I get the feeling someone had a frustrating day at work due to Kubernetes
The ‘Fortunate Sons’ are the rich ones with connections who didn’t have to go to war. They got it backwards.
They included the Spotify logo. It’s just <insert song here> rather than labelling the picture as “Fortunate Sons”.
Yeah but the song is about someone who is NOT a fortunate son. Or a senator’s son.
Which just makes the “warrior ethos” talk that much hilarious while also concerning.
Nah, cosacks riding in with their war falcons, raining down birds of fire onto a nuclear power is way cooler than lukewarm and wet amithumbs getting stuck in the jungle.
Yeah, like “war was fun before” Sure kido.
Do you want “Warhammer 40000: in the grim darkness of the future there is only war”?
Because that is how you get “Warhammer 40000: in the grim darkness of the future there is only war”.
yes
Since 2020
Oh, sweet summer child.
Everyone also had fun too!
I watched this video of non-secular figures addressing this very topic - probably 10+ years old. How even the advent of the modern day guns or even just the hand guns are just cruel. It was an interesting none the less.
Didn’t some country try to develop a chemical agent that would turn the enemy gay? 🤔
They’d probably fight even harder and become even more dangerous if they all turned gay. Ever heard of the Sacred Band of Thebes?
I don’t like them putting a bunch of chemicals into the water that turn the freaking frogs gay. Do you understand that?
The US did:
This can easily be neglected with a squadron of gay soldiers, just saying. You can even code-name them “the spartans.”
I hope so 😂
“Primary weapon: python script” got me lmao
lol holy fuck I hope no one takes this seriously, because Vietnam was fucking hell for the soldiers. No one thought it was awesome except some conservative Nixon supporting fucks who didn’t care because they didn’t have their 16 year old get drafted.
I hope no one takes this seriously
Neither do I, that’s why I posted it here
noncredibledefense would eat this up
Feel free to post it there
Obama was a Vietnam war supporter.
He worked with Eisenhower to make sure the US was involved in it in 1955.
So it’s not just a problem with ‘some conservative Nixon supporting fucks.’
Is this a joke? He was born in 1961
Reminds me of one of the worst academic papers I’ve ever seen https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616742.2015.1075317
Omg, PLEASE tell me this is satire!?
Lemmy has got to be the only place where people use reaction academic papers rather than reaction gifs. But i love that. Thanks for sharing
wtf did i just read. lmao. this gotta be some ragebait paper.
I show how descriptions of drone warfare are rife with symptoms of an unresolved disorientation, often expressed as gender anxiety over the failure of the distance–intimacy and home–combat axes to orient killing with drones.
There’s a lot of interesting idea in this paper, presented in a very strange way. The main idea is that drone warfare takes a lot of the masculinity (for example, courage in the face of death) out of warfare, and masculinity can be seen as one of the main concepts that drive war. The act of killing is no longer masculine in this context (like the meme shows) and this poses a big problem for the military. The paper takes a strange direction and implies that because it can’t be masculine, it might be queer (gay), and further that this queerness could be a positive opportunity for changing the discourse about war. It’s a cool idea that talking about drone warfare’s emasculation could change people’s minds about war, but the way that they used queerness as a concept to get there reads so bizarrely.
I’ve had conversations with people who think that Medieval warfare was more honorable and better because of the hand to hand nature of it, and that guns ruined how badass it was.
It also draws to mind the inventor of the machine gun Hiram Maxim’s idea that the machine gun would be so terrible that people would stop having wars.
The reality is that war has always been the worst thing that can happen, and most people die of disease and indiscriminate weapons like artillery.
It seems the strategy of making hell more hellish to stop the hell is a poor one.
On its face, making war more hellish to dissuade people from waging war sounds like a good idea. Where it falls apart is that the ones waging war typically aren’t the ones going through hell.
I do think warfare is more honorable and better the less technology you use, but that’s just because technology lets you increase the distance of warfare and the distance is what actually makes wars worse or less honorable.
I would not have said better without the prompt of your comment, but I value the deadliness of war negatively, so something like a club can kill fewer people than a gun, which can kill fewer people than a neutron bomb.
