NORTH KOREA TESTS ANOTHER NUKE

>>33495425
>14kt
oh no, a bomb that could destroy everything within a mile of detonation
they made little boy. big fucking deal.
granted, we should still glass them, but this isn't castle fucking bravo

>>33495441
yup

:)

File: 1478679137762.jpg (26KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 308x308px

>>33495425
>latImes
Nice try.

>>33495425
So? I hope they try to use it. Their missiles are shit so the only ones at risk are the faggots on the west coast. If they took out LA or San francisco they'd be doing us a favor. We'd turn them into a parking lot and keep liberals out of power for 100 years. Win-Win

>>33495457
global warming is real

>>33495425

The trouble is that the DPRK still hasnt managed to make warheads small enough to be mounted on their rockets properly.

Worst they could do is sneak one into a tunnel into a neighboring country, smuggle one abroad on a charter plane and detonate it over a target, or blow it up within DPRK in case on a ground invasion.

Either way, options 1 and 2 are very unlikely, and option 3 would only cause fallout to neighboring areas, who would have ample notice to distribute iodine tablets and warn people to remain indoors.

Big. Fucking. Deal.

>>33495460
Yeah? Who gives a shit? It's irrelevant compared to the real crisis facing humanity in the coming decades. If these projections are accurate and if our politicians maintain our unsustainable open border policies, we might as well "smoke em if we got em". Our societies and people will be dead and gone long before it's a serious problem.

http://www.norrag.org/en/publications/norrag-news/online-version/refugees-displaced-persons-and-education-new-challenges-for-development-and-policy/detail/africas-rapid-population-growth-and-migratory-pressures.html

>>33495425
I sometimes wonder how old are there people who think pulling a joke on 1 of April is some kind of achievement.

>>33495488
How about both? Lets and get rid of using oil, and tell africans to fuck off.

File: Joe_Rogan_Randall_Carlson_JRE_606.jpg (24KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 350x200px

>>33495742
global warming is #FAKENEWS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wAKVz_lKv0

http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/randall-carlson-climate-change-real-deniers

>>33495763
I don't want to start a /pol/ discussion here. But you should look into
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Georgescu-Roegen
It isnt just about CO2 and global warming.

>>33495425
I know North Korea hates it's people, but I want to know. Is the nuclear material used in a bomb like this similar to what a nuclear plant would use? Could they generate any decent amount of worth while power with it?

>>33495460

Mass depopulation tends to cut down on the long-term pollution that causes it in the first place. By curbing unnecessary population, you can cut down on humanities' carbon footprint. War in the name of ecology: you should try it some time!

>>33495425
Ha! I ain't falling for that shit.

>>33495485
You keep saying big fucking deal all the way to 15 years from now when Nork ICBM's are raining MIRV's on your hometown because someone on CNN called Kim Jong Un fat.

>>33495789
Different anon here, I don't want to start a /pol/ discussion either, but isn't the proposed idea that resources are finite one that is self evident? We have always lived in a scarcity based society as humans. Is there an argument that there's anything close to an immediate danger even in the next thousand years of this becoming a problem?

I've seen the claims of peak oil continually pushed further and further back as more and more is discovered and able to be refined, so forgive me if this seems conceited of me to say.

>>33495485
>or blow it up within DPRK in case on a ground invasion.

This. Kim doesn't give a shit about collateral damage to his own people and with his propaganda machine can spin that America nuked Korea. Meanwhile, the invading troops suffer near 100% losses from the blast+fallout.

File: ww II soldier giving drink.jpg (329KB, 800x628px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 800x628px

>>33495895
Most of the time they manage to prolong shit by new technology which creates an even worse problem down the line. For example the oil peak got pushed further down the line by oil sand and fracking. But fracking might poison ground water and tar sand refinement is just a mess. The issue of overpopulation and feeding them (malthus theory) got solved with industrial farming and artificial fertilizer. However it fucks rain forests up, the monoculture ruins the health of the farm, and phosphates are limited. Ozone layer depleting gases were replaced by other gases, however these have something like 50 times the absorption of sunlight than other greenhouse gases.

So all these tricks to extend the current systems only drain the planet faster in other ways. Its like paying off a loan by taking a worse loan. Yes limited resources is evident. But isnt it logical you want to delay that process instead of just burning it all and hope that some scientists have figured out another trick to keep going? And remember america still has quite some empty states to go to. Europe is packed to the gills with people.

