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.

(Uproxx)   20 Things More Likely To Happen Than North Korea Nuking The U.S   (smokingsection.uproxx.com) divider line 114
    More: Misc, North Korea, Lil Kim, Billy Dee Williams, Lupe Fiasco, Ja Rule, Suge Knight, Dennis Rodman, B.I.G.  
•       •       •

18614 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Mar 2013 at 12:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-31 01:00:57 AM

JonZoidberg: How many times does N Korea get to make threats before we pre-emptively carpet bomb Pyongyang?  If a real country made those kinds of gestures, wouldn't we respond?


www.wc-news.com
 
2013-03-31 01:03:47 AM

JonZoidberg: How many times does N Korea get to make threats before we pre-emptively carpet bomb Pyongyang?  If a real country made those kinds of gestures, wouldn't we respond?


1. Everyone knows North Korea isn't actually going to nuke the US. For many, already discussed reasons.
2. We don't generally go to war because someone "made some threats".
3. We're not going to go to war with North Korea for a host of tactical and strategic reasons, which have been discussed at length.
4. While we have kind of a history of being dicks to the world, I don't think even the US would initiate an armed conflict because a guy hurt our collective feelings in a press release.
5. "Pre-emptive" wars haven't worked out too well for us in the recent past.
6. Indiscriminately bombing Pyongyang would not do anything to harm North Korea's nuclear capacity (in this case, the fictional launch capability they have to supposedly nuke us). It would, however, be certain to ensure the enmity of every regional power (including South Korea), except maybe Japan.

In conclusion, you should probably feel bad about that post, Doctor.
 
2013-03-31 01:06:38 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-31 01:07:16 AM
Submitter, what you've just linked to is one of the most insanely un-funny links I have ever read. At no point in that rambling, incoherent slide show was it close to anything that could be considered creatively witty or humorous. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. You are awarded no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2013-03-31 01:08:14 AM

DemDave: That list might be funny if I actually understood the many rap references.


At first I thought that, then I realized it would probably be just as lame if I knew who half those people were or what the reference meant.

Do people still listen to rap music? Has there actually been any original rap since 1989?
 
2013-03-31 01:08:25 AM

TheTranceFan: I'm not part of the TF super-race, so I'm kinda over here wondering how stuff like this gets greenlighted. Anyway care to shed some light?


This site has some sort of agreement with Fark that requires the modmins to post their shiatty articles. Drew would apparently rather the anonymous submitter collective take the blame for inflicting these links instead of Fark announcing that these are paid placements.
 
2013-03-31 01:10:17 AM

LesserEvil: Do people still listen to rap music? Has there actually been any original rap since 1989?


Nope. No one in civilization listens to rap, nor has any new music of that genre been recorded in the intervening 24 years. Good observation. You should write for Uproxx.
 
2013-03-31 01:18:12 AM
Where da funny?

Da funny, where it at?
 
2013-03-31 01:19:03 AM
So a bunch of hip hop gangsta shiat, basically? Not where I expected that article to go..
 
2013-03-31 01:20:27 AM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: JosephFinn: Look, sue me, but the Bille Dee Williams line was funny.

I'm going to need some contact information for your lawyer.


This. You're probably looking at a class action law suit.
 
2013-03-31 01:22:39 AM
The list was dumb.  However, this .gif made me LOL:

i63.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-31 01:27:43 AM

alwaysjaded: I now pronounce this link deslidefied!


I appreciate your effort, but a deslidefied list of shiat is, in essence, still composed of shiat.
 
2013-03-31 01:29:02 AM

Cagey B: JonZoidberg: How many times does N Korea get to make threats before we pre-emptively carpet bomb Pyongyang?  If a real country made those kinds of gestures, wouldn't we respond?

1. Everyone knows North Korea isn't actually going to nuke the US. For many, already discussed reasons.
2. We don't generally go to war because someone "made some threats".
3. We're not going to go to war with North Korea for a host of tactical and strategic reasons, which have been discussed at length.
4. While we have kind of a history of being dicks to the world, I don't think even the US would initiate an armed conflict because a guy hurt our collective feelings in a press release.
5. "Pre-emptive" wars haven't worked out too well for us in the recent past.
6. Indiscriminately bombing Pyongyang would not do anything to harm North Korea's nuclear capacity (in this case, the fictional launch capability they have to supposedly nuke us). It would, however, be certain to ensure the enmity of every regional power (including South Korea), except maybe Japan.


