this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
187 points (99.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6589 readers
649 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 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Explanation: A brilliant fellow by the name of John Doughty during the US Civil War suggested getting a head start on the atrocity carousel by initiating mass chemical warfare about 50 years early. This is by no means a concerning idea, and Mr. Doughty was doubtlessly a wholly sane and stable individual. Luckily, the suggestion was not adopted.

Funny enough, the Lieber Code adopted by the Union during the Civil War, dealing with the rules of warfare, DOES actually prohibit the use of poison, so this idea would have been illegal even at the time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The first recorded modern proposal for the use of chemical warfare was made by Lyon Playfair

Hmmm..

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

Playfair? I think he's lyon'.

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

What was the cost of chlorine at this point? Were they doing chloralkali at any reasonable scale? If so, this would plausibly have changed the entire evolution of warfare in the late 19th century.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Quick wiki search suggests that they knew about the process at this point, but it wouldn't be done on a commercial scale for another 30 or so years.

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

Shoot, I probably should have just searched it myself. I guess I was trying to start a conversation.

Depending on how successful chemical warfare hypothetically would have been, it may have helped the process get going faster. To do electrolysis you need DC electricity. At first, the only real source was primary-cell batteries, which are at least as expensive as the materials they're made out of, but Micheal Faraday built the first homopolar generator in 1831 and practical industrial-scale dynamos appeared (simultaneously from multiple inventors) right around the time in question.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

chortles maniacally in Canadian

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

"See Lisa? Because of me, they have a warning."