>>33495950
>Yes limited resources is evident.
lol no
australia alone has enough known oil reservoirs, untapped ones, to beat the middle east in oil production. more reservoirs are found every week.

peak oil is just a normal result of supply and demand that has been hijacked by professors in various universities to get government funding

>>33495797
Yes. Uranium is the primary material, specifically the isotope U-235 (which is radioactive). Nuclear reactor-grade uranium is about 2% enriched, which means its about 2% U-235, whereas weapons grade uranium is much, much more U-235.

you can down cycle weapons-grade uranium into fuel-grade uranium. Such programs have been done already in various "Atoms for Peace" deals between the US and USSR, where we would essentially buy their nukes to use as fuel.

>>33495797
No, it's quite different - material in a nuke plant is a lot easier, requiring lower grade / less refinement. Could they generate power? Yeah probably, Could they build and maintain the plants? Probably not

>>33495982
from what I could find its down pretty deep and requires fracking. Not ideal to say the least. It depends on how the US fracking ends up if they will bother with it.

And universities can get money from big oil if they want as well.

>>33495986
>>33495992
Isnt the centrifuge they need to enrich uranium pretty hard to make as well? Considering how their technological aptitude is stuck in the 50s.

>>33496004
no it's not "pretty deep", the mining companies in australia don't have much incentive to collect it since nobody really needs oil that badly at the moment. once india goes to do something big like elevating all of their people to the middle class that oil will be tapped.

>>33496004
Centrifuges aren't the only method. I think there are like 4 well known methods. Centrifuges just happen to work the best

>>33495950
Is there any proposed solutions that are feasible economically?

I would genuinely like to hear them. I always was a big proponent of nuclear power, but most global warming/climate change proponents consider this to be 'tricks to extend the current systems only drain the planet faster in other ways'

Is the human drain on the planet inevitable? Would humanity have to stop existing to stop draining the planet?

>>33496025
Are there* I apologize, it's late.

>>33496025
humanity is not draining the planet. stop listening to propaganda.

File: 1379305854977.gif (484KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 500x365px

>>33496036
Hey, to be intellectually honest about my beliefs, I like to hear what the opposition has to say about the solution to the problem they maintain as being critical.

A lot of people take it seriously, and I want to see the logical conclusion to their belief even if in the end it's caused by propaganda.

>North Koreans use money to nuclear research
>Meanwhile their citizens are hungry
>Then the dumb western capitalist pig gives them food
>So now they can keep using money to nuclear research instead of infrastructure and agriculture
>They threaten to destroy something if you don't give them money
>If you keep giving them money they just get better at destroying things with time
Am I missing something here or misunderstanding something? If no, why do the western world is such a retard that keeps giving money to a bully that is using money to roid up and get better at bullying? Just cut the money supply short and let them kill something, be SK or their nuclear program.

"No Government Foreign Aid for North Korea. ... The United Nations is seeking nearly $30 million to aid Pyongyang. Alas, such tragedy is nothing new for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Last year the DPRK claimed “the worst drought in 100 years.”Oct 28, 2016"

>>33496093
Because no one wants to create the massive refugee crisis that a hot Korean War would cause, and SK desperately wants to maintain the peace.

Fucking with NK pisses SK off, and we don't want to do that basically.

>>33496025
>>Is there any proposed solutions that are feasible economically?
I dont know the proposed solutions. However from what I see in most green party proposals you will have to give up significant growth. They are too convinced of their own ideas and dont mind upping taxes to fund everything. Its just that a lot of people think that everything will be fine because everything worked out before. I think that is naive and we should take more time to consider if everything will work out.

Nuclear power could work but they are kind of like aircraft. They are safe but if an accident happens its big news.

>Is the human drain on the planet inevitable?
It is if you dont want to go crazy and go amish style. But even if you drain the planet it can be limited to last a long time.
>Would humanity have to stop existing to stop draining the planet?
No, and its a silly question. Why bother saving the earth if it would require humanity to be gone?

>>33496093
>>33496098
also if the war would be over and NK would merge with south korea the economy of SK would be so bad that it will cause a global market recession since korea is pretty important.

>>33496065
not that guy but America and Europe aren't the problem like the environment zealots would have you believe

third world retards are responsible for most environmental problems we're seeing
>africa
burns electronic trash to get precious metals generall shits up anywhere they live
>south america
Burn down the rainforest for farming
>asia
China and India are literally overpopulated landfills with a smattering of toxic industrial wasteland. this is the big one cause almost 3 billion 3rd world retards.

