cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/noncredibledefense/p/1490862/the-correct-response
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
Banner made by u/Fertility18
It's basically Chamberlain++.
Chamberlain's appeasement for fear of kicking off WWII was bad enough, but now nuclear missiles are on the table, so there's much more fear.
There's never a good time to kick off WWIII, so most nations are going to bend over backward to not do so.
I do not believe that Russia has working nukes and I bet most nation's intelligence don't believe they do either, but no one wants bet on that.
Also, I believe we're already in WWIII. At least at some point in the future, the start of it will be retroactively decided to have happened before now.
That's a huge stretch. Working ICBMs are 1960s tech'. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated they're perfectly capable of employing 1960s tech' reliably enough to function sometimes.
It doesn't take a 2026 nuke to hit a country in 2026. The more modern, the more likely it hits, but they have so many.
You're being pedantic about the term WWIII. We both know what I meant.
Nukes don't store forever. They require more upkeep then other types of military equipment and Russia has proven to be lacking by their initial invasion. Keen eyes noticed that the trucks they were using were sitting for years by the dryrot wear on the tires.
I'm no nuclear expert but I do dabble in statistics, and you're making an argument for "the majority of the Russian stockpile will be too decrepit to function," not an argument for "all of the Russian stockpile will be too decrepit to function."
All it takes is one to kill millions. That's the scenario The West is desperately trying to avoid at any cost.
I don't know why you're doing mental gymnastics to deny either above point, but it's getting exhausting trying to keep up with you.
Nuclear material decays and as it decays, will not detonate with the energy from the explosive material it was built with. It NEEDS to be replaced on an regular basis, depending on the type it is. It's not a matter of a chance o-ring dry rotting or chance capacitor leaking or chance fuel going bad.
Putin's a bully. There's an implicate threat that Putin will use nukes if he doesn't get what he wants, but he'll never be happy with what he has. The best case scenario is he croaks on his own because he's too damn paranoid to let someone near him assassinate him. He's probably scared shitless from the recent drone attack on his palace.
Russia has blackmail on "The West." That's why they're complicate. Politicians are self serving shits. If they cared about unnecessary deaths, they would have handled Covid better.
That's 1940s technology.
Not sure why you included this because it's irrelevant and I agree, but I guess if you had to get a quick soapbox Red Herring out, it's not like I can stop you.
More Red Herring soapboxing. Try to stay on topic with your next comment.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/22540-05-ukraine-could-not-have-kept-nuclear
There's more in there, but the gist is is that if Ukraine couldn't have maintained the nukes they had then the USSR fell, I don't think Russia could have either.
My point in calling out Putin as a bully is that if he actually has working nukes, he will use then whether or not we abide by his threats or not.