Tankies will be in here supporting nuclear options unironically.
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
243 points (98.8% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6559 readers
828 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
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're making it look like it's Ukraine's choice. They're being forced to the nuclear path by the internal enemies within NATO that are fucking everything up
Ukraine gave up those nukes in exchange for security assurances. If Russia is going to go back on its assurance, then Ukraine should be able to go back to the nukes. Fair is fair.
As a former SSR that held nuclear weapons on its territory before 1968, they even oughta be free and clear with respect to the non proliferation treaty.
As a former SSR that held nuclear weapons on its territory before 1968, they even oughta be free and clear with respect to the non proliferation treaty.
Is that true? If the worst comes to pass, I wonder what the UN will say (not that it matters...)
Is that true? If the worst comes to pass, I wonder what the UN will say (not that it matters...)
what the UN will say
"Well, they have nukes now, so international law is now more like international suggestions for them"
This is NonCredibleDefense. So it's true if it would be funny if it were true.
In UN
Russia's deligate is beyond furious. Most everyone has an awkward look. China is getting very annoyed with their vassal's war, and someone on the floor:
wringing hands "Well technically its within Ukraine's rights..."
Sad when a comedian has more balls than all of NATO combined
What the fuck is that artwork?
It’s disrespectful to South Park.
Just need to get a little cancer, Stan
It's a bold move but I don't see it changing the outcome of the ongoing war. If Ukraine could build long-range ballistic missiles in the near future, I think they could regain the advantage even without any nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads would not be useful without those ballistic missiles.
(What would happen if Ukraine did have nuclear-armed ballistic missiles but Russia refused to withdraw from Ukrainian territory? I don't foresee Ukraine actually nuking Russia, even in those circumstances.)
Man fuck these comments, nuke Russia you pussies. I'll deliver the missiles myself if that's what you need. Strap me to the rocket and fire me at Moscow!
Name checks out?
Great job bruh... Where do you want to tie yourself up? At the front of missile or around the cylindrical part? Better be the war head!
load more comments
(1 replies)
A truck can deliver a nuke. Just pack it in cat litter and drive it onto that bridge in Crimea. Should knock that stupid thing out finally.
While I agree with your second argument that Russia would probably just call them on their bluff, I don't think they'd need long range ballistic missiles. They seem to operate on russian soil a lot, and you could put a big nuke into a larger van easily.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just package it as a good old gravity bomb or glide bomb?
Or get creative and mount it on a swarm of large drones (with the others being decoys for SAMs). Maybe like a fleet of old prop planes flying very low.
This is very hypothetical though, no one should hope for Ukraine reaching the point of even considering an actual launch of a nuke.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why, why Mr. Zelensky, don't you develop nuclear weapons like other nations: in silence?
nuclear is neither about having, nor using the weapons … it’s about the fear of future use of weapons
silence isn’t helpful in that endeavour
No development required, I think they can open a drawer somewhere and pick one of several soviet designs. If they want a nuke, they can build one right away.
It would cost them the support of their allies, however, and they cannot afford that.
It's saber rattling.
Looking at Israel, the “don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness” strategy really works with the US (a good example is also Kursk attack, Nord Stream 2 or Kerch bridge sabotage). They should just be doing crazy shit, forcing escalation on Russian side, and thus in response by the US/NATO. Of course this is a delicate balance, but a few nukes on paper I think would still be okay.
These could guarantee the existence of their nation in the future, and unless they use them on a Russian city, no repercussions would happen beyond verbal saber rattling just for having it. Russia would definitely shit themselves and dial back on the agression.
The support may be dropping away anyway.
Imagine a right wing US/EU election sweep from Zelensky's point of view. They're going to force Ukraine to capitulate, and in a very lopsided manner that cripples Ukraine forever, hence this could be an actual option/last resort more than a threat.
Would a right wing US government force a capitulation? I was under the impression that support from the US was bipartisan.
One party has completely been taken over by Russian assets, guess which.
The Trumpest of the the Trump.... The big Trumpest... 😃
Are you kidding? Trump hates Zelensky with a burning passion, because he personally wronged him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal
The Trump–Ukraine scandal was a political scandal that arose primarily from the discovery of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to coerce Ukraine into investigating his political rival Joe Biden and thus potentially damage Biden's campaign for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
He's going to screw Ukraine and offer Russia a favorable capitulation the absolute first second he can. And probably offer Russia Zelensky if he can manage it.
The Republicans are increasingly turning anti-NATO as well.
Oldschool Republicans lawmakers 100% support Ukraine, maybe even stronger than Democrats do. Some are still hanging around the Senate, but most are gone or retiring soon (like Mitch Mcconnell), and they're already gone from the U.S. House and Trump's cabinet.
edit: Now that I think about it, Mike Johnson (The US House speaker) did make a suprise decision in support of Ukraine and in defiance of his own party, but his position as speaker is extremely precarious. I don't think that will happen again.
Not kidding, just a foreigner. I assumed it was bipartisan given America's hatred for Russia over the past few decades. Didn't realize Trump was so bully for em. I knew about the whole "he's a Russian not" conspiracy but given that seemed to be false I assumed it was more accepted by both sides that Ukraine should have aid.
We didn't hate Russia.
We didn't care.
Do you hate a rat you saw once 5 years ago?
At best we held them in quiet contempt until Crimea, then 2022 pulled the contempt to the surface.
Personally I think we need to set an example, dresden comes to mind.
Aplogies for being rude.
Yeah, Trump's fascination with strongmen is more of a personality quirk than policy, but the attitude of the Republic party has abruptly shifted from "anti Russia/China" to more universally protectionist and isolationist. If you watch Tucker Carlson (for instance), you'll hear a lot of questioning like "why should we have to pay for all this madness overseas?" and accusations its feeding the US military industrial complex... and there's a nugget of truth there. The oldschool Republicans have been steadily losing power, and this is kinda the tipping point.
If Trump wins, expect to see a lot of noise about withdrawing from NATO, pulling out of large trade agreements, "abruptly" settling disputes, tarrifs. Things like that, basically the exact opposite of the old neoliberal paradigm.
He also holds vicious grudges, something he did before he even got into politics, so that may color some foreign policy as well. If he's acting strange towards some person in particular on the news, search for "Trump (X) controversy," and something from before 2020 will probably come up.
Building a nuke is not difficult. Refining the necessary amount of uranium 235, or acquiring plutonium 239 however...
Khajiit has wares, if you have coin
He's stated they have the material and could have a nuke within weeks I believe.they have reactors so the material isn't hard to come by really
The engineering for plutonium nuke is not trivial. A U235 one is dead simple, but they probably have Plutonium from reactors, not U235 from centrifuges.
And yeah, they undoubtedly have Soviet blueprints under a matress somewhere.
Who do you think designed the Soviet nukes?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Institute_of_Physics_and_Technology
The Ukrainian Institute of Physics and Technology was the "Laboratory no. 1" for nuclear physics, and was responsible for the first conceptual development of a nuclear bomb in the USSR.[3]: 4
Russians are inbred drunk morons, which is why everything they tried since the fall has been disastrous, and why we haven't seen su-57s and t-14s in actual combat while the semhat exploded on the pad and their own bombs rained on their soil.
If the war goes on expect them to nuke Moscow by mistake.
It can’t be saber rattling at this stage, it’s a promise.
Maybe one that cannot be kept, but I seriously doubt the allies could stop it if the fronts retract and troops from nato countries are not sent?
Both?
Thanks Obama
Man I thought this was a solid "thanks Obama" use given his weak defense of Crimea brought us directly to this point. Damn.
Thanks Nukebama.