5 ms·

Who's the adversary? That's the main question. If the US is, then a better choice of fighters won't make much difference. Most likely it's russia, and it's arct

Who's the adversary? That's the main question. If the US is, then a better choice of fighters won't make much difference. Most likely it's russia, and it's arctic warfare. The smart move, both for canada and EU nations isn't to build up conventional military (although nothing wrong with that, if done in parallel), but to build up a nuclear force. First strike capabilities. ICBMs, ICBM deterrents, submarines and trans-continental bombers. France and the UK have nuclear capability already, it will cost a lot, but it isn't impossible to achieve in less time than it would take to bootstrap military force that can conventionally take on either the US, China or even Russia. The problem is, unlike Iran and North Korea, Europe and Canada don't yet see themselves as vulnerable as they really are. If a madman like current madman decided to attack the US's allies, nukes are not off the table. Matter of fact, not only do the insane people in the US with power crave such levels of carnage, they crave it. And in their minds, taking out a small city in europe or canada will save lives in the long run and is a quick way to achieve victory. There is a reason the current dictator in the US is trying to bring the 'golden dome' and "dominating our hemisphere". I suspect in the long run, these people will really want to invade europe and "purify it" from those "pesky" brown people, after they're done with the US. ICBM capable (and by the numbers too) Europe and Canada is the most peaceful outcome for everyone involved. If denmark had nukes, there wouldn't have been any talk of invading greenland. Currently, the US provides nuclear capability for nato to the most part. but if self-defense against the US and Russia is the priority for europe, preparing for land and aerial attacks makes little sense. A standing continental military for europe, or even a capable military for canada costs a lot of money, the US spends $800B, and China like $300B on military, that's going to hurt! No one has ever even attempted the invasion of a nuclear capable country. If canada had nukes, they hardly need ICBMs, they could probably use trebuchet from across the border and attack seattle and new york state probably (just kidding of course)

ls612 9mo ago
Nit: Ukraine invaded and occupied hundreds of square miles of Russian territory in 2024 and Russia is nuclear capable.
- exe34 9mo ago
  at the time the US policy was that if Russia used a nuke in Ukraine, they would lose pretty much everything outside Russia. nowadays the gremlin from the kremlin can just turn up in the US and marines will lay down the red carpet. so I'm not sure the same thing can be repeated safely.
- notepad0x90 9mo ago
  Ukraine was invaded to begin with because they gave up their nukes in the 90's in exchange for territorial recognition and a promise of non-invasion from russia lol.
tyleregeto 9mo ago
The Feb 2nd episode of the "The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge" podcast may be of interest to you, its title is "Should Canada Include Nuclear Weapons In Its Defence Strategy?", and offers a perspective on the subject.
- notepad0x90 9mo ago
  Thanks, i'll try to check it out, it sounds interesting.
gpm 9mo ago
The MP representing the NDP in this matter is also the MP who represents Canada's northernmost territory (Nunavut). They are clear on who the adversary is, like almost all Canadians are, it is the US. No one else is threatening our territory, whether it's threatening Canada all at once, refusing to officially recognize our arctic territory (even while asking for permission to go through it), threatening to attempt to encircle us by taking arctic territory from an ally that we (and the US, oddly) are bound by treaty to defend, or just pretending our prime minister is a governor of a piece of the states. Russia is an afterthought at best. They don't border us particularly directly in the arctic. They don't have a modern navy that poses us an actual threat. Even the strongest part of their army - their land army - isn't able to successfully invade a neighbouring country at this point. We don't even have a land border with them.
- notepad0x90 9mo ago
  I think that's a bit shortsighted. It's sort of an open secret that the current US admin is doing russia's bidding. Obviously America will lose a lot more than gain if it attacked or invaded Canada. There is nothing canada has right now that is inaccessible to the US, the US can deploy troops, bases, train soldiers,etc.. if it had peaceful relations with Canada. keystone XL is sifting canadian oil to US refineries, alaska benefits a ton from canada based supply chain and airspace, alaska strategically is extremely critical to the US, far more than any part of canada, because it's proximity to asia, the US itself and europe by way of the arctic, it is a major (if not the most important) logistics hub the US has in the western hemisphere (I'd say Ramstein in germany is the only other more important hub the US has). All to say that canada attacking alaska would be devastating to the US. If canada simply stopped all relations with the US, I'm pretty sure it will cause a major recession in the US, if not a depression outright. Again, all THAT to say that the hostility against canada is not being done on behalf of the american people but on behalf or russia. Similar to how the hostility against EU via greenland is meant to destroy nato for the benefit of russia. Russia cares a lot about controlling canada and greenland because of their desire to dominate the arctic. They already control one half of it more or less, but as I mentioned earlier, the fastest way to europe from the americas, and even from eastern russia and north eastern asia to western europe is via the arctic. They want ukraine to dominate agriculture, and gain warm water ports, the arctic to control shipping lines and flight paths (including ICBM flight paths :) ). With a presumed fallen global order where Canada and the US are not allies in the least, Russia has every reason to invade Canada, if they decide to control all of canada, that'd be an immense victory for them, outside of china no one can stop them from global domination at that point. Strategically, what Ukraine is for europe, Canada is to north america. Russia's arctic fleet supposedly is even superior to the US navy's from what little I've heard about the topic. Wars aren't that simple either, Russia hasn't mobilized or entered full wartime mode yet with Ukraine, it's still a "special operation". They're more than willing to mow down tens of millions more of their people. Another interesting aspect of a prolonged war is that they start building internal supply chains to build tanks, artillery, basic supplies,etc.. that is if their economy doesn't collapse, which it hasn't. Oil sales is still keeping them alive (in no small parts thanks to europe). But I'm sure putin is content merely controlling canada via the US as its vassal state.

