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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
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/
If you desire peace, prepare for war.
The US has recently proven itself an unreliable ally and can no longer be depended upon. I don't want any armed conflict but now is the time to at least make sure you have the plans and resources in place to prepare for future conflicts. Hopefully they will not eventuate but it seems unwise to bet too much on that.
It would be nice if politicians could understand the cost of war at a soldier's level. Politicians should feel a war; not just sit in their protected and lavish war room barking orders and treating lives as meaningless numbers.
Exactly, those who make the decisions to send soldiers to war should be sent to fight themselves, if not gun in hand at least as front line commanders or something so they feel the same danger and see the same horrors as the human fodder they so happily throw at their "enemies"
U need to stop thinking of politicians as people its better to think of them as representatives for a specific interest group (ur vote, everyone else's vote, and corruption) they make no decisions they simply choose which decision makes the majority of who they represent the happiest.
So you are saying we should have a people's representation lobby group and bribe them to do our interests. It does make sense in a negotiation sense, even though it sounds very annoying.
That's what democracy is supposed to be.
Not really, but i guess that's the difference between ideals and reality. So, who is founding this group?
In the ideal the politicians represent the people. I'm reality it seems they represent whatever gets them money/power.
So, who is founding this group?
That's the good part only the wealthy corporations can afford such things.
I mean true enough but that has nothing to do with preparing for war. To put it simply there's a reason, say, Japan has an army despite their constitution denouncing war.
It would be better if soldiers could recognize when they're being used as pawns vs. actually fighting for what they believe in.
Ukraine never had a chance without foreign troops on the ground.
a soldier is a pawn by definition
Budget season again I see
OP comments are on point.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a sign of how alien the idea of armed conflict has become to most officials in Whitehall, James Heappey said many departments had declined the chance to take part in a "whole of government" exercise to practice evacuating to a bunker in the event of war.
It was a drill former defence secretary Ben Wallace had pushed for "to get people down to the bunker so they could see what their working environment in war would be", Mr Heappey wrote in an article for the Sunday Telegraph.
His damning intervention came after Sky News this week revealed that the government has no national plan for the defence of the UK or the mobilisation of its people and industry in a war despite renewed threats of conflict.
But any shift back to a Cold War-style, ready-for-war footing would require political leaders to make defence a genuinely national effort once again, sources told Sky News.
Piling pressure on Rishi Sunak, he wrote: "Only a foolish PM wouldn't see that the long-term trend is towards global instability that could easily lead to a new cold war and perhaps something even hotter.
Read more from Sky News:Protests in Tel Aviv after 'half a year of hell'Royal Navy ship to be deployed for Gaza aidWorld's oldest living man reveals secret to long life
The original article contains 683 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Russia is breaking things out of storage for their widespread conscripted force usage. They were getting their ass handed to them with NATOs leftovers, and somehow we’re supposed to believe NATO is in danger? The first gulf war demonstrated how Russian tech stacks up against trillions in military expenditure.
Europe's military production is severely degraded. Russia looks like a paper tiger now, but they can still pump out ammunition for troops and artillery at a rate Europe can't.
This exactly, if you believe that the enemy is completely incompetent, you will get stung by that. Look at the reality of war, lack of ammunition means all those high end toys are stuck doing nothing. Look in which direction yhe front is going.
NATO is left buying ammunition from non eu countries for Ukraine when they need it 6 months ago, would that be happening if we had stockpiles of the stuff for ourselves? Just how much is left for NATO to use for self defense?
The high tech toys deployed by NATO don’t rely on conventional artillery nearly to the extent it’s utilized in Ukraine, and it’s farcical to claim as much.
So just how much ammunition do we have, keep in mind both Russians and Chinese have militatries well over a million soldiers, thousands of tanks and other ivf. How many anti tank weapons does NATO have left? How many himars missiles? And if we do have this stock, why are we not giving it to Ukraine and repying on purchasing shells half way around the world and even then making promised to pay for it but forking over nothing yet?
They need our help now, not tomorrow. This makes me wonder just how much stock of ammunition do we have for all those high tech toys.
Artillery has been the focus of headlines because the military doctrine of Russia and Ukraine relies heavily upon its use. While conventional stockpiles of shells are depleted, it’s production will increase over time and will occur independent of additional military preparation. This is not the ammunition for the bulk of NATO forces.
NATO has an entire modern arsenal of weaponry that is incompatible with Ukraine’s weapons, waiting within arms reach. They’re in talks to acquire F-16s, which are considerably dated compared to the modern stealth fighters, not to mention the stocks of munitions. Ukraine received 31 Abrams tanks. The US alone has thousands, with large numbers considered for retirement due to their age. Not to mention the numbers of infantry fighting vehicles and crews that have trained on all of these systems for years, unlike the rushed training afforded by Ukrainian troops.
They’re already relying on mass conscription to fill their ranks, rapidly approaching the bottom of the barrel.
Yes what NATO has given Ukraine up to now has been largely stockpiles of old stuff. That doesn't change the lack of production problem. The raw materials are largely the same between primers, powder, brass, and lead. Europe lacks the ability to produce new or old stuff in sufficient quantity for a real war.
China