this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
639 points (99.1% liked)

World News

54624 readers
2992 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, they've already figured that out.

[–] Bazell@lemmy.zip 11 points 7 hours ago

We live in times, when if you don't have a weapon of mass destruction, you cannot be safe. This is like having a gun in neighborhood.

[–] HaveAnotherTacoPDX@lemmy.today 9 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Shit, Trump's illegal Iran war convinces me pretty strongly that a nuclear weapons program is the only way to keep my fucking apartment secure from the despotic motherfucker. Kick in my door and millions go boom, bitch!

…that sounds ridiculous, and it is! But that's the kind of world this sadistic, brain-rotted buffoon is trying to create. And for some reason Republicans seem to think that's just great! Less than two dozen of them could end this nightmare if they cared. But they don't. How many more are going to die for these bastards?

[–] Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Well the UN definetly isnt guaranteeing it. Who can blame the north Koreans and others for having nukes as deterrence?

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

Dude who cares about North Korea. Just let them keep stealing from china that shit is funny to me.

[–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

yea just like joe biden confirmed it when he supplied the funds/weapons to annihilate gaza, just like obama annihilated libya, just like dubya annihilated iraq

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

And not just North Korea's.

Just like Putin is the best NATO marketer, Trump is the best nuclear weapon marketer.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago

Since Putin attacked Ukraine half a dozen European countries are considering their own nuclear arsenal separate from US nuclear sharing. Sweden, Germany, Ukraine, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, Denmark.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

If they have a bigger brain they would make a bigger stockpile with more capable strike capability. Having global nuclear reach is the only way to have sovereignty in 2026.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

Instead of using our combined resources to elect, better governments, and what not we could just make nukes. The poor will be starving still but we will have nukes.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

Yes, sir, when I look around and see a deteriorating global peace, the first thing I think is nuclear proliferation. It’s like clearly humans can handle more destructive power and need to be threatening each other on a more existential scale.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If they have a bigger brain they would make a bigger stockpile with more capable strike capability. Having global nuclear reach is the only way to have sovereignty in 2026.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

It should be the goal of all politically unstable countries to control nukes. Fuck feeding your population or dealing with internal corruption. Just do nukes!

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

If they have a brain they will never relinquish their nukes. Not just because of the US either.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Because they’re such a good use of national resources. They sit around costing money being a clear and present danger to all. Marvelous idea.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Costs less than defending your land with conventional weapons and lives.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

As long as you plan on nuking someone I guess. Have you ever seen the infographic from the Cold War when everyone launches their nukes? Mutually assured destruction ringing any bells? What kind of sovereignty do you expect to have of your nuclear wasteland?

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Cool, except Trump and Putin don't think rationally. What makes you think nukes are a deterrent from them trying to imperialize? It might stop them short term but not for long.

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Aim directly at Mar-A-Lago.

Hell, you don't even need a nuclear payload for that.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

They have nuclear resistant planes and can keep the president in the air indefinitely during a nuclear strike. The guys right trump has no deterrents. Nukes are an irrational deterrent for irrational people. You could launch 100 nukes on the USA and we’d still invade your country an hour later lmao

The point isn't to kill him, just to destroy his golf course.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

here's the thing about narcissists. they only care about themselves. not stuff, not people, not morals or ethics or laws or anything.

as long as he's alive, that's all he cares about.

the only way to truly scare a narcissist is to take the most important thing from them of all.

public attention.

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

Nuclear weapons fall pretty solidly in the category of "things that can hurt a narcissist". Trump is certain he can be protected from conventional attacks. If someone REALLY wants to nuke the president, however, he'd have to get EXTREMELY lucky to avoid it.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

I think you underestimate the intelligence services that are dedicated to his safety.

they would see plans of a nuke months before they would see some psycho with a gun that decides on a whim that "today's the day".

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 80 points 1 day ago (4 children)

That's the overwhelming message of the 20th and 21st centuries. If you don't have nukes then the US or Russia is gonna mess with you. Get nukes.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 25 points 23 hours ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sen@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago

Never thought I'd agree with North Korea but a broken clock is right twice a day I guess.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 4 points 15 hours ago

Fun fact: thats why Eisenhower started Iran's nuclear program. It was the 'Atoms for Peace' program. It was for peaceful purposes supposedly but we all know where developing nuclear capabilities will end up at.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 60 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Checks and balances.

I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe that we were at least marginally safer when the USSR was still a superpower acting as a check on American fuckery.

Once the USSR fell, US went masks off on the international stage because they had no reason to pretend to be the good guys anymore.

They convinced all their allies to disarm themselves, and then went full "nice country here...shame if something happened to it" the moment they were the only big dog left.

The world can't re-arm itself fast enough as far as I'm concerned.

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Once the USSR fell

For a brief time with Yeltsin at the helm.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 107 points 1 day ago (20 children)

That's because nukes ARE the only path to security lmao. As soon as the first one was tested, and then fuck me used against civilians everyone watching jnmed understood this.

It sucks, and I would much prefer a world without nuclear weapons, but this is reality unfortunately. If you have nukes, you have leverage without ever having to use them

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 20 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

we were working toward a way for a world without nukes. building an economy so interconnected that going to war with another country destroys your economy too. but that shit is fragile. i didn't think it was this fragile tho.

Too bad that ideology drove wealth inequality which empowered populism which empowered fascism which destroyed the interconnected economy. Neoliberalism was never a solution to peace.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The economy in the USA can still get a lot worse!

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 12 points 19 hours ago

It just needs someone with power and without any fucking knowledge of economics but thinking the opposite.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 22 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

Sadly, that's a lesson I've already learned from war in Ukraine. Before it I had "hope"s and "might"s about civilization. Now I have a substantial amount less

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›