this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
27 points (96.6% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6622 readers
483 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you made it up and now can't provide a single source to your made up claims?
Made what up, exactly? I’m not going to go through all of the statements made by hawkish journalists about how the US should use its arsenal because that’s a ridiculous thing to even care about, let alone summarize—that was my point, that this list includes many tangential and absurd claims not made by the actual government of Russia.
As far as the second claim, it’s easy to verify and I thought it was common knowledge that the US maintains the right to strike first with nukes, just as Russia did but since apparently many people in this thread are unfamiliar with US policy, here you go: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/11/nuclear-weapons-biden-russia-strike-policy/
I was talking about this statement you made.
The article you sent is about the first strike power not even the same subject?
So you haven’t read the list we’re discussing. No wonder this is not a productive discussion.
Several of the articles listed here are simply Russia reiterating that they will not restrict use of nuclear weapons to retaliatory strikes… just as the US has. This is exactly what I mean when I say that many of these items are not threats in the conventional sense of the word.
To be clear: I condemn the nuclear weapons policies and programs of both nations. But they are not direct threats to other nations in and of themselves.
Dude I don't know this is annoying and pretty dumb. The first one on the list I haven't read has nothing to even do with the USA? Can you share a statement the USA has made in an official capacity like the first one on the list I allegedly haven't read?
This is just a bunch of whataboutism and changing the subject. I get you allegedly might not like nuclear weapons but most counties that have them don't constantly threaten to use them for every perceived aggression.
Russian retoric has gotten pretty escalatory and I can't say I've seen the same for the USA recently. They have some north Korean energy... So please prove me wrong or just stop. Show me where the USA is threatening the apocalypse with Russia to secure concessions from non nuclear armed states? I'll even take an official NATO statement saying we are in a hot war with Russia and will need to escalate to using nukes first if that's easier? To be clear we are taking post ussr.
Most counties don't try to hold the world hostage with nuclear blackmail. Please just drop it...