Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#189 - maxsexington
Reply +18
(01/27/2013) [-]
#203 to #189 - philm
Reply +12
(01/27/2013) [-]
#41 - toxicjoe
Reply +18
(01/26/2013) [-]
amidoinitrite?
#52 to #41 - themagicwizard
Reply -2
(01/26/2013) [-]
no
#117 - warpigelite
Reply +14
(01/26/2013) [-]
#87 - srskate
Reply +14
(01/26/2013) [-]
#208 - Ulmer
Reply +13
(01/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#91 - albiwankenobi
Reply +13
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#133 - jdistasio
Reply +12
(01/26/2013) [-]
#152 to #133 - reaperriley
Reply +6
(01/27/2013) [-]
here you go.
#187 to #152 - prozmbieeater
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
#198 to #187 - laserkirby
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Because, liberty.
#212 to #198 - prozmbieeater
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
#258 to #212 - reaperriley
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
#264 to #258 - prozmbieeater
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Oh my ******* sides
Oh my ******* sides
#19 - misticalz
Reply +11
(01/26/2013) [-]
He's supposedly launching a test nuke on the U.S right?

Feels good to be Canadian.
#108 to #19 - defender
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Canada will be right there with the US why because of NORAD
#218 to #19 - improbablyyourdad
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Wait till the radiation hits you or everyone starts going ape **** and launching nukes.
#29 to #19 - sketchE ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
if its hitting anywhere it would be alaska. but weve got good missile defenses
#71 to #29 - newmainman
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Also one of the major bombing points would be an Air Base in California Called Beale Air Force base.
#124 to #71 - sketchE ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
well the main joke was thats as far as the missile will fly. but in reality we would get hit at least once. we have a 22 squadron in anchorage an i believe we still have an a10 squadron as well as a kc130 fueler squadron in fairbanks
#140 to #124 - newmainman
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Ha, where in Alaska are you from? I used to live in Fairbanks.
#145 to #140 - sketchE ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
fairbanks for ten years and ancorage for the past 8
#148 to #145 - newmainman
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Military?
#149 to #148 - sketchE ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
yep parents are air guard
#194 to #149 - newmainman
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Nice my old man was in the Air Force.
#220 to #194 - sketchE ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
So I take it you went to school at Crawford or Anderson?
#260 to #220 - newmainman
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
I lived there when i was pretty young actually, dont remember the school too well.
#21 to #19 - newmainman
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
You ever wonder how the game Fallout got its name?
#22 to #21 - misticalz
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
I have not wondered why they called it that. Why?
#23 to #22 - newmainman
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
Because of the nuclear fallout...
#26 to #23 - misticalz
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Ok.

But wasn't the Nuke supposed to be dropped in like 2077 or something?
#27 to #26 - newmainman
Reply +6
(01/26/2013) [-]
Yes, but when a nuclear bomb is dropped, there's an initial explosion that destroys everything in the vicinity based on the size of the bomb. What comes afterwards is something called nuclear fallout which is dust particles carried on the wind to other areas. It can reach clear across the US and of course up into neighboring Canada based on where the bomb(s) fell. The reason **** in Fallout looks so terrible, is due to the initial nuclear fallout, and time of course.
#32 to #27 - xxxgnipsxxx
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
to add to what you said, in fallout why everything is so terrible is because one nuclear detonation wouldn't change the climate at all, but the combined fires from every major city during a nuclear exchange would blot out the sun long enough to kill crops and cause a massive extinction event, plants animals and people almost all gone. It would probably last around five years until we saw the sun again.
#47 to #32 - EpicTie
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
Nuclear winter.
#70 to #32 - newmainman
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Yup, and it all depends on the size of the bomb(s) too. Like the ones dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were around 15 and 21 kilotons. If it were say the size of the Tzar Bomba, not much would survive. It was around 50 kilotons...
#151 to #70 - xxxgnipsxxx
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
yeah, those weapons were ineffective though, the most efficient use of nuclear material is making several smaller tonnage bombs and having them hit multiple points in a metropolitan area, death and destruction is dispersed much more evenly. But yeah like you said, the bigger tonnage bomb the more of an affect it will have on the climate/environment.
#28 to #27 - misticalz
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Thanks for the interesting information :D
#30 to #28 - newmainman
Reply +8
(01/26/2013) [-]
not a problem, bottom line is :NO ONE IS SAFE IN A NUCLEAR WAR.
#157 - sonnenbankshaver
Reply -10
(01/27/2013) [-]
Presidents and High Militaries declare war. We Fight, die and suffer in those wars. Millions die that shouldent have died. Wouldent it be fair if 2 countrys fight, its not a War, just a 1on1 with the Presidents, and whoever survives wins the war? I mean, they wanted War, so they can fight it themselves instead of hiding like a coward and sending in thousands to die?
#182 to #157 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
I gave you a like, just because i ******* agree....
#170 to #157 - mrmcput
Reply +7
(01/27/2013) [-]
Congress declares war.
#162 to #157 - ivoryhammer
Reply +10
(01/27/2013) [-]
If you think that presidents declare war then you need to read up on the constitution.
#201 to #162 - thepandaking
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
but the president can declare mini wars that he can call "conflicts" it's been done so many times, it sucks that they have that power sometimes but I guess it helps in foreign aid occasionally
#179 to #162 - pariahlol
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
If you take into fact that we haven't declared war since WWII, presidents technically do wage war for all intensive purposes. It's just referred to as policing, or some **** like that
#224 to #179 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
*intents and purposes

