this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
337 points (98.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6561 readers
1023 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
[–] Mio@feddit.nu 13 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

They only need to get rid of one little coward hiding in his bunker - Putin. It would be a whole different story if he was on the front actually fighting because so many Russians die there.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 15 hours ago

I wish, but he has lots of people to succeed him, who also piss and shit all over other people's stuff. Can you imagine a female version of Putin? There is one- Maria Belovna, IIRC her name. She is the kamehameha beyotch in charge of stealing children from Ukraine and putting them in "education" camps. Unfortunately she is in her maximum Cartman's Mom years. Not old, not young. I think she, even though a civilian, should be moved up the list for wet work, treated just like a Russian military officer and charged with war crimes in absentia. Car ignition go pop.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tankies will be in here supporting nuclear options unironically.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

No they won't!

They supported nuclear options only so long as their cock-holster putin was the only one with said option.

Now it becomes 'Everyone has to forcefully disarm a rogue nuclear state for Russia!' or some other bs.

Give them time, their talking points are slow over the weekend.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 57 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're making it look like it's Ukraine's choice. They're being forced to the nuclear path by the internal enemies within NATO that are fucking everything up

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 106 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

Ukraine gave up those nukes in exchange for security assurances. If Russia is going to go back on its assurance, then Ukraine should be able to go back to the nukes. Fair is fair.

As a former SSR that held nuclear weapons on its territory before 1968, they even oughta be free and clear with respect to the non proliferation treaty.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 9 points 14 hours ago

I been saying this for years, and it's really nice to see someone say this too while also not getting 1000 downvotes. I shed a tear of joy for the new generation

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 75 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sad when a comedian has more balls than all of NATO combined

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What the fuck is that artwork?

It’s disrespectful to South Park.

[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Just need to get a little cancer, Stan

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (10 children)

It's a bold move but I don't see it changing the outcome of the ongoing war. If Ukraine could build long-range ballistic missiles in the near future, I think they could regain the advantage even without any nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads would not be useful without those ballistic missiles.

(What would happen if Ukraine did have nuclear-armed ballistic missiles but Russia refused to withdraw from Ukrainian territory? I don't foresee Ukraine actually nuking Russia, even in those circumstances.)

[–] nuke@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Man fuck these comments, nuke Russia you pussies. I'll deliver the missiles myself if that's what you need. Strap me to the rocket and fire me at Moscow!

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

Name checks out?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] caboose2006@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 day ago (2 children)

A truck can deliver a nuke. Just pack it in cat litter and drive it onto that bridge in Crimea. Should knock that stupid thing out finally.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Fuck it, give them a Davy Crocket and then you don't need no stinkin' ballistic missiles.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] humblebun@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why, why Mr. Zelensky, don't you develop nuclear weapons like other nations: in silence?

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 14 points 23 hours ago

nuclear is neither about having, nor using the weapons … it’s about the fear of future use of weapons

silence isn’t helpful in that endeavour

[–] PostingInPublic@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (6 children)

No development required, I think they can open a drawer somewhere and pick one of several soviet designs. If they want a nuke, they can build one right away.

It would cost them the support of their allies, however, and they cannot afford that.

It's saber rattling.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 15 hours ago

Maybe the support is not worth losing the war. In "The King and I", the King of Siam has a verse "...If allies are weak, am I not best alone? ...If allies are strong with power to protect me, might they not protect me out of all I own?"

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (12 children)

The support may be dropping away anyway.

Imagine a right wing US/EU election sweep from Zelensky's point of view. They're going to force Ukraine to capitulate, and in a very lopsided manner that cripples Ukraine forever, hence this could be an actual option/last resort more than a threat.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Anivia@feddit.org 17 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Building a nuke is not difficult. Refining the necessary amount of uranium 235, or acquiring plutonium 239 however...

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 7 points 19 hours ago

Considering how the world's biggest uranium producer by far is Kazakhstan and Russia seems to be actively determined to tank Russian-Kazakh relations, I'm pretty sure they could acquire some

[–] nuke@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago

Khajiit has wares, if you have coin

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

He's stated they have the material and could have a nuke within weeks I believe.they have reactors so the material isn't hard to come by really

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The engineering for plutonium nuke is not trivial. A U235 one is dead simple, but they probably have Plutonium from reactors, not U235 from centrifuges.

And yeah, they undoubtedly have Soviet blueprints under a matress somewhere.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 10 points 21 hours ago

Who do you think designed the Soviet nukes?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Institute_of_Physics_and_Technology

The Ukrainian Institute of Physics and Technology was the "Laboratory no. 1" for nuclear physics, and was responsible for the first conceptual development of a nuclear bomb in the USSR.[3]: 4 

Russians are inbred drunk morons, which is why everything they tried since the fall has been disastrous, and why we haven't seen su-57s and t-14s in actual combat while the semhat exploded on the pad and their own bombs rained on their soil.

If the war goes on expect them to nuke Moscow by mistake.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Looking at Israel, the “don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness” strategy really works with the US (a good example is also Kursk attack, Nord Stream 2 or Kerch bridge sabotage). They should just be doing crazy shit, forcing escalation on Russian side, and thus in response by the US/NATO. Of course this is a delicate balance, but a few nukes on paper I think would still be okay.

These could guarantee the existence of their nation in the future, and unless they use them on a Russian city, no repercussions would happen beyond verbal saber rattling just for having it. Russia would definitely shit themselves and dial back on the agression.

[–] actually@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It can’t be saber rattling at this stage, it’s a promise.

Maybe one that cannot be kept, but I seriously doubt the allies could stop it if the fronts retract and troops from nato countries are not sent?

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