this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
178 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19625 readers
3553 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s newly appointed Secretary of Defense, suggested military action could be on the table for securing U.S. control over the Panama Canal and Greenland.

In a Fox News interview, he warned that the U.S. would ensure "freedom of navigation" in Panama, while vaguely addressing Trump’s strategic interest in Greenland.

His confirmation hearing earlier this month raised concerns when he refused to rule out military action.

Critics worry his stance signals Trump’s willingness to provoke conflicts with allies over geopolitical ambitions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hark@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (5 children)

If the US went full Nazi Germany and tried to take over the world, could they be stopped?

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago

Yes fairly easily. They could not beat the Taliban. They could not beat the Houthis. They could not beat the Vietcong. They could not even beat Hamas.

The US can destroy key civilian infrastructure but beyond that their military is incapable of conquering land and keeping it.

The US air force is powerless against the unbeatable strategy of digging holes in the ground.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 28 points 1 day ago

The industrial centers of the US are almost entirely within blue states. It is only through the quirkiness of the Electoral College that the GOP continues to exist.

Trumpler would quickly find himself on the losing side of a civil war.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 18 points 1 day ago

Well, they were stopped by rice farmers in Vietnam, so probably. But then, they were "sensible" enough not to use nukes.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No country could realistically go toe-to-toe with the US military:

  • China might have a larger standing army, but they don't have the logistics to move them globally.

  • Russia is busy getting its ass kicked in Ukraine, and even if it weren't its invasion of Ukraine has shown they're nowhere near-peer to the US.

  • A combined NATO + EU + UK might give it a good go, but not all of them (Hungary and Turkiye obviously) would want to stand against Putin's agenda like that. Also, trying to oppose the US and support Ukraine would definitely strain those countries as well.

I think the only unknown variable is, if the US suddenly went all "conquering imperialism" how much civilian unrest would occur? Unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions there wouldn't be any high-minded moral veneer to hide behind, so would Americans put up with it?

I am much less optimistic about that answer than I was four months ago.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

I think so? Much of their might comes from their friends (and the money that they pay them for defense, eg, weapons). It would not be overnight and there would have to be a concerted effort... But on the other hand, Russia survives. So I guess USA would become Russia?