Bad luck. I found this image, but I can't find it in HD, or acceptable quality at least. I want it for my personal collection, as many other from FJ and other p image request North Korea URSS usa
x
Click to expand

Bad luck

Bad luck. I found this image, but I can't find it in HD, or acceptable quality at least. I want it for my personal collection, as many other from FJ and other p

I found this image, but I can't find it in HD, or acceptable quality at least.
I want it for my personal collection, as many other from FJ and other pages. I would appreciate it.
Repeating, not asking for thumbs, just asking as politely as I can for an image.

It might be just an edit from the original but it's kind of reflecting my thoughts on NK. Even tough I don't believe all that b*llSt is given to them, as much as you give a fk about my thoughts.

  • Recommend tagsx
+398
Views: 19464
Favorited: 38
Submitted: 03/31/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to pmppmppmp submit to reddit

Comments(199):

[ 199 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #136 - szymonf (04/01/2013) [-]
Russia and China wont do anything except plea with the US to tone down the flaunting of their military power in South Korea.

N.K. has nobody.
User avatar #14 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (03/31/2013) [-]
This doesn't depict reality. The original did.

NK doesn't have any viable way of hurting the United States, be it with intercontinental ballistics or, God forbid, an invasion force.

However, if China were to get involved (I'm assuming the hammer and sickle are depicting China, the only truly domestically communist nation in the world, and the only one capable of challenging the US AT ALL), it would most likely mark the start of WW3, and a likely outcome of that is death - to everyone. Nuclear war man, it ain't pretty.

Although, if I were to put a bet something straight up on one of the parts, I would put my money on the US no doubt. The US is really the only superpower in the world (or hyperpower, as the French call it) militarily speaking, because it's the only nation that can project a military force anywhere on the planet. The United States possesses an astounding military capability - people don't actually understand how incredibly powerful the US military is. It is neither indestructible or unbeatable, but it is top-notch in the world. State-of-the-art technology, tens of thousands of veteran soldiers, a training system that outclasses basically every other modern military and the equipment and military assets you can find, really makes America a force to be reckoned with. China, in spite of its population and logistics capabilities can't hope to match the US, at least not yet.

For example, the US has 13 supercarriers in its fleet. T H I R T E E N. Do you realize what that means? The US can deploy basically an entire air force from a mobile base of operations located ANYWHERE in the world, within 48 hours of initial orders. China doesn't have a single carrier (although they are in the process of building one. and an inferior one at that).

There is no denying it, and if this image is actually trying to convey a realistic political scenario, it's completely idiotic and misleading.

The US has nothing to fear from China directly... except nuclear war.
#127 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
Look at my name and listen: You are a dick! Peace out
User avatar #128 to #14 - turboderp (04/01/2013) [-]
Thing is, if china stop supplying the world with china-made things, we wouldn't have **** ..
User avatar #134 to #128 - andriod (04/01/2013) [-]
And there economy would crash.


China can not economically go to war without there economy tanking.
#129 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
As far as you're aware the US has nothing to fear from other countries? Hmm, let me think, yes they do. There are many countries capable of taking on the US and winning if not individually then in a group. You're not exactly thinking the matter through, the US is not invincible it is one of the most powerful countries in the world yes but it is not above any other country in any way. Arrogance has been the downfall of many a great man as it will be to all if they cannot keep it contained, even if they have a reason for thinking they are above others it does not make it so, or even right to think that, in my opinion what you've just written is your opinion completely and hardly fact, though I have to admit you know how to put a sentence together, despite this I feel you're incorrect in your assumption and would hope you understand things from everyone elses point of view, also... why even bother talking about this it's not like you can do anything about it if it were to happen.
#16 to #14 - htmm (03/31/2013) [-]
I agree. Also, I thought China was actually, for once, on NATO's (therefore USA's) side when it came to North Korea....

I'm pretty sure no country that's all that important is supporting North Korea.... I could be wrong, but I thought I heard and/or read that somewhere.
#20 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
go to wolframalfa and type in "us military, china"

it shows the differences of known forces. you can add ",north korea" if you want to see that compared as well
#27 to #14 - masterquester (04/01/2013) [-]
But the fact that China is flat out PISSED at North Korea helps us too.
#73 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
Sorry my friend...But when it comes to training, British forces all the way.
#167 to #73 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
Lol he is right you know.

