this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023

259 points (97.4% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6465 readers

1262 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. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.

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 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. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread 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.

Join our Matrix chatroom

Other communities you may be interested in

Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Shit@sh.itjust.works

NonCredibleDefense@lemmy.world

ncdbot@sh.itjust.works

OttoVonNoob@lemmy.ca

fist_of_fartitude@sh.itjust.works

SpicyPeaSoup@kbin.social

verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works

verity_kindle@lemmy.world

Hellschwarz@feddit.de

skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de

nuke@sh.itjust.works

skillissuer@sh.itjust.works

259

A list of Russian nuclear threats in timeline. (media.kbin.social)

submitted 1 year ago by skillissuer@lemmy.world to c/noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] abraham_linksys@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In 2008 Putin threatened to nuke Ukraine for hosting a missile shield?

I'm guessing a Ukrainian fucked his girlfriend or something and the little manchild just never let it go lol

[–] Epicurus0319@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That might actually be the case, he definitely has a smol pipi and there are so many hot guys in that country

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

https://piped.video/watch?v=8pL7ozb1tdY

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

It was just a ~~prank~~ nuclear threat, bro!

[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Medvedev's just a powerless clown, you can disregard any news mentioning him

And I would've liked to say that Russia wont ever use nukes offensively because that would be the dumbest action ever. But I wont because I was thinking the same about the whole invasion during last year. Just... God save us all...

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

medvedev tries hard to fill that niche left when that motherfucker zhirinovsky croaked

[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

True, Zhirinovsky was also a powerless clown. Though I find it weird that Medvedev, who tried to appear hip and techy during his term, now does a U-turn and tries to appeal to MAGA-kind crowd

[–] 5redie8@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The North Korea playbook lol

They learn from the best

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 8 points 1 year ago

Say what you will about Putin, he knows he can only hope to imitate and never equal The Glorious Leader Who Is Definitely Not The Absolute Monarch Of Our Commietopia

[–] Estiar@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

They really ramp up in 2022

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

It might have been simpler to just display a normal calendar. That's about the same.

You remember these calendars with a famous quote every day? You could do it with nuclear threats.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

No threats in June 2022! So that's something I guess.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"17-Nov -22 Russia is not considering using nuclear weapons - Kremlin says."

How threatening.

[–] MonsterTeresa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

If you speak Kremlin, that's their way of saying that they want us to think that they are considering using nuclear weapons. It's the younger-sibling-on-a-road-trip's "I'm not touching you" of nuclear threats.

[–] TacoThrash3r@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

What's a "nuclear threat"? Sounds like "I didn't really mean it bro"

[–] jebbyknowsbest@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

Routers is now owned by Russia, sounds like a great way to gain some ad revenue.

[+] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -34 points 1 year ago (7 children)

A lot of these are not exactly clear threats. If you used the same standards I’m sure you could come up with a similar list from the US.

[–] AgileLion@feddit.de 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, you couldn't.

[+] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Well, I’m much too lazy to generate a list, but considering feverish claimed by sycophantic journalists as threats from the regime is pretty questionable. And of course the US has maintained its preemptive nuclear strike policy, which also appears on this list for Russia several times. So those things alone would be a moderately long list I expect.

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

So you made it up and now can't provide a single source to your made up claims?

[+] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Made what up, exactly? I’m not going to go through all of the statements made by hawkish journalists about how the US should use its arsenal because that’s a ridiculous thing to even care about, let alone summarize—that was my point, that this list includes many tangential and absurd claims not made by the actual government of Russia.

As far as the second claim, it’s easy to verify and I thought it was common knowledge that the US maintains the right to strike first with nukes, just as Russia did but since apparently many people in this thread are unfamiliar with US policy, here you go: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/11/nuclear-weapons-biden-russia-strike-policy/

[–] Shit@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was talking about this statement you made.

A lot of these are not exactly clear threats. If you used the same standards I’m sure you could come up with a similar list from the US.

The article you sent is about the first strike power not even the same subject?

[+] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you haven’t read the list we’re discussing. No wonder this is not a productive discussion.

