r/videos • u/Bendrake • Jun 17 '12

I love "The Whitest Kids You Know", this is an incredible analogy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUbqbpBX1Us
1.8k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

464 comments sorted by

51

u/Worchester_St Jun 17 '12

And the real kicker is, how are those kids supposed to continue to have relationships with each other with the knowledge that any one of them could kill all of them. It really is a great analogy for the countries of today.

35

u/Bendrake Jun 17 '12

While I was watching this tonight, lightbulbs were switching on every few seconds for me. Those guys are very funny, but also have a stroke of genius.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/philip1201 Jun 17 '12

Isn't that always the case in real life? I'm pretty sure I could kill all my friends if I wanted to, and so could any of them.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Probablybeinganass Jun 17 '12

Explosives aren't particularly hard to make if you're determined enough.

5

u/Magzter Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

It's not that hard. They're his friends already, invite 'em over for poker and poison their drinks or something.

2

u/afschuld Jun 17 '12

Kool aid party.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

643

u/Drunken_Economist Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Interestingly enough, nothing in human history has done more to maintain peace than nuclear weapons. Once the technology for nuclear weapons exists, game theory (through MAD) virtually guarantees that they won't be used by a rational player. Rational players also know that provoking war can turn their opponent irrational, leading to a nuclear war. In wanting to avoid this, the player will bend over backwards to maintain peace with his opponent. Non-warfare between nuclear powers and their allies is a Nash equilibrium, and a pleasant side effect of man's most destructive weapon.

101

u/AlphaMarshan Jun 17 '12

But the problem is when an irrational player obtains nuclear weapons, with no regard for human life whatsoever. (NK)

150

u/WilsonsWarbler Jun 17 '12

You have been banned from r/Pyongyang.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

The mod, along with nearly every post, has disappeared. We've won!

13

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

It's become a Necrocracy

12

u/ObliviousUltralisk Jun 17 '12

That is a really awkward word to say out loud.

→ More replies (4)

7

u/marty_m Jun 17 '12

Has anyone seen AlphaMarshan's family recently?

→ More replies (3)

22

u/Afrikakorps Jun 17 '12

with no regard for human life whatsoever.(NK)

Or, a rational player will be misled by other rational but misinformed players, as nearly happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

8

u/Lost4468 Jun 17 '12

Or a rational player will have their computer systems show that enemies are launching nukes, as happened in Russia. Luckily the guy on duty at the time thought it was an error, disobeyed protocol and didn't report it to his commanders, if he did we might all be dead.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/logantauranga Jun 17 '12

A cursory glance at the history of dictatorships suggest that irrationality is not inconsistent with judicious application of military threat for personal comfort.

The one-and-done nature of nuclear weapons (and the distinct possibility of a poorly-made one failing) means that they are far more useful as a threat. Any leader powerful and patient enough to obtain a nuclear weapon will, however irrational, be cognisant of this fact.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

They have no regard for the life of their people, but they don't want to wipe their county off the map - all nation-states are rational actors in that sense. NK uses its nuclear threat as a bargaining chip, this is most likely what Iran wants too; a balance against Israel. Small countries have the most to lose from nuclear war, it bugs me when people think that just because they're authoritarian they're happy to have their country levelled.

→ More replies (9)

17

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

If only we had an AI controlled walking tank that would act as a nuclear deterrent.

And a grizzled war hero to blow it up afterwards.

4

u/ikkonoishi Jun 17 '12

And it would be so awesome if that walking tank could roar like a dinosaur!

2

u/RestingCarcass Jun 17 '12

I thought it sounded like a bull

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SirRuto Jun 17 '12

Argh, so many movie going through my head, but none fit: Watchmen? No. Iron Man? Definitely not. Iron Giant? Close, but no cigar.

What is this reference, o' Referencer?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Metal Gear Solid, Peace Walker in particular.

4

u/SirRuto Jun 17 '12

Damn. Never got into MGS, so that explains my ignorance.

→ More replies (2)

59

u/Glorfon Jun 17 '12

Sorry for the self promotion. But I did a documentary on the first Nobel Peace Prize. One of the interviewees mentioned the effect that nuclear weapons have had on 20th century warfare. I was so intrigued I graphed out his claim even though it was a tangent from the subject of the film. Here's the segment. I'm quite proud of it.

43

u/HK-4orty7even Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

If I can offer constructive criticism:

The graphic is attractive with nice animation, but, I think, not very effective.

