a flower made of many overlapping circles. Each one, a nuclear warhead of varying size.
 
2013-03-07 11:06:09 AM  

Danack: BillCo: The only reason they continue to support them is because they know it annoys the rest of the free world.

No, look at a map.

Beijing is about 500km from China's border with North Korea. If the Koreas are ever re-united, they will probably be dominated politically by the Southern politicians, who may allow the US to station troops (or more likely short range missiles) within range of the Chinese capital.

That's the reason why China is supporting the North Korean regime.


I always thought one of the reasons was that if they (China) stop giving aid to Best Korea, the leadership will panic and need something to distract / kill off a large part of their population before they go feral a.s.a.p and voila! War with South Korea!

Then they have to deal with another destabilized war zone being invaded by US troops, this time right next to the east coast of China which is their most productive economic region. Who'd want that? Then there's the danger of things escalating between the US and China for some stupid reason.

/We should all be giving that fat little shiat money to avoid a war. Or at least stop condemning China so harshly for saving us all a lot of blood and treasure.
 
2013-03-07 11:06:10 AM  

theresnothinglft: doglover: ferretman: doglover: ferretman: you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

ಠ_ಠ

Have you never heard of Ohio? the midwest?

:)
Best Korea's ballistic missile technology can not reach that far...yet.

Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.

Then we'd have mutant corn attacking Kansas and we wouldn't want that.


Children of the Corn would rule the country.
 
2013-03-07 11:07:12 AM  

theresnothinglft: doglover: ferretman: doglover: ferretman: you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

ಠ_ಠ

Have you never heard of Ohio? the midwest?

:)
Best Korea's ballistic missile technology can not reach that far...yet.

Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.

Then we'd have mutant corn attacking Kansas and we wouldn't want that.


www.i-mockery.com

Speak for yourself.
 
2013-03-07 11:07:50 AM  
i276.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 11:08:02 AM  

doglover: hardinparamedic: doglover: Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.

Tsar Bomba is also the prime example of why a single, immensely powerful weapon is not as good as multiple smaller yield, but overlapping targeted MIRV impacts.

7 475kT warheads will do more damage to a large city than a single massive nuclear bomb could ever hope.

But the USSR plan was always to overlap BIG weapons.

Their nuclear strike map of London looked like a flower made of many overlapping circles. Each one, a nuclear warhead of varying size.


It's really because they couldn't be sure they were accurate enough with a nuke to actually HIT a city. So they had to use a dozen just to make sure.
 
2013-03-07 11:08:50 AM  

mbillips: hardinparamedic: mbillips: I think you underestimate how poorly overseen Chinese regional authorities are. Throw enough cash at a Chinese bureaucrat, sell him some believable story about how you're smuggling spies or blood diamonds or something, and your container whisks straight through. And once it's in the legitimate trade pipeline, just about nobody checks on it other than to scan the bar code. Obama has increased container inspections, but it's still a VERY porous barrier.

I  think you highly overestimate the technological prowess of the North Koreans in this. Their technology level is basically pre-level of the Trinity Shot that US did in 1945, and they have no viable weapon - strategic or tactical - deployed in any capacity with any delivery mechanism at this time.

Oh, I don't think they're a big threat; I'm just saying the container ship threat is real for anyone with a compact nuke. And any idiot with access to sufficiently enriched uranium can make a Little Boy-style shotgun nuke, which would fit just fine inside a shipping container with a believable cover story. The original weighed less than 10,000 pounds; you could say you were smuggling stolen cars and get it onto a legit ship with just a few bribes. (This is how stolen cars get distributed around the world, btw).

Do I think North Korea PLANS to nuke anyone? Of course not. They're screwy, but not that screwy. I think they want a nuke for the same reason that Pakistan has one and Iran wants one: it makes you George W. Bush-proof.


Why aren't you working for the NK military, clearly you know how easy it is to smuggle a nuke from NK to San Francisco.
 
2013-03-07 11:09:03 AM  
That's not how you threaten a nuclear war, THIS is how you threaten nuclear war!

1032, between 1945 and 1998 the U.S. alone detonated 1,032 nuclear bombs just to show the world, yes, we're that farking crazy.
 
2013-03-07 11:09:08 AM  

theresnothinglft: doglover: ferretman: doglover: ferretman: you obviously no nothing about nuclear weapons. Best Korea doesn't have tactical battlefield nukes (which would cause small casualties. They would have something similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki...you'd be talking high 5 figure deaths at a a minimum.

ಠ_ಠ

Have you never heard of Ohio? the midwest?

:)
Best Korea's ballistic missile technology can not reach that far...yet.

Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.

Then we'd have mutant corn attacking Kansas and we wouldn't want that.


Why not?
 
2013-03-07 11:09:09 AM  
I think it's time we just wiped out that other side of the world. I mean, who needs it? I never go there, and we've got plenty of Chinese restaurants here.
 
2013-03-07 11:10:48 AM  

Avery614: That's not how you threaten a nuclear war, THIS is how you threaten nuclear war!

1032, between 1945 and 1998 the U.S. alone detonated 1,032 nuclear bombs just to show the world, yes, we're that farking crazy.


