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 don't think anyone is claiming it is. It's just that if Russia shoots down a NATO plane, and NATO retaliates even conventionally, Russia would be allowed to use nuclear force according to their own rules of engagement. So that could mean the destruction of at least a few European cities because a Russian pilot was a bit trigger happy.
Are we sure they actually have nuclear weapons to the level they claim? Given the level of corruption displayed elsewhere in their military and the sheer funds relatively allocated to their nuclear programme, it would not surprise me if their nuclear weapons were just stones with glow in the dark paint on it while the actual money was spent on some oligarch's house in central London.
I would of course prefer not to find out by having an ICBM coming my way.
Probably not to the level they claim but they claim to have so many that that doesn't mean much.
Some nuclear warheads have a "best by" date, and need to be recycled. ICBMs also have a "best by" date on fuel, and both the missiles and launch installations need to be regularly maintained (at least with some WD-40, or whatever Russian equivalent).
If Russia launched a full scale attack right now, you'd likely see some of the launch sites explode, a bunch of duds, another bunch of them getting intercepted, and a few hundred million people dead from the ones that worked as intended... possibly including that London oligarch and his home. Followed by major Russian cities, military, and industrial complexes getting destroyed in retaliation.
Overall: not good.
Even if they launch unarmed ICBMs no one will risk it and nuclear apocalypse will commence without a delay.
That ends with Russia becoming glass. It's a no win situation for them and they know it.
The problem is that, at that point, they already lost, so it's a matter of whether they lose alone, or if they are petty enough to make everyone lose with them. I know where Putin stands on that, the unknown is how the Russian generals would take the order.
The Kremlin won't commit suicide over a failed land grab in Eastern Ukraine. Stop fear mongering, it's exactly what they want.
The problem with nuclear deterrence is that it’s very easy for the train to start rolling before anyone can stop it. And once it’s rolling, it’s out of everyone’s hands.
Read the thread and see what we were talking about, and then come back.
The UK/NATO would not retaliate in a nuclear manner
Even if they retaliate conventionally, it would be far more likely that Russia would strike a deal before launching nukes
The UK/NATO would likely accept that deal easily since literally nobody with more than 2 braincells, on either side, want to risk destroying the entire planet
It’s called Mutually Assured Destruction for a reason mate.
The point being both sides would end up as glass, so no one dares to actually fire because the only winning move is to not play.
That worked in the 50s but today that isn't the case. We would stop about 90% of missiles. Russia can't stop any. NATO loses 80,000, Russia loses 143 Million.
Okay Buck Turgidson.
The 11 active Russian nuclear armed subs alone would inflict millions of casualties on American coastal cities.
The fallout would kill hundreds of millions across Europe and North America, the resulting families and global breakdown would take out hundreds of millions more across the globe.
Not to mention Chinese and North Korean responses to their neighbour and ally being nuked.
If they could get out of port without sinking instantly.
The point is: it only takes one. One nuke successfully launching would be enough for the majority (if not all) the able nuclear powers to retaliate in kind.
Do you think any nation within Europe would detect a missle launch and simply... hope it's a dud? What about America? If any nation responds to a nuclear attack (even a fake one), the odds are the rest of them will follow suit.
I hope every single attempted nuclear weapon launch fails. But the odds of that happening aren't even worth thinking about.
If there was a threat nations would act accordingly.