this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
54 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10689 readers
322 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago (21 children)

How are we feeling about this?

[–] Questy@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (10 children)

The cost of failing to deter aggression is incredibly high, look at Ukraine. We are in a similar situation, but we are even worse off. There is much less conventional parity between us and the hostile dictatorship next door. As an example, Ukraine started the war with a layered air defense network and thousands of interceptors to keep it in the fight, that led to Russian caution with their air assets and allowed a front to form. Canada has precisely 0 air defense batteries.

Ultimately there is no reasonable amount we can spend to gain conventional deterrent against the new United States. The money needs to yield a fast track to nuclear deterrence.

Unfortunately for us Canadians, we are staring at the choice between spending and sacrificing financially to hedge against the risk of invasion. If we don't, and the worst happens, we'll spend much, much more, and a lot of the cost will be blood.

[–] threeonefour@piefed.ca -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

nuclear deterrence

Absolutely not. Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to humanity itself. I'm fine with more defence spending but building a bomb that can destroy the planet is to defence as building a coal plant is to energy. It's destroying the future to protect the present.

[–] ganryuu@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The other comments in this thread (almost) all talk about any amount of spending being useless in the face of the extreme might of the US army, so I'm curious how you see more spending as being ok? Genuine question, not trying to attack you or anything.

[–] threeonefour@piefed.ca 3 points 3 months ago

You can't convince other countries to form a military alliance with your country unless it has a half decent military. France isn't going to agree to protect our country unless we can convince them we can protect theirs. In an ideal word, nobody would spend on defence but we don't live in that world. Some amount of defence spending is unfortunately required. At least it sometimes does lead to societal improvements like GPS.

I also don't believe the idea that the US can just instantly win a war. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq held their own. Russia thought they'd take over Ukraine in 3 days and it's been 3 years and counting. These super powers like to claim they could take on the entire planet and win but then get embarrassed by a bunch of farmers.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)