World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I don't think fearcasting into a land of dozens, or hundreds, of interdependent worst case hypotheticals is relevant to a discussion of whether immediately upon Trump's potential reelection, Australia will end its military alliance with America.
It's much more of a creative writing exercise, so why stop there?
In my version, China has expanded it A2/AD strategy to include Australian waters. In fact, they've forward deployed 2 carrier battle groups 50 nautical miles from Australia's northern coast.
And I could write pages more, worst case hypotheticals, to explain why in that world everything you're saying is irrelevant to the American Australian alliance. But, again, it's not relevant to the topic at hand,: it's creative writing, not foreign policy.
FYI anyone who has a just below surface level understanding of China's Three Island Chain Policy, A2/AD, and Wolf Warrior diplomacy, knows that my hypothetical is even slightly more likely then yours. NOT probable, but certainly plausible and requires a lot less to go wrong then your rise of the MAGA-Reich.
I'm not sure I'd say that's more plausible, but I certainly wouldn't say it's implausible, and it would definitely be something that anyone with a military treaty with China (or Australia for that matter) would want to take into consideration and have some plans for handling.
Right now, where the US is, is undecided. On the one side you've got essentially business as usual with the Democrats. On the other side you have two warring factions. There's the traditional GOP who would be more or less also business as usual. On the other hand though you have the MAGA who seem to be hell bent on barreling into a christo-fascist dictatorship. Things could tip any direction at this point, there's no way to really know. Everyone is hoping it goes pretty much any way but MAGA, although right now it's looking like the MAGA crowd have just about managed to muzzle the traditional GOP.
The issue as you pointed out in your original post wouldn't be Trump winning, it would be what comes after that. Nobody can see the future, so nobody can say for sure, but if you trust the things that Trump has actually said, the MAGA-Reich as you put it seems a highly probable future in that event. Even if Trump were to keel over dead the day after he was sworn in, the power the MAGA faction would have would still allow them to execute a coup, and in many ways that would be even worse. Trump is a bumbling moron, but he's apparently an amazing figurehead and his cult would never allow anyone to replace him while he's alive.
For Australia (not to mention NATO), a MAGA-Reich is basically a worst case apocalyptic scenario. Unlike with Nazi Germany I'm not sure short of complete nuclear annihilation if anyone would be able to stop the US. Depending on who they decided to attack first the rest of the world would be forced into making a call on how they want to play things, and there's no real winning choices there. They could stand on the sidelines, but that would likely make them a future enemy. They could join in as the treaties demand, but that's only going to embolden the US at that point. Lastly they could actively oppose the US, but that's going to be one hell of a fight, and most countries outside of an alliance between say China and some other major power aren't going to be able to go toe to toe there.
So yes, as I said previously, just saying "If Trump gets elected we should withdraw from the treaty" is probably premature and overreacting. However it's in Australia's best interest to have a plan ready to go in case the worst case happens with Trump, because a Trump win makes it more likely than not. Even a close Trump loss should probably cause US military partners to do some contingency planning.