World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
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.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
TL;DR: Russia can produce ammunition for trash weapons at great speed, and has vast amounts of untrained meat to throw at the front lines.
Yeah, the real problem isn't sending weapons to Ukraine, it's the problem that occurs when Ukraine runs out of ammo, or people to operate said weapons.
The US (and NATO) has often measured its ability to wage war by spending (in dollars, or percentage of GDP). Spending on single high tech missiles that costs millions are included here. So those numbers look really impressive. But if those missiles aren't being used (because they're too expensive, or we can't risk them being recovered and reverse engineered), and are kept in reserve indefinitely, then what remains is an ammunition gap.
Furthermore, I am of the strong opinion that Ukraine loses, eventually, unless NATO boots are on the ground in Ukraine, and NATO planes are in the air above. It doesn't matter what the exchange ratio of casualties is once the available manpower in Ukraine is low enough. And without air superiority, Russia wins a ground war given enough time.
I realize that NATO boots on the ground constitutes an escalation. So we should do it slowly, like turning up the temperature on the pot of frogs.
Lastly, if we're going to spend so many billions on missiles, they should be ABMs (anti ballistic missiles).
I am but an armchair general, sitting comfy in Canada. I've got a family map of Ukraine here with Melitopol circled that says "grandfather's birthplace" -- my family fled due to Russification 120 years ago. It seems Russia never changes.
I slightly disagree with this point, I think the first time a single NATO boot hits the ground in Ukraine Russia will see it as an escalation and respond in kind. They've been posturing and playing a game of brinkmanship for decades and lately they've started probing NATO defenses in Poland.
Call me crazy but I think Putin wants this to escalate so he can draft every able bodied person and enact a "Total War" policy.
So if we're going to put boots on the ground, we need to put as many as possible right away
I was thinking the same thing.
If we were to actually get involved, kick it off with an A-10 singing the song of it's people, and eliminate all russian forces in Ukraine in no greater than 24 hours.
If you're not willing to do that then just stay home, we've seen how the 'slow war' style goes.
The A10 has a track record of friendly fire.
I don’t think it’s a wise use of resources to give the Ukrainians a bunch of tanks, only to send a tank killer aircraft that’s known for killing friendly vehicles because of old ass targeting systems.
I'm reminded of a WWII slogan.
The Americans particularly have a checkered history of joint operations. They seem to have a shoot first, identify the target later mentality.
Now we understand all the police violence. They’re just terrible at it
British armed response officers are highly trained, and closely monitored (mental health wise). They'll use precisely the amount of force needed, and very little more. Even then, every bullet fired in the field is a sign of a failure. It's analysed to see what could be improved, in future.
American police seem to replace this all with volume of fire. Maybe also a few shots of whisky afterwards, to cover mental health.
I definitely see similarities between the police mentalities and the matching army mentalities.
Heck, it was a tradition that british officers didn’t carry firearms with them, and only special units had them (not sure whether it still is a tradition).
Normal British police officers carry a Tazer at most. Even that requires additional training, including being on the receiving end of it. The UK generally uses "police by consent" rather than "police by force".
The armed officers are part of the armed response units, roughly the equivalent of SWAT. Outside of emergency response, they often work in airports or high profile events. An armed officer, out on patrol would be seen as an extremely heavy handed response to something. While it does happen, I've never personally seen it happen.