I think it’s more honorable to give all parties involved an honest chance in winning a fight and in harming the other side. Drone operators are functionally immune to harm, and their side only risks the value of a drone, whereas the other side is often unarmed and fully vulnerable to drone attacks, just by sleeping near a window or being outside [or going to a wedding, but that’s not my point]. It’s a lot harder to hit someone with a club without being vulnerable to their attacks yourself, and you cast an even wider net of damage with similarly low risk of the people actually impacted by your neutron bomb being able to attack you back.
A good historical example for how this is not dependent just on technology and for why medieval warfare was NOT more honorable is the Siege of Caffa. The Golden Horde flung plague-ridden corpses over the city walls, infecting the residents, causing them to flee, and likely causing the Black Death. That again, involves an increased distance of warfare. Any time you fight in a way that can’t be reversed, it’s less honorable and deadlier, thereby making it worse from my perspective.
In fairness, nukes kinda are the ultimate making hell more hell and so Maxim’s idea worked to a degree.
Nukes are the ultimate Chekov’s Gun. It’s only a matter of time before one gets touched off somewhere for some reason. Especially as society continues to crumble from underlying ecological collapse.
I was so taken out of it, I thought they may have just been using queer in the context of irregularity but then they hit me with “drones could give people gender anxiety” and I didn’t know where I was anymore lol
It’s almost an interesting train of thought, but war isn’t inherently masculine, and I think it’s a pretty undeserving concept once you consider external factors that drive people to conflict. This feels like it views masculinity solely through the lens of what is more accurately described as toxic masculinity, where the image of maleness is based in some combatitive quantity.
i’ve actually been thinking whether there could maybe be some kind of machine-wrestling. i.e. fights for show or competition or sth, similar to the olympic games, but purely involving machines. drones and such
i guess maybe nobody wants to participate there to not leak their secret military technology?
that’s crazy good! wow
Ah yes, notorious woke libtards “Lockheed Martin”
I remember a post from way back was a picture of someone’s legs on their desk, wearing Lockheed Martin branded trans flag thigh socls
Those are coveted by the noncredibledefense crowd. You can get copies on AliExpress, but they just aren’t the same.
lmao
Didn’t you hear? Lockheed is “extremely woke” according to the right-wing culture warriors:
I’ve heard of rainbow capitalism but I haven’t heard of rainbow warfare 😆
That’s next year’s edition of Call of Duty.
I do think its funny that people think the drone war future is one in which humans aren’t getting killed instead of where where humans can’t even fight back.
Go watch ANY footage of the war in Ukraine and think about swarms of those drones working their way down your street, because that is what it looks like.
Soldiers are not getting killed. Innocent people don’t count.
who? everyone that joins Russias army to be cannon fodder does it willingly, there isn’t a draft (as of yet anyways)
there’s ~30,000 Russian losses per month
“willingly”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/08/russia-ukraine-war-rural-communities
just look outside the city and you’ll see the “willing” participants who “chose” war instead of starvation
war fucking sucks man. They’re still an enemy soldier who’s invading a nation trying to defend itself, I wouldn’t consider that an “innocent person”.
In the future. The soldiers will be safely far away from the front lines. Ordinary people won’t be.
Drones cannot occupy a city. Drones cannot hold land. Even in the grim darkness of the 21st century, a drone is far more susceptible to outside factors eliminating its fighting capability than a human soldier standing in the same spot. At the end of the day, yes, a bulk of the fighting will be done by remote, but you’ll still need meatbags with guns to actually advance and take areas. There’s really no way to get around that unless we somehow develop autonomous robots that are able to make smart choices and strategize on the ground without human oversight, and I simply don’t see us managing any serious level of “AGI” from the current idea of machine learning, at all.
what can a human do to hold land that highly armed autonomous vehicles can’t?
Target identification, threat assessment, determining level of force necessary, simply being a human face rather than a machine. Drones are also vulnerable to electrical issues, signal issues, all sorts of things a human simply doesn’t need to worry about or are more easily remedied in a human.
Occupying land is not simply about killing the enemy, and multiple armies have learned this over the course of human history. Rarely are you concerned with SIMPLY taking the land - even if it’s agrarian capacities or whatever you’re worried about, having the employees still alive (largely) leads to better outcomes. Having a functioning economy in the occupied zone leads to less resistance. Facilitating the continuity of life within the occupied zone does too - and that doesn’t work if your “occupation force” is a bunch of robot dogs that mow down anyone for being in the street.
that’s not where future warfare is headed. theres still a frontline that needs to be defended/attacked