Several of the articles listed here are simply Russia reiterating that they will not restrict use of nuclear weapons to retaliatory strikes… just as the US has. This is exactly what I mean when I say that many of these items are not threats in the conventional sense of the word.

To be clear: I condemn the nuclear weapons policies and programs of both nations. But they are not direct threats to other nations in and of themselves.

[–] Shit@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude I don't know this is annoying and pretty dumb. The first one on the list I haven't read has nothing to even do with the USA? Can you share a statement the USA has made in an official capacity like the first one on the list I allegedly haven't read?

This is just a bunch of whataboutism and changing the subject. I get you allegedly might not like nuclear weapons but most counties that have them don't constantly threaten to use them for every perceived aggression.

Russian retoric has gotten pretty escalatory and I can't say I've seen the same for the USA recently. They have some north Korean energy... So please prove me wrong or just stop. Show me where the USA is threatening the apocalypse with Russia to secure concessions from non nuclear armed states? I'll even take an official NATO statement saying we are in a hot war with Russia and will need to escalate to using nukes first if that's easier? To be clear we are taking post ussr.

Most counties don't try to hold the world hostage with nuclear blackmail. Please just drop it...

[+] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m sorry if I’m annoying you but factually incorrect posts annoy me. Especially in a time of war when hostilities and emotions are high, it is best to be skeptical and analyze the facts in a level-headed manner.

The rest of your comment does not seem relevant. Can I provide a source of the US threatening Russia with nukes? No, because I never said they did that. I can provide some links that sycophants would exaggerate into threats (and have already done so elsewhere in this thread), but I don’t think you would find those convincing. Therefore you should not find them convincing when the places are reversed.

Russian rhetoric has certainly gotten aggressive. This is why it’s so silly to include normal, non-threatening behavior on this list. It’s really not needed for the overall point that Russias nuclear policy is threatening and reckless. That remains true, but this list also remains an exaggeration of that truth.

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

Yeah I don't know dude look over your posts your schizo posting... You only provided one source and it was regarding the president having the power to first strike...

Anyways I'm not going to be the one to ban you but this is dumb you didn't get any point across.

Please try to be nice and engage in good faith in the future of you want a discussion not whatever this is.

Hope you have a better day tomorrow. 🫡

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t know what I said that was not nice or in good faith so it seems very aggressive to bring up banning but alright, have a good day to you as well.

[–] eestileib@mastodon.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@LibertyLizard @AgileLion

Wow, it's news to me that the US has a nuclear first-strike policy.

Maybe because it's not the case.

The US is an imperialist bully, but you weaken your case by making false statements.

[–] Zaroni@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea uh, no. You could not lmao. Please give me a list of the us threatening any other countries this many times publicly.

[+] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Why should I? My point is not that the US has made threats, my point is that many of the listed events are not threats and it’s misleading to describe them as such.

Generating such a biased, exaggerated list for the US would be a waste of time, and would constitute propaganda. Just as this list is a pointless piece of propaganda.

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

You said word for word that you could make a similar list with us threats, but then now you say it would be a waste of time? None of these threats on this list are not credible. These are just article titles, but if you look at each article they all have a direct quote from a Russian head of state threatening the use of its nuclear arsenal against the west. Also, defending Russia by saying a peice of propoganda is pointless is so laughable I could cry. You read the articles and not just the titles right?

[–] EnglishMobster@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lmao, from

A lot of these are not exactly clear threats. If you used the same standards I’m sure you could come up with a similar list from the US.

Generating such a biased, exaggerated list for the US would be a waste of time

Aka "I'm having trouble sourcing my own claim so just trust me bro"

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -5 points 1 year ago

Trust me or don’t, I don’t care. If you just read what’s there it’s fairly obvious, didn’t think this would be so controversial.

[–] CapraObscura@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Vatnik scum fuck off.

[–] atlasraven31@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

The US doesn't have to make nuclear threats since they have an overwhelming advantage in non-nuclear firepower.

[–] MonsterTeresa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

YeAh, WhAtAbOuT tHe US? DiD aNyOnE mEnTiOn US BaD yEt?

^Rubles^ ^please^ ^daddy^ ^Putin^

[–] Ignacio@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I'm curious, by the way. When can you come up with a similar list from the US regarding nuclear threats?