this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
302 points (94.9% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6592 readers
703 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only logical conclusion is that civilians should be able to, nay mandated to, own anti-aircraft missiles. And while we're at it anti-tank missiles too.

Imagine if every single person in Ukraine had had anti-aircraft and anti-tank missles.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

We can, they're all just expensive.Its just a DD, which is a 200 dollar tax stamp

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Second amendment means we should have anti-aircraft missiles too. This is not a joke. I am serious.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Honestly, even if it were legal, who would be able to afford it? It'd just mean the ultra wealthy would have even more powerful private armies. A single missile costs at least a few hundred thousand dollars, with some systems costing millions per missile. Which is unfathomably expensive when you think of what you can buy with a few million dollars.

[–] JebKush@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The answer is UBI: Universal Ballistic Income

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't that just a fancy term for shooting rolls of coins at people with a slingshot?

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Afraid of the increasing missile street violence? Call now and buy your own handheld missile launcher today at 50% discount. The best way to stop a bad guy with a missile launcher is a good guy with a missile launcher.

[–] Udonezo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is what organized militias are for. Crowdfunding and rigourous oversight

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago

The free market is very good at reducing prices. Do you really think the price the government pays for missiles is reasonable?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anti-aircraft missiles, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear SAMs, shall not be infringed.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Play it again, SAM.

[–] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Shadow wizard money gang (we love casting spells) LEGALISE NUCLEAR BOMBS

[–] PutangInaMo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

When are you announcing your presidential run?

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those gravy seals are totally going to live in tunnels for months.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

No they won't, they'll miss their government paid dialysis.

[–] Zaroni@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

OK, I don't think I have heard people arguing about vietnam, but Afghanistan was retaken in days by an armed rebellion, and they only ever shot down 38 aircraft, and did not down a single fast mover during the entire war. And even so, a countries government can't survive by bombing its infrastructure against a sustained rebellion. If the majority of America decided to rebel against the us government, they would be completely screwed.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the majority of the population decided to rebel against the government they wouldn't need guns

[–] Zaroni@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uh, yes they would? Have you heard of: the soviet union, the ccp or ww2 Germany? All had different rebellions, but all failed because they did not have any firepower. One of the very first things the fascist government of Germany did was remove weapons from anyone that was an enemy of the state. Now in present day ukraine, because none of the citizens were permitted to own arms, Ukrainians have no way to fight an insurgent war on Russian occupiers. Without any means to violently resist a fascist takeover, the people are at the mercy of the government. I love how so many people post about how "if enough trans or nby people arms themselves then the government will enact gun control" and completely miss the irony of that point completely proving correct the points people make against gun control.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There has virtually never be a revolution in history that had the majority of the population behind it while it was actually happening.

There's also never been a successful revolution when the majority opposed it either. They only succeed when the public, at a minimum, says "Can't be any worse, right?"

[–] PutangInaMo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm a fan of using the argument of the post, but I have given some thought to keeping civilians armed enough to combat LEO. But then they're out there buying surplus military equipment like fuck here we go, endless cycle.

[–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Where'd they get their missiles from? Can't be indigenous, right? Russia?

[–] vanZuider@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago
[–] Ildar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Shit@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Да do you ever worry about being drafted? How was your lunch break today?

[–] Ildar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ай донт вори, зер из э лот оф волотиерз. Дуинг воркаут он ланч брейк 👋🏻

[–] terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I always heard a big factor was the land/environment itself.

[–] skulblaka@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It definitely was. The Vietnamese kicked our asses but that's because they knew how to use their terrain to their advantage. America had not fought a true guerilla war before that time and especially not one on enemy territory.

But Joe Podunk and his huntin' guns are not going to be holed up in a foxhole surrounded by punji sticks for two weeks. Special forces would just drop a missile on his F-150 and call it a day.

Realistically the only way an American rebellion doesn't get crushed within minutes of forming is if the armed forces fracture and it blooms into a federal civil war. Then all of us are well and truly fucked much more than we are now.

[–] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't come at them with facts.

The French, Russian, Chinese, and even the Vietnamese revolutions quite literally all started as dudes with rifles. American largely as well, though it did technically start with artillery, that was terrible and got fuckin rekt until the French started doing it all for us. Except, of course, for the OG Insurgent Asshole, the Swamp Fox himself, the man who saved the Revolution, who, you guessed it, fought mostly with muskets and guerilla tactics.

(Also he was a slaver, a murderer, and a rapist, just to be clear. But he was best at murderin')

You start with rifles, then get the big boy toys when you either get a national sugar daddy or murder some bootlickers in their barracks and raid the armory. Preferably both.