• Synthuir
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    For anybody looking for attribution, this comic no longer exists. It was called Pictures for Sad Children, and it’s essentially lost media now after the creator had some issues and took everything (including IA backups) offline.

  • HyperCube@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Always a struggle for me. I saw Canada’s demo CF-18 at an airshow a few years back and was having simultaneous thoughts of “so this is why we can’t afford clean water for our indigenous communities” and “HOLY SHIT IT SOUNDS SO COOL”.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.

      You can’t afford clean water for indigenous people because they couldn’t buy one fewer aircraft.

      You needed all 138.

      • PunnyName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Can’t afford clean water for indigenous people when you want to exterminate indigenous people.

        • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You don’t need planes for that. You just need a systematic foot on their necks. You know, like we do for the rest of the poors.

          We can’t afford another plane because we need another highway first.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.

        idk about this one, idk much about canada, but water infrastructure is more complicated than just “here’s some money” and there’s also the inevitable governmental over spending problem that seems to encroach everything.

        it’s also worth noting that we’re comparing two irrelevant things here, it’s like me comparing the worlds loudest yell to the sound of an f35 flying at altitude. Yeah they’re comparable to each other. In the sense that they both make noise.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)

          I was actually basing my complaint on the comparitive cost of the B-2 stealth bomber, and the (at the time) cost of repairing the ogalala aquifer, estimated to cost about the same as the 2 billion dollar aircraft.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)

            oh cool we’re just fucking, lying now. That’s the sound level of the f35 at altitude.

            “F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off”

            “F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db”

            “F-35 at 121 db at 1,000 ft, and 500 mph”

            (https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ ripped from here if you’re wondering)

            btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that’s literally because it’s the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.

            • Wogi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              1000 feet is beneath the typical hard floor for domestic operations, and practically right on top of you. You’ve never seen one beneath 5000 feet unless you went to an air show, more likely than not they’re operating 12,000 feet or higher. I’m wondering if you actually know what “at altitude” means?

              You also “ummmmm ACHTUALLY’d” your way right on past the point entirely. So congratulations on not only creating an idiotic straw man but also falling to grasp the concept of what we’re even talking about.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet.

                to be clear, i wasn’t the one that made that comparison. Naturally you can fly planes at altitudes other than one specific number, that seems to be a feature of most planes.

                i believe generally, in the space of planes, the ones that fly in the sky, not the mathematical ones. It refers to an operating altitude. However, i was using it to refer to that specific altitude. “operational altitude” for something like a military jet is not going to be specifically defined, compared to something like, a boeing 737 for example. There is likely to be a maxmimum operational altitude, naturally. Planes need air to fly through, obviously. But that’s irrelevant here, we’re talking about the ground.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I see military spending as a necessary evil, it’s like paying your insurance policy against the evils in the world. There will always be someone with a stick willing to beat someone weaker than them. So you could theoretically spend that military money on something “more useful”, but if all your friends do that as well, you won’t be able to enjoy that nice world for very long.

      Also, people usually highly overrate how much a country spends on defense and underrate how much is spent on social security. Where I live, in Belgium, with a similar military budget as Canada (in terms of % of GDP) they did a survey once and asked people to estimate how many euros out of €100 of tax money went to the military and other things. People on average thought it was €6.1 to the military and €17.4 to social security. In reality the proportions are just €1.3 to the military and €37.5 to social security.

      So I guess what I’m saying is: it’s okay to enjoy the cool noises without guilt. You paid for it, it’s necessary, and at least they’re providing people with some entertainment now.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Canadians and Belgians can probably feel okay. As an American I’m disgusted by the waste. But that’s kind of our bag and there’s a long list of things that we waste money on.

        • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          America is a very unique case with these metrics, but its wortj noting most of our allies can also skimp on defense for the same reason. Whether thats worth it or not is a more political question

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Huh. What a weird coincidence. Out of all the many communities in Canada, it just happens to be the indigenous ones that have to make do without clean water because of military spending. What are the odds?