7. North Korea does not have oil.
 
2013-03-31 01:38:00 AM

sand_in_my_vagoo: Number 15 (Sallie Mae forgiving student loan debt) just needs happen regardless of whether or not North Korea has nukes. Imagine what it would do for the economy...


But that would
 
2013-03-31 01:40:57 AM

iron de havilland: sand_in_my_vagoo: Number 15 (Sallie Mae forgiving student loan debt) just needs happen regardless of whether or not North Korea has nukes. Imagine what it would do for the economy...

But that would


Meh. I had a salient point to make, but I think I'll leave everyone hanging.

G'night, Fark.
 
2013-03-31 01:42:21 AM

Gawdzila: The list was dumb.  However, this .gif made me LOL:

[i63.photobucket.com image 275x155]


I liked it, but it didn't seem to fit the text, as far as I could tell.

Smanging - I'm not sure if that sounds like sex, or rape.
 
2013-03-31 01:43:15 AM
UPROXX ROXX!

Now pay me
 
2013-03-31 01:48:18 AM

Maus III: (Featured Partner)


(Sponsored link)

Fista-Phobia: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 520x408]


Maximum range does not also imply accuracy

Lee Jackson Beauregard: 7. North Korea does not have oil.


they actually do have an abundance of untapped mineral wealth in the form of rare earth
 
2013-03-31 01:54:51 AM
so as drunk as i am, i cannot be expected to read anyone else's comments, right?  can we all just agree that, despite the Kim famiily's neuroses, that they aren't crazy enought to really start a war?
 
2013-03-31 01:57:00 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Cagey B: JonZoidberg: How many times does N Korea get to make threats before we pre-emptively carpet bomb Pyongyang?  If a real country made those kinds of gestures, wouldn't we respond?

1. Everyone knows North Korea isn't actually going to nuke the US. For many, already discussed reasons.
2. We don't generally go to war because someone "made some threats".
3. We're not going to go to war with North Korea for a host of tactical and strategic reasons, which have been discussed at length.
4. While we have kind of a history of being dicks to the world, I don't think even the US would initiate an armed conflict because a guy hurt our collective feelings in a press release.
5. "Pre-emptive" wars haven't worked out too well for us in the recent past.
6. Indiscriminately bombing Pyongyang would not do anything to harm North Korea's nuclear capacity (in this case, the fictional launch capability they have to supposedly nuke us). It would, however, be certain to ensure the enmity of every regional power (including South Korea), except maybe Japan.

7. North Korea does not have oil.


But it has unicorns...
 
2013-03-31 01:59:24 AM

alice_600: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Cagey B: JonZoidberg: How many times does N Korea get to make threats before we pre-emptively carpet bomb Pyongyang?  If a real country made those kinds of gestures, wouldn't we respond?

1. Everyone knows North Korea isn't actually going to nuke the US. For many, already discussed reasons.
2. We don't generally go to war because someone "made some threats".
3. We're not going to go to war with North Korea for a host of tactical and strategic reasons, which have been discussed at length.
4. While we have kind of a history of being dicks to the world, I don't think even the US would initiate an armed conflict because a guy hurt our collective feelings in a press release.
5. "Pre-emptive" wars haven't worked out too well for us in the recent past.
6. Indiscriminately bombing Pyongyang would not do anything to harm North Korea's nuclear capacity (in this case, the fictional launch capability they have to supposedly nuke us). It would, however, be certain to ensure the enmity of every regional power (including South Korea), except maybe Japan.

7. North Korea does not have oil.

But it has unicorns...


The US has to leave at least one nutbag dictatorship on the planet so the DoD can keep demanding budget increases, right?
 
2013-03-31 01:59:38 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Cagey B: JonZoidberg: How many times does N Korea get to make threats before we pre-emptively carpet bomb Pyongyang?  If a real country made those kinds of gestures, wouldn't we respond?

1. Everyone knows North Korea isn't actually going to nuke the US. For many, already discussed reasons.
2. We don't generally go to war because someone "made some threats".
3. We're not going to go to war with North Korea for a host of tactical and strategic reasons, which have been discussed at length.
4. While we have kind of a history of being dicks to the world, I don't think even the US would initiate an armed conflict because a guy hurt our collective feelings in a press release.
5. "Pre-emptive" wars haven't worked out too well for us in the recent past.
6. Indiscriminately bombing Pyongyang would not do anything to harm North Korea's nuclear capacity (in this case, the fictional launch capability they have to supposedly nuke us). It would, however, be certain to ensure the enmity of every regional power (including South Korea), except maybe Japan.

