this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
752 points (98.7% liked)

World News

54680 readers
2981 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
 

As speculation mounts that Kim Jong-un and Trump could meet this month, analysts say Pyongyang will continue to see nuclear weapons as a matter of survival

North Korea’s launch last week of a missile from a naval destroyer elicited an uncharacteristically prosaic analysis from the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The launch was proof, he said, that arming ships with nuclear weapons was “making satisfactory progress”.

But the test, and Kim’s mildly upbeat appraisal, were designed to reverberate well beyond the deck of the 5,000-tonne destroyer-class vessel the Choe Hyon – the biggest warship in the North Korean fleet.

His pointed reference to nuclear weapons was made as the US and Israel continued their air bombardment of Iran – a regime Donald Trump had warned, without offering evidence, was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

All but impossible, the major players keep an eye on all the things necessary for nuclear weapons.

[–] CanadaPlus 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Actually, Canada got in on the ground floor and we have everything we'd need. They say we're about two months out at any given time, going the plutonium route.

Then again, we're pretty used to the luxuries of not being an isolated pariah state.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It seems that's what Iran was doing actually. They enriched uranium up to 60%. Bomb grade is 90%. But there's really no reason to enrich that high except to make nukes. And nuclear enrichment is not a linear thing. Half the work is just to get to 5% enrichment.

It seems they designed their program to be right on the edge of nuclear breakout. In retrospect, they probably should have gone straight for the bomb.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Yeah, there's an annoying amount of controversy over whether "Iran was trying to make a bomb". It gets mixed answers from experts, because the literal answer is one thing, the effective answer is another, and there's no way to explain it responsibly in a word or two.

Iran was/is trying to almost-but-not-quite get the bomb. Whether just going for it would of worked better or if the US would have stepped in sooner is an interesting question. It's possible the Ayatollah wasn't lying about having personal moral issues with it, though.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You guys aren't quite as turnkey as, say, Japan. They've got reprocessing and rocket production from JAXA and really would have to just put together an implosion device.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

TIL.

Delivery would be an issue for sure. Then again, if the potential target is America "guys on quads" would work. If the target isn't America, America will do it for us. Edit: Because they own the Western hemisphere, and we're their bitch.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As an American I sincerely hope that's true, though I'd wager most of the people within "guys on quads" distance are pretty sympathetic to the effects our federal government is having on old allies.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Uh, so other side of the border from me is red state Montana. Anyway, I think the idea is you load it onto something else once it's in and take it to an actual target. It's just a long border that's hard to seal perfectly.

If there's a note of disbelief in there, I'd like to point out America has nukes and uses them as a deterrent the same way. Like, whether proliferation is morally justified, of if we should just accept our fate in that scenario, is a serious question we should ask, but you don't really have a moral highground about it.

Obviously I'm not saying killing people is cool, and we know that 2/3 of Americans didn't ask for any of this.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

How would the Canadians possibly smuggle a nuke across the border?

"Mr. President, the Canadians have called to apologize for insulting you. They're also sending an apology gift. It's a large, golden, 20 foot tall statue in the shape of a moose!"

"Wow, that's amazing. Bring it to DC at once!"

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Just do what Pakistan did and make a publicized nuclear team and nuclear infrastructure that acts as the fall guy for the real nuclear team and real infrastructure.

Also probably maybe have a government and military that isn't susceptible to espionage.