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 278
    More: Scary, Dennis Rodman, North Koreans, United States, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, international sanctions, nuclear wars, U.N. Security Council, ballistic missiles  
•       •       •

10596 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report