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    I live sandwiched between military bases of all branches. I’ve lived with the sounds of warplanes and target practice most of my entire life.

    These bases cut swathes through tribal lands, leaving whole areas uninhabitable due to live ordnance.

    I knew some kids from the reservations and I’ll never forget how casually they’d say with every blast they’re reminded that they’re occupied.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I knew some kids from the reservations and I’ll never forget how casually they’d say with every blast they’re reminded that they’re occupied.

      wouldnt this technically be more of a form of pseudo occupation, since they also get benefits from being a US citizen, and also protection, from these same planes as well.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is a negotiated treaty from the 1800s, though it took until the 1970s to get clarity on a big part of their rights. But they’re still on reservations and their ancestral lands are partitioned up. They’ve acquired some of those lands back through various ways: legal battles and just plain buying it back.

        Though mind you I’m relating something I remember as a teenager, from teenagers with politically active parents.

        But more importantly my point was to highlight a lens into a different perspective. They knew they would have been just like the Kurdish villager in the comic had those planes been invented back then. I had never considered that viewpoint at the time.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          yeah, which i why i consider the use of pseudo occupation, as opposed to like, settlement or something. There aspects of occupation, but up to the current modern day, there are natives in positions of power within the US government, and those with sovereign control over their own land as well.

          Although to be fair, most people didn’t have very many rights until the 1970s lmao.

          • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think those ‘aspects of occupation’ are quite relevant. The treaties weren’t respected and Americans would just remove the people, bury tribal lands in fill material and build on top.

            For example, emphasis mine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tse-whit-zen

            This village site, which includes longhouse areas, ceremonial areas, places for fish and clam drying, was** occupied by the Klallam until the 1930s.[4] During the early 20th century, businesses owned by European Americans built a number of lumber mills on top of the village site** at the waterfront during the expansion of the lumber industry. Because the ground was covered with 15 to 30 feet (4.6 to 9.1 m) of fill, the village and cemetery site was preserved through this period.[3]

            Notice that timeline: ‘occupied until 1930s’ and ‘Early 20th century.’ The people were removed and they buried everything until 2004 when they started excavating skeletons. This isn’t all ancient history and it hasn’t really been… amicable.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        When we do it, it’s only a “pseudo-occupation”

        When Nazi Germany occupied France, was it only a “pseudo-occupation” because the Panzers then “protected” the occupied territory from the British? What a ridiculous line of logic.

  • scarilog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s ironic, the pinnacle of human engineering in our war machines. But these technologies wouldn’t exist if they weren’t created for the war machines in the first place. Sad.

    • Techranger@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s definitely an interdependancy there, but don’t discount the incredible complexity of some cool civilan tech: James Webb Space Telescope, Mars rovers, ISS, the old Space Shuttle. Even mundane things like ocean-based oil rigs are chock full of amazing engineering.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        GPS is literally from the concept of nuking the USSR. Thank your ass the cold war happened the next time you get lost, it’s the only reason you aren’t lost now.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I really like airplanes, especially the historic ones. The speed and sound is amazing. The engineering and skill in building and operating those aircraft is top-tier.

    However, the airshows often extoll the fear and damage the aircraft can do to their targets, especially the modern ones. Really not interested in the bodycount or terror these aircraft inspire, but plenty of people enjoy the flex.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    i always find these kind of statements and comics weird, because like.

    If the plane is your own, this would also signal the sound of protection and defense, which is an objectively good thing, if we’re classifying dying due to a plane as a bad thing.

    There are two sides to the coin and i guess this is either shitposting memes, or people never think about the fact that like, you can also just have a military.

    • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      Most people don’t like living near even civilian airports. Active duty flights would’ve usually happened nearer to the front, and modern flights often happen from aircraft carriers anyway.

      Much more common for people to hear are shows of force, like the States do for holidays, airshows, and large sports games.

      The comic is making fun of the fact that an airshow idolizes machines of war. Not all airshows focus on military craft, but most of them do, often being held at military airbases.

