I have never seen a nuclear explosion in person and I hope I never do. I kind of think they SHOULD be treated with reverence.
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
328 points (98.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6787 readers
452 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
On the one hand, a lot of people would die really horrible deaths. On the other hand, it would be really funny watching a Fox News host try and deal with a nuclear war on his first day in charge of the DOD
Imagine how Kennedy Jr. would advise us on treating radiation sickness
i kinda fuck with nuclear proliferation.
no offense but i don't think I've ever heard this opinion before, may i ask why
I'm so fucking done with the west leading Ukraine on and giving them a bone when the front is at a breaking point. It's clear that if Ukraine wants to win this war, it won't be on the west's terms. They are in a position where they can only rely on themselves.
This nonsense of a drop of aid after irreplaceable casualties/losses isn't sustainable.
Sure, but nobody is actually obligated to defend Ukraine since there's no alliance. And that's largely what this war is over, since Russia wants to keep it that way.
I think the West should nut up and join the war to crush Russia or stop all aid, but this non-committal assistance isn't really helping anything and just prolonging the war.
IMO as long as states like Iran aren't getting access to nuclear bombs, it's all kinda fair game at the end of the day. It puts everyone on the same level playing field.
It'd be like going to war against a nation with guns, using swords. You're not going to win, simple as that.
The problem naturally, is that unstable nation states are a unique threat to the global population. As long as they don't have access to nuclear bombs, generally, things should only get more geopolitically stable because the cost of humanity suffering would otherwise outweigh every possible benefit (primarily economic collapse and hardship)
quick edit: most people would argue against this because nukes are big and scary. Most things are, i'm an objective realist and a political nihilist so things like "nukes are big and scary" isn't really a significant consideration for me at the end of the day. And besides, the government could just black van me if they really wanted to. It's not like i'm a significant target.
also, there are arguments to be made surrounding this for fission based nuclear energy, which is kind of nice.
as long as states like Iran aren't getting access
This is kind of the whole argument against nuclear proliferation though. The more bombs that exist, the harder it is to keep it out of the hands of completely unpredictable groups like iran. You have allies to radical Islam all over the world, it's how you get the kind of coordinated terrorism on the scale of 9/11 and the Paris attacks. Even one single security slip up might be enough to completely fuck us all.
The barrier to entry between terrorists and nuclear weapons needs to be kept watertight, rock solid, and a mile thick, and you really can’t expect that on a global scale, it's just the law of large numbers. The risks of proliferation therefore, in my opinion at least, are completely unacceptable
Edit: also I just want to mention that the swords/guns metaphor really doesn't work because this is a problem that potentially concerns the security of literally all life on earth. There is no historical precedent beyond a few decades of REALLY precarious history. That precedent is being set every single day with every policy and every minute to minute decision. The danger to humanity is very real
This is kind of the whole argument against nuclear proliferation though. The more bombs that exist, the harder it is to keep it out of the hands of completely unpredictable groups like iran.
this is true, however, the argument for nuclear proliferation would be that lots more countries having nuclear weapons would put countries like iran at a significant risk, since if they were to use them, they would likely be indefinitely obliterated. By several parties.
but then again, give a man enough time, he will inevitably learn how to build a nuclear bomb, so maybe anti proliferation is bad. When people who want them, are going to get them at all costs anyway.
It really is just a pandoras box, but i'm definitely not explicitly anti proliferation either. For whatever that's worth lol.
also I just want to mention that the swords/guns metaphor really doesn’t work because this is a problem that potentially concerns the security of literally all life on earth.
i'm aware, it's an analogy, it's not meant to be perfectly accurate lol. It gets the point across.
