this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
143 points (100.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

7338 readers
107 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

🫸🫷

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] obinice@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago

You've already got my region of England highlighted, so there I suppose! I could work from home xD

[–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If your a civilian you want to be on the US front, if your a soldier you want to be on the Russian front.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It seems most people get it, but I don't - Care to explain?

[–] bigboismith@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Americans are better at following the laws of war, but are also more efficient at waging war.

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Americans are better at following the laws of war

You think the Trump admin won't actively seek to degenerate the US military to the level of the orcs?

[–] Mvlad88@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Romanians be like: at the beginning or at the end of the war?

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, since my whole country is already coloured Red, i'm guessing there's not a lot of choice.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Had to check if Dutch or Russian

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

Well, technically, there's a small part of Limburg that remains free, but since we don't really consider that area part of the country, it still counts.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This map forgets that the US have direct access to bases in NATO countries.

Trump could just send troops in the open to the bases, and then turn around on the local forces.

US taking over NATO countries will not be a Normandie style sea landing, they would break out of our own bases having disabled them first.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 month ago

And they have a kill switch for a lot of NATO tech

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

People coming up with scenarios like that forget that the US would have huge supply lines to keep those bases going while the other country is literally right there. And it is not as if you would need to besiege a modern military base for months to starve them out.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

While it's inaccurate to pretend the US would just steamroll the EU in a land war in the EU, we also shouldn't pretend like the bases wouldn't be problematic. Everywhere the US operates requires huge supply lines, so it's not the absolute deal breaker it would be for most nations.
Starting with places to land and manage supplies would be a big advantage.
The biggest issue would be that usually they use the bases to house troops during the lengthy process of getting them into place for deployment, so there would be a lot of questions about how to actually move the people over fast enough, but getting the supplies there would be relatively routine.

There's no way the US could take or hold Europe without an aggreable civilian population. Given the differences in expenditures, military size, experience, and developed tools and logistics there's also no real way any European nation is going to be able to effectively stop them. Basically a significantly worse Vietnam type situation, from the perspective of both sides.

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The EU has 500+ million population. Do you you think that the few thousands of american troops in Europe can fight against that? Even if the EU had no military, it would be an impossible fight. And the EU has a lot of military, vastly outnumbering american military stationed in Europe.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What?

Population means very little when we have to fight tanks, boats, planes and missiles.

We have few military weapons outside of military bases, the US only needs to take control of a few bases to cripple us

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Population means very little when we have to fight tanks, boats, planes and missiles.

Those things cant automatically teleport to european soil. Aircraft carriers can only do so much and they also cant teleport. Numbers are still relevant, especially when backed by existing european military. Morale is also relevant.

Europe is a giant place, with shitload of people, that have a strong desire to defend against invaders. Look what happened to Vietnam or Ukraine. As long as you have a large enough group of people, with decent equipment and morale, you can do great things.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] iopq@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 month ago

Britain needs to ramp up their navy again! BRITANIA RULE THE WAVES ONCE MORE!

[–] peregrin5@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are they fighting each other or just hitting all of Europe in a pincer movement?

[–] Shit@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] vzq@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Full Molotov Von Ribbentrop.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm a manufacturing engineer specialized in machining exotic alloys and complex parts, even though I have changed career a few years ago I have experience in manufacturing complex military parts.

So I would probably be in a factory trying to produce as much military equipment as possible.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Kind of same, I would get send back to H&K most likely

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This comment has been edited for privacy. The message was visible for the duration of activity on the post.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It really bugs me that I'm "in the same boat", actually.

Like, if they needed a guy to just man a watchtower or something I'd volunteer the shit out of that. I'm pretty powerless when it comes to other things though.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 month ago

Tough question, defend my homeland from the historic genociders trying to finish the job and end up drone bombing senile old men glued onto mules to form human wave cavalry charges is my ancestral duty. Then again the option to sit around in the beautiful france countryside and wait in a bush near the fake mcdonalds for americans.

Since its the north of France, I gotta say eastern fronts work from home is more attractive.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago

I read it as “fellow embryos” at first

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What would Russia want with Vosges I wonder. To answer your question, probably Belgium. At least I can contemplate death with a good beer sliding down my oesophagus.

[–] Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

I guess US. More likely to get blown up, but at least the weather is nicer.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Russia can't defeat the US in conventional warfare, but is much-more-comparable from a nuclear aspect. So Russia has a significant incentive to use nuclear weapons.

I'd guess that the US probably has a shot at actually getting a first strike off versus Russia. So the US has a significant incentive to use nuclear weapons.

Anyone intending to make serious use of nuclear weapons has very little reason to hold back if they expect a high likelihood of the other side responding massively. So they've got a significant incentive to go all-in.

I think that there's a pretty good probability that a major war between Russia and the US of the "only one of us is walking away from this" sort goes very nuclear very quickly.

[–] DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If Russia or the US launch nuclear weapons, over 90% of the world population will die over the following 10 years. However, global warming would be solved.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.earth 11 points 1 month ago

Nuclear winter solves global warming

[–] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Winter

Even using the most conservative numbers here, an all-out exchange between the US and Russia would produce a nuclear winter that would at most resemble the one that Robock and Toon predict for a regional nuclear conflict, although it would likely end much sooner given empirical data about stratospheric soot lifetimes. Some of the errors are long-running, most notably assumptions about the amount of soot that will persist in the atmosphere, while others seem to have crept in more recently, contributing to a strange stability of their soot estimates in the face of cuts to the nuclear arsenal. All of this suggests that their work is driven more by an anti-nuclear agenda than the highest standards of science. While a large nuclear war would undoubtedly have some climatic impact, all available data suggests it would be dwarfed by the direct (and very bad) impacts of the nuclear war itself.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

90% of people being dead and the other 10% being pre-industrial is what'll fix global warming, we don't need nuclear winter for that.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The direct effects on the world of a nuclear war between the US and Russia isn't going to include killing 90% of the world's population.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

It will if we decide to be dicks about it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

Russia's entire military budget is somewhere in the same order of magnitude of what the US spends just on maintaining its nuclear arsenal, so no, they are not comparable there either.

[–] Cocopanda@futurology.today 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

People joke. But I’m power lifting again and joined the three plate bench club for the first time in 18 years. Just because I’m prepping for MAGA’s to show up and put me in a camp for my ADHD or collect my autistic godson. The amount of hurt that would fall upon people who try to do it. Will be on a level not screen in nearly 160 years in this country.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vane@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The one with warm weather.

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago

keep fuckin around somebody's gonna set off a nuke

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Don't forget the two fronts the US would be fighting across the Atlantic.
Maybe 3 if those with interests in the Pacific get involved.

[–] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 2 points 1 month ago

Russia barely has a 1000 km frontline under control, what's that long red thing on the right?

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Heaven, hell, valhalla or wherever. but I won't be fighting a human war

load more comments