this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
134 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

11282 readers
695 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
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
134
U.S. ambassador gives prime minister the cover he needs to cut Canada’s F-35 order (ca.news.yahoo.com)
submitted 4 days ago by rekabis@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The F-35 is a poison pill for Canadian defence sovereignty against a hostile America. We cannot win against an invasion, but with the Gripen we can make it a phyrric victory for them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Nuclear Weapons Now

[–] fourish@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

You’d need to be a total fool to believe this would have any positive outcome.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Having an effective deterrent to being invaded seems like a pretty positive outcome.

[–] fourish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’ve been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing will ever convince me that nuclear weapons are a good idea. It’s a weapon of cowards every single time.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world -1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

If nobody could have them, that would be ideal. But they do, so having them is better than not having them.

[–] fourish@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

No point in continuing this conversation it appears. It’s how the yanks think. More and bigger guns always better. We’re better than that.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

It isn't about being better or worse, that's not even relevant, it's about having something that effectively protects us from American aggression. Your moral superiority won't protect you from soldiers with guns anymore than they do Americans form ICE. Nukes will.

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Nuclear weapons for all or none.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ya know who HASN'T been invaded any time in the past fifty years? North Korea. Wanna guess why?

[–] fourish@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There’s literally nothing there worth fighting over. Like zero value whatsoever.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

It's negative value, because you'd have tons of poor refugees. And it would cost massive billions to rebuild.

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They’re sitting on $20 trillion in rare earth minerals and prior to NK demonstrating nuclear capability the US was ratcheting up their sabre rattling.

There is every reason to have nuclear weapons.

[–] fourish@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Rare earth minerals aren’t terribly rare. China has lots And they’re way easier to deal with than NK.

The US isn’t forward thinking enough to worry about it. But if they had oil…. The felon understands oil.