*insert morgan freeman pointing upwards saying hes right you know.jpg*
#50 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
Vietnam didn't go to well for them did it...military super power my ass.
User avatar #60 to #50 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
Little known fact for you, anon:

Did you know that the Viet Cong forces kill/death ratio was less than 1/10? That means for every fallen American soldier, you had more than 10 dead Viet Cong. Their advantage was that they were many, but the US military was, as is usual, totally superior to the North Vietnamese.

The US didn't actually lose the war, they just didn't win it. When people talk about Vietnam as the example where "The US lost a war, hah!", it should suggest to you how unbeaten the US actually is in its military history, because by any standards, the Vietnam war wasn't actually a defeat.

Why did the US leave? Well, the democrats cut the funding. They were first to buckle under the pressure from ignorant, "peace-loving" hypocrites, who unfortunately represented a large portion of the United States voting populace, and as a result, the military was forced to pull back.

The funniest thing is that the same people that say, "America lost that war!" adhere to the same group of people who ensured their ability to say just that.

But oh well. Do you feel better at least?
User avatar #72 to #60 - simonderptveit (04/01/2013) [-]
leaving = surrendering = loosing
User avatar #76 to #72 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
leaving =/= surrendering = losing

US forces pulled out because of a lack of funding. As a result, the Viet Cong immediately overran South Vietnam and turned it into a hellhole.

Where on Earth do you get that leaving = surrendering? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Was there a document signed? Did the Viet Cong receive any form of "bounty" for their "victory"? Were there any details to American surrender defined by a treaty? Exchange of prisoners, relinquishment of military assets or change in political situation (save for American domestic politics)? No, nothing. These are details that define a surrender.

The US, because of a lack of funding, pulled out. The military wasn't backed by the home country, and had to abort its mission. There was no retreat.
#185 to #76 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
******* ****** you lost at least admit it dumbass

"yeah im gonna run away from you BUT YOU DIDNT BEAT ME" cry me a ******* river
#15 to #14 - pmppmppmp (03/31/2013) [-]
I was only asking for the Image (read description), not expecting anyone to believe this. It's just a way of see it even if it doesn't reflects the reality.

Last point, with these little gigants, Nukes it's the best we can expect. Let's grab popcorn and watch the world burn.
Yeah, USA might be too powerfull for it's own good.
#87 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
I agree with your point, but would just like to shed some light on China's nuclear capacity. The US has a significant advantage on the nuclear frontier, the US has far more warheads and effective missiles to deliver them, and also have an array of anti-ballistic missile defense systems to protect against a nuclear strike. The Chinese have also stated that they will never launch their nuclear weapons first, therefore, they would only launch their missiles in a retaliatory strike. I'm British so this is not trying to push the whole 'Merica' is better than everyone else crap.
User avatar #77 to #14 - supermegasherman (04/01/2013) [-]
i like you.

to add to your statement, china is actually pushing the other way than one is depicted here. the artist here is not in tune with current political situations. the last thing china wants is another war, especially with the us, last time they lost over 1 million people, and besides that, it would destabilize their entire economy. china wants to continue exporting goods and making money, thats it. if a war were to start, china would not be inclined to help the north koreans. even besides that, north korea threatens war every time they get a new leader, on average every five years or so, there is nothing to worry about.

TL:DR DJ 4DM1N jong eun bluffs a lot
User avatar #24 to #14 - tkfourtwoone (04/01/2013) [-]
Neither the Chinese nor the US (or even Russia for that matter, although I may be wrong) have no interest in conventional warfare against each other.
ECONOMICAL however it's a whole other matter.

