this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
427 points (95.7% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6656 readers
1961 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
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The launch platform can aim it and use math to account for gravity, the atmosphere and all that jazz to hit the target at least close enough. Just like we already do to safely crash/burn up space debris.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

at least close enough

To whose standards exactly? Dick Cheney's?

[–] mapleseedfall 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, dick's standard should be good enough for me.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

No, they can't. The atmosphere is an unknown state, different temperatures, different densities, different wind directions, none of which can be known ahead of time. That's why weather forecasting is always approximate. You get a percentage chance that it'll rain. You don't get a definite time stamp with 100% accuracy.

We cannot predict atmospheric disturbances to the level necessary to make this a practical system. When they burn up space debris they do it "somewhere over the middle bit of the Atlantic" That's about the level of definition you get. It's not accurate at all.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

no, not really, it still gives you multiple km spread

[–] StopSpazzing -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone (veritasium?) Already did an episode on this and concluded even at like 500 feet up from ground, without an active guidance system, it's up to luck to hit within a reasonable distance, IIRC.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lol you can't compare a youtuber 500ft up throwing weights with a full military and scientific effort.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

No, but throwing weights from 500 feet up is probably more accurate which was pointed out in the video

[–] Sami_Uso 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I get your point but the guy he's talking about is really great. He's super smart and makes tons of great scientific content.

https://youtu.be/J_n1FZaKzF8?si=402ZBc0vF17yvlKs

Apparently people still think YouTube is only for memes and kids playing Minecraft.