A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
We reached out to Mark Rutte for comment, but he was unable to extract his head from Trump's ass in time for publication.
Trump will cause US defense companies to lose business.
That is why they are trying to increase the pentagon budget to 1.5 trillion, to make up for the contracts lost when we find a pretext to pull out of nato.
But the nukes are totally operational without us support 😉
They’re… kinda not though. The UK uses Trident SLBMs in their SSBNs. That’s a US missile.
France, on the other hand, rolled their own. It’d really strategically behoove the Royal Navy to figure out how to equip their next iteration of SSBN with M51s instead.
That's the joke.
I'd rather save the money and not have nukes or if we must have them, spend money and roll our own (doesn't even matter if they work or not TBH). But being dependent on France is preferable to being dependent on the US.
With the way this timeline is going, I don't think anyone getting rid of nukes is a good idea. If you do decide to for some reason, give them to Canada.
Canada doesn't need nukes -- the geographic proximity to the states basically means if nukes are used on the continent, both populations suffer. Just look at the wildfire smoke from Canada that circulates down to new york etc, and imagine that as nuclear fallout.
If Canada wants a deterrent, drones and bio-weapons is likely a better option. It'd be against international conventions perhaps, but Canada's already declared international rules based order dead -- so who cares on that front. You can build up more biotech knowledge by supporting medicare programs / vaccine research (something the states has pulled back on, making them more susceptible to such attacks). You can have a massive, lopsided impact, with a very low cost, easy to deploy/guerrilla setup.
You can't develop nukes without an overt footprint showing your neighbour what you're doing, giving them ample opportunity to sabotage/interfere with your actions. You can setup a couple dudes in a shack with a chicken coup and a couple drones fairly easily, by the thousands, all along the border.
Both population don't suffer equally, and realistically nukes would not be used. They're just a deterrent and make the invading force reconsider or work harder.
Really I don't think nukes are a deterrent when the world is full of despotic leaders.
Trump, Netenyahu & Putin don't give a fuck about a retaliatory strike.
No sane leader will launch a strike, so I don't really see who nukes are meant to deter, it's just a money pit that could be spent on just an okut anything to be more useful.
I don't think that really tracks with what we've seen in Ukraine. The world tiptoed around and wasted a year of potential action because Putin threatened to use nukes. It's still one of the main things stopping escalated allied involvement. I also doubt Russia would have invaded had Ukraine not given up its nukes.
Yeah nukes are only useful in the hands of people crazy enough to use them. The UK & France having nukes did nothing to protect Ukrainians, it's also done nothing to dissuade Russia from carrying out attacks on British & French soil.
I also doubt Russia would have invaded had Ukraine not given up its nukes.
Maybe, or maybe the risk of nukes falling into the wrong hands is used to justify a more violent preemptive strike on Ukraine. Russia effectively used salami tactics and "rebel" troops to take Crimea without it looking like an invasion until it was too late, I don't think the invasion of Ukraine necessarily doesn't happen, it could have just happened in a different way.
Even Thatcher's nukes failed to deter Argentina's Junta, so simply having nukes doesn't really guarantee anything.
The UK has given up over 50 territories since it developed nukes, including handing Hong Kong back to China, so I don't really think nukes guarantee much.
All we know for sure is they cost us a lot of money.
You're right that we never really know how things will play out. That said, I don't think anyone expected foreign nukes to defend Ukraine, especially since allies are unwilling to use conventional weapons or send troops.
Yeah but those are old enough to not have a Killswitch.
But there is a maintenance and support supply chain, which is effectively a kill switch in the long term
This is the correct answer. Only one place - in Florida - where UK nukes can be serviced.
They don't have kill switches and do not use GPS (rather celestial guidance), but if you cannot maintain them you cannot use them.
It's not like they couldn't figure it out though. It's old enough to be relatively easy to reverse engineer compared to anything with heavy coding. If they really wanted to make them their own, they could.
Good point, but I'm sure the brits can certainly figure it out.
That’s… not how SLMB maintenance works.
Great news for Tsar Vlad.
The UK's political leadership is no longer tenable.