this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
82 points (98.8% liked)

World News

51337 readers
2127 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
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Arancello@aussie.zone 6 points 5 hours ago

Short answer is yes. Trump has proven that any alliance is useless. So every country needs the ultimate deterrent. That means nuclear and a reliable delivery system. Thats the only way Russia, the us, China or other aggressors can be held at bay. Ukraine and Venezuela probably both regretting decisions that removed their deterrent.

[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This is scary for the increased risk of some pretty terrible outcomes but with US security guarantees as untrustworthy as they have become then actions like this are tough to argue against

[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 5 points 6 hours ago

If I was a South Korean or Taiwanese government official working to ensure future sovereignty, I'd be considering the same

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 11 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Any nation that wants to keep their sovereignty needs nukes. Agreements like the Budapest Memorandum were a mistake for some of the countries involved (Ukraine).

[–] vega208@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Lol, I wonder when Ukrainians will connect the dots that they're in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn't deliver on their side of the bargain.

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 1 points 44 minutes ago

When did western powers promise that they would stop Putin invading Ukraine?

Ukraine is in their current position because Putin decided to invade Ukraine

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, I have a chaotic solution we might try. Let's simply...reverse the Budapest Memorandum! Let's just hand Ukraine a few hundred thermonuclear warheads, with launchers and launch codes and say, "here, go have fun!"

"The president has announced...that we have reversed the Budapest Memorandum..."

:D

[–] _Nico198X_@europe.pub 1 points 3 hours ago

Unironically this

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

Anyone else feeling WW3 vibes yet? No? Just me? K

[–] _Nico198X_@europe.pub 1 points 3 hours ago

Definitely not just you.

And all of this sits at the feet of Russia.

[–] Isthisreddit@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

Rising fascism all over the place, what can possibly go wrong

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Let's see next is Germany and Italy to say it.

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

Now I want to see a movie where the only country that can have nukes is the last one that got nuked.

[–] faizalr@fedia.io 2 points 9 hours ago

They should choose the atomic bomb instead.

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

If one country has nukes, all countries should have nukes. It’s only fair.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 12 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

No country should have nukes, and more countries acquiring them makes that goal even harder to achieve.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Yeah but who’s gonna stop them? I know that’s the right answer for a pageant contestant, but be realistic.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 8 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

If some countries have nukes, probability of nuclear attack is high

As more countries have nukes, probability of nuclear attack drops significantly

It's impossible to have zero countries with nukes anymore, someone will always have secret nukes, which leads to high risk

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

As more countries have nukes, the chance goes up. More leaders have the opportunity to pull the trigger. It only takes one crazy guy taking power. Or one nuke left improperly secured, especially in an unstable country, and then it gets stolen and used, even as a dirty bomb.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 4 hours ago

This is not true, it's called the stability instability paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_paradox

[–] pilferjinx@piefed.social 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

And it's open season for those with nukes to invade others without.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

This exactly. The most significant result of hoisting up nonproliferation as a virtue has been to sustain and grow US hegemony. That is a bad deal for everyone, including Americans.