this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
657 points (99.5% liked)

World News

54755 readers
3068 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
 

UK and Japan among countries that are considering options but yet to commit warships to blockaded shipping route

Countries including the UK, Japan, China and South Korea have said they are still considering their options but without making commitments after the US president, Donald Trump, urged them to send warships to the strait of Hormuz to secure the vital shipping route.

The effective closure of the strait of Hormuz by Tehran, in retaliation for airstrikes by the US and Israel, has proved catastrophic for global energy and trade flows, causing the largest oil supply disruption in history and soaring global oil prices.

However, the international response to Trump’s call for the dispatch of warships has so far proved vague and reluctant, with countries unwilling to commit to a military response that could prove treacherous for their navies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's not slightly cheaper fuel and a hull loss of a carrier seems unlikely unless being truly daft.

It's less about fuel being expensive and more about it being available. Otherwise some will go without and the poor tend to suffer the most in affordability crises.

Also I didn't say you should. Just that it ain't cut and dry.

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Any naval ship in the strait is a sitting duck to AS missiles and drones. Sending British military personnel to risk death defending Trump's distraction from the epstein files is unacceptable.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Maybe a certain subset of the US population with have incentive to not act like ignorant fucking clowns when voting the next time if gas gets expensive.