this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
233 points (100.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3938 readers
38 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 49 points 2 months ago (3 children)

What, you didn't think those huge forest fires occur because of things like, oh, I dunno, climate change or poor management and not allowing smaller natural fires to occur to temporarily benefit some overly rich assholes living in forested areas?

No, flamethrower helicopters!

[–] ilega_dh@feddit.nl 20 points 2 months ago

Reject climate action

Embrace flamethrower helicopters

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago

We actually use them to clear homeless encampments. Sure, it burns down half the city with the encampment, but it's a small price to pay to make our homeless even more miserable <3

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is funny but the helicopters are probably meant for controlled burn stuff, but I have no first hand knowledge about this.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

...You got one thing right

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago

I have no firsthand knowledge of this

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's water you stupid basβ€”

[notices where I am]

Excellent work, carry on.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago
[–] FermiEstimate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We can ask this question from the other direction: why doesn't everywhere else have a flamethrower helicopter?

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Woke libs cancelled their flammencopters

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Is this even a serious question? Because a freaking helicopter that shoots fire is Awesome! Every state should have one. I want one myself!

Unfortunately this is not a flamethrower helicopter.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I've seen drones with flamethrowers used to clear brush and trash from powerlines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOqWfLZT8OM

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

If you watch how they work, these actually scoop up water and convert it to fire. And still all the woke libs act surprised California has constant water shortage and wildfire issues. You're literally converting your water into fire, sheeple!

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Easy.

To defend the Brotherhood of Nod against the GDI.

[–] ilega_dh@feddit.nl 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oof this is digging deep, was that from Command and Conquer?

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I believe the Brotherhood of Nod faction was introduced in the Tiberium Wars game, but its possible I may be wrong. Its been a while since Command & Conquer had a truly new release.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Brotherhood of Nod has always been in C&C since the first game.

Strangely enough, this reminds me that, at the time, even as a kind, I thought it was kind of unrealistic that there was no way that a stateless belligerent faction could amass military hardware and tech enough to threaten a global superpower across multiple different continents.

Then Al Quuaeda and ISIS came along and did just that.

[–] knightmare1147@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

ate day and a half old pizza last night that gave me upset stomach. Can confirm. I am dieing 😭

[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cause, you fight fire with fire.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

if you don't understand burning firebreaks - ooof....

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

This photograph appears to be a helicopter dropping fire retardant on a fire.

[–] ilega_dh@feddit.nl 8 points 2 months ago

Not the hard R, that’s a war crime

[–] EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago

Damn, bro dropping the r word 😐

[–] CEbbinghaus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Bet you're the life of the party bud

[–] m4xie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago

That seems a horrifically cruel and ableist way to fight fires! Not to mention ineffective.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No wonder California is always on fire.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hope you never see an idiot throw flour or powdered milk at an open flame.

[–] amon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

unpasturised powdered milk

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

Is that even relevant?

[–] rustyfish@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Next step: Fighter Jets with flamethrowers.

I am heavily disappointed at humanity for not coming up with it until now.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ok, figuring out how to project a stream of fire ahead of a jet traveling at MACH Speed would be an interesting engineering exercise.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Ok now, hear me out. Take a ramjet, and stick it on the accelerant nozzle.

[–] TheOSINTguy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Jungle jelly

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

They're called "Fire Men"

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wait, they made a flame throwing helicopter?

Perhaps I have misjudged you, California.

looks at their rifles

Never mind, I judged correctly the first time.

Cool helicopter though!

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Jokes aside, setting shit on fire is a legit firefighting tactic: The idea is to burn off all the fuel before the actual wildfire can reach it, forming a barrier the fire cannot easily spread over.

High winds obviously complicate this, but it can still work under the right circumstances.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also a legit forestry tactic - you set a controlled fire in a part of the forest, and keep it well-controlled, to burn off leaf litter and dead wood that would otherwise easily fuel a wildfire, and to encourage the growth of some species (or discourage others - burning is the only effective way to stop some invasive plant species).

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The ecology of California in general, and in particular the Sierra Nevada, has evolved to expect a wildfire every 10 years or so. Going 100 years (in some places) without a fire was completely beyond anything that ecology had evolved for, and it's no wonder that those areas that hadn't burned in a century got slate-wiped. The native Americans, and later the herdsmen who took over their lands, benefitted from these small vegetation burns and would frequently start and manage them. In the early 1900s, though, the feds (with good intentions, mind) came along and said you can't do that anymore because fire is always bad.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Planting a ton of Eucalyptus trees in the 1890s-1910s, that self ignite when they get too dry didn't help matters either. Worst part is those trees were planted for the railroad. Once the tree is smoldering they explode with sticky burning sap.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Holy crow, I had no idea that they secrete a sticky sap when they burn, nor that they were planted for the railroad. I always heard it was because John Steinbeck liked them / made them popular. Do you have a source so I can learn more?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

We're strangers on a bullshitting forum on a bullshitting site and I know you don't owe me shit, so thank you very much for sharing that with me!

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

muh firecopter!

The right for Californians to have airborne incendiary delivering capabilities for home defense shall not be impeached! What's the matter with you? Don't you support the 2nd amendment? /s

[–] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

The militarization of police departments has gone too far. /s