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
How would a Russian nuclear response be prevented if anything were to go wrong? You only need lose or miss one of their nuclear subs for this plan to go south. I’m not comfortable betting our existence on the presumption that they wouldn’t use nuclear arms if attacked by NATO
For people who work in defense, a Western first-strike scenario (conventional) is widely understood to be the option that results in the fewest casualties and the greatest possibility that no nukes detonate at all.
Your scenarios of doom presume that one sub could destroy the west. You assume that we would not be able to defend against their attempted launch when we've spent decades investing in top secret defense systems for this exact scenario. You assume Putin's delivery systems will function after decades of maintenance by notorious black market scalpers. You assume Russian soldiers would be willing to erase their families for Putin's attack order.
A conventional first strike means very few, if any, of Russia's delivery systems would launch. It is extremely unlikely that any of them (if any were to actually launch, given all of the roadblocks I've mentioned) would make it to a target. Additionally, every soldier and leader in a warhead firing position knows an attempted launch of any nukes would result in nuclear annihilation of Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities. They also know that not launching means saving the lives of their families.
This game has been played out over and over again. If Putin launches before a western first-strike, we will suffer mass casualties. If we strike first (conventionally), it is extremely likely that we will suffer no casualties at all and it will also limit the casualties suffered by Russia.
Western economists thought that sanctioning Russia was the best option to instantly win the war. If you still think that, you're on some heavy copium. Or you directly benefit from the money spent on directing the whatever-the-fuck-th sanctions package.
And what if you were wrong? You're not playing around with fucking rocks, a few warheads of the thousands is enough to wipe the life from this rock.
Some won't function, some will. It's not like it's 6000 something nukes that are gonna get stuck in silos lmao. Also, soldiers are nothing if not good at making idiotic decisions when asked to do so.
Instead of half the world being instantly turned to glass, it's only gonna be some random unfortunate places. How sweet. Can't wait till a nuke drops on Ohio and the serious generals residing in bunkers shrug and tell everyone that it could've been worse.
Back to the point above, soldiers are fucking dumb. You don't join the military because you're the brightest person around, you join the military because you're not needed anywhere else.
"Extremely likely" means "we don't really care if someone in the middle of nowhere gets glassed, we just need to prove our mighty military might."
I think I now understand why you have taken the position you have taken. You profoundly over-estimate the ability of Russia's arsenal in a second-strike scenario. Turning half the planet into glass is not possible in a second-strike for Russia.
If they are permitted to first-strike, however, they could seriously inhibit the planet's sunshine for an extended period of time, which would cause a lot of starvation globally. This outcome would be avoided in a first-strike by the west.
The only scenario in which we all are jeopardized is a scenario in which Russia attacks first. There is no question that allowing them to attack first results in significant death globally. A western first-strike can avoid western deaths entirely and can minimize damage and death within Russia as well. We did not insist upon this position, but based on Medvedev and Lutin's constantly escalating threats, it seems extremely likely that Putin will use nukes. Allowing him to launch any nuke will result in an extremely poor outcome for everyone, whereas stopping that threat now will avoid that possibility.
The western public would be listening to our military experts if not for the hyperbolic Russian propaganda that Putin will kill everyone on earth if he is angered.