this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
79 points (90.7% liked)

World News

51300 readers
2543 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
 

Airbus CEO René Obermann called on European countries to acquire tactical nuclear weapons in response to the threat posed by Russian Iskander missiles, which are deployed in Kaliningrad and capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

"It appears that our Achilles' heel is what Russia is openly threatening us with: more than 500 tactical nuclear warheads on 26 Iskander missiles deployed right on our doorstep in Kaliningrad, in addition to those recently deployed in Belarus. Germany, France, the UK, and other European countries willing to cooperate should agree on a joint, phased nuclear deterrence program, including at the tactical level. I believe this would be a powerful deterrent."

This statement appears to be yet another attempt to blame Russia for the escalation, despite the deployment of Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region back in 2018. It also appears that Obermann is acting as a talking head to shape public opinion among European citizens to justify yet another tax hike for the sake of general "security."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Who the hell cares what this guy thinks?

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Who cares what the CEO of a major Defense contractor thinks about the defense of the continent that company is located in? I'd say a lot of people.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So we should also trust health insurance companies' CEOs' ideas about how health care should be structured? If they are likely to put their company's interest above anything else, then this is a very valid question. And big corporations are notorious for doing exactly this.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Where did I use the word "trust?" Nowhere. I said they have a well-informed opinion on the topic at hand.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

The problem is that most people don't trust them to actually inform goverments with their well-informed opinion but with their interests in mind. And if that is a reasonable point of view, then whether or not they have a well-informed opinion becomes irrelevant.

[–] DaMummy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can we afford not to raise this weapon manufacturers stock price!?

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who said anything about stock price? I sure didn't.

[–] DaMummy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

We have to care about the line of the poor billionaire. How can you be so selfish?

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As the other commenter said, they don't appear to be the CEO

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

You're right. He's the Chairman, who in most corporations leads the hiring of the CEO. He's actually higher up. Congrats on being technically correct.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Won’t somebody think of the shareholders!

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The Chairman or CEO or whatever of a major defense corporation has a vested stake in what things might affect the defense industry and very likely has a team of people informing him of what is going on geopolitically. This person is someone who probably knows more than you on things like this, so maybe listening to him is worthwhile. We don't have to follow what he says, but hearing what he says is probably a good idea.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Corporations should not set military policy. This is not the US.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Show me where he is setting military policy. I'll wait.

Oh, hang on, he isn't. He is making a public statement about what he thinks politicians should do based on what he observes in his daily work on the job. It's literally the Chairman's job to make public statements about what is best for the industry they work in and what is best for their company.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I mean it is not unimaginable that someone with low moral standards may be exaggerating the risks involved to fear monger governments etc to work with them. It is a general distrust of big corporations that make people here skeptical. If companies like meta, google, tesla etc have no reservations about doing extremely shitty and dodgy things and also able to come out of those with net positive effects, why wouldn't this guy? When someone says "corporations should not set defense policy", they don't actually mean setting it on a governmental level. What they mean is that they should not even be able to inform policies because they are likely putting their interest above other ethical considerations.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So the most informed people should not be able to make public statements because people who make policies might listen to them? That's an insane take.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

The question is more the following: can we trust them to use the information available to them honestly or are they more likely to distort or hide facts if it aligns more with their interests. If the latter is a common situation, then that is not an insane take.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Who cares what the chairman of one of two major airplane manufacturers thinks?