That's why China would get rid of NK if it had the opportunity like it was a speck of mud on its boot. It hurts your business to have a retarded cousin at your company's doorstep.
User avatar #44 to #14 - fantomen (04/01/2013) [-]
If there was a nuclear war between china and the United states, China would lose, hard. China has about 30 armed missiles capable of reaching the US. The US has over 550 launch ready ICBMs at any time, as well as a highly effective missile shield system.
#64 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
i have to agree with you 100%.
No way would china or russia get involved in north koreas actions as they are acting like little bitches, They are bluffing by pretending to back up North korea. If **** hit the fan they would not get involved, as you pointed out the only option would be all out nuclear war and i don't think they'll risk that for a pudgy bastard.
The only thing russia could do is cut off the gas supply to most of europe.
User avatar #115 to #14 - junkinator (04/01/2013) [-]
There wouldnt be a nuclear war. First, china has a miniscule nuclear arsenal. Second, lets say the average radius is 7 miles. Since the size of china is over 3.748 million square miles, it would take roughly 530 thousand 1 megaton nukes to carpet china. The Us has about 5,000 nuclear warheads. China has less than 300.
User avatar #123 to #115 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
You wouldn't need to turn the whole of China into a molten, radioactive cesspool. There is more than enough nuclear weaponry to cripple China forever.
#101 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
well, someone has sand in his vagina
#197 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
I don't think the US has to fear China because China will most likely remaim un-hostile (but not necessarily friendly).

China's foreign reserves and assets is mostly US dollars (US bonds, corporate debt, mortgage, and others) which amounts to over $2.3 trillion so if China wanted to hurt the US, China's own investments would become worthless. Besides, the US is the biggest consumer of Chinese goods.

If China wanted to start a war with the US, it might hurt Chinese wallets more than it would American. China needs a strong US economy because it needs a place to sell its goods to. It's invested too much into the US to start a war.

So under the premise that China's the only possible threat to the US militarily, I still don't think WW3 would come from a Korean conflict becuase N.K. won't be able to rely on China as an ally since China has an incentive to remain on good terms with the US.

tl;dr China won't start war w/ US becus they're economically tied together; N.K. foreveralone
User avatar #59 to #14 - novarip (04/01/2013) [-]
Shakespeare, calm down.
#189 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
exept, the chinese are like roaches, you kill 1, 100 take its place
Unbeatable, man...
#199 to #189 - anon (04/02/2013) [-]
immortals counter roaches. US should spam immortals. GG China
User avatar #23 to #14 - euchreplayer (04/01/2013) [-]
Unless I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the US only has 10 carriers now. Pretty sure that is what my officer for ROTC said. We had 11 but one was recently retired after 51 years of service. (Yes the ships can be old, but the technology on board gets replaced.)
#183 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
This might be the best debate to have ever been on FJ. A legitimate, non-biased, logical debate.


I am very proud of these people.
User avatar #19 to #14 - angelious ONLINE (03/31/2013) [-]
and then tehre is ofcourse the funding.america is throwing more money on their military than all of european countries put together.
#179 to #14 - stratotastic (04/01/2013) [-]
Yeah because we all know how the Vietnam War went when the Vietkongs posed no threat at all, right? You guys won by a LANDSLIDE!
#31 to #14 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
China isn't truly communist. My family's business is in paper chemicals, we get most of our titanium dioxide from China. Much of their large scale business is capitalist.

The US can't basically deploy an entire air force (implying that it is sub-par to a normal air force), it can deploy a full air force from a mobile base surrounded by a fleet of the most powerful and technologically advanced battleships, subs, etc. on the planet. The USAF has the largest air force in the word. The second largest air force is operated by the US Navy with 3700+ aircraft (compared to Russia's 3rd place, 3300+).

There is _ essentially_ no threat of nuclear war (just nuclear terrorism). With Russia, China, and the US capable of putting a nuclear weapon anywhere on the planet, the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) has removed that as a viable form of war.

North Korea has no backing anymore either.

Also, I am agreeing with you. Just throwing out some things you may or may not know.
User avatar #58 to #31 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
Notice I said "domestically communist". China is unequivocally communist in its doctrine and in the way it operates within the confines of its own borders, because this system provides the government with control.

However, internationally speaking, and in terms of business overseas, China is supremely capitalist. They are a walking paradox, but they don't really care. The Chinese government wants the best of both worlds, so they manage their populace with communism, and expand with capitalism.

