I dont know if this actually translates to opportunities to start new defense businesses though, vs canada putting more money into existing supplier and european partners
European arms manufacturing seems quite fragmented, but keen to integrate as a viable alternative to the US. I can imagine Canada being a part of this?
Europe kind of sort of has all the same competences of the US in this area (tanks, APCs, AA missiles, SA missiles, aerospace, radars to name a few) but lacks the scale of production, there's clear scope for collaboration.
BDC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, has shifted toward investing in Defence, which from my understanding they didn't really do much of before, so it's probably a better time than ever to be a defence startup in Canada.
The Canadian defense budget is quite small (30bn). 4bn is a big number compared to that but in general this is quite small compared to most developed countries. I believe Canada has been quiet thanks to their neighbors protecting them but with that changing I’m wondering whether there will be a shift in defense spending.
This will also create new jobs and a market which the economy probably needs.
There are only 15 countries worldwide with a higher defence budget than Canada so the budget is hardly tiny, it just doesn’t meet the arbitrary and obscene targets of 2/5% GDP. In actuality, Canada spends more than twice as much per capita than the world average.
The only realistic threat to Canada is the new one from Donald Trump, but it would take closer to 30% GDP to protect from that one.
> There are only 15 countries worldwide with a higher defence budget than Canada so the budget is hardly tiny...
Canada is pretty big: it's the second-largest country by land-area. Surely there must be certain defense expenditures that need to scale with that?
> In actuality, Canada spends more than twice as much per capita than the world average.
That seems like a twisted measure, due to 1) the land-area issue I mentioned above, and 2) there are a lot of countries in the world that are small and poor, and thus cannot afford a military that can actually defend themselves.
> The only realistic threat to Canada is the new one from Donald Trump...
How is USA not realistic threat? They are already going out of their way to harm and weaken Canada. They are openly talking about expanding. They are already commiting war crimes in pacific and have fascist leadership. With president likely having alzeihmer or dementia or other mental healt issue
Trump says a lot of things, but he pretty much always chickens out. I am certain he'd chicken out of invading Canada, if that's something he was ever seriously considering. And I doubt he's seriously considering it: he appears to believe being "unpredictable" gives him advantage in negotiations, saying outrageous things makes him "unpredictable."
He is not chickening out in committing international piracy and abduction. Annexation is just a step away from that. Greenland is a soft, conquerable target - can hoist the Stars&Stripes and stomp the natives under boots without much trouble. Canada, on the other hand, is bloody hard and conquest won't happen.
> He is not chickening out in committing international piracy and abduction.
The boat attacks are small actions, unlikely to result in any consequences. Also I haven't followed it super-closely, but I believe the claim is those are cartel drug-smuggling boats, and I haven't seen anything indicating that's wrong (e.g. they bombed an innocent fishing boat). No one cries for the poor, grotesquely guilty cartels. Trump will do low-cost stuff like that. Also piracy requires plunder. Blowing boats up isn't piracy, because there's no plunder.
No one liked Maduro, and he probably stole his last election (at least), so no one's really crying for him. Are you?
> Greenland is a soft, conquerable target - can hoist the Stars&Stripes and stomp the natives under boots without much trouble.
Didn't Trump already back down on that?
> Canada, on the other hand, is bloody hard and conquest won't happen.
So you concede my point? Even with Canada's military exactly as it is right now, there's no realistic military threat to it from Trump, because he's never going to commit to anything that costly.
Looks like they may be cancelling half of F-35 order in favor of Swedish Gripen
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2026/02/16/once_un...
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/john-ivison-sources-ottawa-conside... "The most likely scenario seems to be that Canada will buy around 40 F-35s and complement them with up to 80 Saab Gripens, which would be made in Quebec."
Gripens are less capable but half the price of F-35, allowing Canada to trade 40 F-35's on order for 80 Gripens to be built in Canada.
I dont know if this actually translates to opportunities to start new defense businesses though, vs canada putting more money into existing supplier and european partners
European arms manufacturing seems quite fragmented, but keen to integrate as a viable alternative to the US. I can imagine Canada being a part of this?
Europe kind of sort of has all the same competences of the US in this area (tanks, APCs, AA missiles, SA missiles, aerospace, radars to name a few) but lacks the scale of production, there's clear scope for collaboration.
BDC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, has shifted toward investing in Defence, which from my understanding they didn't really do much of before, so it's probably a better time than ever to be a defence startup in Canada.
https://www.bdc.ca/en/about/mediaroom/news-releases/bdc-intr...
The Canadian defense budget is quite small (30bn). 4bn is a big number compared to that but in general this is quite small compared to most developed countries. I believe Canada has been quiet thanks to their neighbors protecting them but with that changing I’m wondering whether there will be a shift in defense spending.
This will also create new jobs and a market which the economy probably needs.
There are only 15 countries worldwide with a higher defence budget than Canada so the budget is hardly tiny, it just doesn’t meet the arbitrary and obscene targets of 2/5% GDP. In actuality, Canada spends more than twice as much per capita than the world average.
The only realistic threat to Canada is the new one from Donald Trump, but it would take closer to 30% GDP to protect from that one.
> There are only 15 countries worldwide with a higher defence budget than Canada so the budget is hardly tiny...
Canada is pretty big: it's the second-largest country by land-area. Surely there must be certain defense expenditures that need to scale with that?
> In actuality, Canada spends more than twice as much per capita than the world average.
That seems like a twisted measure, due to 1) the land-area issue I mentioned above, and 2) there are a lot of countries in the world that are small and poor, and thus cannot afford a military that can actually defend themselves.
> The only realistic threat to Canada is the new one from Donald Trump...
That's actually not a realistic threat, either.
How is USA not realistic threat? They are already going out of their way to harm and weaken Canada. They are openly talking about expanding. They are already commiting war crimes in pacific and have fascist leadership. With president likely having alzeihmer or dementia or other mental healt issue
Trump says a lot of things, but he pretty much always chickens out. I am certain he'd chicken out of invading Canada, if that's something he was ever seriously considering. And I doubt he's seriously considering it: he appears to believe being "unpredictable" gives him advantage in negotiations, saying outrageous things makes him "unpredictable."
He is not chickening out in committing international piracy and abduction. Annexation is just a step away from that. Greenland is a soft, conquerable target - can hoist the Stars&Stripes and stomp the natives under boots without much trouble. Canada, on the other hand, is bloody hard and conquest won't happen.
> He is not chickening out in committing international piracy and abduction.
The boat attacks are small actions, unlikely to result in any consequences. Also I haven't followed it super-closely, but I believe the claim is those are cartel drug-smuggling boats, and I haven't seen anything indicating that's wrong (e.g. they bombed an innocent fishing boat). No one cries for the poor, grotesquely guilty cartels. Trump will do low-cost stuff like that. Also piracy requires plunder. Blowing boats up isn't piracy, because there's no plunder.
No one liked Maduro, and he probably stole his last election (at least), so no one's really crying for him. Are you?
> Greenland is a soft, conquerable target - can hoist the Stars&Stripes and stomp the natives under boots without much trouble.
Didn't Trump already back down on that?
> Canada, on the other hand, is bloody hard and conquest won't happen.
So you concede my point? Even with Canada's military exactly as it is right now, there's no realistic military threat to it from Trump, because he's never going to commit to anything that costly.
Would be cheaper to just buy a billion worth of his crypto and then he'll be offering us all the bubba treatment, eh?
Another relationship that Trump destroyed and won't come back in the next 30 years.
And the crazy thing is, people would know this if they just read the news. But legacy media really destroyed themselves