54
submitted 3 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] deepbIue@lemmy.ml 48 points 3 months ago

As much as I like shitting on the US, I think all of the comments here are forgetting that this wouldn’t be a 1v3. It would be a world war. There would be no winners.

[-] FakeNewsForDogs@hexbear.net 34 points 3 months ago

Yes, it would be cataclysmic. In the longer term though, I would argue that just about everyone on the planet would be a winner if the US empire were finally put down. You can’t really overstate how much of an impediment the US is to global human welfare and development.

[-] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 6 points 3 months ago

World's biggest terrorist organisation

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 26 points 3 months ago

There would be an immense toll, but it would mean the destruction of the US, Israel, NATO, and neoliberalism generally, which I think means there is also room for optimism. If I may gesture towards Mark Twain, there are two Reigns of Terror here, and though we have reason to fear the latter one, it will not last as long or kill as many as the former one that it puts an end to. If there is not a nuclear holocaust, anyway

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 33 points 3 months ago

If there is not a nuclear holocaust, anyway

That's a pretty fucking big "if"

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 14 points 3 months ago
[-] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 5 points 3 months ago

It's pretty obvious it's not a big "if".

[-] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 months ago

And that Palantir is an MIC contractor. They would have this outlook because it would keep them busy. The reality of such a scenario is far more unrealistic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 44 points 3 months ago

Bloodthirsty, insane, and suicidal

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 46 points 3 months ago

Americans love to role play at having a democracy, but when push comes to shove the public is never consulted about such monumental decisions like ending human civilization.

load more comments (19 replies)
[-] dirtybeerglass@hexbear.net 27 points 3 months ago

So you better buy that thing my company sells. To be safe .

[-] barrbaric@hexbear.net 26 points 3 months ago

I guess "The US will very likely end the world in nuclear hellfire" doesn't roll of the tongue as well.

[-] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago

Liberals are going to get us all fucking killed

[-] EndMilkInCrisps@hexbear.net 24 points 3 months ago

Well that sounds totally winnable.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 3 months ago

I'm kinda feeling the "c'mon, go see the titanic" meme, but regarding a total war that Amerika has literally no hope of winning. Just one of those countries routinely low-tech kicks the shit out of our forces without the war games having to get railroaded by the peckerwoods just to "prove" an 'Allied' victory; what the fuck do they think tackling Russia and China too will accomplish?

[-] DivineChaos100@hexbear.net 23 points 3 months ago

"I hope" - he added.

[-] buh@hexbear.net 20 points 3 months ago

typical am*rican extravagance 😒

[-] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 19 points 3 months ago

"Germany chose as it's enemy In this war...the world."

[-] diamat@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 months ago

“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”

What kind of reality does this guy live in? Like every adversary he mentions has either adopted a "No First Use" Policy or officially states that nuclear weapons are only to be used when the very existence of the state is threatened via a conventional military force or when being attacked by nuclear weapons. Contrast this to the US which "'reserves the right to use' nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict" or the UK which reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against "rogue states" (source: wikipedia article detailing all the above mentioned first use policies). How can you claim to have any moral superiority when your fucking bloc has these murderous policies in place? The western bloc has enshrined first use into its official policy and then this guy claims that only the adversaries of the West are determined to use nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy is beyond me.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago

Not to mention that US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and they didn't do it for any military purpose. They dropped them on civilian population to show USSR the level of depravity they were capable of.

[-] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago

US is the first and only country to ever use an atomic bomb. And not just one bomb: two. So of course we wouldn't launch a preemptive strike, right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hexamerous@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago
[-] dirtybeerglass@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago

Mommy mommy ! I want some headlines.

Jesus fuck

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago

Good news because they'll lose

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] sleeplessone@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”

There's a moral disparity alright, but it's not the US who has the moral high ground.

[-] dirtybeerglass@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

I would like to ban submissions from fortune.

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 3 months ago

we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”

See. I don't think the deterrent was ever meant to be a response to tactical nuclear weapons. They were meant to be a way to make sure that if World ending strategic nuclear weapons were fired against cities, that the response would be absolute.

I wholesale believe that western countries with strategic nuclear weapons would return fire against an attack in our direction. Just as it looked in wargames.

No we're not going to destroy the world if Russia or any other adversary uses tactical nuclear weapons. We have much more proportionate responses.

Or, maybe I'm just misreading it?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I fully expect that the US would start the apocalypse as soon as it was on a back foot in a major conflict.

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 3 months ago

I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that any NATO nuclear enabled nation would only act in response to strategic nuclear weapons deployed against a NATO ally. But, I guess we'll only know if/when we get there.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

Given the unhinged behavior of the US historically, and being the only nation to use nuclear weapons, I don't see why you'd expect any restraint.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
54 points (83.8% liked)

World News

32372 readers
552 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS