this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
107 points (97.3% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6850 readers
191 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Canards for the win!

BTW, it's not a straight competition, they fill different niches. If you have all your logistics sorted out and can maintain anything, buy an F-16 or an F-35, but be aware, they need that logistics to fight, so if you get bombed, you might lose that capability.

On the other hand, while the Gripen is less capable, your average country road, and some techs you send out with like two trucks can base it and keep it going. So Gripens might be more sensible if you want to defend assymmetrically against a larger power - like China, that's what they were originally made for anyway - against Russia.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

like China, that’s what they were originally made for anyway

What, really? What's the story here? These are Swedish planes, right?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm just illiterate, the Philippines vs China would look more like Sweden vs Russia than the US vs Russia.

Hence, Swedish planes are a better fit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Ah. Thanks.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's worded weird, I think they mean they were originally made to combat Russia

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That would make more sense. It's been remarked that the Swedes were basically planning to fight Ukraine's war. Annoying they never got any Gripens sent over there.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

I demand more Swedish war machines

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Canada needs to reconsider our recent choice the other way. They even offered a whole Gripen production chain just in Canada.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

I wish Switzerland had chosen Gripen over the F35 :'(

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Why not. No need to rely on conditional support from the US, especially with the unreliable new administration.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Gripen is the new nato standard!