Regarding the MAD doctrine, which is compelling to most of the parts it concerns, all it takes is one psychopath leader with access to nuclear weaponry to start a world war with nuclear weapons. I wouldn't say it's a high risk, I would just say that we're not clear of the threat and we never will we.

You did introduce me to a few new facts I didn't know previously, thanks :)
User avatar #85 to #58 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
Errr... China isn't communist. Communism implies a stateless, classless, moneyless society where the vast majority of the economy is democratised or run by "workers". And that's the definition the very founders of the idea of communism give.
Not even the Chinese government will claim that China is a communist country. Sure, the party (and the only party, of course) is communist, but then again NK is called the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea.

The most you could call China is an authoritarian capitalist country with some socialist modes of command economy. Which is far from communism.
User avatar #97 to #85 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
What you're describing is something a lot closer to anarchism than communism. Although, I will say that the "ideal" communism is also quite close to anarchism.

Communism, all through modern history, has been about an external presence (the state), imposing its ideology upon its citizens for their own good. The state decides who works where, who does what and what goes where, and also distributes the society's goods evenly amongst its citizens. It is strongly idealist and therefore appealing to an idealist mind. It isn't innately evil, I'm not suggesting that. The problem is that it's innately good and naive, and leaves no room for scumbag people.

The communism in China is communism in practice. Admittedly, there has been a little cherry-picking from the Chinese government's side, but as stated previously, they are a walking paradox.
User avatar #104 to #97 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
Communism is anarchist by definition, though anarchism does not have to be communist by definition. Really, basic stuff.

Communism has never been about the state imposing the communist ideology in modern history. In fact, the only communist societies in modern history from Catalonia and Aragon in the 30's, Free Territories of the Ukraine and Zapatistan Chiapas have had no real centralised state power, which is why we can call them communist to an extent.

I know the term communism has been bastardised in the western world, and we have the Red Scare and Soviet propaganda to partly thank for that, but not even the states of the USSR, Cuba, NK, China or any of the other so-called "communist" countries have ever claimed their countries are actually under a communist system. Sure, you can call them communist if it means they follow communist ideology and are working towards communism as described by Marx. But these countries by definition are not communist systems at all.

I'm sure you're aware of the Marxist theoretical transition of political systems?
To simplify it's: feudalism>capitalism>socialism>communism

The most you could call our so-called communist countries, is socialist, which is the transitionary state. And we both agree that even that's a stretch in some cases.
User avatar #106 to #104 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
Yes, I am familiar with this. I've read a few articles by Engels and Marx, the theory of political transition is a central point in Marxist philosophy.

I don't think we actually disagree, we're just attacking different aspects of the situation. Ideal communism is impossible to attain, that has been proven multiple times. The system, as stated, is too easy to manipulate. Communist China isn't ideally communist, but in implementing the ideology into its culture and society it gives tenure to the government. It quite simply is a practical ideology to adhere to if you're seeking control.

In practice, communism isn't communist. In spite of its appeal to idealists, idealists are very rarely in control. In fact, some of the most cynical sons-of-bitches usually rise to the top. Do you think Stalin, Mao, Pot and Kim were idealists?
User avatar #111 to #106 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
Well, I do think we disagree, specifically on one point: that current and past socialist states such as China are attempting to impose a communist system in the first place. They're not. They're attempting to impose a socialist state, and in the case of China they're using it as a practical ideology to hold control. Thus I think we're mostly stuck in a semantic argument. Most communists agree that communism is something that is either an uncontrollable spontaneous change or a gradual social evolution, or both. In the case of societies that came as close to the "ideal" communism (which of course, and all communists agree, is just as impossible to reach as every "ideal" society) they emerged as spontaneous reactions and revolutions. I am of course using the examples I posted above as large-scale, modern societies which showed communism to work quite well.

