this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
209 points (97.3% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
7012 readers
642 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Europe needs to own its own weapon production pipeline, rather than depending on a supplier who may cut them off at any time.
This is something that's always boggles my mind as an American.
Why would any other country rely on us for military equipment instead of working on their own? Yeah it costs money to setup, but even in highschool I knew enough to know the US has, to put it lightly, done shady shit to its allies. Hell, it's own people.
Why would anyone trust that they'll always be an ally? Especially when Republicans are in charge and make international cooperation even more of a joke than usual.
I want the EU to be self sufficient not because I think they suck and should be paying out the ass, like the magats do, but because when the US government decides they don't want to play with the other kids anymore, they can't take the proverbial ball home with them.
think about what spending in defense has done to our economy. healthcare, education, social services cost money. Basically since FDR the defense budget has grown decade after decade.
I agree about EU independence though, it's a valid point.
France is self sufficient since during WW2 the US tried to force Churchill to stop supporting Charles De Gaulle and instead support a more easily controllable puppet (François Darlan). US was really close to succeed but Darlan's murder forced the US to finally accept against their will De Gaulle.
De Gaulle learned it and after the war he turned the country into anti-US politic with a complete and self sufficient army and a completely autonomous nuclear program ( UK still need US approve to use their nuke).
Europe is moderately self sufficient, but only for tactical level operations. No-one wanted to break the understanding on strategic level capabilities.
Europe has a long pattern on that front. Large scale militaries rarely sit idle for long. With multiple nuclear powers in play, that genie has been kept mostly bottled up for 75 years.
It's also worth noting that I don't think the UK, France and Germany (previously Prussia) have ever been on the same side in a large scale hot conflict. Figuring out how to do it, without it imploding in 20 years is a challenge. The original plan was NATO, but Russia has managed to neuter that via Trump.
It costs a ton of money, especially research and development into high tech weapons. Very few countries for example even have the technology to build blades for jet turbines. There's half a dozen companies world wide that have the capability to make jet engines. Or even seemingly much simpler: making good ball bearings is surprisingly difficult and are required for lots of things. High quality optics? Extremely hard.
A weapons system pretty much all countries can assembly is the technical: a pickup truck with a heavy machine gun bolted to it. Making a car or a machine gun is already difficult and few countries have the metallurgy, precision engineering, trained workforce, etc. to make all the parts for them. The microelectronics and chips in the radio? Also not easy to make.
The supply chain is long, even for relatively simple systems. The more advanced the system, the fewer parts the local industry will be capable of producing.
R&D costs will be spread out over all production units. So if research costs 100 million, but you only build 20, it will be a hundred times more expensive than if you build 2000. That's how the F-35 is more capable and cheaper than previous generation fighter jets.
So to build your own stuff, you need to a fairly advanced and diversified industrial base in the first place. On top of that you need money and a big enough number of units for it to be financially viable.
Sweden makes its own fighter jet JAS 39 Gripen. However it imports the engines, electronics, radar, and some other essential parts from the USA. That somewhat better for Sweden because it keeps some of the money spent in the local economy and keeps a trained workforce around. It doesn't create strategic independence from the US though.
I am aware of the massive setup costs, and exactly 0 of what you said invalidates anything I said.
You asked why Europe doesn't do the thing that you think they should do. They explained why it is economically, politically, and diplomatically fraught. They didn't challenge anything you said, they merely provided additional context, which was what your post specifically requested.
I answered your question, you silly person.
It's not just about cost but industrial infrastructure and engineering expertise. There are rich and stable countries, that are unable to make their own advanced arms because their society and culture doesn't value scientific study, education, and manual labor highly.
Saudi Arabia has a limited ability to make arms (assault rifles, armored trucks) while swimming in money. North Korea is dirt poor, but has the culture and determination to build tanks, artillery, ships, submarines, guided missiles, even ICBMs and nuclear bombs.
Which brings me to a point I didn't mention earlier. Buying arms from abroad also buys good will and diplomatic relations. That's a major reason why the Saudis buy mostly American and European arms.