>>33496143
Right so you want to build a wall around europe and america, not fill up your fertile land with toxins and tell tell all the immigrants to fuck off. Thats the issue I have with green parties. 1) they want to do everything with insane taxes 2) they want to important immigrants that ruined their own country and will consume a lot more shit in the west

>>33496093
like ever communist society NK was doomed from the start and it's being kept alive by foreign aid because China wants a buffer state and SK/China doesn't want to deal with the economics of a reunification

>>33495441
>>33495457
it's presumably for USAG yongsan in seoul, you fucking nerds. there are thousands of people there, women and children included, schools and hospitals, crammed into 600 acres. more americans would die than on 9/11.

Honestly curious, who would back up North Korea in a war against the U.S.?
I know China is basically the only country that doesn't absolutely despise them, but I doubt even they would go to war with one of their biggest money banks over their retarded ally.

>>33496112
I just find it humorous that without a solution and acknowledging that there will be an economic slowdown required to do anything that there's still support for the narrative.

What is defined as 'limiting' draining the planet if it is inevitable, and can the speed and effects of which be quantified?

It's the same thing as being a doomsayer or Jehovah's Witness when there's no metric or timespan that is provided.

I must concur that it's naive to believe that everything in the future will work out fine, but I also find it naive to believe stopping economic growth to be a solution to a problem. It's like stopping overpopulation by starving people to death.

I apologize if I seem rude, but you're not considering the fact that there is already a large amount of awareness of safely performing economic growth, and must agree with this anon's point:>>33496143
that the problem persists much larger outside the anglosphere, and is in essence an unsolvable non-issue per the fact it is not quantified in a meaningful way.

>>33496156
yup also I'm hoping for a pandemic of epic proportions, unfortunately we've got a bunch of moralfag liberal doctors stopping this from happening every time it might kick off

>>33496181
I think you misunderstand. I think something should be done. But I disagree with the green party narrative, see >>33496156

As for the peak oil. It got delayed due fracking. However fracking probably gives issues (depends whether you trust the reports of people getting sick and poisoned ground water) and during my chemistry study I was researching a system where you inject a polymer (plastic) that would harden and expand. That way you could push out the remaining oil out of reservoirs found in the middle east. As currently only a part can be pumped up. That is a lot environmentally safe and probably a better solution than fracking. However that ship already sailed and the tech was still not worked out completely. I think we should be more careful about big engineering projects like this.

>What is defined as 'limiting' draining the planet if it is inevitable, and can the speed and effects of which be quantified?

>It's the same thing as being a doomsayer or Jehovah's Witness when there's no metric or timespan that is provided.

Its hard to calculate something like this since there are a lot of systems, some buffer changes (sea absorbing heat) others speed it up (methane escaping from permafrost) and the amount of money and politics involved makes every research (which already is hard to do) a clusterfuck where you can your own ideas on. The issue is, if you have one potential scenario that would mean the world is going to be fucked, wouldnt you want to be cautious?

Either way climate research isnt my profession and most info on it is stuck in political hell. In the end I work on chemistry and when I do research I notice that some shit is quite fucked up. Very often chemistry provides stop gap solutions to problems. But the rest of the people figure the problem is solved and move on to the next issue.

>>33496223
I guess I do hold a misunderstanding. I don't understand what you're arguing for.

I can't wait for them to launch them into the ocean next

File: tsunami bomb.jpg (2MB, 1280x1800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x1800px

>>33496249
tsunami bombs are no laughing matter, unless they tsunami nuke themselves ofc.

>>33496244
im arguing against the "guys we dont have any limitations just frack our shit up and nothing bad will happen because everything worked out before" and instead work on a system where the west is selfsufficient on the long term. Which means no toxic waste (something current batteries also fuck up on)

>>33496262
So you're arguing for the belief that we are limited, for a self sufficient west, no toxic waste, and you can't specify how to carry these things out?

Forgive me, but do you see how this can be seen as absurd?

>>33496298
>and you can't specify how to carry these things out?
You want me to provide a comprehensive national economic plan to achieve this?

Forgive me, but do you see how this can be seen as absurd?
Yes. but can you see how just going our merry way until we live in bejing tier smog cities is absurd as well?

