this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
719 points (98.8% liked)

World News

54624 readers
3350 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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
 

As speculation mounts that Kim Jong-un and Trump could meet this month, analysts say Pyongyang will continue to see nuclear weapons as a matter of survival

North Korea’s launch last week of a missile from a naval destroyer elicited an uncharacteristically prosaic analysis from the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The launch was proof, he said, that arming ships with nuclear weapons was “making satisfactory progress”.

But the test, and Kim’s mildly upbeat appraisal, were designed to reverberate well beyond the deck of the 5,000-tonne destroyer-class vessel the Choe Hyon – the biggest warship in the North Korean fleet.

His pointed reference to nuclear weapons was made as the US and Israel continued their air bombardment of Iran – a regime Donald Trump had warned, without offering evidence, was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

In science, we prefer observational to speculative evidence.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

If you prefer observational evidence do some research on a proper nuclear counter and check out what happened to those USSR nukes.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Russia had about 10,000 of the biggest bombs in the world. Same doctrine just splatter anything close to being considered a friend of the US. So like it’s not having a nuke. It’s having enough nukes to outnuke the next guy and an survival plan for when your whole civilization turns to glass

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

OK well the USA will launch 3200 nuclear missiles at just about anything that threatens it with a nuclear missile. We will basically hit every known nuclear missile site and every related population center.. so I guess when you are thinking about nuking the United States before they invade you…. Just know they will nuke the entire world and they will dump more nukes on you. Then you could create in a lifetime.. that’s our actual nuclear doctrine

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Works both ways, while the USA is thinking about invading another country with nuclear weapons they have to know that will lead to nukes from that country hitting their major cities which will probably make them think twice.

Then the discussion moves to pre-emptive strikes which have the same problem if the other country already has nukes. Eventually we end up in this situation where some might see even pursuing a nuclear weapons technology as justification for a war of aggression like we're seeing in Iran so you certainly need to be careful during that phase but once you get there you're in a much safer place than you used to.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The US is a big place, and we starve our citizens for fun. I don’t think the higher ups would care if you dropped a handful of bombs up.

A true nuclear deterrent is a combination of icbms and sub launched missles. A lot of them. I’m thinking 300 before I even start to get scared. 3,000 and I’m shitting bricks. If you build 3 nukes and think that will stop the USA from invading it’s just nonsense. They’d happily let those hit so they could glass their enemies and start the apocalypse.

You’re dealing with mad men.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

They'd care because it's not just the poor citizens you'd sacrifice to the gods of nuclear fire but also the very important ones with money and political connections. And the stock markets would really sink, the thing that gets Trump to TACO out every time.

Of course you want as strong a deterrent as possible but from estimates I've read North Korea's 10 nukes with MIRVs and decoy launches would very likely still be effective enough to extract a very serious price for invading.

Obviously if you just assume there is not even the slightest bit of rational self-interest from the actors involved, you've already lost humanity to nukes anyway.