On an aside I think Stalin, Mao, Pot and Kim are realists to an extent. Then again, extreme realists, where all means are acceptable to an end. So no, I don't think they're idealists. However I think that other communist leaders such as Trotsky, Lenin, Durruti, Makhno and Guevara were certainly idealists, or at least more so than the above. But that's not really important to the points I'm making.
User avatar #122 to #111 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
I think I have been unclear in what I've tried to say. My whole point is that they aren't actually "communist" in a political sense, but as with the USSR, hijacked the ideology and implemented it into its culture. Lenin was undeniably a Marxist, his predecessors were not. This is what happens every time; a political metaporphosis occurs and the state remains communist only where it's practical. The promise of equality and justice fades into a socialist/communist hybrid, specifically designed for easy government control.

Although I recognize your points, I do genuinely think that it's irrelevant whether a society seeks communism through revolution or coup, an uncontrollable spontaneous change or through a gradual social evolution, the outcome will likely be the same every time, because communist mindsets are vulnerable to manipulation and unscrupulous individuals. It doesn't matter if the first leaders are genuine, the system is innately fallible because of its naivete.

"Societies which showed communism to work quite well", I would say that depends on your definition. In the sense that they weren't oppressive, authoritarian regimes (like the other "communist" nations), I'd agree with you, but the philosophy does create stagnation, because it doesn't encourage growth. In an economic sense, I'd argue it didn't work well.
User avatar #187 to #122 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
By the way, someone's thumbing you down. It ain't me, I'm thumbing you up.
User avatar #192 to #187 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
I didn't believe it was, nor do I really care. As stated, I'm enjoying our discussion. Red thumbs have never and will never phase me or change my opinion. Open intellectual discourse however, just might :)
User avatar #186 to #122 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
I agree to an extent that socialist states in the Marxist sense of reaching communism through a transitionary stage leads to authority self-perpetuating its own authority. In other words, people in power want to stay in power. This is true of any statist society, socialist or capitalist. Personally I think this is why the anarchist viewpoint on reaching forms of communism are much more viable.

I must vehemently disagree that every route to communism leads to an inevitable corruption of leadership as you claim. This is simply untrue when we look at the examples I stated, where more examples are availible. To make corruption of hierarchal authority less likely, a system and culture of aversion to hierarchal authority is needed, which is quite synonymous with anarchism. The Chiapans have an interesting system if you'd like to learn about that. Within a statist environment this sort of corruption and greed for power is not only possible, it is encouraged. Please note I'm arguing the anarchist communist standpoint here.

I'm defining how they work well, in regards to what communism aims to achieve. Communist ideas aim to achieve a society without forms of economic oppression or exploitation, and as such the examples prove to be getting close, at least in the sense of applying communist ideas on how such a society should be run. For example, decentralisation and federalisation of democracy, direct workers' control of workplaces, gift or labournote economies, and such means. In that sense they succeeded. Economic growth is irrelevant to communism, as it does not aim for growth. Instead it aims only to economically provide what there is a demand for. Basically you should not apply capitalist modes of comparison to a communist system.
User avatar #191 to #186 - goldenglimmer ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
Indeed. Corruption is bound to plague any statist society. This is why I personally love the old American ideals of limited government, and of personal liberty. I suspect we are on two very different sides of the political spectrum, but I want to say that i am enjoying this discussion very much. You are an enlightened individual and I respect your philosophy, despite it differing from my own.

The main difference between us is that I believe government is a necessary evil. You believe it to be an innately corrupt and unnecessary institution.

Perhaps not every communist route leads to inevitable corruption, and perhaps every statist society is prone to corrupted hierarchies, but I think societies that adhere to certain philosophies are more likely to cultivate a corrupt leadership than others, communism being one of the weaker ones.

I realize you are arguing for the anarchist approach to communism, and I can't help but agree that this is, in terms of social virtue, superior to the other variants. I just find that both systems create a stagnation, and hinders us in moving forward as a people.

You are right. I committed a category error by using our definitions of a "working society" for the communist societies you describe. However, I feel that with out an economic system; without the prospects of material wealth and personal gain, we lack the incentive to invest, and create, and innovation melts away. I feel capitalism, at least in some form, is needed for our advancement.