The opening slide to that Youtube video made my head hurt from how hard I facepalmed.

/WHERE HAS ALL THE RADIATION GONE! *facepalm*
 
2013-03-07 11:11:16 AM  

mbillips: hardinparamedic: mbillips: I think you underestimate how poorly overseen Chinese regional authorities are. Throw enough cash at a Chinese bureaucrat, sell him some believable story about how you're smuggling spies or blood diamonds or something, and your container whisks straight through. And once it's in the legitimate trade pipeline, just about nobody checks on it other than to scan the bar code. Obama has increased container inspections, but it's still a VERY porous barrier.

I  think you highly overestimate the technological prowess of the North Koreans in this. Their technology level is basically pre-level of the Trinity Shot that US did in 1945, and they have no viable weapon - strategic or tactical - deployed in any capacity with any delivery mechanism at this time.

Oh, I don't think they're a big threat; I'm just saying the container ship threat is real for anyone with a compact nuke. And any idiot with access to sufficiently enriched uranium can make a Little Boy-style shotgun nuke, which would fit just fine inside a shipping container with a believable cover story. The original weighed less than 10,000 pounds; you could say you were smuggling stolen cars and get it onto a legit ship with just a few bribes. (This is how stolen cars get distributed around the world, btw).

Do I think North Korea PLANS to nuke anyone? Of course not. They're screwy, but not that screwy. I think they want a nuke for the same reason that Pakistan has one and Iran wants one: it makes you George W. Bush-proof.


Pakistan has a nuke because of India - the US didn't even figure into their decision to get one.
 
2013-03-07 11:13:47 AM  

Avery614: That's not how you threaten a nuclear war, THIS is how you threaten nuclear war!

1032, between 1945 and 1998 the U.S. alone detonated 1,032 nuclear bombs just to show the world, yes, we're that farking crazy.


Too much derp in that version of the video.
 
2013-03-07 11:14:15 AM  

vygramul: doglover: hardinparamedic: doglover: Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.

Tsar Bomba is also the prime example of why a single, immensely powerful weapon is not as good as multiple smaller yield, but overlapping targeted MIRV impacts.

7 475kT warheads will do more damage to a large city than a single massive nuclear bomb could ever hope.

But the USSR plan was always to overlap BIG weapons.

Their nuclear strike map of London looked like a flower made of many overlapping circles. Each one, a nuclear warhead of varying size.

It's really because they couldn't be sure they were accurate enough with a nuke to actually HIT a city. So they had to use a dozen just to make sure.


It was more like 30.

But yeah, the US has super accurate stuff with minimal earth shattering kaboom. The Russians have all bite and no barking guidance.

Together, we could wipe Venus right the fark off the map.
 
2013-03-07 11:16:13 AM  
* Yes, North Korea is most likely bluffing.
* Yes, they would certainly lose the war... unless they get a whole crap load of countries on their side... unlikely.

However... North Korea could kill many thousands of American and South Koreans. They are the most militarized (per capita) nation in the world... even without nukes or high tech equipment 1 million war readied brain washed Koreans streaming over the border would lead to massive death in the South from both sides.

While we focus our resources on the world... their entire resources and planning has been focus on one small border. They could do a lot of initial damage.

We have thousands of troops there who would potentially die and thousands more who would be shipped there and die before we turned them around and won.


That's a best case scenario... worst case is other rogue nations around the world; Iran, the Taliban, perhaps even Pakistan or Zimbabwe or extremist rebels in Northern Africa use the opportunity of the world being focused elsewhere to strike.

Terror cells would be free to activate again while we are focused elsewhere.


Unlikely any of this will happen or war will occur... but don't think of north Korea as a democratic nation with same goals as the west.

It has a meglomaniac president who thinks he is invincible... a council that lick his anus. He feels trapped with his back against the wall and is in charge of a desperate situation.
 
2013-03-07 11:16:35 AM  

hardinparamedic: Avery614: That's not how you threaten a nuclear war, THIS is how you threaten nuclear war!

1032, between 1945 and 1998 the U.S. alone detonated 1,032 nuclear bombs just to show the world, yes, we're that farking crazy.

The opening slide to that Youtube video made my head hurt from how hard I facepalmed.

/WHERE HAS ALL THE RADIATION GONE! *facepalm*


41% of all Americans will develop cancer in their lifetimes.

That's where all the radiation (and the lard) went.
 
2013-03-07 11:18:00 AM  

doglover: vygramul: doglover: hardinparamedic: doglover: Yeah, but even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't kill more than like one person if it slammed into the middle of Iowa. There ain't much out there in a lot of places.

Might irradiate some corn, but that's about it.

Tsar Bomba is also the prime example of why a single, immensely powerful weapon is not as good as multiple smaller yield, but overlapping targeted MIRV impacts.

7 475kT warheads will do more damage to a large city than a single massive nuclear bomb could ever hope.

But the USSR plan was always to overlap BIG weapons.

Their nuclear strike map of London looked like a flower made of many overlapping circles. Each one, a nuclear warhead of varying size.