I ******* hate that no one told me, so just sharing the knowledge.
#261 to #224 - pariahlol
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
holy ****... thank you
#174 to #162 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
He is obviously correct though, that it is the rich and powerful that declare war. And they let the poor fight the war for them. Besides, the president can declare war, he just needs the support of congress.
#199 to #174 - Eventually
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Not true. He can send in troops fur up to 90 days, but that is not a formal declaration of war. Anything beyond that -- up to and including an actual declaration of war -- must come directly from Congress. The President can never declare war.
#238 - danyoung
Reply +9
(01/27/2013) [-]
#237 - danyoung
Reply +9
(01/27/2013) [-]
#219 - algonquin
Reply +9
(01/27/2013) [-]
korea has changed since a few years ago...
#76 - silenthillgod
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
explain please
#83 to #76 - unbentgodfather
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
**unbentgodfather rolled a random image posted in comment #2640312 at FJ RPG ** North Korea is trying to look badass by telling off the U.S.A but failing....
#88 to #76 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Everyone is worried about North Korea being able to launch a missile, but their military and fire power is ****. The US shouldn't worry. That's the joke.
#77 to #76 - MikeLit
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
North Korea is best Korea
#82 to #76 - destaice
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
Kim Jong-un is the little man in the comic. He's the current leader of North Korea.

He's been trying to gain power by showing off North Korea's nuclear arms power, but it's been a failure for him.
#80 to #76 - zenicorn **User deleted account**
+9
has deleted their comment [-]
#59 - kerryman
Reply +9
(01/26/2013) [-]
ya cos last time america had a war with a poor Asian country that worked out great.
#73 to #59 - Jewssassin
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
From a pure military stand point, we won. And if we wernt fighting a limited war we would of won over all.
#244 - albertjester
Reply +8
(01/27/2013) [-]
#66 - Cleavland Steamer
Reply +7
(01/26/2013) [-]
#139 - magict
Reply +6
(01/27/2013) [-]
#44 - fatspartan
Reply +6
(01/26/2013) [-]
'MURICA!!!
'MURICA!!!
#146 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
I hate nukes, kill each other by all means, but why ruin the environment beyond all repair?
#190 to #146 - truemox
Reply +3
(01/27/2013) [-]
Conventional explosives, depleted uranium from tank rounds, lead, and spilled fuel are also incredibly toxic. Don't leave out conventional warfare!
#176 to #146 - dubslao
Reply +4
(01/27/2013) [-]
the environment can handle anything that is thrown at it
the only thing bad i can see about a nuclear attack is the lingering radiation
#156 to #146 - ShaunG
Reply +5
(01/27/2013) [-]
The environment can recover from whatever humans can do to it.

It's narcissistic to think we are actually more powerful than nature. The only things we are killing are ourselves.
#165 to #156 - Crusader
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
But the thing is, radiation dissipates so slowly that you mess up the environment for years to come.
Look at Chernobyl
#169 to #165 - apocalypseboyz
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Exactly, look at Chernobyl. The animals and plants have adapted, Its an amazing ecosystem there supposedly.

Glowing Mushrooms, bro.
#173 to #169 - Crusader
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Cancer for how many decades afterwards and a wasteland in the immediate vicinity.
#181 to #173 - numbersixtyseven **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
For humans. They have tons of healthy deer and bears running around those forests.
#209 to #181 - Crusader
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Those deer are migratory, they spend a few days, maybe weeks in that area and then move on.
#202 to #181 - Eventually
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Healthy with three heads...humans are not at all the only things messed up be radiation
#217 to #202 - apocalypseboyz
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
As far as I know, theres been nothing like a moose with three heads. Although come on, don't tell me you dont wanna see that?
#257 to #217 - Eventually
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
I exaggerate. There have been abnormal fish though, that I know for certain. Although the moose would be SO much cooler!
#205 to #202 - numbersixtyseven **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
I said healthy. Not with three ******* heads. The woods around ******* Chernobyl are filled with healthy wildlife.
#171 to #156 - maucorn **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#164 to #156 - Keoul
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Iunno man
Nuclear fallout is a pretty serious deal...
#166 to #164 - Crusader
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
You ever played Fallout?
Nature comes back more badass than ever
Bighorners
Giant Geckos
Zombies
#167 to #166 - Keoul
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Please tell me you are kidding?
That's a video game bro, real life is a lot more harsh.
#168 to #167 - Crusader
Reply +3
(01/27/2013) [-]
Of course I'm kidding
#175 to #168 - Keoul
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Oh you sly dog you had me there you!
#172 to #156 - wantabeer
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Actually, there's (estimated) enough nuclear firepower to destroy the Earth 30 times over. Roughly. Nothing is exact, of course, but that's just not true, shaun.
#188 to #172 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
No we cannot blow up the earth it is a myth we do not have enough firepower.
#191 to #188 - wantabeer
Reply -2
(01/27/2013) [-]
Well it actually is true, so I'm sorry if that's new information to you.
#200 to #191 - Eventually
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Nope. That statistic defines 'blowing up the Earth' as 'destroying the face of the earth.' We can nuke the entire surface 30 times over, but in no way can we actually destroy the planet.
#144 - huttbug
Reply +5
(01/27/2013) [-]
Finally , a joke on funnyjunk that isnt against america.