Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   In case anyone was wondering, Russia's ICBMs are working   (bbc.com) divider line 90
    More: Scary, Vladimir Putin, Russia, President Viktor Yanukovych, Self-Defense Forces, Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian President  
•       •       •

2779 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2014 at 4:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-04 06:15:34 PM  

Silverstaff: Thanks. . .


You are welcome, Noodlie Guy That Just Shakes Tiny Fist.
 
2014-03-04 06:15:43 PM  
Don't worry, the targets haven't been updated since the 70s. This is good news for Detroit, which will be given a blank slate and miles of glowing glass parking lot.
 
2014-03-04 06:19:52 PM  

jj325: I'm sure Putin wants the Cold War back almost as much as th neo-cons


Probably more.

Everyone forgets, Putin was KGB. He used to be allowed to torture suspected Western sympathizers and play Spy vs. Spy with the CIA. He has been itching for this chance since he was a little tiny Soviet citizen.

I doubt that he'd unlimber the nukes, because Putin is also a post-Hiroshima soldier. But he would LOVE to be able to exert his influence over the New Soviet Union and spend zillions of rubles on useless hardware like back in the Good Old Days.
 
2014-03-04 06:30:25 PM  

Vacation Bible School: And this
[img.fark.net image 600x399]

Will be in heavy rotation...


Is it just me, or is that guy on the right pointing his weapon directly at the guy in the foreground?
 
2014-03-04 06:38:11 PM  
I hope all you yungins' who missed the 'cold war' can die in a mushroom cloud.
 
2014-03-04 06:45:27 PM  

Silverstaff: I had you farkied as "Confirmed Troll" a long time ago, before I started appending thread numbers to where somebody earned their handle. I didn't have a good exemplar of your trolling until this thread, so now you show up in that bright "Troll Red" and a note referencing this thread as an example of your repeated blatant trolling.


Wow. Impressive curating there, Lou.
 
2014-03-04 06:45:39 PM  

Gyrfalcon: lennavan: Oh great thanks, I was just wondering that.  Hey, what's the status of their nukes?

Same as ours, only slightly less of them.

And our subs generally don't sink in port.

Why are we making WWIII out of a minor incursion into Ukraine?


We didn't start WWIII when Russia invaded Georgia and seized South Ossetia.  We almost certainly won't start WWIII over Russia invading the Ukraine and seizing the Crimea.

Russia on the other hand is on track to start WWIII when it invades one country too many.  They are currently following the path that Germany did prior to WWII.
 
2014-03-04 07:05:50 PM  

Silverstaff: As to the trolling itself. 1/10, way too obvious.


easy grader, wish I had you in geometry
 
2014-03-04 07:19:18 PM  

Walker: It's starting to feel like 1983 again.
99 Luftballonsgo by!


Everyone's a superhero
Everyone's a Priceline Negotiator
 
2014-03-04 07:25:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: lennavan: Oh great thanks, I was just wondering that.  Hey, what's the status of their nukes?

Same as ours, only slightly less of them.

And our subs generally don't sink in port.

Why are we making WWIII out of a minor incursion into Ukraine?


Other way around, actually.
 
2014-03-04 07:41:37 PM  

Mike_1962: Gyrfalcon: lennavan: Oh great thanks, I was just wondering that.  Hey, what's the status of their nukes?

Same as ours, only slightly less of them.

And our subs generally don't sink in port.

Why are we making WWIII out of a minor incursion into Ukraine?

Other way around, actually.


We're making a minor Ukraine into the incursion of WWIII?
 
2014-03-04 08:06:35 PM  
30.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-04 08:15:16 PM  
If only 1 country wants to play Cold War, and nobody else joins in....does the guy playing Cold War win?  Or does everyone else lose?
 
2014-03-04 08:30:04 PM  

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: I hope all you yungins' who missed the 'cold war' can die in a mushroom cloud.


I don't see why you'd wish ill on those of us who missed it. Wishing ill on those who miss it and want it back, I can see...
 
2014-03-04 09:52:37 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Gyrfalcon: Why are we making WWIII out of a minor incursion into Ukraine?

And how was WWI kicked off?

Gavrilo Princip farks off his assassination duty (after already farking it up twice) to go have a sandwich?

General farktardery when it came to European governance (lines of succession, and an obsession with making sure everyone's the right religion)?


Are you a Hardcore History fan too?
 
2014-03-04 09:53:37 PM  

evilmrsock: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Gyrfalcon: Why are we making WWIII out of a minor incursion into Ukraine?

And how was WWI kicked off?

I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.



