this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
395 points (98.5% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6600 readers
587 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
 
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I only partially agree. While children are perfectly capable of operating mortars and machine guns, it is practically impossible for them to move them around to take a new position for example. They just lack the physical strength to do so. Self propelled weaponry, like tanks for example, are the perfect tool for a child. I've seen them doing it on TV.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

also children are smaller so they can more easily fit into tight comparaments making it possible to design lower profile vehicles for lower costs, better concealment and thus better combat effectiveness

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Barbie Electric SUV intensifies

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While this makes sense, these prices of equipment are very complicated and may go over a child’s head due to limited intellect. I think it would be more appropriate to provide them with their own class of weapon. Attach whatever machine gun or mortar you wish to the front of a fisher price car or other motorized variant and let them have at it. This also reduces training costs.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You are all making great points, but I think could be applying them better. They're small, can't be trusted with complexity, and can be replenished faster than adults. Therefore would be best suited to running aimlessly towards enemy front lines to draw fire, draining enemy resources and morale

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Just need some technicals

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Agreed. The children would otherwise be distinctly vulnerable to counter battery fire if not for self propelled systems.

Smaller crew also means more space to store rounds?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Shells weigh a lot for a child. Unless you are using a tank with an autoloader, it may be hard after the first round

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that firearms tend to be too heavy for children, but heavy weaponry such as mortars are not the best use of the small size of children. During war it would be much more useful to use children to sabotage enemy installations using explosives or EMPs.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And a child with a backpack full of timed explosives can reach the center of a crowd so effectively, too!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aight chill, Vanilla Isis.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

You misspelled "late WWII Germans"

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

My Rimworld colony agrees