• acargitz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Did I debate the need of any of that capability? Like, I literally wrote “yes we need an update”. The point is “we should not be accepting anything at any price”. I can’t understand how that simple common sense statement is a “bad take”. The point of military procurement, or of any procurement really, is to maximize utility while minimizing cost. Ukraine has already shown us that the drone revolution means that modern wars are now back to being wars of attrition. And in wars of attrition, cost is a strategic resource.

      • acargitz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Dual use technology and infrastructure is an entirely uncontroversial topic in the defense procurement sector, so I don’t know what exactly you’re trolling for here.

        • Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I just need an example of something, that addresses the concerns from the article

          There has been renewed focus on Canadian defence in the Arctic, with that initially being fuelled by increased interest from Russia and China in the resource-rich region.

          But, with U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, there has been a shift in the view that the Americans are also be an emerging threat to Canadian sovereignty.

          I’m drawing a blank on what we could spend the money on.