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 60
    More: Scary, Dennis Rodman, North Koreans, United States, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, international sanctions, nuclear wars, U.N. Security Council, ballistic missiles  
•       •       •

10589 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-03-07 08:48:17 AM
6 votes:
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 08:42:33 AM
5 votes:
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 08:38:12 AM
5 votes:
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 08:28:00 AM
4 votes:
Thanks, Dubya. Pre-emptive strikes as foreign policy were a really great idea.

NOT.
2013-03-07 08:51:06 AM
3 votes:

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 08:34:34 AM
3 votes:
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 01:33:11 PM
2 votes:
Never underestimate your opponent.
2013-03-07 10:03:30 AM
2 votes:

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 09:08:56 AM
2 votes:
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 09:01:05 AM
2 votes:

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 08:41:25 AM
2 votes:

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 08:32:58 AM
2 votes:
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 08:31:44 AM
2 votes:

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 08:27:56 AM
2 votes:
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 07:58:13 PM
1 votes:

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 07:13:39 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:41:11 PM
1 votes:
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 04:27:18 PM
1 votes:
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 02:45:52 PM
1 votes:
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 02:22:29 PM
1 votes:

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 01:15:45 PM
1 votes:
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 12:16:42 PM
1 votes:

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 11:18:00 AM
1 votes:

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 11:16:35 AM
1 votes:

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 11:11:16 AM
1 votes:

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 11:08:50 AM
1 votes:

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 11:07:12 AM
1 votes:

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 11:01:47 AM
1 votes:

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 10:50:07 AM
1 votes:
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 10:48:18 AM
1 votes:
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 10:46:52 AM
1 votes:

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 10:41:24 AM
1 votes:
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 10:35:53 AM
1 votes:

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 10:17:32 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:42 AM
1 votes:
img.photobucket.com
SUBASS49 You inspired me.
2013-03-07 09:56:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:51:32 AM
1 votes:
i280.photobucket.com
2013-03-07 09:48:53 AM
1 votes:

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 09:45:46 AM
1 votes:

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 09:41:36 AM
1 votes:

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 09:41:15 AM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
imghumour.com
2013-03-07 09:37:20 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:01 AM
1 votes:
Best Korea:
www.nicklasholmgren.com

They think they want our attention. They don't.
2013-03-07 09:26:14 AM
1 votes:

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 09:23:55 AM
1 votes:

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 09:09:56 AM
1 votes:
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 08:49:48 AM
1 votes:
LOL.  They aren't even close to having that capability.  It's like a farking yappy dog, quite annoying.
2013-03-07 08:49:25 AM
1 votes:
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 08:48:47 AM
1 votes:
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.
Skr
2013-03-07 08:47:16 AM
1 votes:
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 08:46:07 AM
1 votes:
I don't think the current version of Photoshop has enough power to reach the US mainland, so probably nothing to worry about.
2013-03-07 08:43:58 AM
1 votes:
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 08:43:24 AM
1 votes:
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 08:40:42 AM
1 votes:

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 08:37:55 AM
1 votes:

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 08:37:28 AM
1 votes:
A pre-emptive strike in retaliation would be like closing the barn door after the cows come home.
2013-03-07 08:36:35 AM
1 votes:

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 08:30:04 AM
1 votes:
The mouse that roared.
2013-03-07 08:22:48 AM
1 votes:
Imagine if we'd sent RuPaul.
 
Displayed 60 of 60 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report