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

Canada

10561 readers
448 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] threeonefour@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 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 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 1 month 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.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

US dropped 89 kilotons of bombs on Iraq, over twice the power of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

[–] threeonefour@piefed.ca 2 points 1 month ago

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.