606
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
606 points (94.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6594 readers
655 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
Question: We've seen sand-filled missiles due to corruption and cronyism, and they were actually transfered to the front line expecting to be live munitions. How many Russian ICBMs do you think are truly functional between the "new" ones and the 70yo cold war hulks?
To be clear, I don't revel in the idea of a war between the Ruskies and NATO, but Putin is certain to be wondering this, too. How effective are his strategic assets, truly? I'm sure the CIA has figured that out and is guiding US response on that intel. They know exactly how far an insecure dictator can be pushed.
It only takes one or two
Yeah and what would that do. Sure a lot of people would die but it won't help Russia win the war. If they shoot their load and they destroyed say two cities, then everyone else will know that's it. Launching the missiles would be literally the last thing that they ever do. Mutually assured destruction not required.
The best way to survive is to constantly threaten but never actually act. Eventually someone will do something about putting oil just die of old age. There isn't really a way there's ends with him being victorious.
Anyone firing nukes at any other country would undoubtedly be devastating to the aggressor, even putler isn't that stupid.
Personally I can't believe how he hasn't been JFK'd yet.
yeah, that's the exact reason why you shouldn't worry about nuclear war in any case
that's because you don't understand how politically apathetic russians are
I suspect the reason that is because the sanctions haven't really bitten home yet and no one really wants to inherit this nebulous mess where Russia's position with NATO is not well understood, much better to wait and let him to out and out fail, then when they take power the only possible way is up.
Ok so I can finally reply to your question after days of appealing my permanent ban to noncredibledefense for my comment above. (Apparently it was too pro-russia and spreading false information)
Secondly you're right, I don't think anyone knows how many are truly functional, the US and Russia have the best ideas but both of those nations are rightfully very secretive about the true nature of the nukes.
I believe that if US truly believed the russian nuclear arsenal was a zero threat they would have already put troops in Ukraine. That's mostly the reason why my opinion is that Russia has at least one likely operational nuclear device which could cause damage to the European continent.
Secondly risk is calculated by two factors, chance and effect.
As a European myself, the effect of russian nukes on Europe terrifies me because I live in a major city that would be a target if Russia ever went scorched earth. Although the chance is low the effect is high which puts the overall risk above zero which is too much especially with the majority of NATO residing in that continent.
Sorry, we don't allow Russian fear mongering in NCD.
i don't care if you are true believer or an useful idiot, if you're repeating hottest vatnik twitter talking points you are in a wrong place
honestly perun should be mandatory watching in this sub. this one in this case. maybe you have noticed that some western weapons sent earlier had a restriction that they couldn't be used in russian 1991 borders. well as it happens F16 and any weapons mounted on them don't have this restriction, which means that countries that sent them don't think any of russian "red lines" around military aid are credible. putin doesn't even want to escalate conventionally as it stands now because it would be unpopular domestically
having some vague nuclear threshold doesn't make your position credible and makes diplomacy harder. nuclear strike in response to a nuclear strike on an ally, that's a clear one. nuclear strike in response to disabling nuclear second strike capability, like C2, in nuclear way or not, this is also a clear one. "existence of a state is threatened" you'd expect this in some kind of total war, and we're nowhere close to it. military aid is not it, screeching at top of your lungs that you'll nuke london after atacms is delivered then doing nothing does not make your position credible. nukes are first of all tools of diplomacy and the right way to use them is in deterrence, this does not make a lot of sense if you want to be taken seriously