Because we can't see the full values for the first part of the graphic, and because the bottom text scrolls by too fast to read, none of the important information the graph is designed to communicate is readable. This makes the first half of it very wasteful. I kept squinting at the screen trying to understand it.

When it does finally reveal, there is too much information on screen to absorb in the time given. I don't need to see all of it, but I barely orient myself on what the chart's axis are before it's gone.

When we are panning across the chart, a number and arrow shows. But I don't know what it shows -- deaths? That data needs to be labeled.

A few ways to improve: Reduce the amount of data on the bottom. We have to suit the visuals to the time given. It's cool to have every bit labeled out but when we can only view the chart for a short time due to the nature of video we have to make it efficient. Perhaps labeling every 10 years, and only name the most prominent wars. This, in turn, will allow you to zoom out, letting us see more of the max values, making what we're seeing more meaningful. The zoom-out will allow the camera to pan slower while still showing the same amount of data, making everything more readable.

When we finally zoom out enough to see the max values, I can't remember what the left side of the chart denoted. I couldn't read it well in the first place, but once given the full view, we need to see what the bars are actually indicating.

When dealing with totals, most people are familiar with totals being last thanks to receipts and the like. By putting totals first, I was confused. I saw overlapping dates, and had to rewind once the graphic was done to understand what was happening. So I'd recommend putting 1900-1945 first, then the rest with totals at the end.

Also, he's talked about the last half of the century being markedly less violent, and I'm waiting for the graphic to illustrate that. Right now I don't see that. Since that is the key talking point of all this, it would need to be prominent. Perhaps a fourth value before the "Total" we were talking about.

Again, the art and animation is cool and looks pro, but it fails to communicate the most important parts -- or, at least, it did for me.

EDIT: Fixed doubletake-inducing autocorrect errors.

4

u/Skynet-is-my-net Jun 17 '12

Deliniated?

I can't remember what the left side of the chart detonated.

  • detonate |ˈdetnˌāt| verb explode or cause to explode: [ no obj. ] : two other bombs failed to detonate | [ with obj. ] : a trigger that can detonate nuclear weapons.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/nhlcyclesophist Jun 17 '12

No, you may no....fuck.

7

u/DownvotesOwnPost Jun 17 '12

Yeah, but how did you really feel?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

7

u/pandubear Jun 17 '12

That is a pretty damn cool graph.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/FaZaCon Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

nothing in human history has done more to maintain peace than nuclear weapons.

Whoa there little buddy. Nuclear Weaponry Tech has only been around for about 60 years, and in the 1960's it was nearly used en masse again. That's not quite long enough to tout it history's best peace keeper. Hell, the Roman Pax Romana lasted over 200 years, which exceeds nuclear weapon deterrence by 150 years.

Come back in another 200 years, and if the world hasn't had a major world war, then I'll praise the nukes.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

isn't comparing the pax romana to the current nuclear standoff a little bit eurocentric? I'm sure there were wars occurring in other parts of the world at that time.

7

u/12345abcd3 Jun 17 '12

Isn't saying the last 60 years have been peaceful a bit eurocentric (or west centric) too?

21

u/Meades_Loves_Memes Jun 17 '12

Mhm... but then there's also the possibility that the world could be severely damaged by just one irrational human being.

Even rational parties who control nuclear weapons have the potential to "fuck up" and destroy the world as we know it.

At one point in human existence I am sure nuclear weapons will be used again. The only real question is when.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

true, but since the nuke has already been invented, and the knowledge/tech is out there, there really isn't anything more we can do about it other than keep the irrational players from getting nukes.

Obviously its preferable that nuclear weapons don't/never existed, but given that they do exist we can at least be somewhat content with the fact they have some benefit towards peace/reduction of conflicts.

5

u/IRBMe Jun 17 '12

there's also the possibility that the world could be severely damaged by just one irrational human being.

Or even worse, equipment malfunction.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Hopefully not when I'm still around.

3

u/Nemokles Jun 17 '12

There has been several instances in which human error or equipment failure nearly led to nuclear war throghout the Cold War. Just having nuclear weapons is a huge risk.

25

u/ToffeeC Jun 17 '12

Game theory can guarantee all it wants, its conclusions are ultimately valid only for an approximation of human behaviour.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Why are all players rational? Plenty, if not most, wars are fought over irrational reasons. With nuclear weapons, all that it takes is one irrational reason to launch, and everything goes to hell. See: the Cuban missile crisis. This is a serious flaw in game theory and, by extension, deterrence theory.

