• inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I mean if Europe wants to increase their military funding and move items in house I think that would be a wonderful idea. Because America is not a reliable partner in this at all in the past two decades.

  • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Good job to all of the fucks who stayed home because of Gaza, thinking that not voting and letting the GOP rise to power would actually help the situation.

    Yeah, because Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing policy was a problem with the US’s left-wing party, right?

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Good job the democrats alienating their base by trending right. I get you but this was completely avoidable if the democrats were competent and not a big circlejerk for themselves. Bernie could have beat that spastic in 2016.

      Gaza is a serious issue, the US is supporting a genocide. If you cant come out against that then why bother, there isnt much more important to a lot of people. I know Trump will be worse for the region, they do too but if you cant take a principled position that aligns with people you cant complain they didnt vote for you.

      • perspectiveshifting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        You can be rightfully mad at the party that’s failing to represent you correctly (I certainly am) and still make the pragmatic choice of not getting the guy who will make those issues worse elected.

        We need to come together nationally and locally to attempt to affect change within the DNC more often than every 4 years, because it seems like every time we’re all reminded how incompetent they are, it’s too late for us to do anything about it for that election cycle.

        • Squizzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Didnt everyone do that four years ago, in monumental numbers and there stood a president that provided the arms to blow children out of house and home and off the face of the planet.

          Biden did a lot but he missed on some vital issues and that is the fault of the dems.

          • perspectiveshifting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yes, and now Trump will help provide significantly more arms than Harris would have, even if she kept providing the same amount as Biden. Surely I don’t have to tell you that that’s worse?

            We need to mobilize to change the DNC and Democratic Party leadership in the time we have in between these decisions, not ignore it for 4 years and then throw away your vote in protest.

            • Squizzy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              So the continued support of Israel was inevitable. The choice was between shipping food with the bombs or not. How would you go about changing the democratic party by voting them in, they did that four years ago and they just drifted further right.

              Surely I dont need to point out that record numbers defested trump only to have israel propped up and the strictest border laws ever put to a vote by the democrats.

              Here is how you change the democratic party, kick out the losers. I wanted her to win but now that she hasnt the party can only blame themselves.

    • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      So you want me to reward holocaust Harris and genocide joe for not doing ANYTHING to stop it? No, I chose to teach them a lesson. Don’t blame us. Blame the dems for not doing enough and putting a shit candidate.

      • perspectiveshifting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        What lesson exactly? That if the ideal candidate isn’t run, a subset of liberals will pick the worse of two options?

        All that does is teach the conservatives that if they can convince you that the democrat candidate fails you enough on a single issue, they effectively have your vote. Regardless of the conservative candidate’s stance on that issue.

        You have made the choice to make the problem you care about profoundly worse because there wasn’t a way to make it completely better. Have fun watching that play out as you intended I guess.

        • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          To teach that supporting genocide is a red line and not doing anything about it will not get you elected.

              • kaosof@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Even before Trump is in office, his cabinet picks don’t exactly inspire confidence in his reign to be any better than Harris’ likely would’ve been.

                Curious.

  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It isn’t credible now. It likely won’t exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.

    • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Doesn’t all authority already lie with the USA? If we’re going to be real, I mean. I’m sure France thinks otherwise but let’s be real: NATO was always the “Uncle Sam will protect Europe from Russia”-treaty.

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        France knows this, that’s why it wasn’t in NATO for most its history. This only changed when one of our president needed war crime buddies

        • Estiar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          C’est faux. France is one of the founding members of NATO, however for much of the time it was under a French Command instead of a combined command.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The biggest thing will be all those nato countries who can’t do anything with their US weapons if the US says so.

    • ziggurat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      That is only if they want to continue to buy new weapons, not if they intend to male weapons in Europe

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.

        • ziggurat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes let me explain my answer I didn’t elaborate properly.

          I think the only recourse the US has if European countries use these weapons without authorization is that the US will not sell more weapons.

