Indiana Justice
@indjustice.bsky.social
6th Place All-Canadian Tortoise Wrangling Championships 2007.
They would not invoke it, though. That's the whole point. There is no evidence whatsoever that NATO--unwilling to fight even Russia--would fight the US. A nuclear state, as you keep mentioning, and the only one to actually use them in war. It's fantasy.
November 13, 2025 at 11:22 AM
They would not invoke it, though. That's the whole point. There is no evidence whatsoever that NATO--unwilling to fight even Russia--would fight the US. A nuclear state, as you keep mentioning, and the only one to actually use them in war. It's fantasy.
Okay so let's just decide you're right, yay MAD, and canada gets 10 weapons. MAD only "worked" because both sides had too many weapons to confidently locate and destroy. 10 weapons would not be enough, and could be taken out prior to any conventional attack.
November 13, 2025 at 11:20 AM
Okay so let's just decide you're right, yay MAD, and canada gets 10 weapons. MAD only "worked" because both sides had too many weapons to confidently locate and destroy. 10 weapons would not be enough, and could be taken out prior to any conventional attack.
But it didn't work. Any casual Wikipedia-level glance at the Cold War shows we were almost all wiped out a dozen or more times and sheer luck or a handful of people stopped it. More nuclear weapons increases that chance, it doesn't reduce it.
November 13, 2025 at 2:28 AM
But it didn't work. Any casual Wikipedia-level glance at the Cold War shows we were almost all wiped out a dozen or more times and sheer luck or a handful of people stopped it. More nuclear weapons increases that chance, it doesn't reduce it.
There has never been any indication NATO would stand against the US, and every time Trump has threatened us, there have been basically no replies. Britain went silent. Denmark isn't rolling up with a fleet in Halifax. The US could take on, easily, the entirely of a united NATO.
November 13, 2025 at 2:25 AM
There has never been any indication NATO would stand against the US, and every time Trump has threatened us, there have been basically no replies. Britain went silent. Denmark isn't rolling up with a fleet in Halifax. The US could take on, easily, the entirely of a united NATO.
That is, and I cannot stress this enough, absolutely insane. Nuclear proliferation is the worst option for any and every nation, and guarantees nothing but mass death.
November 13, 2025 at 2:13 AM
That is, and I cannot stress this enough, absolutely insane. Nuclear proliferation is the worst option for any and every nation, and guarantees nothing but mass death.
Yes. Which is inevitable the moment the world's largest military declares war on a member. What's your point? NATO was a shield against Russia, never a guarantee of safety for any of us.
November 13, 2025 at 2:09 AM
Yes. Which is inevitable the moment the world's largest military declares war on a member. What's your point? NATO was a shield against Russia, never a guarantee of safety for any of us.
Give me actual evidence that a) random folk would somehow create an armed resistance in the US, and b) somehow the Canadian military is equipped to fight the largest one in the world.
November 13, 2025 at 1:59 AM
Give me actual evidence that a) random folk would somehow create an armed resistance in the US, and b) somehow the Canadian military is equipped to fight the largest one in the world.
There is 0.00000% chance anyone from NATO would risk their own obliteration to declare a war they would lose even all combined. They're scared of Russia, let alone the US.
November 13, 2025 at 1:47 AM
There is 0.00000% chance anyone from NATO would risk their own obliteration to declare a war they would lose even all combined. They're scared of Russia, let alone the US.
ICE has a larger budget than most world militaries, the US National Guard can come in to make arrests, and Japanese-Americans were rounded up quite easily 80 years ago. I dont know why you think random folk will become militants. You have no evidence just fantasizing.
November 12, 2025 at 11:14 PM
ICE has a larger budget than most world militaries, the US National Guard can come in to make arrests, and Japanese-Americans were rounded up quite easily 80 years ago. I dont know why you think random folk will become militants. You have no evidence just fantasizing.
A lot of us living in apartments would still happily move to post-war bungalows or the new equivalent. It's still property, we're already used to less space, and it gets us something.
November 12, 2025 at 5:13 PM
A lot of us living in apartments would still happily move to post-war bungalows or the new equivalent. It's still property, we're already used to less space, and it gets us something.
If you think random folk living in the US are in any way likely to start a guerilla campaign, you need to stop mainlining TV.
November 12, 2025 at 3:26 PM
If you think random folk living in the US are in any way likely to start a guerilla campaign, you need to stop mainlining TV.
Be interned within a week by ICE, the massive paramilitary force under presidential control?
November 12, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Be interned within a week by ICE, the massive paramilitary force under presidential control?
What Canadian military? Every major base and formation would be struck before any troops even moved towards the border. See: Iraq 1 and 2. The Vietnamese had been fighting for decades, they were armed by the Soviets and Chinese, and their society was structured completely differently.
November 12, 2025 at 11:53 AM
What Canadian military? Every major base and formation would be struck before any troops even moved towards the border. See: Iraq 1 and 2. The Vietnamese had been fighting for decades, they were armed by the Soviets and Chinese, and their society was structured completely differently.
Certainly different, and certainly much smaller. Investment for protection simply doesn't work in this context.
November 11, 2025 at 9:20 PM
Certainly different, and certainly much smaller. Investment for protection simply doesn't work in this context.
Okay. So, yes, you believe all you need is to read party press releases and you are informed. So we can safely disregard your opinion.
November 11, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Okay. So, yes, you believe all you need is to read party press releases and you are informed. So we can safely disregard your opinion.
Are you a bot? My question was do you believe party propaganda makes you "informed"? Do you read Tory press releases uncritically and consider yourself informed?
November 11, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Are you a bot? My question was do you believe party propaganda makes you "informed"? Do you read Tory press releases uncritically and consider yourself informed?
Answer the question.
November 11, 2025 at 8:29 PM
Answer the question.
You understand that reading party propaganda is not the same thing as being "informed", right? Do you read Tory platforms to magically cure you of criticisms of their work?
November 11, 2025 at 8:22 PM
You understand that reading party propaganda is not the same thing as being "informed", right? Do you read Tory platforms to magically cure you of criticisms of their work?
Why would reading the Liberal website answer my concerns, what my concerns are about the information the Liberal party releases? "Drink the fetid water if you're worried about the quality."
November 11, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Why would reading the Liberal website answer my concerns, what my concerns are about the information the Liberal party releases? "Drink the fetid water if you're worried about the quality."
"The answers" to what, exactly?
November 11, 2025 at 8:12 PM
"The answers" to what, exactly?
Perhaps we could have a robot follow him around to stop him from posting.
November 11, 2025 at 8:05 PM
Perhaps we could have a robot follow him around to stop him from posting.
She continues to devote herself entirely to bombs.
November 11, 2025 at 8:04 PM
She continues to devote herself entirely to bombs.
Agreed. And I'm not sure there's a parallel in anything else beyond those two, or one that involves what appears to be almost no self-reflection on, as you say, "why".
November 11, 2025 at 8:03 PM
Agreed. And I'm not sure there's a parallel in anything else beyond those two, or one that involves what appears to be almost no self-reflection on, as you say, "why".
Plus "what if the Confederacy did better?", in similar vein and gross for similar reasons you're mentioning.
November 11, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Plus "what if the Confederacy did better?", in similar vein and gross for similar reasons you're mentioning.