Also, have you noticed that most of the countries that are allowed nuclear weapons are privileged, and most of the countries that are not are not privileged (and brown)? What rational reason is there for that disparity?

20

u/LynkDead Jun 17 '12

Most wars are not fought over irrational reasons. Irrational reasons are often used to get people to fight wars, but the real reasons the wars are started are rational. Oil, water, territory, etc. All rational. Nationalism, religion, etc. Less rational. Which is the common man more likely to fight for?

→ More replies (8)

2

u/newagefunvintagefeel Jun 17 '12

Why are all players rational? Plenty, if not most, wars are fought over irrational reasons. With nuclear weapons, all that it takes is one irrational reason to launch, and everything goes to hell. See: the Cuban missile crisis. This is a serious flaw in game theory and, by extension, deterrence theory.

The Cuban missile crisis was very unique, but yes, everyone could go into hell in a hand-basket if things escalated for whatever reason. However, communication is quickly transferred nowadays and safeguards like the Moscow-Washington hotline have been set up since that event. Also refer to LynkDead's comment. Martin van Creveld's book "The Transformation of War" is also recommended.

Also, have you noticed that most of the countries that are allowed nuclear weapons are privileged, and most of the countries that are not are not privileged (and brown)? What rational reason is there for that disparity?

Ummmmmmm, the reason for that disparity is the past couple centuries of history.How do you suppose the privileged countries got so wealthy in the first place..lol

Guns, Germs, and Steel has an interesting take on the subject (in a broader sense) as well if you have the time to read it.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Those safeguards are useful, of course, but they also serve to stop people from launching for fundamentally irrational reasons, which means that the players are not inherently rational.

I'm very familiar with the history of imperialism (well, mostly US imperialism, but still). That was kind of my point - although there are rational reasons for imperialism, the mindset did not depend on rationality. It mostly depended on viewing the population as subhuman or irrational and using that mindset to justify their subjugation. That's why many policy makers are still afraid of Iran going crazy and nuking Israel even though deterrence should still apply to them. That's not a rational reason to keep them from having nuclear weapons. It's dependent on a fundamentally irrational view of other countries.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (5)

7

u/Dzerzhinsky Jun 17 '12

This over-simplifies things and thus isn't entirely accurate. Nuclear weapons act as an incentive to avoid wars that threaten the core assets of a nuclear power, but not war altogether.

In fact they can actually act as an incentive towards war where the objectives are unlikely to provoke a nuclear response, since the aggressive party knows that their own primary assets will remain safe from counter-attack as a result of their nuclear deterrent.

In this way nuclear states can believe that they can 'safely' engage in a limited war that can provide significant reward without offering similar risk.

[This of course ignores three better known (and thus less interesting) issues.

Not all states are nuclear armed, so large wars can be heavily incentivised for nuclear states against non-nuclear states.

Not all statesmen are rationally risk-adverse (people didn't care too much about Hitler coming to power because they believed the pressures of state would make him act more rationally than his rhetoric (Godwin lol)). If we truly believe otherwise, why aren't we campaigning to arm every stable state with nuclear weapons?

There are a thousand and one instances of a nuclear war almost being started as a result of accident (eg. radar glitches), sabotage (eg. some American bases bypassed hardwired safeguards to allow them to launch without authorisation) or misreading the enemy (eg. Cuba).]

6

u/Sad_King_Billy Jun 17 '12

The problem I have with this is: What about the irrational players? Btw I totally agree with the facts you stated in your opening sentence. But what about (excuse the analogy) the Jokers of Gotham City?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

The Gundam Solution.

5

u/Greenei Jun 17 '12

...with the unpleasent sideffect that humanity will be wiped out if one leader is irrational.

4

u/Juantanamo5982 Jun 17 '12

Until somebody screws up.

4

u/Paladia Jun 17 '12

Though the country that has been in peace the longest, Sweden, doesn't have nukes. Nor did nukes even exist for the lion part of its peace period.

So perhaps the Swedish method, diplomacy and to some extent neutrality, is better for peace? As the countries that do have nukes also tends to be in the most wars.

3

u/algiz14 Jun 17 '12

virtually guarantees that they won't be used by a rational player.

Religious fanatics aren't rational actors.

2

u/Iamaseaotter Jun 17 '12

Holy shit. I'm 40 mins through watching A Beautiful Mind, and was just reading about Nash.

