this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
93 points (100.0% liked)

World News

47660 readers
2408 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 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day 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 day 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 6 points 1 day 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 2 points 1 day 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 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Then that country would lose in a conventional war also?

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours 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 day 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.

Solve it the Klingon way: trial by personal combat.

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The problem with assassinating leaders is that it turns the population into a headless mob, and plenty of innocents suffer tremendously anyways.

Modern military technology has made such concerns much less important, as any conflict is increasingly devastating.

[–] CalipherJones@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Yerp. Killing the leader leaves a power vacuum depending on the structure of the government. Power vacuums are the quickest way to a civil war.