this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
182 points (98.4% liked)

World News

54784 readers
3322 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
 

Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.

The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.

In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If only there was a nearby group of nations we could share this financial burden with.

[–] Bullerfar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Hahaha, good one

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Go for it UK! 👍
Meanwhile Denmark continues to buy F-35. I've been screaming and shouting about how bad that deal was from the start. And that was before USA threatened the Kingdom of Denmark. It is so stupid that the deal hasn't been cancelled yet. Now we need to get rid of the F-35 planes we already bought!

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 5 points 2 days ago

UK's deal is better than Denmark. UK got full source code access and since they can grow jet turbines in the UK they can do whatever they want with the platform.

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

At least you're not here in Australia, groaning as out defence minister still insists that we're definitely getting our US-made submarines that we've paid for under the AUKUS deal...

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

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr589k5yleo

That article is only 5 month old, if that deal is so new, I cannot fathom why anybody would make a deal with USA at that point?

What does Australia get out of it?

That should have been: HOW does Australia get out of it?

Even though the deal we made on F35 was under Obama, it was such a bad deal, and 100% based on corruption and to help Obama against criticism in congress.
The numbers were unrealistically tweaked to make it look good, as if we could maintain the planes for a third what Norway were supposed to, and then have them fly twice as much!!
Imagine the fleet we could have, even including AWACs from Sweden and it would still be cheaper both to buy and maintain, and the planes from Sweden are more versatile in many ways. I wouldn't be surprised if F-35 is part of the problem USA has in Iran. All the planes we hear of are older planes, why aren't we hearing about how amazing their new super plane F-35 is? Seems it's completely useless for the conflict?

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

Our submarine deal was actually made in 2019, by the worst Prime Minister Australia has ever had. The man is so unpopular that the thing he's most known for is shitting his pants at a McDonald's in Sydney. Which barely beats going to Hawaii on holiday during Australia's biggest ever bushfires.

Scott Morrison. Couldn't pour piss out of a boot.

[–] vpol@feddit.uk 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

UK can cooperate with other EU countries. Pretty sure Poland gonna be very interested. Germany, Italy.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Lets not proliferate. Perhaps France.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Nuclear proliferation would probably lead to a safer world. Look at North Korea, they are left alone by imperialists because they have the big red button. We could distribute nukes to everyone so there is universal MAD.

May also end the world, but we're already on the way there.

[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

North Korea is a terrible example of this, they were only able to get nuclear weapons because they never actually needed them. North Korea is left alone because they have hundreds of artillery pieces sat in range of Seoul and the backing of China to ride out the sanctions.

Without that their nuclear program would have gotten the crap bombed out of them (again) long before it resulted in a bomb.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 2 points 2 days ago

Sure, but times have changed a lot, these days, IMO, imperialists would happily sacrifice Seoul to distract from Epstein files, as we've seen recently by the US relocating missile interceptors from Korea to defend Israel.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 5 points 2 days ago

North Korea is left alone because they have no oil

[–] vpol@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Britain and Poland would have to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The only state to do so to date is North Korea and it would be a highly troubling precedent.

[–] DandomRude@piefed.social 7 points 2 days ago

I also believe that a nuclear arms race would have catastrophic consequences for the world, but unfortunately, Russia, Israel, and the US are making it all too clear that international treaties are, sadly, worthless.

Right now, it would be important to find diplomatic solutions and return to a peaceful, international dialogue, but I fear that this is simply not possible with the unscrupulous despots at the helm of these powerful countries. They believe that international law does not apply to them and want to establish the law of the jungle as the sole premise of world politics - they commit the most horrific war crimes and apparently believe they have the right to terrorize the world simply because they can. As long as their heinous crimes go unpunished and these monsters remain at the helm of their countries, I fear that the world must arm itself to avoid becoming their next victim.

[–] Teknikal@anarchist.nexus 1 points 2 days ago

Should make a modern Vulcan bomber instead those were cool planes, yeah I know we need the subs.

[–] meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

While true, I weep for an environment that will have to endure another decade of nuclear bomb tests

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 16 points 2 days ago

This is about the missiles not the warheads. Britain already manufactures those and doesn’t conduct testing.

[–] Admetus@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

They'll only be testing missiles with a dummy warhead. All countries (except NK) are no longer conducting these tests.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

I hope the dummy warhead is just a scroll that unfurls and says "Bang".

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So that means Russia is justified if they bomb the UK? Same reason we go after Iran.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

To be clear, the UK already has a massive nuclear arsenal. This is just about building them domestically (and only the delivery system, they already build warheads) instead of importing. So, while you're not wrong per se, the argument you're trying to have kind of came and went a while ago.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

It's a joke. My reasoning is just as bad as the US.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

fuck no. no more nuclear escalation please

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This belies a complete and total ignorance of the entire topic of strategic nuclear deterrence, and an extremely naive geopolitical worldview.

For case studies of why nuclear deterrence is important, and why a lack thereof can be catastrophic to the state in question, see:

  • Ukraine
  • Iran
  • North Korea (is effectively un-invadeable because of their nuclear weapons)

Moreover, this is not an escalation. It’s moving towards strategic independence from a (former) ally that has become deeply unreliable.

i do agree with the logic. it's just... hate that were inching closer to nuclear annihilation