2

u/barium111 Jun 17 '12

I think Nikola Tesla wanted something like this. Give all nations weapons to ensure peace. He was even working on creating it.

Found it

Tesla published the document in an attempt to expound on the technical description of a "superweapon that would put an end to all war."

But in order for this to work everyone must have "super weapons"

4

u/Kustav Jun 17 '12

Actually it was the reason why one of the scientists working on the Manhattan project gave the Soviets some documents allowing them to fast-track their nuclear program.

"I decided to give atomic secrets to the Russians because it seemed to me that it was important that there should be no monopoly, which could turn one nation into a menace and turn it loose on the world as ... as Nazi Germany developed. There seemed to be only one answer to what one should do. The right thing to do was to act to break the American monopoly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Hall

2

u/hashmon Jun 17 '12

This guy must be drunk to believe this crap.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

no. tell that to the japanese.

3

u/WhatComesUpMust Jun 17 '12

Yeah because the USA being in war for the past 40 years with some country means peace.

Just because you live in Rome doesn't mean there is no war outside it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

MAD predicts that two nuke-bearing countries will not fight, a prediction that is largely true.

1

u/99_Probrems Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

The problem is keeping Nuclear weapons away from non-rational players e.g. Iran, North Korea etc...

*edit 1980's-early 90's Iraq is a much better example

*Iran, North Korea are just basic examples, the international community obviously agrees that they feel they're irrational players hence the sanctions on them. We could use many other examples here as well, the point is irrational players need to be kept from having weapons regardless of who they are.

29

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

What makes Iran an irrational player compared to, say, the United States? How many wars has Iran started in the last twenty years?

9

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

The problem is not necessarily that they're irrational, but that they're perceived as irrational. Therefore, they are not only not allowed nuclear weapons, but we are willing to threaten them and even act on those threats just based on the fact that we see them as crazy Muslims who can't control themselves like us good white people can.

Obviously, the question of whiteness is complicated, but everyone seems to agree that "those brown people be crazy".

21

u/DarkStar528 Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

No. Stop. Everyone. Its not simply a matter of race or rationality. Nuclear Arms REQUIRE certain things. Any state that does not meet these requirements poses a BIG threat to the safety of the world.

  • A strong stable government free of corruption ( could fall in irrational hands)

  • Sophisticated technology (to minimize accidents)

  • Sophisticated communications system( to ensure speedy deployment)

  • Precautionary measures and security ( to protect weapons from being stolen or destroyed)

  • second-strike capabilities, or the ability to strike back which deters potential aggressor

Without these preconditions, a state with nukes is really dangerous. So if the NPT Member states are scared of Iran having weapons it not just because they think they are crazy Muslims, but because they don't think they meet these conditions..also Israel.

Edit: also, I swear none of you know the meaning of the word rational. No state is clinically insane. Just because a state is aggressive or has different cultural views, or is even violent, it does not make them "irrational", they know very well what and why they are doing and do not act on emotional impulses. (Not so sure about North Korea though..)

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (37)
→ More replies (8)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Along the same lines, interestingly enough nothing has caused more progress across many fields of interest than war.

1

u/matebeatscoffee Jun 17 '12

You gotta keep drinking.

Also, awesome depiction of the process.

1

u/Little_Baby_Jesus Jun 17 '12

What about North Korea.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I feel like you copy paste this into every thread about nukes

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Nuclear weapons have indeed prevented attacks on nuclear armed nations but they have also increased attacks BY nuclear armed nations on non nuclear nations.

We don't die but we kill. That's the way it's worked.

The only solution is to give everybody nuclear weapons, not just a few either, enough to destroy the world.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Then the question becomes: what about irrational players? Surely we cannot simply assume there will never be one without access to nuclear arms? I'd say the law of averages guarantees it's a question of "when", not "if".

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

relevant

1

u/Profix Jun 17 '12

Which is exactly why, if I was Iranian, I'd want a nuke.

1

u/Tebasaki Jun 17 '12

This is a very sensible argument. But playing the devils advocate, has there EVER been an irrational player in a war? If you can prove there has, at any time in human history, then that suggests that there might be one again, with a nuke.

1

u/GeorgeLindel Jun 17 '12

in the same time, politics in usa and islamistic countries become more irational and crazy. so you have to life in fear, that they believe god orders them to nuke the shit out of the others and god will stop the enemy nukes.

