this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
323 points (96.8% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6623 readers
107 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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
No, you couldn't.
Well, I’m much too lazy to generate a list, but considering feverish claims 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.
So you made it up and now can't provide a single source to your made up claims?
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/
I was talking about this statement you made.
The article you sent is about the first strike power not even the same subject?
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.
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...
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.
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. 🫡
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.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I mean I'm the nicest way you are schizo posting and telling everyone they are wrong or whatever like this post.
It's fine to disagree but if you say you are lazy or don't care then don't spend the next few hours making posts telling everyone who disagrees with you they are lazy and wrong or dumb for not understanding your brilliant nuanced unsubstantiated understanding of the world. If we had better mod tools I would of stopped you from posting for a day so you could regroup and look over it again with fresh eyes and vigor. I'm not trying to censor or be aggressive to you. You are just coming off as pretty antagonistic and that's fine in smaller amounts.
It's just a lot of energy over something I'm not even clear on since the goal post keeps moving but I might just be too daft to keep up with your nuanced unsourced view of the world. You could of provided them in your first or second or third or fourth post.
15 or 16 posts about why you are too lazy to source your claim or whatever (I don't even know anymore dude) is kind of over the top. It kind of stopped looking like you where saying anything in good faith the first few posts. I'm sure you would think the same if someone came into the community you moderate and did the same... It's just not a constructive way to get whatever point you are trying to make across.
Hope you have a good rest and blow all of our minds with your brilliant sourced post to your original statement 14 posts ago. No need to reply to this one you can go right back to the one below and show us all whatever unique and enlightened point you where trying to make there.
https://slrpnk.net/comment/1591725
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to communicate some kind of coherent message in good faith.
Anyways thanks for reading my manifesto or not have a good day or night.
Tldr: source your claims or stop posting it's unconstructive.
@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.
https://theintercept.com/2022/04/11/nuclear-weapons-biden-russia-strike-policy/
What false statements?
Yea uh, no. You could not lmao. Please give me a list of the us threatening any other countries this many times publicly.
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.
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?
I read some. Enough to find some that did not contain threats from the Kremlin. But I know you didn’t read them all either.
And the existence of Russian propaganda does not mean there is not pro-western propaganda as well. Propaganda exists in many forms. And it is all bad.
Sooo, which ones exactly did you read that had no credible threat? Because as others have stated, they have made clear threats in these articles. Do go off on how russia and the US both have made an assiniging amount of threats, it's nice to find who the russian bots are.
this is poisoning the well.
Lmao, from
to
Aka "I'm having trouble sourcing my own claim so just trust me bro"
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.
I don’t even know what that means but I’m pretty whatever you think about me or my views, it’s not correct.
Few people do!
The US doesn't have to make nuclear threats since they have an overwhelming advantage in non-nuclear firepower.
you don't make a threat that you don't act upon later, this undermines your credibility
edit: you also don't make unclear threats for the same reason, especially when it comes to nukes
Seriously, it's Interrogation 101
@atlasraven31 @skillissuer
Forget interrogation, it's parenting.
I guess I was being charitable. I would not classify many of them as threats at all. Though some clearly are, which is dangerous and reprehensible. But this list is highly exaggerated and gives a false impression of Russian behavior unless you read the individual fine print.
YeAh, WhAtAbOuT tHe US? DiD aNyOnE mEnTiOn US BaD yEt?
^Rubles^ ^please^ ^daddy^ ^Putin^
a threat where russia has no balls to follow through is still a threat
I'm curious, by the way. When can you come up with a similar list from the US regarding nuclear threats?