this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
518 points (93.2% liked)

World News

32311 readers
1083 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I wonder if we'd drop Ukraine if WWIII was starting. On the one hand, it's WWIII, on the other hand maybe Russia is still a likely enemy?

[–] Catradora_Stalinism@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

in what world would anyone side with the US over china and russia

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd expect US vassals like Canada, Japan and the EU to side with the US.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You could argue about vassel-ness, but yes, the whole Western block would, and many poor nations that lean that way as well, like Vietnam or Palau.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Vietnam has some beefs with China, but I think it's a bit more up in the air than that which way they'd turn since it'd be a real existential threat to them to militarily oppose China like that (plus they do have some productive deals with China).

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

True, and I have no special insight into Vietnamese politics. In this scenario the US is also right there, though, and is stronger than China assuming no MAD.

Vietnam and Palau should be read as examples only.

[–] silent_water@hexbear.net 33 points 1 year ago

stronger than China

citations-needed US not looking so hot after pissing money down the drain in forever wars for 2 decades.

[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[laughs in hypersonic missile]

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That would be MAD. Unless they're loaded with conventional warheads, in which case they'll run out pretty early on because those missiles are expensive and the US has bottomless supplies to reply with.

[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"the USA, where neoliberal capitalism has hollowed out the defense contractors so much they can't produce anywhere near enough artillery shells, has bottomless supplies and can afford more aircraft carriers than China can afford hypersonic missiles, which the USA has not even been able to successfully test."

pathetic cope

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they just need to afford more missiles with a similar range. Aircraft carriers might prove to be the new battleships, but that's not the whole US military.

[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

the force projection understander has logged on

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

You can argue about anything, but these countries are absolutely US vassals.

[–] Benghandhi@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I assume NATO would officially swoop in and bomb the everliving fuck out of Russia's fleet and fortified positions before diverting their attention elsewhere. Basically giving Ukraine a much easier path forward.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah, they could just clean up Russia directly if war was starting anyway. I think you're right.