7. North Korea does not have oil.


Oil is so 1990.

North Korea may well be sitting on 6 TRILLION dollars worth of rare earth elements.
 
2013-03-31 02:03:04 AM
N.Korea just needs to have mouths to feed and a means of production to trade ANYTHING for consumer tech. The people have their Prince King and he has a ring of generals around him happy to wait out their last days to play out the game theories of which their entire lives and careers were predicated. There are billboards warning its citizens a defensive ground war is imminent-- that's how committed the lunacy is, but it doesn't HAVE to escalate.

But China doesn't want a mass migration when the cake falls and nobody can blame them for that. Assimilating so great a mass into the economic stream of investment and development and the God Savior FSM is not a domain of the weak.
 
2013-03-31 02:10:34 AM
Sponsored link is sponsored.
Sure jump on the OWS bandwagon when it suits you, but you're no different than any other capitalist.

/capitalists rock!
//true neocon capitalists reveal themselves... How can ou grow up in Kentucky and be a lib dem for life? Exactly!
 
2013-03-31 02:12:05 AM

Infernalist: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Cagey B: JonZoidberg: How many times does N Korea get to make threats before we pre-emptively carpet bomb Pyongyang?  If a real country made those kinds of gestures, wouldn't we respond?

1. Everyone knows North Korea isn't actually going to nuke the US. For many, already discussed reasons.
2. We don't generally go to war because someone "made some threats".
3. We're not going to go to war with North Korea for a host of tactical and strategic reasons, which have been discussed at length.
4. While we have kind of a history of being dicks to the world, I don't think even the US would initiate an armed conflict because a guy hurt our collective feelings in a press release.
5. "Pre-emptive" wars haven't worked out too well for us in the recent past.
6. Indiscriminately bombing Pyongyang would not do anything to harm North Korea's nuclear capacity (in this case, the fictional launch capability they have to supposedly nuke us). It would, however, be certain to ensure the enmity of every regional power (including South Korea), except maybe Japan.

7. North Korea does not have oil.

Oil is so 1990.

North Korea may well be sitting on 6 TRILLION dollars worth of rare earth elements.


And the natives are eating away at the dirt on top of them?
 
2013-03-31 02:13:53 AM

The Bestest: Maximum range does not also imply accuracy


Agreed.I call it... semi-ballistic!
 
2013-03-31 02:15:04 AM

Alphax: Gawdzila: The list was dumb.  However, this .gif made me LOL:

[i63.photobucket.com image 275x155]

I liked it, but it didn't seem to fit the text, as far as I could tell.


The .gif is of 50 Cent, which I think the text mentioned.  That's probably as deep as it goes.
No matter, the picture is a visual gag :)
 
2013-03-31 02:15:04 AM
1. If we drop donuts over Pyonyang, Kim jong-il won't be able to give the order to fire with his mouth full.
2. If Best Korea nukes the US, Kim's bff Rodman will get killed.
3. There's a 50-50 chance a Best Korean nuke missile would explode on the launch pad.
4. A missile on a launch pad is vulnerable to attack by drones.
 
2013-03-31 02:17:21 AM

Alphax: Infernalist: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Cagey B: JonZoidberg: How many times does N Korea get to make threats before we pre-emptively carpet bomb Pyongyang?  If a real country made those kinds of gestures, wouldn't we respond?

1. Everyone knows North Korea isn't actually going to nuke the US. For many, already discussed reasons.
2. We don't generally go to war because someone "made some threats".
3. We're not going to go to war with North Korea for a host of tactical and strategic reasons, which have been discussed at length.
4. While we have kind of a history of being dicks to the world, I don't think even the US would initiate an armed conflict because a guy hurt our collective feelings in a press release.
5. "Pre-emptive" wars haven't worked out too well for us in the recent past.
6. Indiscriminately bombing Pyongyang would not do anything to harm North Korea's nuclear capacity (in this case, the fictional launch capability they have to supposedly nuke us). It would, however, be certain to ensure the enmity of every regional power (including South Korea), except maybe Japan.

7. North Korea does not have oil.

Oil is so 1990.

North Korea may well be sitting on 6 TRILLION dollars worth of rare earth elements.

And the natives are eating away at the dirt on top of them?


NK lacks the means and education to get at this treasure.  To get at them and utilize them, to enrich themselves, they'd have to open the nation to investment.  Which means...well...I think we all know what happens then.
 
