this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
181 points (94.6% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3616 readers
479 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LovableSidekick 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Is this even a serious question? Because a freaking helicopter that shoots fire is Awesome! Every state should have one. I want one myself!

Unfortunately this is not a flamethrower helicopter.

[–] badbytes 6 points 10 hours ago

Cause, you fight fire with fire.

[–] _stranger_ 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That's water you stupid basβ€”

[notices where I am]

Excellent work, carry on.

[–] Agent641 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] _stranger_ 2 points 5 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

We can ask this question from the other direction: why doesn't everywhere else have a flamethrower helicopter?

[–] Agent641 2 points 5 hours ago

Woke libs cancelled their flammencopters

[–] [email protected] 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Hope you never see an idiot throw flour or powdered milk at an open flame.

[–] amon 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

unpasturised powdered milk

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

Is that even relevant?

[–] Thcdenton 4 points 13 hours ago

They're called "Fire Men"

[–] knightmare1147 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

ate day and a half old pizza last night that gave me upset stomach. Can confirm. I am dieing 😭

[–] [email protected] 39 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

What, you didn't think those huge forest fires occur because of things like, oh, I dunno, climate change or poor management and not allowing smaller natural fires to occur to temporarily benefit some overly rich assholes living in forested areas?

No, flamethrower helicopters!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 13 hours ago

We actually use them to clear homeless encampments. Sure, it burns down half the city with the encampment, but it's a small price to pay to make our homeless even more miserable <3

[–] [email protected] 16 points 21 hours ago

Reject climate action

Embrace flamethrower helicopters

[–] [email protected] -4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This is funny but the helicopters are probably meant for controlled burn stuff, but I have no first hand knowledge about this.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting 14 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

...You got one thing right

[–] [email protected] 7 points 20 hours ago

I have no firsthand knowledge of this

[–] RightHandOfIkaros 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Easy.

To defend the Brotherhood of Nod against the GDI.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Oof this is digging deep, was that from Command and Conquer?

[–] RightHandOfIkaros 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, I believe the Brotherhood of Nod faction was introduced in the Tiberium Wars game, but its possible I may be wrong. Its been a while since Command & Conquer had a truly new release.

[–] Agent641 2 points 5 hours ago

Brotherhood of Nod has always been in C&C since the first game.

Strangely enough, this reminds me that, at the time, even as a kind, I thought it was kind of unrealistic that there was no way that a stateless belligerent faction could amass military hardware and tech enough to threaten a global superpower across multiple different continents.

Then Al Quuaeda and ISIS came along and did just that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Wait, they made a flame throwing helicopter?

Perhaps I have misjudged you, California.

looks at their rifles

Never mind, I judged correctly the first time.

Cool helicopter though!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Jokes aside, setting shit on fire is a legit firefighting tactic: The idea is to burn off all the fuel before the actual wildfire can reach it, forming a barrier the fire cannot easily spread over.

High winds obviously complicate this, but it can still work under the right circumstances.

[–] Mirshe 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Also a legit forestry tactic - you set a controlled fire in a part of the forest, and keep it well-controlled, to burn off leaf litter and dead wood that would otherwise easily fuel a wildfire, and to encourage the growth of some species (or discourage others - burning is the only effective way to stop some invasive plant species).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The ecology of California in general, and in particular the Sierra Nevada, has evolved to expect a wildfire every 10 years or so. Going 100 years (in some places) without a fire was completely beyond anything that ecology had evolved for, and it's no wonder that those areas that hadn't burned in a century got slate-wiped. The native Americans, and later the herdsmen who took over their lands, benefitted from these small vegetation burns and would frequently start and manage them. In the early 1900s, though, the feds (with good intentions, mind) came along and said you can't do that anymore because fire is always bad.

[–] AngryCommieKender 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Planting a ton of Eucalyptus trees in the 1890s-1910s, that self ignite when they get too dry didn't help matters either. Worst part is those trees were planted for the railroad. Once the tree is smoldering they explode with sticky burning sap.

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

Holy crow, I had no idea that they secrete a sticky sap when they burn, nor that they were planted for the railroad. I always heard it was because John Steinbeck liked them / made them popular. Do you have a source so I can learn more?

[–] rustyfish 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

Next step: Fighter Jets with flamethrowers.

I am heavily disappointed at humanity for not coming up with it until now.

[–] _stranger_ 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, figuring out how to project a stream of fire ahead of a jet traveling at MACH Speed would be an interesting engineering exercise.

[–] AngryCommieKender 2 points 5 hours ago

Ok now, hear me out. Take a ramjet, and stick it on the accelerant nozzle.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago

Jungle jelly

[–] RoidingOldMan 4 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

This photograph appears to be a helicopter dropping fire retardant on a fire.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago

Not the hard R, that’s a war crime

[–] [email protected] 7 points 18 hours ago

Damn, bro dropping the r word 😐

[–] [email protected] 3 points 19 hours ago

That seems a horrifically cruel and ableist way to fight fires! Not to mention ineffective.

[–] CEbbinghaus 4 points 20 hours ago

Bet you're the life of the party bud

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

muh firecopter!

The right for Californians to have airborne incendiary delivering capabilities for home defense shall not be impeached! What's the matter with you? Don't you support the 2nd amendment? /s