this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
152 points (94.2% liked)

politics

24228 readers
2795 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Fox News reports that Donald Trump may consider using nuclear weapons to eliminate Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility

The U.S. military has reservations regarding the success of using a bunker-buster bomb, a non nuclear weapon, to eliminate Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, buried deep in a mountain. Two defense officials were reportedly briefed that only a tactical nuclear weapon could reach the facility.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 13 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Maine is looking really good, but would you really want to survive this shit?

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago

Me personally?

Yes.

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

The odds of a ICBM hitting are low if it comes via air, we'd see it coming and be able to intercept in many cases. It's the land based attacks, like smuggling a dirty bomb in or chemical weapons, that I worry about more.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 5 points 8 hours ago

Yeah good luck intercepting a MIRV

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I have some very bad news for you about our success intercepting missiles. We very much do not have a reliable defence against missiles. We regularly fail interception tests.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/no-us-missile-defense-system-proven-capable-against-realistic-icbm-threats-study/

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Yeah I was gonna say this, I have no idea why or how it came to be that people think an ICBM MIRV can be realistically or reliably intercepted.

Some of them?

Maybe, yeah, but... most of them? Hell no.

EDIT: Oh, that commenter said they were stoned when they wrote that. I... guess that is an explanations of sorts.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

The odds of a ICBM hitting are low if it comes via air...

I'm curious to see what other ways you think an ICBM is going to get to the target.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

lol yeah I could've phrased that better, kinda stoned.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Fair enough. It gave me a laugh and I had to ask.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Well since it's an inter continental ballistic missile then obviously it could burrow underground as well. Duhhhhh.

[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Amazon Prime shipping

[–] Sarmyth@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

I actually no longer trust that to be true with how many systems and programs were gutted. I suspect we probably dismantled our early warning systems.

If thats not the case, I still question whether or not this administration would let a blue state get hit when they could prevent it just out of spite.