this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
77 points (97.5% liked)

Canada

11685 readers
772 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
 

THE UPHEAVAL IN the international order prompts Canadians to think thoughts that would have seemed preposterous a short time ago. We hear our Department of National Defence is “modelling” what a US invasion might look like. A former Canadian chief of defence staff says we should keep our “options open” with respect to building our own nuclear deterrent one day.

Anyone who had been asleep for a few years and suddenly woke up would think the world had gone mad. They would be right.

One of the key developments of the last year is the loss of confidence that the United States will honour its Article V commitment under the NATO Treaty, particularly in the light of a Russia that is seen to pose a greater threat than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Article V is the promise to come to the aid of any ally under attack. A strike against one member, in other words, would automatically widen into a war with the entire alliance. If adversaries believe that promise is now conditional, negotiable, or politically fragile, then the deterrent logic collapses. Indeed, there is now a fear—apparently put aside for the moment as far as Greenland is concerned—that the US might itself attack (or at least coerce) its allies.

This raises monumental questions for the rest of NATO. One of these is whether the US nuclear guarantee, the ultimate expression of its willingness to fulfill Article V, is still worth anything. In a major study prepared for the Munich Security Conference, European security experts explored possible responses, including the creation of an independent deterrent for the continent.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

We decided we are the good guys so we have the right to nukes but decided Iran is the ultimate devil and can't have it. Canada would probably be fine if Saudi Arabia get it because it's our allies

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

to be fair, bone saws are similarly horrific but not nearly as efficient

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago

Ukraine would be fine now if it had nukes, as safe as north Korea.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago

I hate this timeline

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 2 points 16 hours ago

Should have never gotten rid of them.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

These are serious risks, but the alternative may be that countries like Germany, Poland, and Sweden will eventually seek their own deterrents if they believe the US nuclear guarantee is no longer ironclad and there is no other option.

We're a little past that now, no?

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 16 hours ago
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca -1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

This is beyond stupid. Does this writer really think the US will allow nukes right next door?

Isn't this why Iran is being bombed?

The Cuban Missile crisis no longer taught at journalism schools?

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

No, the nuclear program is just an excuse. PR for the bombing. The real reason is that Iran is the main obstacle to Israel in the middle east, and America is no longer allowing small and mid-sized countries to oppose their interests in any way.

As far as America letting us do it, of course they won't. We'd have to do it secretly, which would be very difficult but not technically impossible. Once we have nukes, they can't invade us.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Once we have nukes, they can’t invade us.

But they certainly can flatten us with thousands more nukes.

Oh Canada...you can't address 100 years of US dependency with quick fixes.

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Then we get to nuke them too, striking a fatal blow against the nazi imperialists and going out in a blaze of glory. By martyring ourselves for such a noble cause, we would wash away the stain of being america's lapdogs.

I repeat my call: nukes NOW.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Why would flattening cities and murdering millions of human beings be a noble cause? Most folks in the US are just trying to get by, same as people anywhere else in the world.

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If we destroyed America in a defensive war of total nuclear annihilation, it would save far more lives than it cost. This is all a pipe dream of course, I expect we'll go down with the ship as America's lapdog. But a man can dream

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

Well I for one am glad that you are not in a position to realize your dreams :)