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
Upload
Login or register

Bad luck

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
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.

+398
Views: 19474 Submitted: 03/31/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (199)
[ 199 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #14 - goldenglimmer
Reply +68 123456789123345869
(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.
#31 to #14 - anon id: 2312879c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#55 to #31 - nobleknight
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Battleships have been mothballed sadly unless they have been recalled.
#45 to #31 - anon id: 42693028
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
True enough, but China would not be very happy with war on their doorstep, so it is a very delicate situation.
User avatar #58 to #31 - goldenglimmer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 id: 70060c1a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
you fellas sure are smart
User avatar #137 to #58 - andriod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
#50 to #14 - anon id: 60423dca
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Vietnam didn't go to well for them did it...military super power my ass.
User avatar #60 to #50 - goldenglimmer
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(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
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
leaving = surrendering = loosing
User avatar #76 to #72 - goldenglimmer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(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 id: 8b7b12e7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
User avatar #59 to #14 - novarip
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Shakespeare, calm down.
User avatar #77 to #14 - supermegasherman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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 #128 to #14 - turboderp
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
And there economy would crash.


China can not economically go to war without there economy tanking.
#15 to #14 - pmppmppmp [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#20 to #14 - anon id: 44cfde03
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
#127 to #14 - anon id: 3e31dafc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Look at my name and listen: You are a dick! Peace out
#129 to #14 - anon id: 6b77385a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#183 to #14 - anon id: 41ade0c8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#189 to #14 - anon id: b0566d02
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
exept, the chinese are like roaches, you kill 1, 100 take its place
Unbeatable, man...
#199 to #189 - anon id: cd39fcfc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/02/2013) [-]
immortals counter roaches. US should spam immortals. GG China
#197 to #14 - anon id: cd39fcfc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 #24 to #14 - tkfourtwoone
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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.
#27 to #14 - masterquester
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
But the fact that China is flat out PISSED at North Korea helps us too.
User avatar #23 to #14 - euchreplayer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.)
#101 to #14 - anon id: bec95cfa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
well, someone has sand in his vagina
User avatar #19 to #14 - angelious
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#87 to #14 - anon id: aac4c141
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#179 to #14 - stratotastic
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(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!
#73 to #14 - anon id: 21df2610
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Sorry my friend...But when it comes to training, British forces all the way.
#167 to #73 - anon id: 96a000aa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Lol he is right you know.

