this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
261 points (98.2% liked)

politics

29340 readers
2093 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So a Cuban "victory" will come with sanctions lifted, the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and South Beach ceded.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So a Cuban “victory” will come with sanctions lifted, the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and South Beach ceded.

I wish, but I don't think Cuba has any kind of leverage that would cost the US anything. I'm pretty concerned that this will actually be an "easy win". :/

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don’t think Cuba has any kind of leverage that would cost the US anything.

Cubans have their own military and mid-range weapons. They aren't nearly as fortified as the Iranians, and they don't have a straight line to Russia or China for support, but they can absolutely put missiles all along the Gulf Coast if push comes to shove. They're - bare minimum - as dangerous as Yemen is to Saudi Arabia.

It would be hell on earth for the island, though. Nobody actually wants a shooting war with the US. God only knows how many civilians would die as a result.

And the real second-order consequence of a US invasion of Cuba would be the flood of refugees. People would flee the island in droves. Jamaica, the Yucatan, the Bahamas, Haiti, hell Florida - they'd be inundated with people fleeing the country. As bad as US relations are with the Caribbean states, this would make things so much worse. You're talking about and island of 10M people. It would be chaos.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Lotta oil refineries in range of Cuba.

Naval drones in the Mississippi delta would be a problem.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

Iran could supply drones to Cuba. It would be one way to give the United States a swirly, and further increasing the value of the Hormuz. Why settle for being merely 20% of the world's supply of oil, when you can shrink the pie?

[–] Kronusdark@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Unless Russia sends them some missiles. 🤔

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Honestly that would be hilarious, on brand stupidity for Trump: Allows Russian "oil" to reach Cuba, along with the oil are parts for nuclear weapons, cuban missile crisis 2.0. lol

[–] Carmakazi@piefed.social 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Even things like Shaheds would be a bad time. At least Florida if not much of the South would be in range. Just like the Russian imperial core we would be rudely reminded that we are not untouchable.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

I figure mar a lago is in shahed range

[–] Lupus108@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

cuban missile crisis 2.0.

Omfg Cuban missile crisis with that ding dong at the helm? The outcome would be nuclear Holocaust.

On the bright side...

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

On the bright side...

He's like a Cold War Bo Burnham, LOL