2013-03-31 02:18:43 AM
Infernalist: North Korea may well be sitting on 6 TRILLION dollars worth of rare earth elements.

I remember reading that about Afghanistan three years ago and it may well be true. But what if it's not? What if it is just what western media is cued to say about any area over fifty square miles bereft of a McDonalds's and Subway?

Not that I have anything against progress, even if its progress that will have to be further managed within two generations to maintain a maximum number people motivated to develop the techniques to continuously avoid an ecological tipping-point.

Hair-raising at times, but anything beats sitting around to wait for floods.
 
2013-03-31 02:19:40 AM

Bucky Katt: 1. If we drop donuts over Pyonyang, Kim jong-il won't be able to give the order to fire with his mouth full.
2. If Best Korea nukes the US, Kim's bff Rodman will get killed.
3. There's a 50-50 chance a Best Korean nuke missile would explode on the launch pad.
4. A missile on a launch pad is vulnerable to attack by drones.


They have underground silos, just like us.  Hardened shelters against aerial attack.  This is SOP for ground-based nukes.
 
2013-03-31 02:22:49 AM

buravirgil: Infernalist: North Korea may well be sitting on 6 TRILLION dollars worth of rare earth elements.

I remember reading that about Afghanistan three years ago and it may well be true. But what if it's not? What if it is just what western media is cued to say about any area over fifty square miles bereft of a McDonalds's and Subway?

Not that I have anything against progress, even if its progress that will have to be further managed within two generations to maintain a maximum number people motivated to develop the techniques to continuously avoid an ecological tipping-point.

Hair-raising at times, but anything beats sitting around to wait for floods.


It's already established that NK's anemic economy is balanced around mineral export to China.  But their mining infrastructure is beyond outdated.  It's ridiculously, horrifyingly out of date.  They use tools designed and built during the Cold War and most aren't even made anymore or used anywhere outside of NK.

Most of their mines work at somewhere near 30% capacity simply because they don't dare push harder, lest they collapse completely.

I could provide a few links if you're interested in verifying the numbers.
 
2013-03-31 02:23:59 AM

Fista-Phobia: The Bestest: Maximum range does not also imply accuracy

Agreed.I call it... semi-ballistic!


cdn.theatlantic.com

"Today, a day which will live in infamy, North Korea accidently nuked a 250 sq mi section of the Pacific Ocean in a location we've confirmed to be the safest, most distant from any populated area possible.

The President has ordered an immediate retaliation of 'lol cat' emails at the regime and to show his concern for the situation, is flying to Hawaii for a week of vacation with his family.

Secretary of Defense ordered construction of additional anti-missle batteries along the Pacific Ocean repeating over and over again "this has nothing to do with long term strategies vs the Russian and Chinese and we are totally concerned about North Korea""

/And that really is, the way it is.
 
2013-03-31 02:26:12 AM
 
2013-03-31 02:28:05 AM
Really?
Who?
Who?
Right!
Sure...
OK Then.
Who?
Yowza!!
Who?
Who?
Who?

etc. etc. etc...

/No owls were harmed in the production of this post
 
2013-03-31 02:37:37 AM

Fista-Phobia: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 520x408]


Was that picture made before or after they launched a satellite into a 500km polar orbit (higher than the ISS)? I don't know what the payload capacity or the accuracy of that rocket is, but they seem to have solved the range problem.
 
2013-03-31 02:41:44 AM
Infernalist: I could provide a few links if you're interested in verifying the numbers.

Oh, I never doubted you. I just wonder how relevant it is. An accounting of NK's raw resources isn't, I don't believe, as relevant as its population being open to corporate franchise-- because corporate investment and development is viable and predictable growth for a world economy. NK's population, their potential for EXCHANGE, or labor and consumption, is cheated by a military that is largely a payroll-- and that's not dynamic. NK's population is, instead, drilled and drably dressed for an end of the world that isn't really going to come. Jong's inheritance of generals are singing a song of Paul of Tarsus and it is BS.

We all love Gorilla glass and the rare-earth elements and their compounds and its promises-- I just wonder if their scarcity is as reported. Seems to follow a pattern of the least developed nations or the most pristine of land areas remaining within a theatre of economic planning rather than any geological explanation.
 
2013-03-31 02:45:38 AM
North Korea accidentally nuking themselves.
 
2013-03-31 02:46:06 AM

buravirgil: Infernalist: I could provide a few links if you're interested in verifying the numbers.