It's really because they couldn't be sure they were accurate enough with a nuke to actually HIT a city. So they had to use a dozen just to make sure.

It was more like 30.

But yeah, the US has super accurate stuff with minimal earth shattering kaboom. The Russians have all bite and no barking guidance.

Together, we could wipe Venus right the fark off the map.


Together, we couldn't even crack the moon Thundarr the Barbarian style, much less a whole planet. Maths and stuff.
 
2013-03-07 11:19:20 AM  

hardinparamedic: The opening slide to that Youtube video made my head hurt from how hard I facepalmed.

/WHERE HAS ALL THE RADIATION GONE! *facepalm*


Yeah I'm not sure where the music and text came from.   I couldn't find the old one that didn't have that shiat in there.
 
2013-03-07 11:21:08 AM  
You know, a good portion of our military is just sitting idle. It would be a shame if we didn't have a new proving ground for our latest toys.
 
2013-03-07 11:22:47 AM  

neongoats:

Together, we couldn't even crack the moon Thundarr the Barbarian style, much less a whole planet. Maths and stuff.


A colleague of mine once had to calculate what would happen if you hit the earth with a nuclear weapon going at some near-c speed. The effect of the nuclear weapon was inside the error margin, and the tensile strength of the earth became an issue.

So, yeah, as powerful as nukes are, they're really not THAT kind of powerful.
 
2013-03-07 11:25:52 AM  
Best Korea just wants to play StarCraft with rest of the world.
 
2013-03-07 11:27:05 AM  

neongoats: Together, we couldn't even crack the moon Thundarr the Barbarian style, much less a whole planet. Maths and stuff.


Math, you say?
 
2013-03-07 11:29:51 AM  
Red Korea needs food badly.
 
2013-03-07 11:37:48 AM  
"Intercontinental ballistic missiles and various other missiles, which have already set their striking targets, are now armed with lighter, smaller and diversified nuclear warheads and are placed on a standby status," Kang said.

images.sodahead.com
 
2013-03-07 11:37:56 AM  
let me get this straight, one successful launch and one successful nuclear test and they're jumping straight to threats of nuking washington?

that implies that they think one launch equates to having a capable ICBM and that the nuclear test was presumably of a weapon small enough to fit on it. If that's the case then they know they'd likely have one chance to use it so go big or go home. true, they'd elicit a response going for south korea or other US assets in the pacific, but they know they won't survive retaliation. Thus, wanting to fire on the US capitol in an attempt to do the most damage would make sense, and also double as the strongest threat they could possibly make.

ultimately though, it's silly to me that their response for sanctions against nuclear development is to threaten nuclear action. gee I wonder why those sanctions are there to begin with, they're obviously a hostile, unreasonable country desperate to acquire the same deterrents as nuclear-armed countries. I see it as a bargaining chip that hopefully doesn't amount to actual war, but they're definitely not going to win any favors at the UN acting like this.
 
2013-03-07 11:39:02 AM  
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 11:49:43 AM  

vygramul: PunGent: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

Problem I see is they don't really need an ICBM if they have cargo freighters; not THAT hard to get a dirty bomb near our coastline, upwind.

A dirty bomb isn't a terribly useful weapon.

And there are reasons countries generally develop missiles rather than arming stealth cargo containers, and it's not because missiles look more like penises.


Not a useful weapon for a RATIONAL opponent.  Not sure that's the case here...
 
2013-03-07 12:07:40 PM  
FTFA: The vote Thursday by the U.N.'s most powerful body on a resolution drafted by North Korea's closest ally, China,

YOU DUN GOOF'D, UN!
 
2013-03-07 12:12:52 PM  

WinoRhino: So now is probably not the time I should be heading to Hawaii for a vacation, huh? Although, front-row seats on the fail might be fun.


Bring a lot of sunscreen.

SubBass49: I'm not exactly a pro-war guy, but I'd love to see China stand off to the side and say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own...take your best shot USA, we're not getting involved." Just park a few destroyers and carriers off the coast and light the damn place up like the 4th of July. Make sure we've got a STABLE shadow government waiting in the wings.

Then reunification, etc.


The problem with that is...what do we DO with several million liberated North Koreans?  I can't imagine the culture shock.  The only power in the region (or the *world*) who could help them transition to a "freer" lifestyle would be the Chinese.  I realize that's not saying much, but at least there's a cultural link, so I'd think the shock/reaction from the North Koreans wouldn't be as drastic.

But, I'm not a foreign affairs specialist, so what do I know.
 
2013-03-07 12:14:04 PM  
Give it your best shot North Korea!  We will bomb you back into the stone age, or 2 weeks ago, which ever is greater....
 
2013-03-07 12:14:20 PM  
"NUKE 'EM JONG-UN STYLE!"
 
2013-03-07 12:14:24 PM  
OK now, time to fess up.  Which one of you made this phoney support group for North Korea as indicated on the official NK news agency web site?