You've been hanging around that college again, haven't you?
 
2014-03-04 09:55:20 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: Headso: I'm picturing a Russian jet taking off and the landing gear just stays on the runway as the plan lifts off.


[www.writeups.org image 600x320]

Why the fark do I want a Su-34 that's got no farking wheels?


www.reactionface.info
 I read it in the pikey voice and laughed my dick off.  Now I'm dickless.

/Thanks, Obama.
 
2014-03-04 10:33:18 PM  
On one hand (the sociopath one) I want Russia and NATO to take off the gloves just to see what a conflict with advanced weapon (except strategic nukes) on both side would be like.
My sane hand hope they do so with painball gun.
 
2014-03-04 10:49:35 PM  
The fun part is realizing that the 30% Putin skimmed off the top of the $57 billion used to fund the SoCheap 2014 Olympics is paying for this post-Olympics foray into Crimea.
 
2014-03-04 10:51:29 PM  
Missile test was planned well ahead of the current conflict and the US was given a heads up.

Fark Humor strikes again!
 
2014-03-04 10:56:55 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Meh, we do 'em too. If you ever see this beautiful sight and don't live in a test area, time to duck and cover!

/Just like the photo
//Seemed appropriate for the thread
///MIRVed slashies limited to three by international treaty
 
2014-03-04 11:01:37 PM  
Subby, we don't know for sure their ICBMs work, we only know that one of them worked.  Given their penchant for funding and maintenance, that may be the only one.
 
2014-03-04 11:35:46 PM  
www.arcadesmarket.com

Pew, Pew, Pew!
 
2014-03-04 11:36:44 PM  

rohar: Subby, we don't know for sure their ICBMs work, we only know that one of them worked.  Given their penchant for funding and maintenance, that may be the only one.


rohar, this is Russia, not Best Korea.

We can be sure that the majority of their ICBMs will at least leave the silos.
 
2014-03-04 11:51:11 PM  

Gyrfalcon: rohar: Subby, we don't know for sure their ICBMs work, we only know that one of them worked.  Given their penchant for funding and maintenance, that may be the only one.

rohar, this is Russia, not Best Korea.

We can be sure that the majority of their ICBMs will at least leave the silos.


Pfft.  Really?  They had ballistic submarines on patrol for 15 years before they figured out how to launch a missile without incident.  Even after that, their testing has never been better than 50/50.
 
2014-03-05 12:00:40 AM  
They just need to protect their lebensraum, no biggie.
 
2014-03-05 12:10:12 AM  

rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: Subby, we don't know for sure their ICBMs work, we only know that one of them worked.  Given their penchant for funding and maintenance, that may be the only one.

rohar, this is Russia, not Best Korea.

We can be sure that the majority of their ICBMs will at least leave the silos.

Pfft.  Really?  They had ballistic submarines on patrol for 15 years before they figured out how to launch a missile without incident.  Even after that, their testing has never been better than 50/50.


Russia's military motto has always been "Quantity is a quality."  50/50 on 1,000 nukes is still 500 successful launches.
 
2014-03-05 01:01:42 AM  

Twist2005: They just need to protect their lebensraum, no biggie.


If the Nazis hadn't raped and murdered the peoples of western Russia, they probably would've helped them fight Stalin.
 
2014-03-05 01:01:52 AM  

rohar: Pfft.  Really?  They had ballistic submarines on patrol for 15 years before they figured out how to launch a missile without incident.  Even after that, their testing has never been better than 50/50.


It used to be "the bomber will always get through", but more recently the watchword is "the ICBM will always get through"

According to the most recent START annual report, Russia has just shy of 500 delivery vehicles: ICBMs, SLBMs (sub-launched), and bombers. Those delivery vehicles carry just shy of 1,500 warheads.

Say that half fail at launch. That's 250 left. Of those, half fail in flight. That's 125. Of those, another half fail to strike their targets. That's 75. Of those, half fail to detonate. That's 37. Say that America has a magic nuke-defense shield like SDI or the like that cuts that in half.

Even with a 50% rate of failure across five separate events, you still have 18 delivery vehicles make it, with potentially many more actual warheads (Russian MIRVs can hold up to 10 nukes each).That's at least 18 US cities or military bases that suffer catastrophic damage and casualties.

The point is, of course, that at least a few nukes will always get through. How many Manhattan Islands are we willing to loose? How many Chicagos or Los Angeles? Is it a fair trade if they destroy New York and DC, but we get Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk?
 
2014-03-05 01:06:05 AM  

kbronsito: Not really. A significant number of Russian Ukranians, if not most of them, don't much care for Russia. (At least according to what my Russian friends from Odessa and their relatives).