Oh, I never doubted you. I just wonder how relevant it is. An accounting of NK's raw resources isn't, I don't believe, as relevant as its population being open to corporate franchise-- because corporate investment and development is viable and predictable growth for a world economy. NK's population, their potential for EXCHANGE, or labor and consumption, is cheated by a military that is largely a payroll-- and that's not dynamic. NK's population is, instead, drilled and drably dressed for an end of the world that isn't really going to come. Jong's inheritance of generals are singing a song of Paul of Tarsus and it is BS.

We all love Gorilla glass and the rare-earth elements and their compounds and its promises-- I just wonder if their scarcity is as reported. Seems to follow a pattern of the least developed nations or the most pristine of land areas remaining within a theatre of economic planning rather than any geological explanation.


Oh, I agree completely.  Opening themselves up to investment and modernity would destroy the country as it exists now.  They don't have 10-15 years to modernize and update their infrastructure to get at these treasures.

I was merely remarking in my Boobies that 'oil' isn't the only treasure in the world that a nation would necessarily go to war over.

And considering China's efforts in the RRE market, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't eventually see a slow-motion occupation of NK by the Chinese military, to be slowly absorbed into Greater China.
 
2013-03-31 02:49:54 AM

Fista-Phobia: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 520x408]


I have a hard time believing they have a Taepodong that big.
 
2013-03-31 02:57:32 AM
Infernalist:  I was merely remarking in my Boobies that 'oil' isn't the only treasure in the world that a nation would necessarily go to war over.

I agree with that. Developed nations make no bones about "protecting their interests", but that patent explanation is interpreted in all sorts of ways. 

And considering China's efforts in the RRE market, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't eventually see a slow-motion occupation of NK by the Chinese military, to be slowly absorbed into Greater China.

Yeah, but would it be along the lines of Honk Kong?
 
2013-03-31 02:58:34 AM

Ivo Shandor: Fista-Phobia: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 520x408]

Was that picture made before or after they launched a satellite into a 500km polar orbit (higher than the ISS)? I don't know what the payload capacity or the accuracy of that rocket is, but they seem to have solved the range problem.


I don't know. I do know they liked blowing up when aborting over the Sea of Japan.
 
2013-03-31 04:23:02 AM

buravirgil: Infernalist:  I was merely remarking in my Boobies that 'oil' isn't the only treasure in the world that a nation would necessarily go to war over.

I agree with that. Developed nations make no bones about "protecting their interests", but that patent explanation is interpreted in all sorts of ways.

And considering China's efforts in the RRE market, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't eventually see a slow-motion occupation of NK by the Chinese military, to be slowly absorbed into Greater China.

Yeah, but would it be along the lines of Honk Kong?




ts3.mm.bing.net
HONK!

HK is more modern than the country that "owns" it.  Not the same.

The citizens don't consider themselves Chinese.  Same.
 
2013-03-31 04:31:17 AM
Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz and Lucille LeSueur will visit Cliff Clavin's kitchen.
 
2013-03-31 06:09:34 AM

fusillade762: Fista-Phobia: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 520x408]

I have a hard time believing they have a Taepodong that big.


Yeah, I lol'd.
 
2013-03-31 07:07:43 AM
cdn.ebaumsworld.com
 
2013-03-31 07:12:02 AM

zamboni: Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz and Lucille LeSueur will visit Cliff Clavin's kitchen.


Well there's a reference probably too obscure for many of the whippersnappers.
 
2013-03-31 07:36:14 AM

Blackthorn: [cdn.ebaumsworld.com image 850x576]


I don't know who put that pic together, but I thought carrier fleets ran in a reverse order to that. A few smaller ships ahead of the carrier, always out there to feel the bottom or sea mines.  I don't know if the B-2 Spirit and the Hornets are a composite but the scale's great, 40' wide Hornets and 172' wide Spirit.

That being said, our intelligence agencies completely missed The Arab Spring.

upload.wikimedia.org

Rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno.  It's common knowledge that something isn't going to happen, so it's said to be a bird rare as a black swan, i.e. doesn't exist or doesn't happen. But it's only a truism until the event happens.

On that note I'm going to see if Sofia Vergara is actually worth pursuing and then seeing if I can't bang her by year end.
 
2013-03-31 07:38:31 AM
Lot of black people in that list. What are they trying to say?
 
2013-03-31 07:42:07 AM
I think 18 and 20 are more likely then this article realizes.
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report