this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
438 points (97.4% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6638 readers
908 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do 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
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can someone explain to me why it's ridiculous to take them seriously? Genuine question.
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
But what about tactical nukes which wouldn't trigger MAD?
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.
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
And where do you stop appeasement? Kyiv? Warschau? Berlin? Amsterdam? London?
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.