this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
458 points (97.3% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6647 readers
930 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 hour ago

Tankies: "Liberals are so blood-thirsty"

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 hours ago

Fox news is desperately pushing this and signal boosting their true leader constantly.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

My bet is, if Putin dares to drop a single nuke, he will get assassinated. Lot of secret service agents, and other enthusiasts are straight up going to try that. During war that's allowed right?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Mutually assured destruction is still a thing. We may not be at Cold War levels of insanity, where between the US and Russia there were enough nukes to glass the planet like 150 times over, but plenty of nations have arsenals (especially in Europe), and the best way to make enemies of the entirety of the world would be to be the first one to launch a nuke. Dropping a nuke would signal to every leader in the world that no country is safe from becoming an irradiated wasteland.

I think if Putin dropped a nuke, his allies would drop him faster than it would take NATO to declare all out war with Russia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I read this book and it changed my opinion a little. Every scenario ends in a nuclear apocalypse, no matter who started with how much.
There might be a hero or two refusing to launch down the command line. But should we rely on that?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You say that, and yet Exxon-Mobil have proven that actively trying to destroy the world does nothing to turn world leaders away from trying to buddy up with you.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 hours ago

When you exon does it, it's slowly and for money. So there are "winners". Nukes have no winners.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

My point was, the assassination goal would be him not being able to drop a second one. Also slay the first 100 people in the chain of command and leave them headless.

Cool thing is that nuclear winter will fight global warming

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

nuclear winter is not a thing

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 hours ago

Patroling the Mojave almost makes me wish it was though

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

Unfortunately, nobody would be able to take him out that quickly. Russia still has plenty of nukes, and they could fire them all before anybody has time to react. If that nuke is an ICBM, though, as soon as it leaves the silo the world would know, and the counter barrage of nukes would be firing up before it even lands.

I originally meant that dropping a nuke would have the entire world declare war on Russia, even his former allies because no one wants to rule over a pile of radioactive rocks, but thinking about it, his allies would probably be the ones most likely to try to have him assassinated in that situation. A maniac with a big stick is only useful so long as you don't have to worry about him smacking you with it, too.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I think if you're assassinating a public figure you're a little past caring about what's "allowed"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I was taking about like, it's considered a war crime? Skipping the soldiers dying and straight up killing the dude.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Well once the nuke is dropped, anything related to Geneva Conventions or any other Conventions go out the window.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I'll pitch in bail money either way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago

Me too, just tell me where to send the Doge

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago

No need to use them now that Trump will withdraw support.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Man, I wonder if those Russian propaganda guys ever wish they had more non-bullshit to spew. Like, they have to keep up appearances, but it's usually easy to tell which statements are for the public, and which ones they might actually mean (like the threat to do proxy wars of their own), so it's just a lot of wasted words.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Can someone explain to me why it's ridiculous to take them seriously? Genuine question.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

that's because MAD still works and things like sending ATACMS are nowhere close to actual nuclear threshold, which would be nuclear attack or overwhelming conventional invasion threatening existence of country. nobody would be even thinking of nukes until Ukrainian tanks roll to Moscow lol. if you have a spare hour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKGYnO0Jf4

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

But what about tactical nukes which wouldn't trigger MAD?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

There has been some debate over the response to tactical Nuclear weapons - notably NATO threatened a conventional response to the use of nukes (likely meant to be read as, "We will end this war, no nukes needed.") but it would depend massively on their usage.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

When your enemy has strategic nukes, the extreme ways to respond are:

A, not taking the nuclear threat seriously.

B, give up.

Saying we shouldn't arm Ukraine because of nukes is close to option B.

Nukes may go off, but if arming Ukraine is the trigger, than we were likely to witness nuclear war because we wouldn't accept option B, rather than any weapon system giving Ukraine an advantage. If that is the case, nuclear war has most likely already been decided.

The real game is to make those in Russia believe that backing down works towards their goals. If they hope in 20 years the US will fall apart, they may wait, or maybe someone will kill Putin and take over Russia, being rewarded by less sanctions.

Long story short, nuking Ukraine don't benifit Russia more than it will hurt it.

I am not an expert

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

And where do you stop appeasement? Kyiv? Warschau? Berlin? Amsterdam? London?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

USA should conquer Taiwan, Cuba and South America before somebody gives them nukes.

Opposing this would be blood thirsty war mongering, a direct cause of WW3.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

Add a soyjak with an ushanka in the bottom frame next to the chud for extra accuracy

[–] [email protected] 74 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

The tankies aren't going to like this meme.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

If they browse NCD they'll be mad a lot. People on here have the normal take on whether the North Koreans are secret Wakanda good guys, and it comes up constantly.

load more comments
view more: next ›