>>33496165

>what is camp Humphreys

get a brain moran

>>33496262
>thinking you only need a detonation to cause a tsunami

Every underwater nuclear detonation says otherwise. You're not getting a wave effect from a detonation, you need the plates to shift vertically to create one.

>>33496342
Some advice for the future: it is better to explain your idea from the beginning rather than drag people along and allowing them to believe you're a conspirator of global warming.

It would be very beneficial for yourself and the argument's sake to outline your comprehensive national economic plan while telling people exactly what you believe in rather than be vague about it.

If you do otherwise it's quite confusing, and disingenuous.

I don't believe it's absurd for humans to follow what is the most economically viable. That is human nature. That's how they it happened with Beijing and other countries, and I would argue it's unnatural and requires economically detrimental intervention to correct it.

I'm just a realist who understands that any action taken has consequences which may or may not be intended or beneficial.

What I'm trying to accomplish with our discussion is to understand logical conclusion of your belief, so it would be helpful if you provided your comprehensive national economic plan, and I'm very interested in seeing if it works with the global economy consisting of many other nations.

>>33496374
understand the logical conclusion of your belief*

>>33496374
That's how it happened*

I apologize again

File: fixing overpopulation da tovarish fix.jpg (217KB, 506x684px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 506x684px

>>33496181
>It's like stopping overpopulation by starving people to death

>Sounds familiar...

>>33495425
Just what is North Korea's end game here, anyways? Even if they nuke Seoul there's no way they genuinely think they won't be brutalized by American and South Korean forces

>>33496374
>allowing them to believe you're a conspirator of global warming
Well im not a conspirator. I believe in it. However due the fact you dont seem to I left it out of further arguments. You would just tank them on global warming alone, while there are multiple reasons to cut down on fossil fuels.

>outline your comprehensive national economic plan
There are multiple possible routes. Outlining a national economic plan in 2000 characters is absurd. Not only would I have to omit so much that it would be an unreasonable essay, it is also rather stupid I have to work out an entire economic plan to replace the existing one since I suggest the current system has issues. This is the "well if you complain I want to see you do better" argument.

>I don't believe it's absurd for humans to follow what is the most economically viable. That is human nature.
It is absurd to say X is absurd and we should not bother with it. Even though it will give issues down the line.

>What I'm trying to accomplish with our discussion is to understand logical conclusion of your belief,
And im trying to accomplish is that you understand that a hands off approach will require worse legislation in the long run.

>>33496495
>Well im not a conspirator. I believe in it.

This is starting to explain a lot of your behavior and inability to quantify what you believe in. It's just agitprop that you seem to be repeating.

>You would just tank them on global warming alone, while there are multiple reasons to cut down on fossil fuels.

I never was one to say there are no reasons to cut down on fossil fuels, just that you're going to have a hell of a time convincing people to do it especially with this attitude.


>Outlining a national economic plan in 2000 characters is absurd. Not only would I have to omit so much that it would be an unreasonable essay, it is also rather stupid I have to work out an entire economic plan to replace the existing one since I suggest the current system has issues.

1. You could link it from a pastebin.
2. If you can't boil it down to a few points, I don't believe it exists to any extent as you've provided no evidence, and that's just logical.
3. If you want to argue for your solution and don't want to put in the effort, why should anyone else?
4. My argument definitely is you could do better because complaining accomplishes nothing. You can't hope to be taken seriously or even claim you hold a belief in a solution if you can't show what it is outside of a complaint, and if you're just trying to complain for the sake of it there's no merit.

>It is absurd to say X is absurd and we should not bother with it. Even though it will give issues down the line.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I clearly pointed out that what you called absurd is a natural part of humanity, and in no way said that we shouldn't bother with it. I just pointed out that you have to do something unnatural.

>And im trying to accomplish is that you understand that a hands off approach will require worse legislation in the long run.

You're not making a very good case for it.

>>33496560
>It's just agitprop that you seem to be repeating.
No more than you. You act like the no global warming stance is the null hypothesis.

>just that you're going to have a hell of a time convincing people to do it especially with this attitude.
How is telling people about global warming and the limits of resources a bad attitude.

>1.
Im not going to write a national economic plan in a pastebin. Its beyond any reason
>2
an economic plan is just just a few points. Especially not when you want to examine it on things like global relations and economics.
>3.
I put in effort by arguing here. There is a different between putting no effort in something and writing an essay on a complex subject.
>4
It allows people that do have the skill and time to research this have a reason to research it. Saying many people are concerned about something is a big plus on a fund proposal. Valorization its called.

