this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
110 points (99.1% liked)
Slop.
929 readers
579 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
we literaly live in the era of drones and gunpowder and chuds still think war is decided by physical strength (it hasnt since the invention of the crossbow)
ACTUALLY crossbows were tied to strength because your fire rate was tied to how many times you could load it in a multiple hours battle (precision was barely a factor they just shot as many as possible in the right direction)
And who invented the fastest, shootiest crossbow of all? That's right. The Chinese.
#ArbalestGang :zhugeliang-shining:
:themysicra-shining: actually war is predominantly determined by logistics which is why women (who consume fewer calories per spear) make superior soldiers for state conflicts.
thanks nerd
not to mention the chuds ideal aryan superman is probably not doing hand to hand combat either lmao
Yeah he's too busy with important things, like injecting discount steroids and smoking cracké (french canadian variant).
It hasn't since well before that. Strategy>having a bunch of really strong guys every time historically.
I don't think that's entirely correct, you can't win a war without having a bunch of fit people who can actually carry guns and walk around the territories you need to occupy. But in this case China has more than enough people with guns so it's indeed down to strategy (and we can see how the US strategy works in Iran...)
Depends on the objective of the war, occupying territory isnt always the goal, though it tends to be required to some extent usually. And while I will concede that having an army that is physically fit to be an army, I figured that was an assumed baseline. Like, of course well placed toddlers with perfect logistics in place would still lose to a real army. But running a smart war is always more important than greater overall force unless you get to a really extreme difference in force, like ine side having guns and the other side not etc
I suppose overall fitness (not necessarily raw strength) has always been important. You can't march for days with gear if you can't run 10m without getting winded.
But you're right in the sense that bombs and guns equalize that somewhat, drones even more so because you have have your less fit soldiers just pilot them.
Guessing most in the military are doing their killing remotely in air-conditioned offices