this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
390 points (95.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6622 readers
156 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The problem I remember is that it is expensive to get the rod up there in the first place.

Also every other nation would hate us and make jokes about the collective small penis of the US state.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why the eventual strategy would be to build them in space with minerals from the asteroid belt.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would involve building a factory in space. If we're capable of doing that, creating a kinetic OWP with which to bombard the earth would be small ambition.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Just slap some rockets to a big enough boulder, Planetary Annihilation (videogame) style.

[–] sockinacock@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also the tungsten oxides produced in high velocity impacts are potentially worse than fallout.

Gotta mine them in space, but there's still a whole host of other issues with the idea including aiming them, having enough stations to deploy them anywhere on the planet in a reasonable amount of time, and the other non-radioactive problems that result from throwing a fuckton of tungsten at terminal velocity into something.

[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There was a YouTube video with, I think action lab, where they tested this weapon on a smaller scale with sand castles.

The experiment failed overall because of the difficulty of aiming the payload and anticipating the correalis effect

[–] HW07@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Yep that's the channel. Thank you!

Video for those interested.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

I remember that this was one of the factors that weirded up the whole cold war. ICBMs are hard to aim, though in the US we were able to find a workable solution. (A Polaris could drop a retarded-descent pizza into my driveway and then conveniently dispose of itself in the nearby unused lot.)

Soviet missiles were not so accurate, so they just build bunches of them hoping to hit their targets through sheer redundancy. (This became dinner talk at Cal-Tech in the eighties since SDI was expected to be able to intercept the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal, including bunches of decoys) So their redundancy was used by General Electric to promote the missile gap, as justification why we needed to buy more GE nukes to close the difference.

This is why, I'm pretty sure, we don't really need to be too afraid of DPRK going madman with their handful of nukes. So far we've seen the Kims lob ICBMs into the pacific, but they haven't shown they could hit a given continent, let alone someplace important, and the US knows from its own experience that ICBM math is hard.

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

Ah yes, we would do that, definately haven't already started... no, of course not.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

It's well within the character of the US federal government and the armed forces to go forward with an OWP platform program right now, even despite the risks and ethics concerns, sadly.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lol "the United States state."

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. The United States of America is, itself a federated state that also represents the fifty states. It's why we have a state department and a Secretary of State in the White House.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I never said otherwise. Petition to call it the United States State from now on. Let's also call the UK as the United State Kingdom State.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm assuming USKS is willful absurdity. It would be the United Kingdom state, or state of the UK (not to be confused with a UK state of the union speech).

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 4 points 1 year ago

No because each nation within the United Kingdom, in example Ireland, Scottland, England, and Wales is it's own State and United they form the UK State so it's the United State Kingdom State.