NonCredibleDefense
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
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes, the power to... defend against attacks from other nations. Such evil.
For anyone who isn't aware, there are no provisions in the NATO charter for cooperative offensive actions. None. NATO is not a military alliance, it is a defensive pact only.
I'm mostly pro NATO but that is litteraly the worst single argument possible anyone ever made. Here's a one word answer that totally shred its credibility: Lybia.
It's only for defense until we decide to invade a country... but anyway, the real strength of NATO as a weapon is political influence. It allows the US to impose their security objectives to all the other members, and currently their main competitor is China and that was transcribed into NATO's official strategy in 2022 with the stated objective to expend into the Indian and Pacific ocean specifically to counter them.
Can't really expect them to like it.
Lybia is not a NATO thing. UK, France and USA bombed some ships and ports in Libya, but I still remember the headlines and news that Germany didn't want anything to do with that.
So it was a coordinated action between some members of NATO on their own.
Technically the UN Security Council, including China, asked them to do it, as a NATO operation. NATO just doesn't have the power (or need) to force compliance from all members.
Why was NATO was willing to intervene in Libya and not other conflicts directly related to their reason for existing? Different question.
(It's oil. Sweet, delicious and calorie dense oil...)
NATO doesn't need Germany to approve anything for something to be a NATO operation.
The operation was conceived by french/UK and was handed over to NATO as a condition for Italian participation.
Here:
NATO’s North Atlantic Council (NAC) in Brussels, Belgium exercised overall political direction of OUP, while Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium, carried out NAC decisions with military implementations through Joint Force Command (JFC) Naples.
Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard was the overall operational commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Unified Protector. Under his leadership, NATO Maritime Command Naples directed naval operations in support of OUP. Although NATO’s Air Command Headquarters for Southern Europe, in Izmir, Turkey (AC Izmir) managed air operations, the air campaign itself was conducted from NATO’s Combined Air Operations Centre Poggio Renatico in Italy. For this reason, major elements of AC Izmir were moved during the course of the OUP.
Italian Vice Admiral Rinaldo Veri from NATO Maritime Command Naples led the maritime arms embargo, while Rear Admiral Filippo Maria Foffi served as the Task Force Commander at sea.
I'm not a secret.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_71652.htm