this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
32 points (97.1% liked)

Canada

7210 readers
461 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Liberal government is looking to cut almost $1 billion from the annual budget of the Department of National Defence — a demand the country’s top military commander says is prompting some “difficult” conversations within the military.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My wife is in the forces. She's in the med centre right now because her forty year old rucksack is literally destroying her back. And she's having to buy things like proper boots and hearing protection (so that she hopefully doesn't end up with lifelong hearing loss or tinnitus like many soldiers do) out of her own pocket because the army can't afford them.

When the army talks about "putting off new equipment purchases," that's what they mean. Good people, who want to serve our country, having their bodies literally destroyed by shitty, outdated, substandard equipment, so that we can save a couple of dollars on our taxes.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Private sector has to buy their own boots, glasses, ear plugs and gloves. What's the difference?

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Many workplaces provide essential safety gear like cheap ear plugs, safety glasses and reflective work wear, some even provide a yearly boot payout. A lot of these jobs do tend to be government or bigger industrial gigs.

If you require specific safety gear, you should ask your employer if they are willing to supply it.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Other than boots, I've never worked anywhere that didn't provide PPE. Some of the jankier places had to be forced to provide it by citing regulations. Some of the better places also had boot allowances. Most places, the gloves were fit for purpose, but not what I would buy if spending my own money.

The basic principle is that an employee cannot be asked to perform dangerous or unhealthy activities without training and equipment. Not every jurisdiction is the same. YMMV.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago
  1. How much of a pathetic bootlicker for capitalism do you have to be to say something like this, rather than "If it's required for your job it should be paid for by your job", regardless of what sector someone works in?

  2. No matter what, she cannot go out and buy a rucksack in CADPAT because outside of military contractors such a thing does not exist. Her options for hearing protection are limited because whatever she wears has to work with her standard issue kit, which she is required to use. The reason military procurement is a thing is because all of this stuff has to work together in very specific ways.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine, just imagine, the kind of society we had if we were willing to tax the wealthy at the levels needed to provide the services we need.

But we don't. Instead of taxing people, we've decided it's better to just let them hoard cash like Scrooge McDuck because*..mumble..Art Laffer..mumble..supply side..cough..trickle-down..mumble..mumble* instead of either forcing them to invest it into something productive and/or taxing it if they don't.

[–] MooseGas@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hear me out. Let's make a few nukes. Sure we cut back on military spending, but if you try anything... nuked. We have the uranium.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  1. Nuclear maintenance is very expensive.

  2. Nukes are actually terrible for defense purposes, since starting a nuclear war is a very 'all or nothing' affair, which means your choices are reduced to "Armageddon" or "Let the other side have their way" whenever a crisis comes up.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

Nukes are actually terrible for defense purposes, since starting a nuclear war is a very ‘all or nothing’ affair, which means your choices are reduced to “Armageddon” or “Let the other side have their way” whenever a crisis comes up.

See: Russia and every final warning it has given over Ukraine. Since the US knows they have nothing conventionally and doesn't buy that they're going to end the world over a shipment of helmets or whatever it gets ignored.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apparently, having nukes grants you the "You just crossed another red line!" defence.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is pretty good for stopping an outright invasion, though, if that's your only concern. That's basically what North Korea does. This is not Canada's strategic position.

[–] AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago

Nukes are a good deterrent against attacks on civilians. There's a reason Ukraine hasn't started lobbing rockets at Russian cities.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago

I mean, that's why proliferation happens. It's great for the country doing it but brings us all closer to apocalypse.

In our specific case we're not North Korea and probably don't want to piss off the entire rest of the world, though.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why? Really, this seems like the last moment for that. We should be beefing it up.