DPRK's Underground Nuclear Test Supported by American OrganizationPyongyang, March 6 (KCNA) -- The U.S. Institute for Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism Studies on Feb. 23 sent a letter to the Pyongyang mission of the Anti-Imperialist National Democratic Front hailing the third underground nuclear test in the DPRK.The letter extended warm congratulations to the Korean people on their successful third nuclear test.
Through the nuclear test, the DPRK showed the world that it is a powerful country which never yields to other's pressure, the letter said, and went on:
We fully support the DPRK's legitimate exercise of its sovereignty.
Now is the time for the people of the U.S. to pressurize the government to make a switchover in its policy towards the DPRK, put a definite end to the Korean War and contribute to ensuring peace of the Korean Peninsula.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:17 PM  

Caelistis: my lip balm addiction: Caelistis: As long as they wipe out Seattle, I'm good.

Hey! fark you with a rusty rake!

That's exactly what living in Seattle feels like. It would be no great loss.


latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-07 12:16:42 PM  

xanadian: WinoRhino: So now is probably not the time I should be heading to Hawaii for a vacation, huh? Although, front-row seats on the fail might be fun.

Bring a lot of sunscreen.

SubBass49: I'm not exactly a pro-war guy, but I'd love to see China stand off to the side and say, "Sorry guys, you're on your own...take your best shot USA, we're not getting involved." Just park a few destroyers and carriers off the coast and light the damn place up like the 4th of July. Make sure we've got a STABLE shadow government waiting in the wings.

Then reunification, etc.

The problem with that is...what do we DO with several million liberated North Koreans?  I can't imagine the culture shock.  The only power in the region (or the *world*) who could help them transition to a "freer" lifestyle would be the Chinese.  I realize that's not saying much, but at least there's a cultural link, so I'd think the shock/reaction from the North Koreans wouldn't be as drastic.

But, I'm not a foreign affairs specialist, so what do I know.


Or, you know, South Koreans. Who share a language and culture going back to the Stone Age with them. Who are very rich and developed, and have been working on reintegration plans since the Armistice.
 
2013-03-07 12:25:59 PM  
They're going to send this guy at 5 o'clock

pics.imcdb.org
 
2013-03-07 12:59:12 PM  

Lost Thought 00: ou know, a good portion of our military is just sitting idle. It would be a shame if we didn't have a new proving ground for our latest toys.


since dugway is less than 50 miles from me i say, nuclear kim-chi for all!
 
2013-03-07 01:11:28 PM  

PunGent: vygramul: PunGent: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

Problem I see is they don't really need an ICBM if they have cargo freighters; not THAT hard to get a dirty bomb near our coastline, upwind.

A dirty bomb isn't a terribly useful weapon.

And there are reasons countries generally develop missiles rather than arming stealth cargo containers, and it's not because missiles look more like penises.

Not a useful weapon for a RATIONAL opponent.  Not sure that's the case here...


Well that's just because you're stupid.
 
2013-03-07 01:15:45 PM  
Does North Korea actually offer anything a real value to China? North Korea always reminds me of that playground toady who hides behind the school bully and shouts taunts at you knowing the bully has got his back.

It would be interesting to see how quickly their tune would change if one day China said "You know what asshole? You're on you're own".
 
2013-03-07 01:19:13 PM  
I realize it is nothing but sabre-rattling, but this shiat has got to end. I have family living in Washington D.C.
fark this guy. Does the United States not have assassins?
 
2013-03-07 01:26:56 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I realize it is nothing but sabre-rattling, but this shiat has got to end. I have family living in Washington D.C.
fark this guy. Does the United States not have assassins?


We did, but Rand Paul just spend the night fillibustering against them
 
2013-03-07 01:27:21 PM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


Hell, they can't even make a decent car. What makes you think they can get an ICBM across the Pacific to the US mainland?

Fark 'em. Let 'em starve.
 
2013-03-07 01:33:11 PM  
Never underestimate your opponent.
 
2013-03-07 01:40:46 PM  

ferretman: Never underestimate your opponent.


They would really not need much to start some real trouble. They could load a rocket with some overripe kimchee instead of a warhead and fire it at Tokyo, the Japaneses would go completely crazy.
 
2013-03-07 01:47:21 PM  
I say NK is in some deep trouble if China voted for the sanctions along with everyone else.  What it mean when your only real ally in the area turns on you like that.
 
2013-03-07 01:53:15 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.


Yes.  Bush invented them.  Good point.
 
2013-03-07 01:54:53 PM  

Lost Thought 00: HellRaisingHoosier: I realize it is nothing but sabre-rattling, but this shiat has got to end. I have family living in Washington D.C.
fark this guy. Does the United States not have assassins?

We did, but Rand Paul just spend the night fillibustering against them


Kim Jong Un already a citizen? Wow, they really are letting anyone in.
 
2013-03-07 02:00:51 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: DanInKansas: Love the Bush hate on the thread.  Because you know, for the thousands of years civilization has existed, no armed power ever threatened anyone else with a pre-emptive attack or invented a reason to go to war out of thin air.   And certainly before Bush there were never any power mad dictators who got too big for their britches with inevitable results.

So you admit Bush was a power mad dictator...


And how was he a dictator?
 
