I have no idea what that means. The post was about military spending by Australia and Canada, I was pointing out the ridiculous overspending on military in Australia and the related international embarrassment of reneging on a signed deal in order to further increase that spending. It seemed relevant.
Australia is buying its way out of a massive deal for French-designed diesel submarines in order to buy its way into a US-UK deal for nuclear subs, despite the fact that for decades it’s been well-established that our primary concern is our local area. We don’t need or want the power projection capabilities that require nuclear subs like America has.
Right, but a well thought out take like that here is like going to r/NoSleep and commenting how someone’s scary story couldn’t have actually happened because skinwalkers aren’t real.
An NCD take would be of course Australia wants to project power like America, you can never have too much defense budget and anything else is a waste of money
Which is it? A post about the moral value of political spending—whether it was negative towards military spending like this one, or if it were a hypothetical one in favour of spending more on the military—is inherently making a political statement, regardless of which way it was meant. You can hardly say there’s no room for political discussion in a post about one of the biggest things politics spends money on.
Sir, this is NCD.
I have no idea what that means. The post was about military spending by Australia and Canada, I was pointing out the ridiculous overspending on military in Australia and the related international embarrassment of reneging on a signed deal in order to further increase that spending. It seemed relevant.
You can’t “overspend” on military. What even is this nonsense?
Australia is buying its way out of a massive deal for French-designed diesel submarines in order to buy its way into a US-UK deal for nuclear subs, despite the fact that for decades it’s been well-established that our primary concern is our local area. We don’t need or want the power projection capabilities that require nuclear subs like America has.
Ok I warned you. Goodbye
Right, but a well thought out take like that here is like going to r/NoSleep and commenting how someone’s scary story couldn’t have actually happened because skinwalkers aren’t real.
An NCD take would be of course Australia wants to project power like America, you can never have too much defense budget and anything else is a waste of money
Non Credible Defense is a military satire/shitposting sub. It’s relevant, it’s just the opposite of the usual shitposty takes here.
Basically what atocci said. We love military spending here. We simp for the MIC. This is not a forum for political debate.
Which is it? A post about the moral value of political spending—whether it was negative towards military spending like this one, or if it were a hypothetical one in favour of spending more on the military—is inherently making a political statement, regardless of which way it was meant. You can hardly say there’s no room for political discussion in a post about one of the biggest things politics spends money on.
No more debate. You’ve sidetracked this thread enough as it is
Read the comments at this link. This is how you post here. Anything else and it’s honestly easier for me to just ban you rather than debating lol
https://libreddit.northboot.xyz/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1c0caw5/best_friends_spend_more_than_1_on_defense/
It means your original post was too well thought out. Too credible, if you will.