this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
163 points (100.0% liked)

World News

54071 readers
3197 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thorhop@sopuli.xyz 15 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

Theoretically... what would happen if Iran or someone else happens to magically sink this thing, fighter jets and all?

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago

The US would freak out and escalate the war. But they are going to do that anyway sooner or later, this is a forever war, Israel needs it for their domestic agenda, and the US party, the one fixing elections to stay in power, is all in.

But regardless if they did sink it the administration would try and treat it like Pearl Harbor and use it to escalate tensions more than they have support to do already.

Public opinion is the only thing holding them back now, and they aren't entirely certain how much they need public opinion still given the elections aren't reliably fixed yet, at least not back to back fixed. We can still stop them here, but the window to do so is closing.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 6 points 14 hours ago

More pollution in the Mediterranean :(

[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Without reading an article, but I will assume you mean a magical macguffin weapon just.....sinks it and no one knows what happened. The response depends on a few things.

Without its strike groupThreat assessment will show its defenses were overwelmed by the macguffin weapon. Maybe even conventional missiles - these things aren't invincible.

With Strike GroupThe normal Carrier travels with 12-15 destroyers and other auxiliary vessels to provide screening and defense overlapping. If the carrier is struck and damaged/sunk in the center or back of this strike group, without loss of other vessels, an immediate retreat and Threat assessment will be done to see how the macguffin weapon got past everything else. This would be the concern - again Carriers aren't invincible, but how your macguffin got past so much radar would be important and the MAIN focus, if the macguffin did not do it in an immediately obvious way.

Strike Group disabled/sunkIf the entire strike group is damaged/sunk, the entire fleet will pull back to begin assessing risk of the macguffin. Damaging a fair number of ships run by the United States in a short order should be beyond poor nations capabilities, so the macguffiin weapon would necessitate reevaluation. Delay of at least a week to assess where/what the macguffin weapon is, (Assuming its a singular object) and then if the target, say Iran, is able to be struck within a specific loss ratio of troops.

A macguffin weapon like a Deathstar type where it can fire at single target position would give most Threat analysis away and the immediate questions to answer would be 1. How much energy/fuel/ammunition does it cost to fire. (If a broke country can afford a mega laser - how don't I have one?) 2. How does it target (radar can be blocked, is it manually aimed as direct fire/ parabolic like artillery) 3. How can it be avoided (like blocking radar to aim, or like can a physical obstruction block the firing angle. 4. Can it be destroyed (is it susceptible to a strike team on land to sabotage?) 5 Is there more than one.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Or someone can pull a Ukraine and manually aim and fire missiles from land.

[–] thorhop@sopuli.xyz 7 points 7 hours ago

My brother/sister/sibling in the 'tism came out strong, with several scenarios even.

Here, have some stimuli.

[–] rimu@piefed.social 6 points 19 hours ago

If it looks like something that could happen again, rather than a one-off fluke, USA would have to change their whole naval doctrine. The strategic arms balance of all countries would need to be reassessed.

[–] DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 19 hours ago

Could be used as another USS Liberty, though I'd assume they would go for a cheaper carrier, and it looks like Israel is getting all the support from USA it needs.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I don’t want to see people die, but the US needs to suffer a wound like this.

[–] pastaq@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Because that worked out so well the last time...

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 2 points 14 hours ago

The last time they needed desperately to bring the public support for a war around bcs the ppl were very much against a war (with financial/imperial goals).

Ohhh ... yeah, I see, poor ship.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Monkey paw finger curls

Hiroshima, August 6th, 1945

[–] thorhop@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You got downvoted, but with the current administration? A WMD response might be chosen. So it might lead to nuclear war... and a chain effect.

Then, suddenly...

"I don't want to set the world on fire~" 🥲

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Keep in mind Trump was playing with the idea of nuking a fucking hurricane. Doesn't seem so far fetched.