ls612 9mo ago

Nit: Ukraine invaded and occupied hundreds of square miles of Russian territory in 2024 and Russia is nuclear capable.

exe34 9mo ago
at the time the US policy was that if Russia used a nuke in Ukraine, they would lose pretty much everything outside Russia. nowadays the gremlin from the kremlin can just turn up in the US and marines will lay down the red carpet. so I'm not sure the same thing can be repeated safely.
notepad0x90 9mo ago
Ukraine was invaded to begin with because they gave up their nukes in the 90's in exchange for territorial recognition and a promise of non-invasion from russia lol.

tyleregeto 9mo ago

The Feb 2nd episode of the "The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge" podcast may be of interest to you, its title is "Should Canada Include Nuclear Weapons In Its Defence Strategy?", and offers a perspective on the subject.

notepad0x90 9mo ago
Thanks, i'll try to check it out, it sounds interesting.

gpm 9mo ago

The MP representing the NDP in this matter is also the MP who represents Canada's northernmost territory (Nunavut). They are clear on who the adversary is, like almost all Canadians are, it is the US. No one else is threatening our territory, whether it's threatening Canada all at once, refusing to officially recognize our arctic territory (even while asking for permission to go through it), threatening to attempt to encircle us by taking arctic territory from an ally that we (and the US, oddly) are bound by treaty to defend, or just pretending our prime minister is a governor of a piece of the states. Russia is an afterthought at best. They don't border us particularly directly in the arctic. They don't have a modern navy that poses us an actual threat. Even the strongest part of their army - their land army - isn't able to successfully invade a neighbouring country at this point. We don't even have a land border with them.

notepad0x90 9mo ago
I think that's a bit shortsighted. It's sort of an open secret that the current US admin is doing russia's bidding. Obviously America will lose a lot more than gain if it attacked or invaded Canada. There is nothing canada has right now that is inaccessible to the US, the US can deploy troops, bases, train soldiers,etc.. if it had peaceful relations with Canada. keystone XL is sifting canadian oil to US refineries, alaska benefits a ton from canada based supply chain and airspace, alaska strategically is extremely critical to the US, far more than any part of canada, because it's proximity to asia, the US itself and europe by way of the arctic, it is a major (if not the most important) logistics hub the US has in the western hemisphere (I'd say Ramstein in germany is the only other more important hub the US has). All to say that canada attacking alaska would be devastating to the US. If canada simply stopped all relations with the US, I'm pretty sure it will cause a major recession in the US, if not a depression outright. Again, all THAT to say that the hostility against canada is not being done on behalf of the american people but on behalf or russia. Similar to how the hostility against EU via greenland is meant to destroy nato for the benefit of russia. Russia cares a lot about controlling canada and greenland because of their desire to dominate the arctic. They already control one half of it more or less, but as I mentioned earlier, the fastest way to europe from the americas, and even from eastern russia and north eastern asia to western europe is via the arctic. They want ukraine to dominate agriculture, and gain warm water ports, the arctic to control shipping lines and flight paths (including ICBM flight paths :) ). With a presumed fallen global order where Canada and the US are not allies in the least, Russia has every reason to invade Canada, if they decide to control all of canada, that'd be an immense victory for them, outside of china no one can stop them from global domination at that point. Strategically, what Ukraine is for europe, Canada is to north america. Russia's arctic fleet supposedly is even superior to the US navy's from what little I've heard about the topic. Wars aren't that simple either, Russia hasn't mobilized or entered full wartime mode yet with Ukraine, it's still a "special operation". They're more than willing to mow down tens of millions more of their people. Another interesting aspect of a prolonged war is that they start building internal supply chains to build tanks, artillery, basic supplies,etc.. that is if their economy doesn't collapse, which it hasn't. Oil sales is still keeping them alive (in no small parts thanks to europe). But I'm sure putin is content merely controlling canada via the US as its vassal state.