2013-03-07 02:22:29 PM  

JackieRabbit: Scary, Subby? I see you don't know much about North Korea. They posture like this in response to our posturing to them -- which is precisely what our joint exercises with South Korea is. We go through this every few years as a prelude to some negotiation. We've been playing this stupid game with them for 60 years. Their beloved leader has to do what is expected of him, but he isn't stupid enough to launch a nuclear weapon at the US (even if he had a vehicle capable of this, which he doesn't). China would would roar over his his boarder within days and Russia, China and the US would wipe every major NK city off the map in retaliation.


Eh-yup. And people gave me crap when I pointed out that our 'military exercise' was doing this instead of, say, actually using our time and resources to get work done.

/On the other hand, does anyone in North Korea actually understand that we really, really do not want to ever use our nukes? Like, there is nobody in America who's waking up and saying "What a great day to start nuclear warfare!".  Nobody is going to farking nuke you, you lunatic.
 
2013-03-07 02:28:56 PM  
so unlikely, it's more likely they'll blow themselves up first
 
2013-03-07 02:45:52 PM  
Although all the posturing nonsense can be fun, this could actually turn out very badly. To keep the peace, it may be wise to encourage China to take care of this. They tell NK they want to help them build up their forces and offer to send a million troops and the Chinese military equipment, and then when they get there, they just go, "Surprise!", and just capture the country.
 
2013-03-07 02:50:09 PM  

SnarfVader: And here I thought it would be Gandhi that got us:

[i212.photobucket.com image 640x400]


They already made that movie.
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
No more Mr. Passive Resistance!
 
2013-03-07 02:52:48 PM  

vygramul: And there are reasons countries generally develop missiles rather than arming stealth cargo containers, and it's not

only because missiles look more like penises.

FTFY.
 
2013-03-07 02:58:03 PM  

s1ugg0: BadChipmunk: A single Ohio-class submarine could launch one of its 24 Trident missiles which contains 4x 475kt MIRV warheads and it would all be over in minutes. That same submarine could really just wipe out the top 24 population centers in NK without any real issue, then sail home and have a banana sandwich.

Wait, wait, wait.  What is a banana sandwich and where do I get one?


I guess you're not a big fan of  The King.
upload.wikimedia.org
Just be sure to love it tender.
 
2013-03-07 03:08:12 PM  
Invading Best Korea would be like invading mainland Japan during WWII....a very big mess for everyone involved. The concern also is that any 'war' could spread to the surrounding countries...which would be bad.
 
2013-03-07 03:29:11 PM  
Where's the fox news warning?

My record of now having never visited their site or tuning into their broadcasts is now gone.
 
2013-03-07 03:34:54 PM  

tom baker's scarf: Even as a card carrying liberal (it's an expression, I don't have a card) this is the kind of statement that gets me in a bombthebastardsbecausewecan kind of mood.  We're not talking about them counterfeiting US currency, selling weapons, or producing heroin anymore.  Nuclear strike is not something you get to trot out in a pissing contest.  The consequences of that action or the threat of that action are too severe to be the plaything of a fat, petulant, hyper-privileged manboy.


Why bomb them?

Wouldn't drones do the job just as well with fewer civilian casualties?
 
2013-03-07 03:44:21 PM  

kg2095: tom baker's scarf: Even as a card carrying liberal (it's an expression, I don't have a card) this is the kind of statement that gets me in a bombthebastardsbecausewecan kind of mood.  We're not talking about them counterfeiting US currency, selling weapons, or producing heroin anymore.  Nuclear strike is not something you get to trot out in a pissing contest.  The consequences of that action or the threat of that action are too severe to be the plaything of a fat, petulant, hyper-privileged manboy.

Why bomb them?

Wouldn't drones do the job just as well with fewer civilian casualties?


But Drones aren't manly and shiat. Hell, they probably train women to fly them.
 
2013-03-07 03:47:07 PM  
This is just North Korea's way of asking for more food for the starving people of their country.
 
2013-03-07 03:54:02 PM  
This is China seeing how much they can threaten the US while also looking like they are punishing their puppet NK.
 
2013-03-07 04:27:18 PM  
Just going to give my two cents here...

1. Even through our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Defense has had higher budgets and more innovations implemented than our offensive systems the last couple decades. Even if lil kim wanted to fire a ICBM, we would likely blow it out of the sky on the first shot... If not, there are fail-safes.

2. North Korea knows that any publicity is good publicity. Threats against the U.S. have obviously been more newsworthy than other forms of PR. With this constant stream of publicity comes the stories of the hungry nation, and private food donations arrive.

3. As vocal as they are, the press and our government are aware that there is little risk involved with the norths threats, but they are a worthy distraction from other, more devastating issues.

America is a worry state. We are kinda messed up in this regard. We have to have something to worry about and overcome. It's what keeps us sane in our day to day lives. With advancements within our society, we would worry ourselves to death over the little things, and our internal conflicts amongst each other would be far more damaging. Common enemy and whatnot
 
2013-03-07 04:41:11 PM  
I don't remember who it was, but there was some American general who said he didn't understand all the fuss about a nuclear exchange. He reasoned that only between something on the order of 25 to 50 million people would die and rebuilding would be either fairly simple or downright unnecessary (something like turn it into a memorial site and move elsewhere).

