this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
451 points (96.3% liked)

World News

39346 readers
4506 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • US officials are considering letting Ukraine strike Russia with US weapons, The New York Times reports.
  • Ukraine says it's necessary to fight cross-border attacks. 
  • But fears of crossing Russia's red lines have long made the US hesitate.

The US has barred Ukraine from striking targets in Russian territory with its arsenal of US weapons.

But that may be about to change. The New York Times on Thursday reported that US officials were debating rolling back the rule, which Ukraine has argued severely hampers its ability to defend itself.

The proposed U-turn came after Russia placed weapons across the border from northeastern Ukraine and directed them at Kharkiv, the Times reported, noting that Ukraine would be able to use only non-American drones to hit back.

The Times reported that the proposal was still being debated and had yet to be formally proposed to President Joe Biden.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Robert Frost's Fire and Ice but it's about whether chuds will end the world through overt jingoism and aggression or libs though a lack of self-awareness of how jingoistic they are combined with intentionally deluding themselves about the state of the world.

Fucking Americans. Fucking post-communist Russia too (which is also America's fault). We coulda had an enemy properly terrified of a nuclear exchange and committed to peaceful coexistence but noooo, we gotta open up those markets and now the omnicidal liberals want to risk destroying the world rather than give up a bit of land none of them could find on a map three years ago. Liberals are functionally indistinguishable from someone screaming "Blood for the blood god! Skulls for his skull throne!" except they know how to be all polite about it. A kinder, gentler global thermonuclear war.

Thank God the capitalists who rule this country don't give a shit what their supporters think or all humanity would be dead in a week. Sure they're bringing about the climate change apocalypse but at least that's more delayed than a nuclear apocalypse and I guess that's where the bar is these days.

Sorry I'm low-key drunkposting rn so I'm telling the truth more directly than usual.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If authoritarian dictators can do whatever they want via nuclear blackmail, we're already all doomed anyway

The world will be split into two camps: countries with nukes or otherwise under some sort of nuclear umbrella, and countries who are desperately rapidly developing a nuclear program, the third group who doesn't have nukes and isn't rushing to develop them will have already been annexed by the first group

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Indeed.

Iraq (no nukes) - armies flattened and US-installed government running the show.

North Korea (nukes) - stern finger-wagging by Democrats and angry rhetoric followed by hand jobs from Trump.

Pakistan (got nukes violating treaties) - serious frowning by US until we needed them for our pointless "war on terror" in Afghanistan, then all was forgiven and forgotten.

Iran (desperately seeking nukes) - agreed to stop their efforts for a hot minute until Trump rolled the deal back, showing that US is an unreliable partner and not to be trusted.

Overall the message is clear: get nukes as fast as you can and you'll be safe to torture and oppress your people. The west in general and the US in particular doesn't have any real efforts to stop you (although watch your opsec and don't use Israeli USB sticks you find lying around...).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

What we have here are people convincing themselves that nuclear war is either not a possibility at all, or a tolerable outcome. That's a incredibly dangerous and delusional perspective.

There is a middle ground between "letting nuclear armed countries do whatever they want" and "completely disregarding any and all risks of escalation." The entire postwar order of the past 70 years has been grounded on that. If those lunatics ever get anywhere near the levers of power, then they will provoke nuclear war, maybe not with this specifically (maybe), but if they're taking that kind of cavalier and deluded approach in general, then it's only a matter of time.

If you go all-in every hand, you will eventually bust.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And if every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust, so pick your poison I guess

Appease thugs with nukes and proliferate nuclear weapons around the world adding dozens more dice to be cast every conflict, or call their bluff and risk them actually using them

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

And if every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust, so pick your poison I guess

That's not even remotely how poker works, at all (or geopolitics).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's okay if you don't understand the analogy

When everyone has nukes, all it takes is one country busting for us all to lose

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It’s okay if you don’t understand the analogy

Lmao. Let me just clear this up so you can stop pretending to know what you're talking about about.

In poker, you don't bust (that is, lose all your chips) unless you go all-in and lose. "If every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust" is not true at all, because plenty of hands don't end in someone busting. Just because you lose a hand doesn't mean you're out of the game.

It's pretty clear that you were confused about the meaning of "bust" in this context which is fine but being both wrong and condescending makes you less sympathetic. Although, not nearly as much as being in favor of recklessly risking global thermonuclear war does.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Man this is your own analogy, do I really gotta explain it

If everyone is suddenly playing at the nuclear poker table, the chances of SOMEONE going all in each hand drastically increases, and if any one singular player goes bust, we ALL lose because the damn table explodes

Appeasement just kicks the can down the road (and makes things much worse in the future), it's vital that we not make playing nuclear poker appealing by letting countries get away with shit even if they do have nukes

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Accept you were wrong after being unequivocally proven wrong challenge level: impossible.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you're going to struggle this hard to follow along with expansions of your own analogies it would probably be best if you stopped using them, it's just making it harder on everyone else

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

God you're prideful. If you won't admit your mistakes then there's no point in trying to convince you of anything because you obviously won't listen, and there's no value in hearing your perspective because it's clearly unrefined.

Ironically, if you understood the fact that you could lose a poker hand without busting, maybe you could understand that you could concede this one tiny point and stay in the game. But I guess you only know how to escalate and double down. Rather Trumpian if you ask me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's okay, I forgive you, we all make mistakes sometimes, I'm sure you'll have better luck next time you try to engage

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Well, you certainly do. I didn't make any mistakes in this conversation, apart from engaging with you at all. You, otoh, said something demonstrably and objectively incorrect, and then proceeded to, what are we at, quadruple down on it?