      As cool as they are, it’s good to remember that those machines are instruments of death, and often used against people of no immediate threat. Regardless of the necessity, I don’t think that’s something to cheer for.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        modern flights often happen from aircraft carriers anyway

        Eh, no?

        Aircraft carriers are ridiculously complicated and expensive, hence even the us only having around a dozen or so? Russia famously has none. Great Brittain has like 2 or so, France like 1?

        Its been a while, I don’t remember the exact numbers, but the number of aircraft carriers in the world would be in the very low dozens because they’re damn near unaffordably expensive.

        The beyond vast majority of modern flights still happen from airports

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Also, none have been lost in battle since WW2.

          They’re basically mobile island outposts at this point.

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I had meant flights of U.S. planes, but you’re right, they usually use and establish local airfields, and probably only use carriers where that’s too slow or impossible.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        tbf that’s mostly because they’re really fucking loud, all of the time. Military air fields are probably quieter for longer periods of time lol. Although still rather loud im sure.

        Active duty flights would’ve usually happened nearer to the front, and modern flights often happen from aircraft carriers anyway.

        to be clear, this wouldn’t matter, we’re talking about airshows, most people living near the front lines are going to be gone anyway. And even if we were to grant this point, it still wouldn’t diminish my statement. national pride is a weird thing.

        The comic is making fun of the fact that an airshow idolizes machines of war.

        i mean sure, but im pretty sure humanity has always idolized the military and it’s armies, as well as it’s ability to project force. It’s the stable of basically every great empire. Humanity seems to have an inherent connection with the ability of projecting force. It would be evolutionary advantageous, so that’s probably why.

        As cool as they are, it’s good to remember that those machines are instruments of death, and often used against people of no immediate threat. Regardless of the necessity, I don’t think that’s something to cheer for.

        i mean sure, but morbidity is the calling card for a lot of things, the dahmer netflix series for example. Should we be treating that the same? Like to be clear, i don’t disagree, but every time you pick up an angle grinder do you really need to think about how many people have been horrifically inujred by it and pray to the grinder gods for you safety? Or should you just be conscious of how you use the tool, and be careful with it.

        and often used against people of no immediate threat.

        also idk about this statement, maybe for the case of like the russian artillery units for example. I doubt that f-16s have been primarily used on like, someones dog. More than people of actual consequence. It’s also really vaguely defined, which doesn’t help.

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          So to be fair, I’ve read the original comic, and it probably was just focusing on the negative aspects of airshows.

          What a lot of people get from this (including me) is the absurdity of military shows. Air shows are less ridiculous because planes are capable of some incredible things, but it’s still unsettling. Like gun shows or parades of duty.

          We have advanced many of our societies to such a point that we might be able to do away with weapon worship entirely, so I think it’s sensible to be uncomfortable with venerating the trappings of dictators and despots.

          I kind of agree that militaries are still necessary, but there’s a big difference between an unfortunate but necessary thing and a celebrated thing.

          The difference between an F-15 and an angle grider is that the F-15 is intended to hurt people. Pulling an angle grinder out of your coat isn’t as intimidating as pulling out a knife, even if the angle grinder could do more damage. Yet both angle grinders and most knives are tools used to create. An F-15 can only destroy. It can’t carry passengers, can’t fight fires, can’t deliver supplies, can’t advance science, at best it can do acrobatics while being incredibly expensive. It’s nothing more than a weapon.

          To be entirely fair, even without military aircraft the U.S. would meddle in international affairs. The air force doesn’t specifically enable these killings or infrastructure damage. It is however a popular and representative method of international war, and I don’t think that’s something to celebrate.

    • BreadOven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I can’t remember the exact title, but I think it’s by Robert Blake. But the line is something like “a terrorist to me is a freedom fighter to you”.

      Definitely two sides to most things.

  • reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’re having military practice nearby me today and my partner and I were just talking about how we both flinch when we hear military planes (small and fast) fly overhead even though neither of us has lived in a war zone.

  • dwindling7373@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hate modern air shows. It testifies to such a lach of attention to what exists in the world.