this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024

138 points (99.3% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6565 readers

497 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

138

Don't break the laws of war. Be the reason there needs to BE a law! (lemmy.world)

submitted 18 hours ago by PugJesus to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] PugJesus 43 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 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.

[–] Aqarius 1 points 43 minutes ago

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

Hmmm..

[–] [email protected] 8 points 14 hours ago

chortles maniacally in Canadian

[+] kitnaht -25 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

There are no such thing as laws of war. War is the loss of authority and civility. Laws require both. Sure, we can make laws of war, but as we've seen time and time again, nobody follows them. Violence is the only law that nature knows.

[–] ChicoSuave 24 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

You clearly have never fought and don't know that supply lines and order are crucial to war. If combat devolved into some inhumane, amoral tragedy for every interaction, nothing would be accomplished. But war is about forcibly stopping an opponent, not about going crazy and ignoring all sense or rules. Chemical weapons require an insane amount of discipline to make, move, store, use, and dispose of some of the most dangerous ordinance imaginable.

"War is lawless" is what the naive say. Experience knows better.

[–] PugJesus 30 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Okay Cicero, let's get you back to your isolated country estate

[+] [email protected] -12 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

The reason chemical weapons are banned is because (they're monstrous and) they're useless. You can fire a chlorine shell and if the wind is juuust right, it'll kill anyone within a few meters. You know what else will kill anyone within a few meters? A normal artillery shell.

Except, chlorine gas can be blocked by an airtight gas mask and a chemical suit. They cost less than $500 for complete immunity to the weapon. Good luck finding a $500 flak vest that'll stop a mortar though. And meanwhile, if you want to press the attack and benefit from your chemical weapons, there's one slight problem before you advance: there's a bunch of chlorine gas in the way.

In other words, it's an unreliable and inferior weapon that gets in the way of modern military doctrine. Although there are some good niches in shitty armies by dictators who are too paranoid of coups to give their junior officers any independence or proper kit. Like the Iraq army that the US army utterly steamrolled in 2005.

[–] PugJesus 15 points 16 hours ago

Far from useless against unprotected troops - especially in area denial and degrading enemy combat effectiveness. The real issue of practicality is that they're a matter of mutual deterrent - if Side A starts using chemical weapons, Side B may decide to start as well. But as you mentioned, we've solved the issue of protective equipment pretty thoroughly, so in all but the most lopsided of conflicts (Iran-Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, police against protesters), escalation does not actually give either side an advantage beyond the initial shock, and introduces a lot of unnecessary defensive and offensive logistics, the total effect of which is likely difficult to determine. How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth keeping a platoon of soldiers in gas masks for a few hours longer? How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth the enemy shelling you in turn and forcing you to spend valuable resources and logistics lines on NBC gear? Who comes out with the advantage in this asymmetric exchange - the one with more resources, or the one with fewer? Nightmare to tell.

Russia currently is using chemical weapons effectively in Ukraine - namely, tear gas. Great for disabling dug-in enemies so ~~mobik meat cube ingredients~~ mass infantry assaults can advance. We (the West) also use chemical weapons effectively - we claim WP as a smokescreen, but its application tends to be very, uh, 'dual-use' in smoking troops out of entrenched positions. In both cases, the effectiveness relies on deniability and prevention of escalation.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Disagree. Gas is perfect for underground bunkers. Being heavier than air it will sink down into the bunker and displace oxygen. Sure you can wear a suit, but for how long? And do you have enough suits for everyone?

On the bright side, think of how clean all our pools are going to be with all this chlorine everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 15 hours ago

I really enjoy the smell of a perfectly balanced pool in the summer.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago

Laws not stopping murder doesn't mean laws against murder are useless

[–] Eheran 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So why are we not seeing CBRN weapons in Ukraine if nobody follows them? They are all far more effective than conventional weapons.

[–] kitnaht -3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

Uh............................

https://europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-alleged-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine-how-the-international-community-can-investigate/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-used-chemical-weapons-ukraine-and-now-paying-price-213155

What was that again?

[–] Eheran 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

A one time use, if at all, of a substance that is also a pesticide can hardly be compared to an actual use of serious chemicals on a broad front. If that actually happened, it could very well have been a single officer finding the pesticide in a farm and letting them drop it with drones.

It is like saying airbags do not help because once one person was killed by them. The obviously do help.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'm fairly certain they were talking about Ukraine using them if nobody followed the laws of war.

[–] kitnaht 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Ukraine is the defender in a war waged against them. This isn't their war.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

And that's relevant because...?

[–] kitnaht 0 points 8 hours ago

https://old.lemmy.world/comment/13024630