Philosophically though, I respect your standpoint.
User avatar #203 to #191 - toastedspikes (04/02/2013) [-]
I'd love to continue debating on the topic of innovation and stagnation in communism versus capitalism, I could provide a couple of refutations for your claim if you could write an elaboration on it. Then again I don't want the debate to devolve into an "is so, is not" situation, and you're one of the very few people on the internet I've had the pleasure of having a discussion with, without it degenerating into namecalling and fallacies!

Unless you insist we carry on, of course.
#140 to #122 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
you fellas sure are smart
User avatar #137 to #58 - andriod (04/01/2013) [-]
The beauty of MAD is that, even if that psychopath has big tough ally's, They will flip on them. If someone were to launch nukes, its more like every country that is able to will gang up and smash them into the ground to protect them selfs.


Nobody wants to destroy the entire human race because of some pissant lunatic
#55 to #31 - nobleknight (04/01/2013) [-]
Battleships have been mothballed sadly unless they have been recalled.
#45 to #31 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
True enough, but China would not be very happy with war on their doorstep, so it is a very delicate situation.
#1 - poorjew (03/31/2013) [-]
#2 to #1 - pmppmppmp (03/31/2013) [-]
Thanks a lot PoorJew!
It looks perfect.
#54 - ajmartin (04/01/2013) [-]
Fixed
#204 to #54 - sonicwind (04/10/2013) [-]
**sonicwind rolled a random image posted in comment #1331109 at Friendly **
#90 - yowhatsup (04/01/2013) [-]
would be funny if someone then edited Europe's legs behind America's
User avatar #96 to #90 - kerryman (04/01/2013) [-]
but our army's are piss weak?
User avatar #105 to #96 - zevran (04/01/2013) [-]
But there are a lot of them. One for every country.
User avatar #107 to #105 - kerryman (04/01/2013) [-]
we voted down a EU proposal to have a united european army that acts as one in the Lisbon Treaty because it would have affect some of the member states right to neutrality.
User avatar #108 to #107 - zevran (04/01/2013) [-]
Seems right to me. The EU is meant to be an economic treaty. Trying to unify the many different armed forces of Europe would be impractical anyway.
User avatar #201 to #108 - kerryman (04/02/2013) [-]
Ya man i totally agree. My country is neutral and i hope it stays that way.
0
#100 to #90 - yowhatsup has deleted their comment [-]
#158 to #90 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
NATO.
#103 to #90 - squishylemonz (04/01/2013) [-]
Yeah, and then if someone edited China's legs behind Russia's, it would be even more funnier.
User avatar #114 to #103 - TimBisley ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
Someone should edit the end so that China picks up NK, slaps him and tells him to shut up and behave.
#119 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
It looks like a lot of people think the hammer and sickle is related to Russia, that is Soviet Russia, not current Russia. The hammer and sickle is related to the current Chinese Communist government because NK and China are allies.

You are all ******* retarded and need to read a history book instead of this getting your education from this site.
+8
#120 to #119 - vicviper **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#160 - mexicoman (04/01/2013) [-]
I believe that the Chinese and Russians have about as heavy an obligation to North Korea as America has to its trade embargo against Cuba. Their practices are cruel and they have a habit of burning bridges. I think its only a matter of time until troops actually clash and defeat the North Korean government once and for all. At least I hope that one day we can see a unified Korea.
I believe that the Chinese and Russians have about as heavy an obligation to North Korea as America has to its trade embargo against Cuba. Their practices are cruel and they have a habit of burning bridges. I think its only a matter of time until troops actually clash and defeat the North Korean government once and for all. At least I hope that one day we can see a unified Korea.
#130 - localcatbarber (04/01/2013) [-]
This just reminded me a bit about something random in my tf2 folder.
User avatar #21 - jimli (04/01/2013) [-]
Why do people still insist on comparing cock sizes like this? I swear sometimes I feel like we're all 10-year-old boys standing behind a McDonald's and talking about whose Daddy could beat whose....
User avatar #22 to #21 - pmppmppmp (04/01/2013) [-]
Read description and comments, not all is about comparing countries, and the post is about a request.
User avatar #37 to #21 - sadpandaissad (04/01/2013) [-]
Because its a comedic comic
#75 - odonnell (04/01/2013) [-]
Everyone is saying N. Korea couldn't do any significant harm to the US. If they have the Nuclear Missiles that they claim to have, then they could hit Hawaii and the Majority of Alaska. Although they might not seem like much: Hawaii generates around $11 Billion a year on tourism alone, Alaska holds oil and gold mining. It would be a fair hit to the US economy if NK chose to fire a Nuke.
User avatar #126 to #75 - Cobaltsushi ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
Its not like Hawaii has a missile defense system or anythi- OH WAIT IT DOES
I am safe
User avatar #110 to #75 - camthepedobear (04/01/2013) [-]
If they launched a nuke the WORLD would come knocking on their assholes.