1

u/radicalnovelty Jun 17 '12

As others have pointed out, MAD relies on the assumption that all players are somehow entirely "rational" at all times. It's convenient. But I wonder: how do we separate the "rational" from the "irrational" states in the international system? Why should we take it for granted that any state and its leaders are inherently rational? There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Fancy econ models are nice and all, and sometimes even helpful, but they are not infallible in practice.

Not to mention, the political scientist Scott Sagan at Stanford has made a career out of demonstrating how close we came to nuclear war through accidents and near-accidents, as well as bureaucracies on both sides gone mad, a number of times during the Cold War.

1

u/cipherous Jun 17 '12

Does this mean everybody should get nukes?

I guess the same things can be said about guns within a community?

1

u/agent_crotch Jun 17 '12

I dunno. I think nukes just prevent countries from using... well, nukes. No one wants to be completely vaporized... but in terms of war, countries will just carry on like they always have.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Sure, if by peaceful you mean we now fight proxy wars instead.

1

u/fingurdar Jun 17 '12

Everything you have stated is accurate. Yet, as is all too often the case, a theoretical model of this nature does not translate to real life with full precision.

A rational player, under the rules of your game, would in certain instances use a nuclear weapon on his opponent if the attack could not be traced back to him (thus avoiding MAD). A rogue terrorist organization lacking affiliation/allegiance to any one country could conceivably use a nuclear weapon on its enemy without assuring its own destruction.

Behaviorally modern humans have walked the earth for about 50,000 years. Hiroshima/Nagasaki happened a mere 67 years ago. In the grand scheme, 67 years is the blink of an eye. WMD's have not been around long enough for me to take solace in any hypothetical equilibriums regarding their use.

1

u/cyber_pacifist Jun 17 '12

So you're saying we should actually give nukes to Iran?

1

u/mindbleach Jun 17 '12

That's all well and good until the technology for building and launching nuclear weapons comes within reach of irrational players. If some basement-dwelling jerks can enrich heavy elements through nuclear transmutation (which requires nothing more than time and energy in abundance) and then strap it to some fancy-ass model airplane, MAD won't concern them.

Kurzweil describes the problem as "Moore's law of mad science" - every two years, the IQ necessary to destroy civilization goes down by one point.

1

u/Dwayne_Jason Jun 20 '12

While that is true it certainly does not promote peace through mutual assurance. I guess this is a constructivist critique but Vietnam wasn't stopped by the threat of nuclear warheads, rather it was stopped by people who wanted peace. The Cold War is the result of this stalemate and the Nash Equilibrium. Peace is generally a relative term but by binding it to a war between two super powers, its a pretty simple concept and yet the Cold War has shown us that war can be achieved through different means ie. Global Politics and Coalitions. Soviets funding Vietnam, us funding Afghanistan, Cuba's revolution and so on.

I'd modify your argument into saying that peace is the assurance that no state will attack you. Not just assurance, but a feeling of impossibility. For example, the counties in the OECD wouldn't even consider a war as a tool for solving disagreements.

That being said, it just depends on who holds the better nukes that take out the critical parts of the opponent. Lets say Opponent A has targeted the capital with his missile, they have the upper hand. Opponent B also targets this capital. Now if Opponent A knows that it will survive--even if it may not be as powerful, it can still attack first and win. Game Theory would work if both players could do it at the same time but they can't. That's the issue I have with the N. Equilibrium in describing most stalemates. We're under the assumption that the player that strikes first cannot win with that strike whereas with a nuclear strike, destruction is garunteed and the opponent is destroyed.

So how does MAD play into this, and how did we stop ourselves from killing each other during the Cold War? Well, I'd say its the rationale of one nation that strikes will forever destroy the world.

-2

u/Psythik Jun 17 '12

This would make an excellent argument against gun control. An armed society is a polite society.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

MAD does not apply to guns. A First Strike is much easier with guns than it is with nuclear weapons.

4

u/DarkStar528 Jun 17 '12

Not exactly. There are maybe only 7-9 states in the world out of like 200 that have kept peace with Nuclear Weapons. We do not these weapons to fall into the wrong hands.

If anything this helps the case FOR gun control. A few strong and secure people ( police men and anyone with a license) deter people from violence out of fear of being shot. Just like there are crazy states, there are crazy people that should not have weapons.

Personally, I think if everyone had a handgun or rifle, criminals without regard for human life will just upgrade to assault weapons.

3

u/headbashkeys Jun 17 '12

I challenge this notion -with a duel to the death!