When the bombs fall, you just have to have the luck of not being where they hit. Or near where they hit. Or downwind of where they hit. Or consuming foods and water originating in areas in, near, or downwind of where they hit. Or...well, whatever. Maybe it would be better to be at ground zero of one of the exchange sites after all.

Also, maybe NK is confusing Washington, DC with Washington state in terms of range? They can't hit us today. Who knows what's possible in another fifty years, though. I do believe that someday a nation whose people hold grudges worse than the catty lady at the office is going to take revenge in a truly catastrophic manner. Good thing we'll be dead before that happens.
 
2013-03-07 05:11:46 PM  

AnythingBacon: 1. Even through our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Defense has had higher budgets and more innovations implemented than our offensive systems the last couple decades. Even if lil kim wanted to fire a ICBM, we would likely blow it out of the sky on the first shot... If not, there are fail-safes.


I'm not disagreeing with you but what do you mean by "If not, there are fail-safes"?
 
2013-03-07 05:19:21 PM  

Homer Elmer: So when will the U.S. take these threats seriously? Why aren't we at like DEFCON 2 or something? Is it just because we think they are full of shiat? Yeah we are pretty sure they don't have the capability of launching an ICBM at us, but we been wrong before. After all we were damned sure Iraq had WMD's that we never found.

I guess it's because we are used to their ramblings


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#200 9 _Declaration

They had WMD in the form of chemical weapons. These were in storage. Their production facilities had been destroyed prior to the war. I thought this was common knowledge but people keep claiming that no WMDs were found in Iraq an that is simply not true.
 
2013-03-07 05:42:15 PM  

UnspokenVoice: They had WMD in the form of chemical weapons. These were in storage. Their production facilities had been destroyed prior to the war. I thought this was common knowledge but people keep claiming that no WMDs were found in Iraq an that is simply not true.


denver.mylittlefacewhen.com

The WMDs that WERE found were 20 years old, and in no condition to be used. The Binary agents within them had degraded so much that the weapons only posed a danger to the ones who tried to handle them, and Sadaam had actually complied with the destruction treaties.

THAT SAID. Sadaam was an epic troll. He knew the only way he could continue to have the favor of countries in the Middle East and beyond was to give the finger to the Americans, and he did this by threatening and posturing. He was too good at his role. When the time came to prove to the world that his bluff had been called, it was too late.
 
2013-03-07 05:52:54 PM  
So I can expect another episode to The Adventures of Kim Jong Un?
 
2013-03-07 06:01:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: UnspokenVoice: They had WMD in the form of chemical weapons. These were in storage. Their production facilities had been destroyed prior to the war. I thought this was common knowledge but people keep claiming that no WMDs were found in Iraq an that is simply not true.

[denver.mylittlefacewhen.com image 499x321]

The WMDs that WERE found were 20 years old, and in no condition to be used. The Binary agents within them had degraded so much that the weapons only posed a danger to the ones who tried to handle them, and Sadaam had actually complied with the destruction treaties.

THAT SAID. Sadaam was an epic troll. He knew the only way he could continue to have the favor of countries in the Middle East and beyond was to give the finger to the Americans, and he did this by threatening and posturing. He was too good at his role. When the time came to prove to the world that his bluff had been called, it was too late.


We'll just move the goal posts for you then... To state that they weren't found is false but you're free to cling to your lie if you want. It matters not to me what lies you cling to and even as it stands I don't think we should have gone to war in Iraq.
 
2013-03-07 06:20:37 PM  
Has anyone considered the possibility that Un's advisors told him that they "technically" could launch a missile against Washington and he misunderstood them? Like, maybe they have misunderstood and thought that "Washington" (State) and "Washington" (D.C.) were the same place?

/would be the most embarrassing thing ever if it were true.
 
2013-03-07 06:36:02 PM  

washington-babylon: Has anyone considered the possibility that Un's advisors told him that they "technically" could launch a missile against Washington and he misunderstood them? Like, maybe they have misunderstood and thought that "Washington" (State) and "Washington" (D.C.) were the same place?

/would be the most embarrassing thing ever if it were true.


Reminds me that Osama bin Laden thought ALL world trade went though the World Trade Center and taking it out would grind trade to a halt. I'm sure he was a little let down and I bought a can of coffee the next day..
 
2013-03-07 06:58:09 PM  

uber humper: AnythingBacon: 1. Even through our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Defense has had higher budgets and more innovations implemented than our offensive systems the last couple decades. Even if lil kim wanted to fire a ICBM, we would likely blow it out of the sky on the first shot... If not, there are fail-safes.

I'm not disagreeing with you but what do you mean by "If not, there are fail-safes"?


There is more than one level of missile defense. With radar, we'd probably get two shots, maybe three at it before it hits. But I'm assuming we have 24/7 surveillance of those guys and probably advanced intel, so my assumption is we'd get closer to 5 or 6 shots to hit it out of the sky and probably have it down long before it gets anywhere near.

