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

NonCredibleDefense

6664 readers
1042 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] 27 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The problem I remember is that it is expensive to get the rod up there in the first place.

Also every other nation would hate us and make jokes about the collective small penis of the US state.

[–] WarlordSdocy 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why the eventual strategy would be to build them in space with minerals from the asteroid belt.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would involve building a factory in space. If we're capable of doing that, creating a kinetic OWP with which to bombard the earth would be small ambition.

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

Just slap some rockets to a big enough boulder, Planetary Annihilation (videogame) style.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also the tungsten oxides produced in high velocity impacts are potentially worse than fallout.

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

Gotta mine them in space, but there's still a whole host of other issues with the idea including aiming them, having enough stations to deploy them anywhere on the planet in a reasonable amount of time, and the other non-radioactive problems that result from throwing a fuckton of tungsten at terminal velocity into something.

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

There was a YouTube video with, I think action lab, where they tested this weapon on a smaller scale with sand castles.

The experiment failed overall because of the difficulty of aiming the payload and anticipating the correalis effect

[–] HW07 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yep that's the channel. Thank you!

Video for those interested.

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

I remember that this was one of the factors that weirded up the whole cold war. ICBMs are hard to aim, though in the US we were able to find a workable solution. (A Polaris could drop a retarded-descent pizza into my driveway and then conveniently dispose of itself in the nearby unused lot.)

Soviet missiles were not so accurate, so they just build bunches of them hoping to hit their targets through sheer redundancy. (This became dinner talk at Cal-Tech in the eighties since SDI was expected to be able to intercept the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal, including bunches of decoys) So their redundancy was used by General Electric to promote the missile gap, as justification why we needed to buy more GE nukes to close the difference.

This is why, I'm pretty sure, we don't really need to be too afraid of DPRK going madman with their handful of nukes. So far we've seen the Kims lob ICBMs into the pacific, but they haven't shown they could hit a given continent, let alone someplace important, and the US knows from its own experience that ICBM math is hard.

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

Ah yes, we would do that, definately haven't already started... no, of course not.

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

It's well within the character of the US federal government and the armed forces to go forward with an OWP platform program right now, even despite the risks and ethics concerns, sadly.