World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I think we should give a nuke to Ukraine. One would be enough to stop all this BS.
Funny enough, when the USSR split up, Ukraine did have nukes, briefly. It was, you guessed it, the US that convinced them to give all their warheads to Russia.
Source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/
Yeah, I heard that. But I think that Ukraine couldn't actually use the nukes so they were of limited use, like maybe they could have been repurposed or something. But yeah no doubt about it, Ukraine got screwed and now they're finishing the job. I hope they sell their resources to anyone else, China or North Korea before they let Russia or the US have them.
Them not being involved in the peace talks underlines again how indispensable nuclear weapons are, sadly.
The DSA playing hopscotch with whose ally they are underlines how worthless a shared nuclear umbrella can be.
So a grim lesson for Ukraine, Europe, Taiwan and pretty much any country with any border tensions, or anything another aspiring imperialist might find desireable: Get nukes, own them yourselfes, or risk being thrown aside or being steamrolled. Trump undoing decades of existential anti-proliferation work in mere days.
I keep hoping the Palestinians will get their hands on one for the same reason.
so what would you think hamas do with nukes?
The same thing every other country does with nukes.
Genocide?
Is that a serious point you're trying to make?
I thought you put it together already. Hamas' willingness to sacrifice Palestinians is only second to IDF. They'd drop that bomb without hesitation if that meant the final defeat of Israel.
I think your analysis might be the silliest thing I've ever seen. A nuclear bomb in both nations' hands is the only thing that is going to end this war. It's called 'Mutually-Assured Destruction'.
But thank you for response.
The IDF wouldn't drop a bomb on their own citizens because their prime ideology is jewish supremacy, plus they have the military might without it. Hamas, OTOH would have no qualms about it. I can't figure out if you are sarcastic here, but mutual destruction is exactly what would happen, so if you're saying that nuclear annihilation is the only way to stop this war, then you might be right, but generally that's the least favorable outcome.
The limited military capabilities of Palestinians has restrained Israel’s actions.
How should Palestinians use that nuke?
If you say so.
They shouldn't use it, per se.
Just make threats with it, like most countries do. Having a nuke is a deterrent.
I don't think Israel would care. Or the USA
I mean, if you're assuming the worst, a nuclear strike could pretty much wipe israel almost entirely off the map. With a more conservative and realistic positioning, you know, one singular, small nuke, probably sourced from somewhere else, then you'd still be looking at probably 20,000 people dead or injured if it were to hit the downtown of any city. You know, ten times the amount of october 7th. That would be a huge international incident, especially seeing as how the nuke would have to be provided by some other foreign government, which means that there could be a chance of a probably unpreventable follow-up attack at almost any time. It would be a pretty big deal, even if they were credibly threatened. I mean, that's part of why Iran isn't allowed to have a nuclear program.
One won’t be enough. If they use it, Russia will at least hit the whole frontline with tactical nukes, maybe wipe out a city or two. That means Ukraine can’t use it, making it as valuable as a paperweight. For credible nuclear deterrence a country needs a few dozen nuclear weapons and more than one delivery method.
Noone who has nukes can use them, but that's not the point. Just the threat is enough. One nuke with enough juice to get it to Moscow would be enough. I'm pretty sure if any country ever used a nuke, the whole world would explode.
The threat needs to be credible though. One bomb is not enough because it could be destroyed in a first strike without fear of a second strike.
One bomb won’t make it to Moscow. Air defense will take down a single attacking missile or plane.
There are air defenses that could potentially shoot down a missile before it hits its target. So one means there's merely a probability of destroying Moscow. A psychopath like Putin may be willing to take that risk, and even if Moscow got nuked, Russia would still exist (though obviously it would be significantly diminished), and he'd have justification for using nukes on Ukraine.
For MAD to apply you need enough nukes to be an existential threat to another country when you're dealing with psychopaths that would be fine with potentially millions of people dying if it means they come out on top in a war.
I think he'd be smart enough to not want to take the risk of destroying so much. Yeah he's a psychopath but who would gamble with that kind of destruction... I guess if the nuke failed to explode that's another consideration but I'd assumed even if the air defences worked in any sense, the nuke would still detonate? If that happened in the air, wouldn't it kill/maim a lot of people and taint land with the radioactivity?
What worries me is that the UK nukes are (I think) unable to be used without US authority so at the moment they're essentially useless even as a deterrent. I saw Kier Starmer giving that speech recently and yep, we're in trouble lol, he's no good at hiding his feelings. I almost feel sorry for him, except that I remember what he did to become the labour leader.