I also work under an assumption of crazy conspiracy nut and our defense network for intercontinental attack is crazy good. All of the attacks here on the homeland have all been inside jobs in the sense of origin, material and plan of execution. Pearl Harbor wasn't even continental, all be it, that was a different age. Never heard of any ICBM hitting us or even getting close is all I'm saying.
 
2013-03-07 07:08:45 PM  
Go ahead Best Korea try it. I wanna see how long it takes before you wake up and find a navy seal in your oatmeal.
 
2013-03-07 07:09:20 PM  

GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.


They put a rocket into orbit.  All they'd have to do is set one on a sub-orbital trajectory and theoretically they could hit Maine.
 
2013-03-07 07:13:39 PM  

spentmiles: We should chopper into North Korea, kidnap The Dear Eater, and take him to a warehouse set-up with video equipment.  We then start the cameras rolling and record Dolf Lundgren pulling down Fatty's pants, bending him over his knee, and spanking him.  Then use our broadcast laser to play it on the moon, over and over again, for six weeks.  Then, carpet bomb the entire stretch of desolate shiat farms until every last soldier, civilian, and animal is dead.  Then spray radioactive fluid over every square inch.  Then delete every mention of North Korea from every book on the planet.  Then just wander around, looking at one another, knowing how awesome we are.


No, no, no, no, no, You don't ruin good land that can be used to grow the hops and barley for beer and the wheat for pretzels.
 
2013-03-07 07:29:41 PM  
wait Washington state or Washington, DC??
 
2013-03-07 07:31:20 PM  
send Geddy Lee or Alex Lifeson, but NOT neal pert
 
2013-03-07 07:38:08 PM  

Daercoma: [img.photobucket.com image 300x225]
SUBASS49 You inspired me.


Haha...pretty good!

"**mumbling quietly** B..b...but last time they told me I'd get to have some yellow-cake, but then they ran out of cake...b...b....bb....but I want some yellow-cake....

...I'm gonna burn the world down..."
 
2013-03-07 07:38:58 PM  

UnspokenVoice: We'll just move the goal posts for you then... To state that they weren't found is false but you're free to cling to your lie if you want. It matters not to me what lies you cling to and even as it stands I don't think we should have gone to war in Iraq.


Ah. I see. "Moving the Goalpost". Right.

Do you know what the fallacist's fallacy is?

In that event, and using that justification, we need to have a multinational coalition invade America for the same thing. Since, you know, we have 40 year old WMDs still in existance. Despite the fact we can't use them in any way. And they pose more of a danger to our Chemical Corps disposal specialists than they do anyone else.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam was the epic troll that every FARKer and 4channer dreams of being.
 
2013-03-07 07:51:19 PM  

AnythingBacon: uber humper: AnythingBacon: 1. Even through our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Defense has had higher budgets and more innovations implemented than our offensive systems the last couple decades. Even if lil kim wanted to fire a ICBM, we would likely blow it out of the sky on the first shot... If not, there are fail-safes.

I'm not disagreeing with you but what do you mean by "If not, there are fail-safes"?

There is more than one level of missile defense. With radar, we'd probably get two shots, maybe three at it before it hits. But I'm assuming we have 24/7 surveillance of those guys and probably advanced intel, so my assumption is we'd get closer to 5 or 6 shots to hit it out of the sky and probably have it down long before it gets anywhere near.

I also work under an assumption of crazy conspiracy nut and our defense network for intercontinental attack is crazy good. All of the attacks here on the homeland have all been inside jobs in the sense of origin, material and plan of execution. Pearl Harbor wasn't even continental, all be it, that was a different age. Never heard of any ICBM hitting us or even getting close is all I'm saying.


Our military has never revealed anything that has a chance of shooting down an ICBM. They're too fast.
 
2013-03-07 07:58:13 PM  

SuperChuck: Our military has never revealed anything that has a chance of shooting down an ICBM. They're too fast.


Thankfully, they've never had to. Although systems are in place that have been successful in tests, and theatre ABM systems that are proven against IRBMs and SRBMs - like Patriot.

Interestingly enough, one of the proposed counter-launch options has been to use nuclear weapons to detonate along the re-entry path of a nuclear weapon.
 
2013-03-07 08:02:26 PM  

AnythingBacon: and probably advanced intel,


We had no intel of the last test detonation. And no Korea specialists on the administrations Asian policy team
 
2013-03-07 08:03:25 PM  
If a nuclear strike threat was actually said by officials within the state -and I'm certainly not convinced it has been said (I'll need to research and look for corroboration from other sources), then I am ok with a show of strength towards the N. Koreans in the form of sea and air superiority.  Key word being a show.  Such as popping up a nuclear sub or bomber within N. Korea's radar.

But I think it is appropriate to be skeptical of such reports.  And furthermore I think it is important to be transparent in our intentions and unambiguous with a response.

This is not an Israel/Iran type situation and I think that type of posturing should be avoided.
 
