this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
291 points (99.0% liked)

World News

50678 readers
2599 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
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a frankly absurd and comical waste of resources in an environment that absolutely does not call for the deployment of the newest, most advanced, and most expensive naval asset in the USN inventory.

In no universe is it reasonable to deploy the Ford (or really any of our CVNs) to the Caribbean for combat operations. For disaster recovery, sure - you can probably hook up the reactor output to land lines in a pinch, if some hurricane came and wrecked a major city down there, and a stopgap power supply was needed. But for pretty much anything combat related, the absolute maximum of a reasonable naval asset to stick there would be an LHA/LHD - that is, a “landing ship” whose primary job in terms of aviation is to host a bunch of helicopters and a small handful of F-35Bs. As well as a bunch of smaller boats that could be used for, you know, patrol and boarding.

It’s so fucking embarrassing, on so many levels, for so many reasons - the humanitarian aspect is just the first-order outrage. There’s multiple layers of rank idiocy.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

This is a frankly absurd and comical waste of resources in an environment that absolutely does not call for the deployment of the newest, most advanced, and most expensive naval asset in the USN inventory.

  1. all that gear is going to go bad
  2. it worked for Israel

I think that second point is very important, as I think violence has its own overton window and Israel and Russia have seriously pushed it with each of their respective belligerent invasions; Israel more effectively since Russia seems to have failed almost completely in its goals.