*insert morgan freeman pointing upwards saying hes right you know.jpg*
User avatar #115 to #14 - junkinator
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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.
#64 to #14 - anon id: 5154c954
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#16 to #14 - htmm
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(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.
#7 - killyojoy
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
Why is russia bigger than america.. They should be about even.
#8 to #7 - pmppmppmp [OP]
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
#9 to #8 - killyojoy
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
The people on the left have been holding the log for well over an hour while the lady was just transporting that one. I'm sure anyone of those men could move that log just fine.
#11 to #9 - pmppmppmp [OP]
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
Just a joke man, anyway Russia is better known by being too practical, specially at wars. Not to mention it got many nukes, If I think about WWIII between those 2, I can only imagine a Mushroom war. My fear, Russia won't give any sound before let the first nuke fall, than everything goes to hell.
#13 to #11 - killyojoy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
Russia is not the power house it used to be and the size of your nuke does not matter. The reason america uses small nukes over bigs ones is because we are much more accurate.
User avatar #39 to #13 - therealtjthemedic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
' the size of your nuke does not matter'
yeah, it kinda does. Big nuke = big boom.
#196 to #39 - killyojoy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
True but if you can't put that nuke in the correct place then it means nothing plus once you nuke a place you can't take that land for your self since you radiated it. So a small nuke in a tactical place is far more valuable then a big nuke in the middle of no where.
#116 to #39 - anon id: 854f6d1d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Nice 5th grade logic there
User avatar #138 to #116 - therealtjthemedic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
But strangely.. simple logic... STILL WORKS?
#40 to #8 - cumguzzler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Too bad with all the drones we have it doesn't really matter if Russians are stronger. The only way Russia could win a war against us is if we invaded on foot during the winter which would be retarded.
inb4 Russian population could win the war
The only reason the Russians beat Napoleon and Hitler was scorched earth tactit, it didn't really have anything to do with their population.
#52 to #40 - anon id: 60423dca
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
dones...HA! High altitude detonation of a nuclear warhead results in massive electromagnetic pulse which signals the end of anything electronic for American defence. Also, size of nuke does not matter...what have you been smoking? I'm pretty sure there is a sizeable difference in the effectiveness of a 100 megatonne warhead as compomared to a 100kilotonne warhead.
#42 to #40 - pmppmppmp [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
It's not about winning, it's about damage.
Russia is not the only one expecting to attack USA. They are like Buffalos, you can hunt one down easy pissy with a good rifle. But If it hits just once it can make a lot of damage, not to mention all those who'll get the chance to get into a stampede behind it. USA got more Enemies than Allies till where I know.
Yeah, It can beat the **** over any country, but not all of them without the risk of destroying itself.
#54 - ajmartin
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Fixed
#204 to #54 - sonicwind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
**sonicwind rolled a random image posted in comment #1331109 at Friendly **
#1 - poorjew
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
#2 to #1 - pmppmppmp [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
Thanks a lot PoorJew!
It looks perfect.
User avatar #136 - szymonf
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(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.
#119 - anon id: 8c864286
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
#120 to #119 - vicviper **User deleted account**
+8 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#90 - yowhatsup
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
would be funny if someone then edited Europe's legs behind America's
#103 to #90 - squishylemonz
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Someone should edit the end so that China picks up NK, slaps him and tells him to shut up and behave.
User avatar #96 to #90 - kerryman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
but our army's are piss weak?
User avatar #105 to #96 - zevran
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
But there are a lot of them. One for every country.
User avatar #107 to #105 - kerryman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/02/2013) [-]
Ya man i totally agree. My country is neutral and i hope it stays that way.
#100 to #90 - yowhatsup
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#158 to #90 - anon id: ce2fbbe2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
NATO.
#41 - txsslg **User deleted account**
-5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #65 to #41 - beerterror
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
>hammer and sickle
>2013
>russia

***** wut
User avatar #3 - darthblam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
This doesn't even make any sense..
#4 to #3 - pmppmppmp [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
If someone attacks Mexico or Canada (specially Canada), some effects might spit USA Boots, therefore get an excuse to give "freedom service" to the attacker. Something like that.
Anyway, NK is right next to China and URSS and they are not exactly USA best friends.
User avatar #17 to #4 - darthblam
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
But the Soviet Union no longer exists...
#18 to #17 - anon id: f8fa2e5b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/31/2013) [-]
So you're told.
#118 to #4 - EpicTie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
URSS? Sure about that one?
User avatar #145 to #118 - pmppmppmp [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Just a way to say it, I know it is gone since the war. Yet I like to call Russia that. Sound more Badass, howerver some people seems to hate it.
I guess as much people still call Germans Nazis, they are not anymore but that kind of stuff goes like that.
#161 to #145 - anon id: 854f6d1d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Your logic is ******* retarded. People don't call Germans Nazis. No one. Just like people don't say USRR. it implies something they are not.
#62 to #4 - anon id: edda6fdd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
The fact that you call it the URSS and you think it still exists makes your post irrelevant.
User avatar #147 to #62 - pmppmppmp [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Log in and say it like a Man!
I know it desapeared long Ago yet like to call it that, any problem?
Anyway it's ways and many rules still exist not to mention Putin way till this day.
User avatar #168 - thedungeonmaster
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(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 id: a18e9d59
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/01/2013) [-]
Just about time to bring democracy to another country !