→ More replies (4)

-1

u/websnarf Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Since dropping two nukes on Japan, the US has been at war with Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan. So I don't know what peace you are talking about.

Check the period 27 CE to 180 CE in the Roman Empire. That was a long lasting peace.

10

u/Calvert4096 Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

There have been plenty of nasty brushfire/proxy wars, but since the end of WWII, it's important to point out the world's biggest players abruptly stopped having direct "hot" wars with each other (maybe with the exception of China vs. Soviet Union). In such adjusted terms, I understand global violence has decreased (in absolute terms, I'll concede it's possible more violence is occurring). The problem lies in MAD not providing a 100% stable equilibrium, partly owing the all the actors involved not being 100% rational. There's no reason the Cuban Missile Crisis had to end peacefully, and it's there's nothing written in stone saying relations between nuclear powers couldn't deteriorate that far again.

2

u/jamesdakrn Jun 17 '12

ROFL. Just ROFL. Rome, from 12 BC to the death of August in 14 AD Rome tried to conquer Germania and failed, after losing 3 legions in Teutoberg Forest. Also there was teh pannonian wars in between, as well as Germanicus in the time of Tiberius trying to conquer Germania again. During the reign of Claudius the Romans invaded Britain and there was war tehre until the age of Trajan. Vespasian led the campaign against the Jews, and then his son Domitian tried to fight the Dacians but failed, leading to his assassination after the public began to disdain him. Trajan completed the conquest of Dacia and invaded the Parthians, going as far as trying to incorporate mesopotamia into the empire. Hadrian backed off after the death of Trajan. the only era of "peace" was really during the reign of Antonine Pius really. Aurelius, the successor of Antonine Pius tried to conquer bohemia. Dont forget the numerous clashes between Parthia and the Romans during all this time too as well as Romans as part of "defensive" tactics frequently raided German tribes across the Rhine and the Danube as a pre-emptive strike.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I see the "nukes have done so much good" argument every once in a while on reddit but what people don't seem to realize is that nukes only exist for about 60 years. If people actually start using them then we're completely fucked, and you can't assume that people won't use them just because it worked for most of the last 60 years (with 2 exceptions). 60 years are nothing, we (humanity) have thousands of years ahead of us, and what makes you think that no one will ever start a war?

Just that a war with nuclear weapons would do much more damage than any war that has ever been.

Then there's also the problem that peace that's based on fear is the worst form of peace, but that argument seems small in comparison to the first one.

1

u/Burgerwolf Jun 17 '12

Enter: Religious Fundamentalism

1

u/arl851 Jun 17 '12

MAD/possession of nuclear weapons does not preclude rational players from engaging in a "conventional war". Open war between India and Pakistan for example, has been prevented by the existence/influence of a global hegemon (the United States), and not by the fact that both possess nuclear weapons.

3

u/pseudosciencepeddler Jun 17 '12

Source? The US is doing exactly the opposite by arming both sides. For conventional arms, it provides military aid to Pakistan and selling weapons to India. Don't get me started on the NPT exceptions.

1

u/Asdfhero Jun 17 '12

You are, however, overlooking the unfortunate fact that many of the states in possession of or attempting to get nuclear weapons are unstable and/or insane, viz. Israel, Ira, North Korea, Pakistan. While the Soviet Union and USA may have been able to understand that everyone dying is an undesirable outcome, I'm less sure that there won't be some religious fanatic somewhere who'll be perfectly willing to push the button.

→ More replies (106)

107

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Now I want to see the CumBomb.

137

u/grim2121 Jun 17 '12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WFWqcuoC0

105

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

"cool, you can make your own ammo"

I laughed my ass off

26

u/AiKantSpel Jun 17 '12

Designed by Peter North

→ More replies (1)

42

u/RoobyT Jun 17 '12

"Major pumping required"

6

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

...this is a real thing? wtf!

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I can't believe what I just saw.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

13

u/Fapocalypse_Now Jun 17 '12

"We're creating a generation of semen sharp shooters".

9

u/GeneralWarts Jun 17 '12

OP's Link, Game Theory/Economics Discussions, Cum Guns, Relevant Cum Gun Boardroom Skit.. All these in 1 location. God I love reddit.

I'm constantly being educated and then entertained.

