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.
This all makes sense. If we’re getting a nuclear deterrent with this, that would be money well spent. If it does not and we endure any significant austerity as a result, then Canadians might straight up replace Carney with someone who welcomes annexation. This might call for debt-spending to avoid that, but I’m feeling Carney might like austerity instead. I hope I’m wrong.
This is not for military defense against the US. All the investment is focused on the Arctic and on deepening military alliance with Arctic states and states that border Russia.
Which border do we share with the US? Any hardening of that? Nope.
We are basically all-in on supporting the US defense strategy. We are part of the team to face Russia so the US can focus on China. Also, we are basically investing in defense infrastructure to provide security for the resource supply chain between our far north and the US.
We may not love them right now, but we’re still team USA. We are still basically a resource colony, and we are doing as the empire’s strategy demands of us.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t get the argument here… Countries should just be nuking each other all the time because it’s not that bad? The US should have just dropped some nukes on Iraq and it would have been better?
Nukes kill children. Nukes destroy hospitals. Nukes give whole body third degree burns to everyone who isn’t immediately obliterated. Nukes irradiate the land and sky so much that we can date paintings based on the presence of isotopes spread by nukes in the ink. Nuclear warfare is a war against humanity.
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.
This all makes sense. If we’re getting a nuclear deterrent with this, that would be money well spent. If it does not and we endure any significant austerity as a result, then Canadians might straight up replace Carney with someone who welcomes annexation. This might call for debt-spending to avoid that, but I’m feeling Carney might like austerity instead. I hope I’m wrong.
There is no way the USA will allow nukes that close to their country. Did we forget about what happened when nukes were going to be located to Cuba?
Oh yeah, I think so too. We could possibly pull that off during a Democratic US government. But it’s still unlikely.
This is not for military defense against the US. All the investment is focused on the Arctic and on deepening military alliance with Arctic states and states that border Russia.
Which border do we share with the US? Any hardening of that? Nope.
We are basically all-in on supporting the US defense strategy. We are part of the team to face Russia so the US can focus on China. Also, we are basically investing in defense infrastructure to provide security for the resource supply chain between our far north and the US.
We may not love them right now, but we’re still team USA. We are still basically a resource colony, and we are doing as the empire’s strategy demands of us.
This is not about defending against the US or Russia, it’s about extortion to force Canada to buy US munitions.
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.
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.
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.
US dropped 89 kilotons of bombs on Iraq, over twice the power of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
I don’t get the argument here… Countries should just be nuking each other all the time because it’s not that bad? The US should have just dropped some nukes on Iraq and it would have been better?
Nukes kill children. Nukes destroy hospitals. Nukes give whole body third degree burns to everyone who isn’t immediately obliterated. Nukes irradiate the land and sky so much that we can date paintings based on the presence of isotopes spread by nukes in the ink. Nuclear warfare is a war against humanity.