Did he say it was specifically about the children, though? The pager attack mostly killed it’s intended targets by all appearances.

What? That’s the one that surprises you? They’ve killed more children on the average day post-invasion.

It’s more likely to just be bugged, if he actually is likely to use it.

Hmm… I’m actually not sure if the government could do this without passing a bill. If they have to pass a bill, you bet there will be public discussion during the debate period, and probably before as well.

The the government of the day could just do it, I guess it’s not impossible, although they’d have to be a Doug Ford-level blowhard.

Oh, you do mean that. TIL, wow.

Wikipedia makes it sound like they basically just decided to do it really fast to make a point. I suppose already being in a state of total war also helps.

Wait, are you telling me Don Corleone’s mustache was never made of leaves? /s

Risk as in risk of it happening, not risk if it does happen.

Nuclear proliferation is what we’re talking about, and the basic idea is that if you have n nuclear powers, that’s O(n²) potential conflicts that could start at any moment.

Oh cool. Sweden also has some stuff.

We make armoured troop carriers… and that’s it AFAIK.

Oh, you mean we were already in WWII, not that we specifically responded to Pearl Harbour.

I guess, but the UK is a pretty shit-tier nuclear power. I’d really want it to include France.

there’s also a reason Poland is buying what France is selling

Oooh. What’s the story there? Like literally buying equipment, or just suggesting some kind of new defence pact (that Canada should definitely join).

When Pearl Harbour was attacked we declared war on Japan before America did ffs… shit is fucked up down there

I had not heard that.

At the point in history their government was working at least as well as ours (for good or evil), so I don’t know what conclusion to draw.

I’d consider supporting it, if there was a serious public discussion on the matter.

The one argument against it - besides the lame “that’s violent” or “we couldn’t actually need one” - is that saving this one nation isn’t worth the increased risk of a nuclear exchange.

And domestic politics - moreso than interests, even. Kissinger and the “realists” were kind of full of shit because of that.

I mean, we’d all figured that out at this point.

Yeah, we really need some kind of external European defence sphere to cover us in Canada. No amount of maple syrup (or rare earth metals) is too great a cost.

I mean, we’re having trouble housing ourselves…

NATO has no provision to remove members. It’s even worse than the EU where a single other member is enough to veto it.

Stop doing that, Western leaders. 3/4 vote should be enough for anything.

Yes, a new military alliance and other new non-US Western treaties needs to happen. Badly.

Although, he’s saying he wants 5% spending from all members now, so maybe he’s still planning to “shoot himself in the foot” by leaving.

Thank you, not all heroes wear capes.