this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
193 points (98.0% liked)

Progressive Politics

2804 readers
1230 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

He told the New York Times that he thinks the U.S. will “very likely” find itself in a three-front war with China, Russia, and Iran. As a result, he said, the Pentagon should continue developing autonomous weapons at full speed, pointing to big mismatches in how far the U.S. would be willing to go while fighting a war compared with other countries.

Source

top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scott@lemmy.org 45 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

He's also got plenty of financial incentive to say shit like that. War on all 3 of those fronts would be so untenable with the state of things and he knows that which is why he's advocating for more drones but really? How realistic is that? China's drones are at least as advanced as ours

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (3 children)

We have the arsenal to win all 3 wars almost instantly. Until now, no leader was stupid enough to take that route, but we have Trump.

Don't try to logic this situation with reasonable military tactics.

[–] Bleys@lemmy.world 23 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Define win because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The only tactic with “almost instant” results would be the US just nuking everything, which A. is definitely not a “win” by any definition, and B. is an insanely irresponsible assumption that there wouldn’t be substantial collateral damage and that’s if you were inhumane enough to ignore the lives of everyone living in the targeted countries to begin with.

Or somehow do you think the US could win a conventional war against three separate countries “almost instantly”, after it took 2 decades to make absolutely no lasting changes in Afghanistan? In which case just lol.

[–] LMurch@thelemmy.club 11 points 6 hours ago

If Trump authorizes nuclear strikes on Russia, China and Iran, it is the secret services patriotic duty to put a pewpew seed in the old rooster's noggin.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

Whoever launches nuclear weapons definitely loses and drags their economic allies down with them.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 15 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call global nuclear annihilation 'winning'.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Trump would, and he has the keys.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 7 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I believe they are referring to a far blunter instrument of death which would only purvey loss on a scale that is unprecedented and difficult to imagine.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Again, as the other respondent pointed out, the overwhelmingly likely end result of a nuclear exchange is hardly a “win” for any party.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 points 5 hours ago

Oh yeah, I just finished editing to add that part to be more clear of my opinion on the subject. There will never again be a nuclear “win” in human history, and in truth I wouldn’t even count the first.

[–] imsufferableninja@sh.itjust.works 27 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

What makes him think we're going to fight Russia? Mango Mussolini loves Russia.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 hours ago

Yeah Hitler “loved” Russia for a minute too

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

Not to mention China seems to choose the most economical decision it seems. They care about Taiwan strictly because of money. There is no economic growth for them from fighting the U.S.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago

I disagree about Taiwan. That's a thing that goes back to the founding of modern China, it is, and has been a cornerstone of their policy. But otherwise ya, they seem to make rational economic choices.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 minutes ago

It only seems like that because theyre being compared next to the US which is currently sawing its own leg off.

[–] barkingspiders@infosec.pub 4 points 7 hours ago

In some sense our large contributions to Ukraine earlier in the war could be seen as us fighting Russia via proxy. If I recall correctly our involvement with conflicts in Syria were also seen similarly, as us fighting a Russian proxy state. My understanding is that war between nuclear powers often looks like this because all out war could escalate to nuclear weapons too quickly. All this to say, I think we were already at war with Russia before Trump regained office.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 4 points 8 hours ago

Also they're in no shape to fight

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Because Trump turns on everyone eventually.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

art of the TACO

[–] tortina_original@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago

Lunatics are truly running the asylum.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, George Dubbya kinda let this one slip back in the 2000s.

[–] rodneyck@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 hours ago

Yes he did, the New World Order plans.

[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 8 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

Because 3 way wars are easy to win.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 5 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Especially when one of the opponents has several times our population and all opponents are oceans away, besides two of the three being nuclear armed and the third being close. Even with the size of our military, I don't think that's a war we would stand a reasonable chance in.

[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Imo, we are fucked. Ukraine drones show that our aircraft carriers, planes, and tanks are worthless when a 1000 dollar drone can carry munitions to cripple them.
It's a new world and we aren't prepared for it.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I wasn't even thinking about that kind of thing, since drones are something I'm sure we could utilize as well. It's mostly the sheer production capacity and population that China in particular has. I expect an actual large scale war against them, that both didn't turn nuclear (since that renders the whole concept of a victor a bit moot) and wasn't some very quick defensive action like an attempt to defend Taiwan might be (which might end fast enough for production capacity to not matter as much as existing inventory), would end up looking something like Japan's war against the US during ww2: we might be able to cause a great deal of damage to their military assets at first, but if they can replace their losses much faster than we can, then all they have to to is drag things out enough for the numbers to swing decisively in their favor.

[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 2 points 6 hours ago

Offshoring all our factories isn't going to work out well. If only trump wasn't an idiot, he could have made progress on that over next 10 yrs

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Iran would be a non-issue in an actual war with us. Occupying it would be a far different story. Same with Russia. China, on the other hand, would be extremely devastating to both sides.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

The United States military strength has, until very recently, been focused on the ability to successfully prosecute war on two major fronts and one minor front.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago

They are with a nuclear arsenal. And Trump is stupid enough to use it.

[–] match@pawb.social 2 points 5 hours ago

Especially ones with no obvious win conditions

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 hours ago

Psychopaths

[–] mhague@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

So the guy who runs the AI intelligence corporation thinks the West is morally superior to the degree that more amoral, barbarous countries like China and Russia and Iran have some advantage over us.

Like it's just sensitive and soft westerners fighting against robotic Asians and Russians. Iranians are so evil compared to us: they're willing to use nukes!

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

If we can't clean up Iran quickly there's gonna be a no front war because China will roll us

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Wtf is going on with that hair?

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 5 points 6 hours ago

It's fighting a 360 front war

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago

Thank God I have severe sleep apnea.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Something something BRICS

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Get the fuck out of the room