this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
282 points (98.0% liked)

World News

47596 readers
2741 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
 

Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,” declare G7 leaders in a joint statement.

The leaders of the G7 countries on Monday issued a joint statement saying Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel's right to defend itself.

"Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon," declared the statement, issued by the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, along with the EU.

They pledged to "remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 hour ago

Israel have the nuclear weapon and never signed the non proliferation thready.

Fucking hypocrits

[–] gobbles_turkey@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago

Well Pakistan will give them one if needed so they kind of already have one. Maybe stop pushing them to use it on Israel.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

Who asked fags?

[–] zymagoras777@lemmy.world 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody should have nukes, you fucking hypocrites..

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Except France and the UK of course.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 21 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Ukraine gave up their nukes, look what happened to them. Libya gave them up, and look at them today. North Korea didn't, and they're still standing, for better or for worse. Iraq was accused of having nukes, but didn't have them, and got destroyed. Seems that if you want any semblance of sovereignty outside of NATO, you better have some nukes.

So for any nations reading along I'll summarize the basic conclusions:

  1. Get nukes
  2. If you have nukes, do not give them up
  3. If you're accused of having nukes, drop everything and get nukes asap

Do you think Israel would be bombing Iran if they had nukes?

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub -4 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Are you claiming that the world would be a safer place with every other unstable or authoritarian country having nukes?

[–] nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

We're saying it would be a safer place if they applied the same standard to themselves.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 0 points 25 minutes ago (1 children)

Why? Give it some thought and actually come up with a logical answer, because countries do not invade US because of nukes, but because they have the most advanced army in the world. Nukes for US changes nothing, they're there only as an answer to other nukes.

[–] nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe 1 points 19 minutes ago

They also use it to protect their genocidal friends in israel

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The world would be a safer place if not only every country had nukes, but also every adult citizen had a farm of combat drones.

I personally don't want to hear of NATO&allies lecturing everyone else morals. Tired of that. And I understand why in ex-USSR the perception of them like some global good guys was common - the reaction to very invasive and obnoxious and irritating Soviet propaganda.

I don't understand how people in the west can believe that.

Anyway, no intelligent person from the west I've talked to did, so ... kinda as it should be.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 47 minutes ago (2 children)

Imagine giving every potential madman (including school shooters and what not) destructive weapons thinking you're making world a better place. Unhinged take honestly.

[–] nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe 1 points 13 minutes ago

Easy to say when your country have them.

If Iraq really had nukes they wouldn't have been invaded that easily lmao

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 45 minutes ago

School shooters usually use it as their last resort. Bullying of autistic kids is the main problem. Them finding such an exit is a secondary one.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

MAD safer no, but essentially disabling conventional warfare as a practical idea yes.

India and Pakistan are armed to the teeth, yet they haven't fought a real war ever since they both got nukes.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

What makes you assume said countries would not act exactly like Russia towards others without nukes?

[–] Leet@lemmy.zip 1 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 13 minutes ago* (last edited 7 minutes ago)

US is expanding? When was the last time US annexed a territory? Did you honestly just try to make US as a better example than Russia in this context?

https://i.imgur.com/AJinNsQ.png

[–] insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You're kinda making the point for them

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

But then we're back to "would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?"

Some are ready to watch the world burn

[–] nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

If Palestinians had the bombs there would be no genocide lmao

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 19 minutes ago* (last edited 18 minutes ago) (3 children)

Lmao Hamas would have launched them at Israel and we would be seeing world war 3 with nukes. The fact that you think Hamas would be more responsible with WMDs than US, which hasn't used them since Japan, is bizzare

[–] nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe 1 points 14 minutes ago

Hamas is only in power because the Fatah agreed to give up armed struggle in exchange for self determination. They didn't get self determination. They had colonies, settler attacks, area C and a wall around gaza.

[–] nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago)

The US invaded way more countries and spread much more misery than hamas since ww2 you scum.

[–] nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe 1 points 17 minutes ago

Shut the fuck up you piece of shit.

If hamas had nuclear bombs the Israelis would have threatened them better. But according to the genocide apologists history started in October 23 didn't it?

[–] NotJohnSmith@feddit.uk 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

Who decides which country is "crazy"?!

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 46 minutes ago

The nations that decide that bombing anyone in the Middle East is lawful when they are doing it.

Also the nations that decide that Kosovo has to be independent, but this is not a precedent for anyone else.

Arabs and Turks ethnically cleansing Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Armenians is fine. But a few Slavic peoples murdering each other because of religion warrant an exceptional intervention. But Mustafa Kemal is a good guy.

Russians are to blame for their government's actions and have to be banned from payment systems and visiting EU countries. But Russians who work in the government and their family members can live in EU countries half the time and more. That's justified by "killing Russia's economy for the war", except Russia's war is not funded by taxes from citizens paying and accepting payments for shit with MC and Visa. Russia's war is funded by oil and gas trade. Or by "punishing Russians and making them change the regime", which is very funny, because the people actually part of the regime are not "punished" this way, they are also the exact group that should be "punished" for good effect, and we the rest kinda see that and don't have huge sympathies to the narratives of people doing such stuff.

Also about Russia - those nations would decide that Putin's and Yeltsin's regimes are nice and legitimate and democratic when they were limited to destroying Russia itself. Again, now every Russian is retroactively to blame for those years as well, except those they were dealing with.

And it's the same everywhere, if there's an authoritarian regime - then just like with businesses, it's sort of a profitable endeavor. And the process making it profitable happens in the western countries. It's one system in which their elites have that cozy spot of hypocritically accusing everyone other than themselves of the processes they create. A continuation of the colonial system, too continuous and similar to even use the "neo" prefix.

That they are mostly democracies is not real republicanism, at least not in the last 20 years. It's a sign of luxury - look, we can afford such magnificent Colosseum shows that our populace is well controlled even under pretense of democracy. The countries higher in that hierarchy play democracy more, the countries lower in it - less.

Say, Iran's regime is unfortunate, but calling it less democratic than UK would be preposterous. It has more crime and corruption, true. But maybe the fact that Iran's appearance of democracy is above what it's "allowed" is not a smaller reason for the violence against it, than any fears of it attaining a nuke.

... I'd rather listen to what DPRK, IRI, PRC, even Turkey's leadership have to say on what's civilized and what's not. Everyone is better than NATO&EU. Russia's ... eh, I've met some people too close to that, they stink too much, quite westernized one can say.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 49 minutes ago

Religion mostly

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Israel is the criminal and everyone knows it.

Israel will face the long-term consequences of its reckless behavior. Just not today.

[–] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

A disturbingly large group think that history started on October 7 2023 and prior to that it was all sunshine and rainbows in the region.

Those people didn't hear about 70ish years of Israeli bullshit on the nightly news so as far as they're concerned it didn't happen.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

Even the statement is not about protecting people lives but about market stability.

They are not working for the people...

[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 15 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

People with nuclear weapons have forbidden you from having nuclear weapons?

Humans are a goofy lot.

[–] MetalMachine 7 points 9 hours ago

Nukes for me but not for thee

[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago

NO ONE should have them. Dumb asses.

load more comments
view more: next ›