this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
278 points (95.1% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6659 readers
435 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
[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'll never be able to hear the name Bradley without thinking about the Pentagon wars

[–] SexyTimeSasquatch@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Almost like the whole Pentagon wars thing was bullshit or something.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Is it? I never heard much about it being debunked?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Oh yeah the movie was hilarious, but the guy who was critical of the program in real life was an idiot.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Lot's of details were misrepresented. Things like filling the gas tanks with water and loading ammo with sand during live fire tests may seem like cheating. But penetration into the magazine or fuel tank can tell you the vehicle is vulnerable to secondary explosions without those explosions turning the vehicle into confetti.

To the average Joe, any military development project is going to look like a boondoggle. They don't know about procurement bureaucracies, economies of scale, or the expense of product development. The Ford company spent more to develop the Taurus than the US spent to develop the B2.

I'm also going to put on my tinfoil hat for a second and say that lots of myths about American Military incompetence are encouraged. It's a good thing that our enemies think that our equipment is dogshit and our Generals are corrupt.

[–] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I dunno, I am a engineer in the defense industry and pentagon wars got a lot right in terms of what it’s like

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

That does make sense.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's real in that the actual facts of it occured, but the authors interpretations of events were almost all incorrect.
View it through the lens of a person who didn't actually know how development works.

The main guy wanted to do big live fire tests. The testing range wanted to skip them because they already knew that the vehicle would fail, or because they didn't yield workable data.
They wanted to do smaller, more statistics oriented tests, so they could better direct development.

Basically he wanted to fire Russian antitank rounds at a fully loaded vehicle, when everyone knew the result would be "it blows up".
He called it honesty, they called it needless waste because it didn't produce data they could actually use.

The results of the congressional inquiry was, rather than being "add more armor", that his transfer was because of a disagreement on methodology and an inability of his office to work with the testing laboratory, and that the army had resolved concerns that he raised.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

ah well shit. still a funny movie i guess.

[–] ironsoap@lemmy.one 6 points 10 months ago

Me too, but funny how well it works.