https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
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)
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.
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.
(it's beyond the scope of the current conversation but Canada's more pressing problem is having enough pilots and getting them enough flight hours)
If we let it get that far and I am still around, will be gunning for my fellow Americans. Cause at that point, fuck them.
Even if I get got after one, will send a message to the rest not all their old neighbors are on their side.
Look just buy some F35s and park it in the Eaton Center for the gram.
And to be blunt, RU/PRC is MORE aligned with Canadian position on Northwest Passage sovereignty. Which really only leaves US... i.e. the only actual on paper threat to NWP is US, which makes F35s terminally stupid acquisition for CAN arctic. But broad IMO is Canada simply doesn't need a strong air game because it won't survive vs adversaries operating in the north anyway. Geopolitically, Canada needs F35 to NORDAD dues/ransom more than it needs F35 for tactical/operational needs. Cue CAN buys f35, find them ruinously expensive to operate, and US will end simply "patrolling" Canadian airspace anyways.
ungreased0675•2h ago