What else should this include?

>>34833768
penis sizes and number of penises per nation

>>34833781
I mean that's basically 1:1 with nuclear warhead sizes and number of warheads in this case

Compare the size of the usa nuclear arsenal and north koreas
One is in the thousands one is in the dozents
One of these countries never invaded someone in the last 50 years and one of these countries started 10-15 wars and 100s of regime changes
Who of these countries should have nuclear arms

>>34833768
the trident and hwasong are to scale btw the best I can ascertain

File: rekt.png (324KB, 558x560px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 558x560px

>>34833768

OC

>>34833797
so one could say nukes and penises are demonstratively transposeable?

>>34833844
did you just assume my isotope

>>34833768
Cant the mobile trucks in theory be hidden in deep caves, preventin ghem from beeing destroyed in a first strike?

File: 1350633312840.gif (3MB, 360x176px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x176px

>>34833855

>>34833768
Include the fact that a dozen hits will not flinch North Korea but a single assumed hit on any American soil will set the LGBTs and blacks of America into a frenzy of apologizing to North Korea.

>>34833876
any cave large enough to drive a TEL into with a road leading to it is probably known to US recon assets

>>34833885
nah any hit on us soil would set the entire nation in a militaristic frenzy that pales israel in comparison. i mean look at 9/11 it was nothing a few people died but how many more die on the roads each year or in hospitals due to negligence hell probably cops kill more innocent people annually.

>>34833768
>The fact that the Norks can build 10-12 physics packages per year.
>The B61 mod 10/12
>Some allusion to the low yield/low casualty pre emptive strike as outlined here http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/ISEC_a_00273
>The fact that the Norks have extensive chemical weapons stockpiles and literally tens of thousands of potential delivery systems, and openly intend to use them as a countervalue deterrent against SK civilian targets
>The fact that THAAD is largely ineffective against ICBMs (<50% intercept rate), and SM3 would likely be range limited and unable to intercept every missile

>>34833889
Fair enough, but they dont know if there are any truck there or not, and in theory they can be nuclear safe.

>>34833948
>collapse the tunnel exit with a conventional bunker buster
>north korean nuke trapped
was getting caught part of your plan?

>>34833960
Would you waste a bunker buster on a cave, that can be anything from a coal mine to Kim Jong Uns personal HQ without knowing tho?

And I guess entrances can be camoflaged pretty well.

>>34833998
Yes, both of those hold strategic value for North Korea.

Shooting baddies isn't the only thing in war anon

>>34833768
The high probability that North Korea has biological weapons.

>>34833807
>Which nation allows their little boys to dress up in girl clothes and their girls wear rubber cocks?

Checkmate!

File: 1415669008545.jpg (34KB, 464x656px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 464x656px

>>34833844

>>34833885
Assuming the Norks don't nuke cali and incinerate many of Americas problems.

>>34833768
>and can be destroyed in a first strike

Just like Scuds in 91

>>34833768
What country's have used nukes against a enemy

>>34833844
No, african countries don't have nukes

>>34834355
Only one country has used nukes in a war, that being USA in WW2. But there was speculation that a small tactical nuke was used in Ukraine a few years back during the Crimea thing.

>>34835194

>But there was speculation that a small tactical nuke was used in Ukraine a few years back during the Crimea thing.

Source?

The UK trident force, I'd imagine we could make a token effort to spread the blame, give Glasgow a firework show.

>>34835257
Just retards who see an ammo dump going up and thinking OMG LOOK HUGE CLOUD IT'S A NOOK!!

>>34834331
Thought the SEALS and SAS hunted those things as well.

>>34833876
Wouldn't a better strategy be to hide them in densely populated civilian areas to deter a possible preemptive strike?

>The fact the US has an experienced military ready to have at it after the fallout settles

>The fact the nukes the norks have might not have ICBM range

>Missile reliability

>The fact that the (current) norks have zero combat experience and are extremely concentrated (EG, after the fallout the norks would have near zero troops while we have at least 500,000 ready in a day or two)

>The fact that Russia would likely turn against the norks in a nuclear war that they provoke.

I honesty think people in Hawaii are the only ones who should worry.

>>34833768
road mobile TEL arent going to be destroyed in a first strike retard

File: 1499137175765m.jpg (70KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1024x576px

>>34834260
we can only hope, anon.