Wise up youngin, there's a reason no one uses them.
User avatar #125 to #110 - VincentKing ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
and just think, if Japan decided to break their no-war contract (or whatever it was, 12AM and I'm tired, can't think straight) we will be invaded by these suidobashijuko.jp/
User avatar #154 to #125 - BizzarreCoyote (04/01/2013) [-]
Japan was required to not have a standing military until 2010. They currently have a military that can launch attacks, and you can be damn sure they're watching NK as much as we are.


After all, they've had a missile shot AT them just recently.
#121 to #110 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
If no-one uses them, then why waste $56 billion a year keeping them. Seems kind of silly spending that much money on something with no purpose other than to make yourself look tough. Its about as smart as labels, like when you can pay $15 for a shirt, or pay £150 for the same shirt but with an Armani logo.
User avatar #124 to #110 - odonnell (04/01/2013) [-]
I wasn't saying that everyone would let them do it, and that they wouldn't have their ass handed to them afterwards. I was just pointing out that, if they had the balls to do so, they could fire a nuke and do some significant damage to the US's economy.
User avatar #176 - durkadurka (04/01/2013) [-]
This is just North Korea's way of trying to keep up in what is essentially a dick-measuring contest.
User avatar #168 - thedungeonmaster (04/01/2013) [-]
Doesn't the US owe China like 3 trillion dollars? How does it even make sense to aid in bombing a country that owes you money?
User avatar #182 to #168 - oceanmist ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
We only owe china less than 10% of our debt, something like a bit over a trillion.
User avatar #169 to #168 - ireallylikepotatoe (04/01/2013) [-]
I don't think the US is ever going to get out of the debt it is in to be honest.
#181 to #169 - anon (04/01/2013) [-]
Just about time to bring democracy to another country !
#166 - mattymc (04/01/2013) [-]
China is not going to involve itself if North Korea Invades the south, the only time theyd intervene is if the US and ROK forces push back into the north, just like in 1950. China and the US are far too economically linked to go to war over a ********* country like north korea
User avatar #156 - itrooztrooperdown (04/01/2013) [-]
Wars are useless.

North Korea is the biggest prison on earth, that's all it is.
User avatar #53 - thenightshade (04/01/2013) [-]
Actually i think the bigger boot is China. Russia is not communist anymore. China is backing up North Korea despite supporting sanctions against North Korea.
User avatar #70 to #53 - cowandchicken ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
thats not russia backing up korea thats russia pretty much backing up USA thats why US is kinda trembling and trying to warn korea to stop or Russia will **** him and Korea up. Which we all know they can.
User avatar #83 to #70 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
That's not Russia's flag, bud.
User avatar #88 to #83 - cowandchicken ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
well then replace Russia with whomever it is and continue (no rudeness intended)
User avatar #89 to #88 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
China.
User avatar #93 to #89 - cowandchicken ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
but chinas flag isnt black.....
User avatar #94 to #93 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
It also doesn't have a hammer and sickle. Russia also isn't the USSR anymore. Nothing makes sense to me anymore.
User avatar #95 to #94 - cowandchicken ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
but...but....politics...
User avatar #98 to #95 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
Let's just settle on the Aztecs, then.
User avatar #102 to #98 - cowandchicken ONLINE (04/01/2013) [-]
perfect done did gone
User avatar #148 - darknesking (04/01/2013) [-]
Lol Russia's a broken country
#67 - beerterror (04/01/2013) [-]
I don't think that any country would now (or 20 years ago) dare to launch a nuke. I mean, maybe muslim terrorists, they're crazy enough, but no country. It would be countered with total destruction, both conventional and nuclear I guess, from every military superpower there is in the world, I mean China, USA, Russia.