>>33496369
All underwater detonations to date were very shallow.

My biggest dream is to go to Korea 2 - Nuclear Buggaloo

>>33495488
If we could thes savages black monkeys from reproducing that would be a big help.

>>33496610
>No more than you. You act like the no global warming stance is the null hypothesis.

I have yet to see any answer that isn't detrimental to mankind to the supposed 'human caused destruction of Earth'

That is all

>How is telling people about global warming and the limits of resources a bad attitude.

It's how you go about doing it that matters, and on top of that you need to acknowledge who your audience is. Most people don't think into their own or their families futures let alone something so grandiose as all of human civilization. I think what you're really doing is just trying to find yourself morally superior with no real basis on morality as a means of virtue signalling.

>Im not going to write a national economic plan in a pastebin. Its beyond any reason

I believe it's beyond reason to think it exists without evidence.

>an economic plan is just just a few points. Especially not when you want to examine it on things like global relations and economics.

Of course, which is why I'm very interested in seeing what it is so I can weigh it against current policies and determine the feasibility of implementing it as a way of expanding the base of my own beliefs on the subject

>I put in effort by arguing here. There is a different between putting no effort in something and writing an essay on a complex subject.

I'd argue that you're wasting your time spewing this piddly nonsense to someone who is capable of understanding more, and figuring out you have no real backing when you're confronted with someone who actually cares about the subject. If you find this to be arguing, and giving any details about this master plan you have as 'writing an essay on a complex subject'

Well, lets just say the next step of it better be crashing this thread with no survivors because you've metaphorically got yourself caught by someone able to make use of that kind of effort, and you're refusing to provide anything of substance.
>4
Wish you'd just told me this all along

>>33496709
That way, I'd be able to disregard it as typical Global Warming doomsaying and nothing of substance.

>it's a /pol/ hijacks yet another thread with muh FAKE NEWS meme
Can we please just ban all the /pol/ refugees from /k/ already, they have to go back.
Wall when??

>>33496753
Ugh agreed, when are we gonna get all these Drumpflrites out of OUR /k/? They need to respect that new-/k/ is a liberal safe haven, not some toxic rethuglican wasteland

File: 1489718282192.png (73KB, 1056x869px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1056x869px

>>33496829
And this is exactly why /pol/ needs to go back.

>>33495950
limits to growth and club of rome on /k/... there are some intelle/k/tuals here... i see you.

>>33496833
I agree with you brother, these Trumplykins need to realize that /k/ moved on from its conservatard and liebertarian past to a brighter and more liberal future.

>>33496829
>>33496833
>>33496949
How about all you CTR/Shillblue retards fuck off back to Plebbit instead?

>>33496949
>>33496829
You're all basically god damn communists. You filthy fucking liberals. If you didn't vote for Trump, you threw our rights in the garbage.

YOU go back to wherever you came from, Reddit, tumblr, wherever dirty CTR shills congregate

>>33496949
Fucking commie, get off this board and go back to r/socialistRA and circlejerk with your trannie cumrades.

>>33495425
>14 kilotons

kek

why the fuck is this even an issue?

>>33496165
>more americans would die than on 9/11

More Koreans would die in the next 30 minutes after that than the Korean War.

>>33498884
That's still nothing you want dumped on a major city

Just one going off in LA would kill 100,000 people right off the bat
Factor in how shitty and dirty a zip-made nuke would be, you're looking at a major shitshow
Not a world-ender, but it would still a major disaster

File: 1345686604854.jpg (107KB, 662x786px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 662x786px

>>33496165
>Yongsan purged by nuclear fire
>8th Army morale goes through the roof and the war is won in hours

>>33499186

So we trade 100,000 LA shitters (mostly homeless) for the straight forward opportunity to wipe NK off the face of the Earth? I'd say its a pretty good trade. NK won't drop nukes because they know it would be the end of them. They'll use it as a bartering system.

>>33495425
dude has a serious problem with dandruff, and the general behind him likes swatting gnats

>>33496462
To keep them solvent and make taking them out by force too risky.

>a whole thread of faggots falling for a rickroll

>>33499334
Head and shoulders are a luxury even to dictators.

>>33499443
We're talking about globalwarming now, fuck off

>>33499463
>global warming isn't a rickroll