this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2026
391 points (98.8% liked)

World News

52150 readers
3543 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Both are waste of time and money. US has over 2000 fighter jets. In hand.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The objective is not to win. Winning against America’s imperial might is impossible.

The objective is to make them bleed as much as possible. To make victory as phyrric and as painful for them as possible. And when going up against the most expensive war plane in human history, this means choosing the aircraft that can get as technologically close as possible with as many units as possible on a per-dollar-spent basis.

We can make them bleed much more with 420 fully-functional Gripens than we can with 88 partially-functional F-35s that can be remotely shut down against our will.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

The US always wins the invasion but pretty much always loses the occupation.

Air power isn't how you win, because it's hard to hide a jet fighter. Assault rifles, RPGs, IEDs and a willingness to fight longer than they're willing to is what's needed to win the occupation.

Americans forget that Canadians served in Afghanistan. But I don't. I know someone who diffused IEDs over there, pretty sure he knows how to build them if needed.

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

So? They are attacking Venezuela, Iran (it’s coming), Greenland (ie NATO), AND Canada - they will be stretched too thin and are run by incompetents. The rest of the world dumps the dollar and Us treasury bonds, the dollar is no longer the reserve currency for oil, and they are kneecapped. We do that and disrupt their supply chains and a big part of the problem is solved.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

It's a lot harder for America to accept attacking Canada is the casualties will be 100,000 instead of 10,000

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

US has over 2000 fighter jets. In hand.

And they can't deploy them all at the same time on the same target, unless they risk being vulnerable elsewhere