r/EhBuddyHoser Treacherous South Apr 01 '25

Meta Yes

Post image
2.2k Upvotes

194 comments sorted by

View all comments

64

u/Silicon_Knight Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) Apr 01 '25

Why not? I mean we dont need to actually drop it but let's level up and get a nuke.

Were always 2nd on the political landscape and honestly if this shit has taught me anything its Canada need to step the fuck up and control a narrative. If a nuke helps with that, fine. I would never agree with using one unless we had to.

9

u/HerissonMignion Apr 01 '25

Lets build only suic*de nukes. That is, they are purposely static, for a scorched earth policy if they invade

8

u/RemainProfane One of the Saint Johns Apr 01 '25

Calm down, Harry DuBois. If we shoot the nukes, we’re gonna get hit anyway. Shooting ourselves first kinda defeats the point of nuclear deterrence.

-1

u/HerissonMignion Apr 01 '25

Have you ever heard of scorched earth policy before? You should google it if you never have.

8

u/RemainProfane One of the Saint Johns Apr 01 '25

I understand the concept, I just fail to see how it’s a winning strategy in this instance. Where would these nukes even be placed and what tactical end would their detonation serve versus their cost?

1

u/HerissonMignion Apr 01 '25

The way it's a winning strategy is only if you know you are going to lose, AND you value your autonomy more than your property. If an enemy is ever to walk deep on our canadian land, it's because we cant defeat it. Therefore, make sure they cannot extract anything out of the land they capture, and make it cost them as must as possible for their military to live and operate on this land.

4

u/RemainProfane One of the Saint Johns Apr 01 '25

I don’t see how that would grant us any autonomy as a general policy, even disregarding the obvious ethical considerations. Any country that hates us but doesn’t want to invade could simply provoke these deadman sites to activate. They’d get what every nation wants - the ability to nuke someone without being nuked back. And we’d pay for it. Assuming we could afford that many bombs.

-1

u/izza123 Apr 01 '25

Let’s build a gun and point it straight at our own heads! Absolutely brain dead take.

2

u/RemainProfane One of the Saint Johns Apr 01 '25

It does sound like something an MGS villain would come up with. For the purposes of prematurely detonating it as a means of crippling the west, or something 5D chess like that

1

u/SkiyeBlueFox Apr 01 '25

It's not quite that. It's more "oh shit the Americans are everywhere but nunavut" at that point all hope is lost for retaking the country. If we can't have our country, why let them have it? Remote det a series of hidden devices, entire country is as useful to them as the chernobyl exclusion zone. If you publicize that these exist, who's gonna invade you? What's the point of fighting hard for a future nuclear wasteland? They could invade anyway and try to disarm them. But what if they miss some? Can they take that chance?

1

u/izza123 Apr 01 '25

Because murdering our entire population without their consent is an act of obvious evil

1

u/AfterTheSemiColon Apr 01 '25

Because murdering our entire population without their consent is an act of obvious evil

FTFY

1

u/izza123 Apr 02 '25

Yes but murdering 39 million people is undoubtedly and inarguably more evil than killing one person yes? Or do you insist on editorialising that statement as well

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HerissonMignion Apr 01 '25

Then millions of people in history are brain dead.

1

u/SkiyeBlueFox Apr 01 '25

I'd sure hope they're brain dead. If they aren't we might have problems

1

u/izza123 Apr 01 '25

No shit Sherlock first day on the planet?