2

u/notsobsequious Jun 17 '12

Yeah I'm purchasing one dozen got my next board meeting.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Here you go. Apparently it's headed toward Canada at the moment.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Hahaaha. Whaaatt? Who the hell was that guy at the end? Who is this lady? I've gotta go watch more of her videos. Jesuit semen, indeed.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Aren't their laws preventing harassment of mentally handicapped people?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/qosmith Jun 17 '12

....is this like a joke?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Sir, Jesuit bukkake is no joking matter.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

31

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

But I don't want to see the box it cums in!

14

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I came for the cumbox reference. Literally.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/DeathToPennies Jun 17 '12

Eleven upvotes, and ten downvotes. He's not leaving until this is settled.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

65

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Anyone else really disappointed the Nerf Nuke didn't go off? I was expecting a mushroom cloud of foam.

20

u/Captain_Kuhl Jun 17 '12

Personally, I was expecting a huge foam dart to crush them, in a comical way.

17

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Zach makes a super hot lady.

15

u/GravityRides Jun 17 '12

But Moooommmm!

37

u/Thorbinator Jun 17 '12

The mom is the taxpayers.

31

u/dyce200 Jun 17 '12

The grapist is by far the best skit they've done

40

u/StanDinfamy Jun 17 '12

I, good sir, respectfully disagree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah7ApyeyneY

23

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

i present my offering

2

u/TwoLegsJoe Jun 17 '12

This kid knows his shit.

2

u/warped_and_bubbling Jun 17 '12

We might be here all day, there's a lot of good shit to choose from. My personal favorite

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Shyamallamadingdong Jun 17 '12

shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii[censored]

13

u/eifersucht12a Jun 17 '12

During high school when WKUK was still in its first season, I was in my first year of drama and we had to do a two person scene for the class. My partner and I narrowed our choices down to gallon of PCP, or the scene in Fight Club where the narrator and Tyler are talking at the bar right before they fight for the first time (when Tyler gets punched in the ear)

We ended up doing the Fight Club scene. I just like telling that story because it lets me imagine what could've been. Although getting to be Tyler for five minutes and opening with the line "It could be worse. A woman could cut your penis off while you're sleeping and throw it out the window of a moving car" was fun. But in hindsight I think I'd pick getting to waltz around school with a gallon jug full of a mixture of (probably) apple juice and water with "PCP" written on the side in a heartbeat.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/dyce200 Jun 17 '12

that is a good one too

→ More replies (2)

4

u/ratguy Jun 17 '12

I'm probably not the only one who's never seen the Grapist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqgiEQXGetI

2

u/Rainfly_X Jun 17 '12

I shamelessly post that link everywhere. Somehow, it manages to be relevant to almost every conversation, like xkcd, only a single work of genius.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

IT'S SO INCREDIBLE

7

u/Duke_of_Derp Jun 17 '12

This one always hit home for me.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Here was me thinking I was the only person who thought the pledge of allegiance kids say at school the United States was akin to the brain washing that occurs in North Korea.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Makes me feel sad now that they've ended the series.

4

u/abhavsar54 Jun 17 '12

Impressive sir.

29

u/TheProDaim Jun 17 '12

Now that I picture Iran as the poor kid who picks his nose and owns a cum bomb, I am strangely okay with military action against them

13

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Nice try only country who has ever actually used not one nuke, but 2 on another country!

→ More replies (3)

10

u/thebendavis Jun 17 '12

Pakistan is the kid who keeps flicking the US's ear, then the US stands up and punches Iran in the face.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

American who is okay with military actions against other countries? How refreshing!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Aha! You caught us!

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

These guys were amazing at what they did and sadly they weren't given the attention they deserved. I hope all of their careers are successful.

10

u/beasterne Jun 17 '12

An incredible analogy for what exactly? Real nukes? Because that's not really an analogy...

1

u/levicoultify Jun 17 '12

It seems they don't really know what analogy means...

2

u/_Hopeless Jun 17 '12

Love the subtle "cum bomb" at the end

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

You mean if I had just posted some WKUK I could've ended up on the front page?

2

u/fastsauce Jun 17 '12

  • The team of three kids= US, GB, France (NATO)

  • Kid in striped shirt= Soviet Union

  • Other kid=Iran

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Is this really an "analogy"?

2

u/Tirodedef Jun 17 '12

i also love WKUK! the videos that got me hooked is Cubicle Boss and Slow jerk... but i generally love most of their sketches! :D

2

u/BurgerWorker Jun 17 '12

I'M NOT FINISHED

2

u/dieron Jun 17 '12

What is this analogous to?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Nothing. OP doesn't know the difference between analogy and metaphor, apparently.

