this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
523 points (97.1% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6647 readers
996 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
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I believe he is 100% serious. And I still think it shouldn't matter. The conflict will grow regardless, and the West shouldn't concede a single inch to the psychopathic asshole.

Otherwise we might as well hand him all of Europe on a silver platter.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 2 points 38 minutes ago

Otherwise we might as well hand him all of Europe on a silver platter.

And sadly I believe that a lot of Americans would prefer isolationism and are fine with this, as they'd get to cut military spending.

Of course, Europeans buy American goods and vice versa. If Russia ruled over all of Europe, Putin could just stop all trade with the US as a giant middle finger.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 19 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Tankies: "Liberals are so blood-thirsty"

[–] el_bhm@lemm.ee 4 points 1 hour ago

Le natoo is a warmongering countri intensifies.

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 23 points 6 hours ago

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

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

Not sure if we should tease a powerful dictator in the last third of his lifespan, who is slowly losing a war and his lifegoal of a reunited Russia. I know it's fun to humiliate a bad guy, but if he decides "if I die, the world dies", we're doomed.

[–] josefo@leminal.space 47 points 12 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?

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 43 points 10 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.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 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?

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 4 points 6 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.

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 16 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] josefo@leminal.space 4 points 8 hours ago (3 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

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sunstoned@lemmus.org 22 points 11 hours ago (6 children)

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

[–] meliaesc@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'll pitch in bail money either way.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Kalkaline@lemmy.zip 89 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

The tankies aren't going to like this meme.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 59 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 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 (5 replies)
[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 129 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (10 children)

In my experience people who are against more Ukraine aid think that the dollar amount we send is actual cash that can be spent in other places, rather than pallets of munitions that don't keep forever anyway.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 22 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It’s literal economic stimulus, US sends them old shit, and buys new and more expensive shit from local military suppliers. This is the “creating jobs” thing the right likes so much, except when it’s against Russian interests

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Yes, but it is really inefficient. If we simply ignore the nuke threat it would probably take the US a month of bombing to restore pre 2014 borders.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 65 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

And a part of that is old stuff that would be decommissioned so the cash is to make the new products. Or so I have understood it.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 58 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

nah that's right. we've sent ukraine a shit ton of basically decommissioned shit. and even then we've been weirdly stingy, and unresponsive to their non military aid requests (their biggest ask is glass)

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Seems weird to ask the US for glass when they can get it from a lot closer, assuming we're just talking about normal glass.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 hour ago

they've been asking literally all their allies for glass. it's been a constant struggle for them to get aid, especially as the western countries they used to rely on shifted focus to helping Israel

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›