Little pricks like Kim, or Ahmadinejad (that's how I write it?) can shout all they want, but they ain't crazy enough to risk everything for some ******** goals. And superwpowers, even if they're in traditional opposition, they're more willing to trade and build their wealth than shoot nukes on everyone.

My guess is that in 50 years time, the real Economic Wars will start, led by supercomputers (perhaps quantum ones already) governing the stock exchanges.
User avatar #82 to #67 - toastedspikes (04/01/2013) [-]
Hey, wanna be scared?

Look up dirty bombs, then look up "missing uranium".
#71 to #67 - Soufa (04/01/2013) [-]
MAD Theory, Mutually Assured Destruction
User avatar #74 to #71 - beerterror (04/01/2013) [-]
Everybody wants to live.
#56 - bobdabuilda (04/01/2013) [-]
It doesn't matter how many ******* nukes a country has if they do not have the delivery system for said nukes. As of now, China doesn't have the delivery system to nuke anyone except its immediate neighbors(who are allies and this would have extreme collateral damage to their economy). Oh, and North Korea has a about the same odds of initiating a succesful nuclear strike on foreign soil as George Bush Jr. being capable of pronouncing that sentence. tl;dr- U.S.A. and Russia nuke everyone.
User avatar #57 to #56 - randomserb (04/01/2013) [-]
Give source.
User avatar #112 to #57 - camthepedobear (04/01/2013) [-]
ICBM's are exclusive to Russia, Amerrca and the UK, but the UK has a total of, count em! 8 silos.

Murrca has 48.

Russia has 14.

Check, and mate.
User avatar #195 to #112 - randomserb (04/01/2013) [-]
That's no source.
User avatar #43 - iceviking (04/01/2013) [-]
Russia hates north korea
User avatar #46 to #43 - pmppmppmp (04/01/2013) [-]
Tha fisherman dont have to like the bait, just make use of it when it's needed. Anyway, it's just an image.
User avatar #99 to #43 - dementedllama (04/01/2013) [-]
Who doesn't hate North Korea?

Even China told them to calm the **** down.
#47 - koga (04/01/2013) [-]
im american.....and 83% of the time i wish we were not the best in the world.....now if only somebody could get rid of over half of our population, yeah, that would be great too....

and russia would totally kick our ass, and china,
north korea would hurt us, but not kill....

.....and yes im voicing my opinion on the internet......
User avatar #113 to #47 - camthepedobear (04/01/2013) [-]
Russia invades

Ground troops knock them the **** out in a 6 month campaign.

We counter invade,

Die in the freezing north.

Nobody wins with Russia.
They just sit in their below 0 climate and wait out their problems.

Besides,

>that innate level of poverty
User avatar #117 to #47 - junkinator (04/01/2013) [-]
You realize theres a 50% chance you would die too, right?
User avatar #200 to #117 - koga (04/02/2013) [-]
you dont say
User avatar #51 to #47 - KillerKlownKKK (04/01/2013) [-]
I'm not sure if Russia would definatly destroy America because this country is kinda run by people who would be like "well if we lose, everyone loses" and they'd nuke em and yes I know Russia has nukes too but as far as i know the don't have the Iron dome missile and anti aircraft defense systems the the US has. I mean the US has already nuked an opposing nation. But I cam almost guarantee at the first sign of war the US would attack and take control of the OPEC Nations and the EU countries would def back the US. and that would make it super hard for anyone to actually ''WIN" a war against the US. Pluss we're one of the only countries were the citizens are almost as well armed as the military. Who's gonna be stupid enough to bring a war to our shores? Plus I've heard from some pretty UNRELIABLE sources that there's plans to make armor ammo RPGs and a bunch of other **** available to civilians if this country is ever invaded.
User avatar #49 to #48 - koga (04/01/2013) [-]
...how about truth?
[ 199 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)