116
Fellow Eurobros, I know it's unlikely, but if it came to this which front would you rather fight at?
(sh.itjust.works)
🫸🫷
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
116 points (94.6% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
7018 readers
94 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Russia can't defeat the US in conventional warfare, but is much-more-comparable from a nuclear aspect. So Russia has a significant incentive to use nuclear weapons.
I'd guess that the US probably has a shot at actually getting a first strike off versus Russia. So the US has a significant incentive to use nuclear weapons.
Anyone intending to make serious use of nuclear weapons has very little reason to hold back if they expect a high likelihood of the other side responding massively. So they've got a significant incentive to go all-in.
I think that there's a pretty good probability that a major war between Russia and the US of the "only one of us is walking away from this" sort goes very nuclear very quickly.
If Russia or the US launch nuclear weapons, over 90% of the world population will die over the following 10 years. However, global warming would be solved.
Nuclear winter solves global warming
https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Winter
90% of people being dead and the other 10% being pre-industrial is what'll fix global warming, we don't need nuclear winter for that.
The direct effects on the world of a nuclear war between the US and Russia isn't going to include killing 90% of the world's population.
You're right. It won't be 90% of the world population, but it would definitely be more than 90% of the countries involved (e.g. NATO, Russia, and China). As far as the world population, people in countries of the southern hemisphere might have more chances at surviving, but with geopolitics changed that drastically with an impossible to resolved food shortage, things could become chaotic pretty quickly. Don't argue with me. Here are the sources I based my opinion on.
Kurzgesagt video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIRuqr_Ozg
Their background sources: https://sites.google.com/view/sources-nuclear-winter
It will if we decide to be dicks about it
Russia's entire military budget is somewhere in the same order of magnitude of what the US spends just on maintaining its nuclear arsenal, so no, they are not comparable there either.