• ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oh yes Canada is really in danger of imminent invasion and I’m sure these planes won’t be used to bomb innocent brown children if they are used at all

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Canada is in danger of invasion by a nationalistic US in the next decade or two, if the trajectory our current regime is on continues unabated. Having defense equipment and capabilities that are backed by literally anything other than US tech is a great idea in that context.

      • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 days ago

        Better idea stop building a death army so you can exploit the third world. Canada isn’t buying bombers to defend against a US invasion. Stop inventing justification to support your militarism

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Wow you are making a whole shitload of assumptions about my beliefs - not to mention, you clearly do not understand strategic military and geoeconomic policy in the context of modern geopolitics.

          • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            Saying I don’t understand “modern geopolitics” because I oppose the current mass military buildup worldwide is baseless. I just have a consistent opposition to militarism that you lack.

      • bthest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        No, your northern neighbor is a nearly impassable frozen sea of grinding churning ice.

      • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        You are divorced from reality if you think Russia is a military threat to Canada. Sorry but thats not a good excuse to buy climate destroying military hardware which will either sit and not be used other than for “drills” and “parades” or be used to kill innocent people exploited for profit.

          • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            3 days ago

            Sure I’m in a dream world for opposing Canadian militarism that helped destroy Afgahnistan and Syria and will likely if used be used for similarly destructive means.

        • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          The US and Russia both want to take control of the melting north-west passage. Pull your head out of your ass.

    • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      This attitude is why Europe is in the situation its in, and how Hitler got as far as he did.

      The threat of violence maintains peace and sovereignty. It is a truth that cannot be ignored to cater to feelings.

      • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Hitler didn’t get as far as he did due to a lack of military buildup and militarism among European nations what are talking about? He got as far as he did because Britain and allies didn’t see him as a threat because they had no problems with either his domestic policies and his beginning foreign conquests weren’t deal breaking or a true threat to their power. It had nothing to do with a refusal to prioritize military spending.

        • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Hitler didn’t get as far as he did due to a lack of military buildup and militarism among European nations what are talking about?

          He absolutely did. That, and concession after concession to appease that which cannot be appeased. He got very far because people kept at it with the “lets just be reasonable here” sentiments that only work if your opponent operates logically like a machine or even a traditional bureaucracy.

          He got as far as he did because Britain and allies didn’t see him as a threat because they had no problems with either his domestic policies and his beginning foreign conquests weren’t deal breaking or a true threat to their power.

          ???

          They most definitely thought he was a threat, but one they could contain without force and through appeasement.

    • mysticpickle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Maybe not imminent. But you do need to have it ready on the chance something happens. It’s pretty silly to completely dismantle a country’s military and only start spinning it up when you need it.

      Militaries take a long time to build up, equip, and train. Not to mention keeping the institutional knowledge of folks with the expertise on how to operate, build, and maintain all the moving parts involved so that when the time comes, you’re not starting from square one. If you wait until you get attacked to get things rolling, you’ve pretty much already lost.