2013-03-07 08:14:19 PM  
why would North Korea bomb us?  that's where all the good Kim Chi comes from
 
2013-03-07 08:25:39 PM  
I hope Best Korea's leader realizes we most likely have drones that could intercept his nuke (assuming it gets off the launchpad) turn it around, and proceed to deliver it straight up his man-boy shiat hole.

Not saying we do, but it seems a fair possibility. Even if we didn't, I would assume a Launch-Day EMP would do the trick?

Either way Jong Un, you have  anuke we have  nukes.

You can wipe out a  city, we can wipe out your  country.

I believe that is check, and mate. Someone pour us some beers!
 
2013-03-07 08:29:24 PM  
You are all stuck in a world where you believe everything on military capability released is the optimum and final word on our true strength. I can say with much certainty that we very likely have both offensive and defensive capabilities greater than anything public knowledge. I am of a mindset that any technical breakthroughs are reported well after newer, better ones are created as to not give any intel out that we haven't already learned to counter and improve yada yada yada.

I am not a fan of believing that our best and newest systems are public knowledge whether they are or aren't. I exist in a fairly comfortable state of mind about these threats of intercontinental anything and it works for me. But honestly... Why would you give away your hand before all the chips are in the middle? That's just bad strategy, and poor tactics. Believe what makes sense to you, but seriously think about it people.
 
2013-03-07 08:40:12 PM  

I_C_Weener: Imagine if we'd sent RuPaul.


has anyone ever seen Dennis Rodman and Ru Paul in the same place?
 
2013-03-07 08:49:13 PM  
It's been a long harsh winter.  Foodstocks are running low.  Gin up some war bs and wha la....UN food appears!

Now, if only we had some way to change this dynamic?
 
2013-03-07 09:35:05 PM  

AnythingBacon: I can say with much certainty that we very likely have both offensive and defensive capabilities greater than anything public knowledge. I


I sleep well at night with this in the back of my mind. NORKs are bug shiat crazy.  We continue to allow their sickness via UN horshiat. Let them starve.  A billion man army is just a mob if they have no food.
Then we'll see just how loyal a hungry dog can be.
 
2013-03-07 09:42:14 PM  

doglover: vygramul: doglover: hardinparamedic: doglover:
......But yeah, the US has super accurate stuff with minimal earth shattering kaboom........



sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-07 10:26:31 PM  

pag1107: GiantRex: Does North Korea even have the ability to launch a nuclear missile as far as Alaska? Let alone the mainland US. I haven't really been paying attention, but I thought that most of their stuff tended to either fizzle or blow up on the launchpad.

They managed to get something into orbit, it's still up there but is believed to be tumbling and out of control.


Yes, which is why they have zero chance of hitting something with an ICBM. If you can't get a controlled orbit, you can't exactly launch and ICBM.
 
2013-03-08 04:35:00 AM  

hardinparamedic: UnspokenVoice: We'll just move the goal posts for you then... To state that they weren't found is false but you're free to cling to your lie if you want. It matters not to me what lies you cling to and even as it stands I don't think we should have gone to war in Iraq.

Ah. I see. "Moving the Goalpost". Right.

Do you know what the fallacist's fallacy is?

In that event, and using that justification, we need to have a multinational coalition invade America for the same thing. Since, you know, we have 40 year old WMDs still in existance. Despite the fact we can't use them in any way. And they pose more of a danger to our Chemical Corps disposal specialists than they do anyone else.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam was the epic troll that every FARKer and 4channer dreams of being.


Yeah, that has a great deal to do with the correction I made. Face it, you're drunk. Go home.
 
2013-03-08 11:14:31 AM  

AnythingBacon: You are all stuck in a world where you believe everything on military capability released is the optimum and final word on our true strength. I can say with much certainty that we very likely have both offensive and defensive capabilities greater than anything public knowledge. I am of a mindset that any technical breakthroughs are reported well after newer, better ones are created as to not give any intel out that we haven't already learned to counter and improve yada yada yada.

I am not a fan of believing that our best and newest systems are public knowledge whether they are or aren't. I exist in a fairly comfortable state of mind about these threats of intercontinental anything and it works for me. But honestly... Why would you give away your hand before all the chips are in the middle? That's just bad strategy, and poor tactics. Believe what makes sense to you, but seriously think about it people.


QFT
 
2013-03-08 12:22:41 PM  

hardinparamedic: SuperChuck: Our military has never revealed anything that has a chance of shooting down an ICBM. They're too fast.

Thankfully, they've never had to. Although systems are in place that have been successful in tests, and theatre ABM systems that are proven against IRBMs and SRBMs - like Patriot.

Interestingly enough, one of the proposed counter-launch options has been to use nuclear weapons to detonate along the re-entry path of a nuclear weapon.


www.thocp.net

Here's them doing the simulations of that concept.
 
2013-03-08 02:15:52 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Isn't that kind of like a guy standing in the middle of the street with a pellet gun surrounded by swat, threatening to shoot everyone dead. Ok then N Korea.....draw.


NK throws in their best paper clip slingshot guy. Not Jumbo PC's either- standard.
 
2013-03-09 09:27:16 AM  
i3.ytimg.com
There's a red thingy moving toward the green thingy.
 
Displayed 277 of 277 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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