Of course they don't care much about Russia. But would they actually fight against Russian troops? They will not. If there is a fight between Russia and Ukraine, half of Ukraine is sitting it out.

That said, there shouldn't be. It would be extremely unpopular move for Putin domestically. A little sabble-rattling and "saving our brothers" is all fine and good, but a real fight with real bodies? Is not.

kbronsito: Not only a military one, but those are people that he can get to vote to declare Crimea independent or part of Russia in some rigged referendum.


The funny thing is, he doesn't need any kind of rigged referendum. Crimea is perfectly willing to get independent of Kiev, and wanted it for decades. If I were in the place of someone who is preparing the referendum, I would invite all the international observers and made the elections squeaky clean and glaringly transparent, all the way giving "internal access" to western media - and still got the result I wanted.

But I've watched a bit Aksenov (the guy who is currently elected as the prime minister of Crimea). He is a fraking retard, in political sense. Actually, a huge lot of politicians, native to Crimea or involved in the situation, on all sides, are complete and utter incompetent retards; sometimes I just can't help but to think - what are they doing? Are they trying to sabotage their own side?!
 
2014-03-05 01:12:04 AM  

Fubini: The point is, of course, that at least a few nukes will always get through. How many Manhattan Islands are we willing to loose? How many Chicagos or Los Angeles? Is it a fair trade if they destroy New York and DC, but we get Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk?


Well, those Moscowites have it coming, and Novosibirsk is just a bunch of siberian bears pretending to be human, but barely able to walk on their hinder legs, but could you please leave Petersburg intact? It's dangerously close to actual people, you know. You take out Petersburg, Finland, Latvia and Estonia are going under the mushroom cloud with it.

This is a price I'm (as a Latvian) not willing to pay. Thank you very much.

Plus, Petersburg is a rather nice place, populated with relatively nice, by Russian measures, apathetic people who aren't prone to invading anyone or support any kind of action, military or other. It's no threat!
 
2014-03-05 01:20:54 AM  

Grahor: Fubini: The point is, of course, that at least a few nukes will always get through. How many Manhattan Islands are we willing to loose? How many Chicagos or Los Angeles? Is it a fair trade if they destroy New York and DC, but we get Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk?

Well, those Moscowites have it coming, and Novosibirsk is just a bunch of siberian bears pretending to be human, but barely able to walk on their hinder legs, but could you please leave Petersburg intact? It's dangerously close to actual people, you know. You take out Petersburg, Finland, Latvia and Estonia are going under the mushroom cloud with it.

This is a price I'm (as a Latvian) not willing to pay. Thank you very much.

Plus, Petersburg is a rather nice place, populated with relatively nice, by Russian measures, apathetic people who aren't prone to invading anyone or support any kind of action, military or other. It's no threat!


How about we just not nuke civilian populations at all, since:
1) Civilians aren't a threat.
2) Civilians have farkall to do with decision-making.
3) Dead civilians only enrage the rest of the population, making for more (and angrier) troops.
 
2014-03-05 01:26:48 AM  

Rhino_man: Grahor: Fubini: The point is, of course, that at least a few nukes will always get through. How many Manhattan Islands are we willing to loose? How many Chicagos or Los Angeles? Is it a fair trade if they destroy New York and DC, but we get Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk?

Well, those Moscowites have it coming, and Novosibirsk is just a bunch of siberian bears pretending to be human, but barely able to walk on their hinder legs, but could you please leave Petersburg intact? It's dangerously close to actual people, you know. You take out Petersburg, Finland, Latvia and Estonia are going under the mushroom cloud with it.

This is a price I'm (as a Latvian) not willing to pay. Thank you very much.

Plus, Petersburg is a rather nice place, populated with relatively nice, by Russian measures, apathetic people who aren't prone to invading anyone or support any kind of action, military or other. It's no threat!

How about we just not nuke civilian populations at all, since:
1) Civilians aren't a threat.
2) Civilians have farkall to do with decision-making.
3) Dead civilians only enrage the rest of the population, making for more (and angrier) troops.


Civilian centers are also centers of production, and destroying civilian populations means more resources spent fixing things back home and fewer factory workers and solders. If you're going to nuke someone you might as well exterminate them quickly.
 
2014-03-05 01:28:20 AM  

Rhino_man: Grahor: Fubini: The point is, of course, that at least a few nukes will always get through. How many Manhattan Islands are we willing to loose? How many Chicagos or Los Angeles? Is it a fair trade if they destroy New York and DC, but we get Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk?

