Mastodon

Have you ever considered that the Prime Directive is not only not ethical, but also illogical, and perhaps morally indefensible?

  • 282 Posts
  • 169 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle




  • I’m NOT a defense analyst, professional or amateur.

    Me neither, not by a long shot. From the various analyses I’ve consumed over the last few months, the suggestion is that the F35 is superior if you’re attacking another country, but the Gripens just might have the edge defensively.

    Our airstrips, maintenance facilities, fuel depots, all of it would be targeted and destroyed first.

    This arguably gives the Gripen an edge, since its most famous feature is that it can be deployed relatively easily from highways and other non-standard surfaces.

    But yeah, if you set aside the issue of American relations, there are some pretty big questions of doctrine to sort out.
























  • Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

    (a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

    (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

    © conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

    (d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

    (e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

    CBC:

    The Criminal Code defines treason primarily as the use of force to overthrow the government or sharing with another state information that may be used for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada.

    Seems pretty much the same?