this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
382 points (97.0% liked)

World News

49442 readers
2208 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mortoc@lemmy.world 123 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Anything to distract from the Epstein files.

[–] PodPerson@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago

Are those similar to the Trump-Epstein files?

[–] Treetrimmer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

That was the only reason trump planned the Alaska trip

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 63 points 1 week ago (3 children)

drawing up

Doesn't DoD have detailed attack plans for every nation already?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 50 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes.

Well, not necessarily detailed. Like I'm sure the plan for an invasion of Uruguay is basically nonexistent, while one for war with China is comprehensive.

Plans for a zombie apocalypse have also been created at least once as an exercise. It's good practice for an emergency situation.

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Airborne Rabies wouldn't be that dissimilar from zombies. Pretty sure there's a tabletop for that.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We've got that in Australia!

note: It's 'not rabies' (it's Bat Lyssavirus, which is 'totally not rabies'*) and it's 'airborne' since they're bats :P

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes but this is a bad headline. The article is about specifically using US military to attack cartels, which the Trump administration has already made legal for themselves by recategorizing them as terrorists.

It is still a violation of both international law and common sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Doesn’t DoD have detailed attack plans for every nation already?

Yep. I would be more surprised if there wasn't an attack plan for any country with more than 5m people.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 46 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 45 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When current news gives you flashbacks to the Cyberpunk 2077 lore. The names and dates are different but the trends and events match enough to give the uncanny feeling. Agencies in the streets being deployed, USA in trade war losing irrelevance, going for the Central American war and then losing. By the way, that's why cybernetic limbs got so good, they needed them to patch up the soldiers from that war.

[–] datavoid@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

How does one lose irrelevance?

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago

By gaining relevance!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] orclev@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago (14 children)

He's trying to imitate Putin. Probably go about as well as it has for Putin as well.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah, roght out of Isreals play book, invade a country on the basis of eliminating terrorists/gangs

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ehm... the US doesn't need to use someone's else's copy of the book they wrote.

[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Pretty much every nation with an army has attack plans against its' neighbours, just in case. Actually using them, of course, is quite another thing. Unless you need to be really on your toes because of an unpredictable, aggressive and vicious southern neighbour like -not to name anyone- Austria.

[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Most other countries aren't currently ran by a dementia addled pedophile who's desperate to become a king.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The US isn’t ready for a two front war where the whole world wants to get rid of them. They don’t have the cards.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Please... I'm not a big fan of the US right now either. But that is just an absurd claim. No one is going to willingly open up a front against the US.

Like it or not, but they absolutely have the cards.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

That's wrong, the US can eat a couple of countries just fine. The efficiency is atrocious, but the sheer inherited strategic power and logistics and stockpiles, and the amount of funding allowing to, say, build drones analogous to Russian "Geran" 100x times more expensive in the same amounts as Russia does, - all these make many wars a certain victory in the sense of destroying the other side's forces and possibly civilian population.

Anyway. Two things.

1 - In his previous term there was squeal from all sides how he's going to institute fascism right now. "The boy who cried wolves" may be a valid analogy or it may not. I think before anything like this the US will have an open change of the regime. At the same time - it's very convenient to have the land border with other countries very narrow, when instituting totalitarianism (resistance fighters, people trying to flee, all kinds of stuff), so possibly eating Mexico and Canada and doing a regime change after that is good enough.

2 - Perhaps any kind of a war is easier done after, suppose, an economic crisis happens. AI bubble burst, or something like that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DrSoap@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Why? What's even the end goal? A war to stay in office maybe?

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

Martial Law is definitely on his wishlist.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

If this was a competent president. I would probably give them the benefit of the doubt.

But we all know Trump only cares about one thing. And it's not the US. It's himself.

He may very well be under the impression that it will somehow give him more time in office, or it's just some way for him to try and get better approval rating. How he is percieved by the US is of major importance to his ego.

He hates how his approval is lower than Obamas. And he probably hates how his approval is lower than G.W.Busch.

G.W.Busch had an approval rating of around ~60%. Then a certain incident happened and his approval went to as high as 92% at a certain time.

Trump might, for some reason. Think that him starting/provoking a war will give him a similar boost.

Ofc to you and me it sounds insane and we know that's not going to improve his rating. But we are reasonable, normal people with common sense.

[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Faltering empires always flail about militarily. Part of the death throes.

That said. It would almost be worth him doing it just to see what happens when Mexico invokes Article 5.

[–] darkpanda@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well poo. Still. It'll be fun to watch the US lose another war.

25 years of recent living memory experience and we still can't fight an insurgency. Let alone one that already knows all our best training and techniques.

[–] glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz -1 points 5 days ago

the US military is pretty strong. They can incur heavy losses on Mexican criminal drug labs and their corrupted government.

[–] Treetrimmer@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Deport military age immigrants to Mexico, then attack. Brilliant plan

[–] glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz -2 points 5 days ago

no one cares about their numbers. Us drones will defeat the drug cartels.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh, well thats nice of them, I guess. Who is Mexico attacking?

[–] glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz -1 points 5 days ago

Mexicos government is infiltrated by corrupt drug lords. Their Fentanyl attacks the US population.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 11 points 1 week ago

if and when he feels like it

I hate that this is an actionable threat.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (8 children)

US - China proxy war of attrition coming or nah? Americans finally understanding the horrors of war might push their society into positive change...

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 14 points 1 week ago

That’s a funny joke.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Attack Mexico.

Start Draft.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›