Well, those Moscowites have it coming, and Novosibirsk is just a bunch of siberian bears pretending to be human, but barely able to walk on their hinder legs, but could you please leave Petersburg intact? It's dangerously close to actual people, you know. You take out Petersburg, Finland, Latvia and Estonia are going under the mushroom cloud with it.

This is a price I'm (as a Latvian) not willing to pay. Thank you very much.

Plus, Petersburg is a rather nice place, populated with relatively nice, by Russian measures, apathetic people who aren't prone to invading anyone or support any kind of action, military or other. It's no threat!

How about we just not nuke civilian populations at all, since:
1) Civilians aren't a threat.
2) Civilians have farkall to do with decision-making.
3) Dead civilians only enrage the rest of the population, making for more (and angrier) troops.


...and I'd like to add the fact that this little country, that was sadly invaded by Russia, has caused us nothing but trouble over the past couple of decades, so destroying the world over it seems a bit silly.
 
2014-03-05 01:42:09 AM  

rohar: Rhino_man: Grahor: Fubini: The point is, of course, that at least a few nukes will always get through. How many Manhattan Islands are we willing to loose? How many Chicagos or Los Angeles? Is it a fair trade if they destroy New York and DC, but we get Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk?

Well, those Moscowites have it coming, and Novosibirsk is just a bunch of siberian bears pretending to be human, but barely able to walk on their hinder legs, but could you please leave Petersburg intact? It's dangerously close to actual people, you know. You take out Petersburg, Finland, Latvia and Estonia are going under the mushroom cloud with it.

This is a price I'm (as a Latvian) not willing to pay. Thank you very much.

Plus, Petersburg is a rather nice place, populated with relatively nice, by Russian measures, apathetic people who aren't prone to invading anyone or support any kind of action, military or other. It's no threat!

How about we just not nuke civilian populations at all, since:
1) Civilians aren't a threat.
2) Civilians have farkall to do with decision-making.
3) Dead civilians only enrage the rest of the population, making for more (and angrier) troops.

...and I'd like to add the fact that this little country, that was sadly invaded by Russia, has caused us nothing but trouble over the past couple of decades, so destroying the world over it seems a bit silly.


They caused economic trouble, maybe even diplomatic trouble... but they were never a threat to the military stability of the world or even the region.  I don't think they deserved to be invaded.

But yeah, let's not blow up the world.
 
2014-03-05 03:05:16 AM  
www.keeneys.com
You're very tough, Vladimir Vladimirovitch. And handsome. And tall, very tall. Not short at all.
 
2014-03-05 03:07:25 AM  

Vacation Bible School: zamboni: Kiriyama9000: I was 3 when the last Cold War ended and have no recollection of it. Glad to see that I'll get to finally get to experience one :)

Oh, you're going to love it! Countries will do things for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever! It was thrilling!

And this
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x323]

This
[upload.wikimedia.org image 313x430]

And this
[img.fark.net image 600x399]

Will be in heavy rotation...


/the chair is against the wall...


This was worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUYCnzmDJY (full movie)
 
2014-03-05 03:11:27 AM  

Daedalus27: Vacation Bible School: zamboni: Kiriyama9000: I was 3 when the last Cold War ended and have no recollection of it. Glad to see that I'll get to finally get to experience one :)

Oh, you're going to love it! Countries will do things for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever! It was thrilling!

And this
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x323]

This
[upload.wikimedia.org image 313x430]

And this
[img.fark.net image 600x399]

Will be in heavy rotation...


/the chair is against the wall...

This was worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUYCnzmDJY (full movie)


Movie still scares the crap out of me. Cold war was bad, youngsters. I remember my dad saying how he thought we should just open a bottle of champagne and go up on the roof to watch the bombs go off if it happened. 

Then I did a science fair project where I looked at presumed targeting data and damage radiuses, and figured out that there would be no bombs to see from our house, but a massive fallout cloud within 2-3 days that would easily kill us all.

God that was depressing. I was 12.
 
2014-03-05 06:54:26 AM  
US Secretary of State John Kerry: "The US will stand with the Ukrainian people"
(FTFA)

But the US doesn't stand by the Ukraine people waving Russian flags, because that's un-American.

/amidoingthisright?
 
2014-03-05 12:43:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: lennavan: Oh great thanks, I was just wondering that.  Hey, what's the status of their nukes?

Same as ours, only slightly less of them.

And our subs generally don't sink in port.

Why are we making WWIII out of a minor incursion into Ukraine?


Neunundneunzig Luftballoon am ihrem Weg zum Horizont...
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report