this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
210 points (93.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6760 readers
303 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
210
B-based??? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
 
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RacoonVegetable@reddthat.com 81 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Do you have any more of them pixels?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 59 points 2 months ago

No, I am very poor

[–] Cagi@lemmy.ca 64 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Americans didn't join WWII for Europe, almost everyone was staunchly against joining the war before Pearl Harbour, letting Europe and Asia sort out their own problems. They were reluctant after so many died in WWI just to save European empires from other European empires. This just seemed like more of that at the time. Then Japan and Germany declared war on the US, obliging them to fight. Otherwise the people were ready to watch Europe get taken over by Hitler.

That said, the US Government had already decided they had to join the war for self preservation and were working on a way to start to convince people when Japan attacked. That really did the US war effort a lot of favours.

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

Joining the war earlier would have gotten in the way of profiteering off both sides in the war.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago

Nothing is more valuable to a military than combat experience. I predict that several if not many of the Western servicepeople that trained Ukrainian soldiers will sit for lectures given by their former students.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

As a USian, I'm more than happy to have europe take care of their own security, go right ahead 👍

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 57 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As European, I think we should work towards being less dependant on USA when it comes to many things not only defense.

Europe shouldn't depend on USA to defend us. NATO shouldn't depend on a single country

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

More specifically, I would LOVE if the long term dynamic became more of equal partnership and division of concerns - up to and including mutual basing agreements on BOTH sides of the pond.

We have Ramstein and Incirlik and Lakenheath and a bunch of others; maybe it makes sense for the EU to have a few disused bases in the US too - some joint, some just for them. Something in Texas, Alaska, somewhere in the PNW, East coast somewhere, Florida, and Guam would make a lot of sense, I think, even if (outside of Guam and Alaska, for somewhat obvious reasons), I would think they’d be largely training focused - but I think that sort of thing would be extremely helpful in terms of strengthening the alliance, and making the EU as a whole a much more obviously equal partner.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The only valuable US territory for EU nations to host troops would be Alaska and the Pacific territories, and Alaska would be the only decent location for European defense. Any other locations would only be useful for power projection, in which the EU seems rather disinterested in.

That said, the US hosts a lot of training centers for EU troops, including hosting a ton of pilot training schools. So there are a lot of EU troops in the US, they are just on American bases.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 months ago

Any other locations would only be useful for power projection, in which the EU seems rather disinterested in.

Maybe the French? That said, the EU is not directly benefiting from the petrodollar, so there's no point in playing world police American style.

[–] NoiseColor@startrek.website 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's the official stance of everybody really.

Unofficially : US doesn't really want that because that would significantly reduce their diplomatic influence and weapons sales. European nations don't want it, because of responsibility, it would be expensive and we would end up with a lot of armed nations that don't really like each other that much.

So, it's really beneficial for everyone that it stays like it is.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 9 points 2 months ago

Unofficially : US doesn't really want that because that would significantly reduce their diplomatic influence

The US has been pushing a lot of it behind the scenes for several Presidents. As the world's economy becomes more equal, the US can't afford being the only country providing the bulk of defense. There have been some minor disagreements on coordination, but I feel like these disagreements have been inflated.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Good call to share the military parts to few European countries and the US (while Trumpnis not in power) - too may leaders in bed with Putin to risk sharing specifics with them