          And if Europe continues to intreases it’s weapon and ammunition production like they have the last two years that might not be a deal breaker for Europe

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not sure Europe can make F35 parts for example, which will not fly for long without it, or ammunitions for various US weapons. I hope it’ll be a wake up call to make and use EU instead.

            • TacticsConsort@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Just my two cents as an assembly line guy: Parts on aircraft fall into three categories

              -Big custom fuckoff parts. They’re not high tech but they’re huge and they’re a specific shape so you need a huge, precise and very expensive mould/die/whatever to make them. Anyone with the aircraft and a decent engineer could design a machine to make these parts but they would be left with a smoking crater where their wallet was after getting the mould made.

              -Easy parts. Sure, an aircraft fuel pipe is worth 20k, but the civilian parts are made to higher standards anyways, we can find one no problem.

              -Secret technical complex parts. Proprietary cutting edge stuff, which is frankly just bolted onto already complete aircraft. Obviously you can’t replace it if you don’t even know how it works, but the US doesn’t let that stuff out of their direct control very often anyways.

              Don’t fucking talk to me about engines though, those are a whole different beast

              TLDR: We can totally keep our F35s in the air as long as the parts we’re replacing aren’t the skin panels, the engines, or the Secret Third Thing. And as long as we have the money.

  • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    It seems like a very real possibility. A new, EU followup seems like a natural next step to protect the borders and peace.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      We would eventually crush Russia in a real war, the problem is that without going to actual war, we get to use only a small part of that.

      • Chaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.

          We don’t know exactly how much “most” is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.

          • Chaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don’t just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.

            • Madison@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Yes, but to a way lesser degree.

              The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.

              Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.

              It’s like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)

              Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you’re to close, but one is comparably insignificant.

          • Lumisal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Shooting down a nuclear icbm doesn’t really help as much as you think, if it catches it.

            Not to mention the atmosphere lighting up wouldn’t be much better

              • Lumisal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Doesn’t that depend on how they’re set up? I’d imagine in the 50+ years since they’ve been invented they would have designed it so it could, specifically because modern anti missile defenses exist.

                I mean, I know world governments can be dumb, but I would imagine they’re not that dumb as to bother maintaining a key super weapon just to not upgrade it / design it so that it won’t work if used.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Maybe but no not really the triggering process is extremely fast but kinda fragile because everything needs to be compressed just so.

                  They upgrade them, it’s public knowledge for the budget. Usually it’s faster smaller or different form factor plus renewal programs.

      • Resand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point

    • RubicTopaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It is the Fourth Reich

      Oh wait, that's just post-WW2 West Germany

      There were more Nazis in West Germany’s justice department after WWII than during Third Reich

      Fully 77 percent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found.

      Nazis in post-WW2 Germany’s government

      From 1949 to 1973, 90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the then-West German Justice Ministry had been members of the Nazi Party.

      Of those 90 officials, 34 had been members of the Sturmabteilung (SA), Nazi Party paramilitaries who aided Hitler’s rise and took part in Kristallnacht, a night of violence that is believed to have left 91 Jewish people dead.

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    NATO will be fine. They’ll just have to up their game a bit militarily. If America wants to be insular and wrap a flag of isolationism around them, it’ll hurt in the short term, but after four years of being more independent of Americas tit, its more than likely the US that will find itself less relevant globally.

    Even before this, there was already rumblings, not just in China, but elsewhere, about ditching the american dollar standard and returning to the gold standard. That’s just going to gain momentum as soon as Trump starts trying to wave his mushroom around.

  • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hopefully the EU takes over. It has a lot more economic strength then NATO. Also the UK is strong as well, but that can be managed. Turkey does its own things anyway and I would not trust them. Norway and Iceland are not that important. Canada is going to go with the US anyway. The advantage is easier common funding for projects, due to the EU having more direct access to money. There are also a lot of the basics in the works already.