this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
90 points (98.9% liked)

World News

48976 readers
1726 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
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

I mean...

Honestly the whole "assassinating a leader is against the rules" has always felt ass backwards when the alternative is a shit ton of people with essentially no say in the conflict dying.

Let me take it back to Hammarubi.

All these shitty world leaders can just take turns killing themselves like the bloody Sneeches, until we eventually end up with leaders who think peace is worth a shot.

To me, that sounds like a self correcting and sustainable system. If a country's government starts a war, the most likely result would be that political leader getting merc'd by the government of the country they attacked.

[–] colonelsharki@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So you’re saying that Netanyahu is a legit target for the Iranians?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago

The only reasons I can see that monster is still breathing is the power vacuum left behind would make the situation worse, and the US would royally fuck anyone who tried it.

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Leaders can have a little assassination, as a treat"

Not too often, just enough to remind them of their humanity.

If a country's government starts a war, the most likely result would be that political leader getting merc'd by the government of the country they attacked.

Depends on who's stronger. I don't think it's gonna lead to stability every time, unless the leaders realize it's better (read: profitable) to be at peace.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Depends on who’s stronger.

Now it depends on who is willing to throw enough bodies thru a meat grinder, bomb civilians, or nuke everything...

If assassinations on the table, none of that shit matters if you personally get killed before you order it used

Every aggressive country would prioritize personal defense and strategic assassination squads.

Which again, I'd see as an absolute win over thousands or even millions of people dying.

There's no down sound.

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What happens if one country invades the other which doesn't posses the tech necessary to kill the leader? eg cruise missiles, bunker busters, or modern aviation in general

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then that country would lose in a conventional war also?

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not really, there are some good examples of underdogs winning (without cruise missiles for example).

edit: and we're not talking strictly conventional. also that's not what "no downsides" means

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago

You will end up with leaders that will not meet each other or leave their countries. You will end up with leaders eternally paranoid that at any moment they could be assassinated by a foreign power.

This will be a guarantee for much more wars, killing many more people than we already have.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

Solve it the Klingon way: trial by personal combat.