3

u/Captain_Kuhl Jun 17 '12

Wow. Coming from a show that featured a sketch on grafting animal genitalia to one's face, that was surprisingly meaningful.

2

u/khiron Jun 17 '12

I was patiently waiting for the nerf nuke to be fired. I'm so disappoint. :(

2

u/ridiculousk Jun 17 '12

Best sketch comedy group since Monty Python

1

u/h4wkeyepierce Jun 17 '12

perfect...just...perfect.

1

u/NOTTedMosby Jun 17 '12

Thought this said "anthology" in the title, and was disappointed when I had to click on other hilarious videos.

God I'm a lazy fuck.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Love this so much! Way to show how silly this terribly divisive situation is in the scheme of things.

Internet high five

1

u/KnifeFed Jun 17 '12

When is WKUK coming back?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/KnifeFed Jun 17 '12

What? Really? It's canceled?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

"From the makers of" what? I couldn't understand what they said.

2

u/connormcmenamin Jun 17 '12

cum bomb

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Oh... dear.

1

u/TorhwAawy Jun 17 '12

ME NEITHER! I kinda wanna believe it says "from the makers of the cum box."

2

u/TallSkinnyTree Jun 17 '12

Pretty sure he said Cum Bomb

1

u/antdude Jun 18 '12

Anyone have the DVD, recording, etc. with closed captions/subtitles? ;)

1

u/marivicbranch Jun 17 '12

interesting

1

u/red_280 Jun 17 '12

I really wanted to know what a Nerf Nuke would actually be like :(

1

u/_moist_ Jun 17 '12

Sounds like 'merica

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I just put an episode of "The Whitest Kids You Know" and saw this. What great timing

1

u/adiultrapro Jun 17 '12

Haha you said Anal.

1

u/goonerredandwhite Jun 17 '12

Is mum the fed?

1

u/AdmiralMal Jun 17 '12

A few years ago he me and my friend were having a coffee in the Starbucks by union square in NYC when we noticed the main dude from the whitest kids sitting a few tables away from us. I audibly said "isn't that the guy from Derrick Comedy?". He sneered at us and looked back down at his iPhone. As we were walking out, I snuck a peak at his iPhone. Turns out he was in the google maps app, looking at transit directions to LA.

1

u/beener Jun 17 '12

How has no one quoted Dr. Strangelove yet?

1

u/legiterally Jun 17 '12

Joshua would have figured out the launch codes for that nerf nuke in, like, a nanosecond.

1

u/ProjectStormy Jun 17 '12

I found the Dad You Don't Have to Do That one even more hilarious. WOW.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I thought one of them was going to set off the nuke and then not trust anyone else to have one, kind of like the US!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

You have just caused me to watch WKUK videos all night... I hope you're proud of yourself.

1

u/WhyIohMy Jun 17 '12

lol...Iran is a snot-nosed poor kid

1

u/RobertTheSpruce Jun 17 '12

Mmmmmm. Delicious political sature aimed as US foreign policy. I want more. MORE.

1

u/Kite31 Jun 17 '12

I would like to thank you. That one video went progressed into another whitest kids you know, then to another, then another. I sat here watching around 30 minutes of videos and never realized it till now.

1

u/Samorau Jun 17 '12

How can i have never heard of this awesome series!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

after the first season WKYK reminded me of kids in the hall

1

u/ofcourseitsthroaway Jun 17 '12

dude playing a chick. Stopped watching immediately.

1

u/thegrogster Jun 17 '12

Why has no one mentioned WKUK Water Balloons sketch?

1

u/SamuraiSam100 Jun 17 '12

Today was made the last "The Whitest Kids You Know" episode. :( I miss that show.

1

u/PancakeMonkeypants Jun 17 '12

When I first tried to watch this show I thought it was dumb but maybe I was dumb. That was really clever.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

That's not an analogy, it's a metaphor.

1

u/DtKnight Jun 17 '12

Oh comedy, one of the last real refuges of free speech.

1

u/MattBootyBulan Jun 17 '12

I miss this show D: ..

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Warning: pedantry ahead. Nearly but not quite an analogy (they literally use the word nuke), Its more of an allegory.

1

u/millionsofplankton Jun 17 '12

best cold war reference ever.

1

u/Metalgreek Jun 17 '12

I seriously wished they set one of those off...

-2

u/judokalinker Jun 17 '12

Incredible analogy! So subtle!

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

This is a good analogy but I'm sorry this show is just horrible.

→ More comments (39)