Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#41 - toxicjoe (01/26/2013) [-]
#208 - Ulmer ONLINE (01/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#91 - albiwankenobi (01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#152 to #133 - reaperriley ONLINE (01/27/2013) [-]
here you go.
#198 to #187 - laserkirby (01/27/2013) [-]
Because, liberty.
#264 to #258 - prozmbieeater (01/27/2013) [-]
Oh my 			*******		 sides
Oh my ******* sides
User avatar #19 - misticalz ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
He's supposedly launching a test nuke on the U.S right?

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

But wasn't the Nuke supposed to be dropped in like 2077 or something?
User avatar #27 to #26 - newmainman (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 (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 (01/26/2013) [-]
Nuclear winter.
User avatar #70 to #32 - newmainman (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 (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.
User avatar #28 to #27 - misticalz ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Thanks for the interesting information :D
#30 to #28 - newmainman (01/26/2013) [-]
not a problem, bottom line is :NO ONE IS SAFE IN A NUCLEAR WAR.
#219 - algonquin (01/27/2013) [-]
korea has changed since a few years ago...
User avatar #59 - kerryman (01/26/2013) [-]
ya cos last time america had a war with a poor Asian country that worked out great.
User avatar #73 to #59 - Jewssassin (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 ONLINE (01/27/2013) [-]
#44 - fatspartan (01/26/2013) [-]
#195 - RageRambo (01/27/2013) [-]
US's face when.
#76 - silenthillgod (01/26/2013) [-]
explain please
#83 to #76 - unbentgodfather ONLINE (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 (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.
User avatar #77 to #76 - MikeLit (01/26/2013) [-]
North Korea is best Korea
User avatar #82 to #76 - destaice (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** has deleted their comment [-]
#146 - anon (01/27/2013) [-]
I hate nukes, kill each other by all means, but why ruin the environment beyond all repair?
User avatar #190 to #146 - truemox (01/27/2013) [-]
Conventional explosives, depleted uranium from tank rounds, lead, and spilled fuel are also incredibly toxic. Don't leave out conventional warfare!
User avatar #176 to #146 - dubslao (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
User avatar #156 to #146 - ShaunG (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.
User avatar #165 to #156 - Crusader (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 (01/27/2013) [-]
Exactly, look at Chernobyl. The animals and plants have adapted, Its an amazing ecosystem there supposedly.

Glowing Mushrooms, bro.
User avatar #173 to #169 - Crusader (01/27/2013) [-]
Cancer for how many decades afterwards and a wasteland in the immediate vicinity.
User avatar #181 to #173 - numbersixtyseven **User deleted account** (01/27/2013) [-]
For humans. They have tons of healthy deer and bears running around those forests.
User avatar #209 to #181 - Crusader (01/27/2013) [-]
Those deer are migratory, they spend a few days, maybe weeks in that area and then move on.
User avatar #202 to #181 - Eventually (01/27/2013) [-]
Healthy with three heads...humans are not at all the only things messed up be radiation
#217 to #202 - apocalypseboyz (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?
User avatar #257 to #217 - Eventually (01/27/2013) [-]
I exaggerate. There have been abnormal fish though, that I know for certain. Although the moose would be SO much cooler!
User avatar #205 to #202 - numbersixtyseven **User deleted account** (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** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #164 to #156 - Keoul (01/27/2013) [-]
Iunno man
Nuclear fallout is a pretty serious deal...
User avatar #166 to #164 - Crusader (01/27/2013) [-]
You ever played Fallout?
Nature comes back more badass than ever
Giant Geckos
User avatar #167 to #166 - Keoul (01/27/2013) [-]
Please tell me you are kidding?
That's a video game bro, real life is a lot more harsh.
User avatar #168 to #167 - Crusader (01/27/2013) [-]
Of course I'm kidding
#175 to #168 - Keoul (01/27/2013) [-]
Oh you sly dog you had me there you!
#172 to #156 - wantabeer (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 (01/27/2013) [-]
No we cannot blow up the earth it is a myth we do not have enough firepower.
#191 to #188 - wantabeer (01/27/2013) [-]
Well it actually is true, so I'm sorry if that's new information to you.
User avatar #200 to #191 - Eventually (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.
#157 - sonnenbankshaver (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 (01/27/2013) [-]
I gave you a like, just because i ******* agree....
#170 to #157 - mrmcput (01/27/2013) [-]
Congress declares war.
User avatar #162 to #157 - ivoryhammer (01/27/2013) [-]
If you think that presidents declare war then you need to read up on the constitution.
User avatar #201 to #162 - thepandaking (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 (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 (01/27/2013) [-]
*intents and purposes

I ******* hate that no one told me, so just sharing the knowledge.
#261 to #224 - pariahlol (01/27/2013) [-]
holy **** ... thank you
#174 to #162 - anon (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.
User avatar #199 to #174 - Eventually (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.
 Friends (0)