U.S. military fighter F35-A jets at José Aponte de la Torre Airport in Ceiba, Puerto Rico, in December, 2025.MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO/AFP/Getty Images
Trading places
Re “Ontario NDP deputy leader resigns to run in by-election for Bill Blair’s former riding” (Feb. 4): What a cynical and ill-timed turn of events.
As Don Davies said, the abrupt move to the federal Liberals by Doly Begum betrays the voters who elected her to Queen’s Park. Ontario’s opposition parties need all hands on deck in the difficult task of holding the increasingly bunker-like, non-consultative Ford majority government to account.
As for the Liberals, party members in Bill Blair’s former riding undoubtedly would have appreciated consultation about candidate selection before this arbitrary, top-down arrangement.
Gord McNulty Hamilton
Which one?
Re “Trump and Ottawa’s take on TACO will determine Canada’s fighter-jet strategy” (Report on Business, Jan. 31): The Swedish offer is an opportunity to re-establish the aerospace industry with a fleet of Canadian-made aircraft that doesn’t rely on the United States for software upgrades, are designed for the Arctic and are cheaper to build and maintain.
We would achieve the strategic autonomy of having the technology in Canada. Saab would be a reliable partner and committed to support Canadian-made Gripen aircraft. We would have the ability to do the research and upgrade to future generations.
Consider all this: a reliable partner, a cost-efficient aircraft designed for the North, 12,600 domestic jobs, Canadian control over software updates and the potential to revive and grow our aerospace industry.
We should take the Swedish offer. Choose the Gripen and all that will come with it.
Morley Lertzman North Vancouver
If the Canadian Armed Forces has evaluated the F-35 as the best jet for its missions, choosing the Gripen would show that Canada has learned nothing from decades of botched military procurement.
The saga of poor choices, from the Arrow cancellation to the previously promised F-35 cancellation, demonstrates that putting the politics of the day ahead of getting the best weapons, at the best price, results in a poorly equipped military.
Two things seem certain: We will continue to be connected to the United States for defence, and it will remain our largest export market. Another (almost) certainty: Donald Trump will no longer be president on Jan. 20, 2029, but the U.S. will still be economically and militarily attached to Canada.
Preventing our forces from being as interdependent as possible, particularly for the assertion of Arctic sovereignty, would be a short-term political error with consequences lasting a jet’s lifespan.
John Harris Toronto
Nuclear option
Re “Canada should ‘keep our options open’ on acquiring nuclear weapons, former defence chief says” (Feb. 3): I have to strongly disagree with retired general Wayne Eyre’s position. The nuclear powers have enough bombs to destroy the planet many time over.
One study concluded that as few as 100 nuclear bombs could create a nuclear winter killing more than two billion humans.
Non-nuclear countries should band together to pressure nuclear powers to reduce their stock, not modernize or increase it.
Gilles Fecteau Treasurer, Science for Peace; Toronto
The key thing about the single-minded pursuit of militarized security: It will never be enough.
Did we really think increasing military spending from 1.4 to 5 per cent of GDP would be enough? We’ve barely begun, and already retired general Wayne Eyre concludes it will leave us as vulnerable as ever.
Hasn’t he noticed that all nine nuclear states are feeling acutely insecure? All are spending billions of dollars, some speak of trillions, to “modernize” their vaunted nuclear arsenals, fearing they are hopelessly out of date.
Canada has formally supported the abolition of nuclear weapons since the first resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in 1946. Sometimes we’ve pursued that objective with vigour, often with only lip service.
We have no choice but to persist. The alternative would be to heighten insecurity and threats of global catastrophe – and what would be richly deserved pariah status.
Ernie Regehr Waterloo, Ont.
The retired general is correct insofar as Canada’s nuclear industry does provide us the ingredients for nuclear weapons. But as physicians, we understand that nuclear weapons must never be used again.
Even a limited nuclear war would likely leave billions dead and civilization in ruins. Deterrence is not insurance, since failure is catastrophic.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force five years ago, and now more than half of all United Nations member states have formally aligned themselves with it.
A new arms race, with more countries acquiring nuclear weapons, would not make us safer. Quite the opposite.
Instead, Canada should sign the TPNW and work to rid the world of this danger.
Tim Takaro MD; co-vice-president, North America, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War; New Westminster, B.C.
When Canada signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the 1960s, the United States was a democratically flourishing, internationally law-abiding country. Today, we face a potentially existential threat from our southern neighbours.
The time might come, sooner than we think, when we have to stop being polite Canadians and defiantly put our elbows up. And I’m not talking about hockey.
Marty Cutler Toronto
To a man
Re “In an uncertain climate, Canada needs a civil defence corps” (Jan. 30): This eye-opening opinion prompted me to download a lengthy document from the Canadian Forces College regarding society-wide military preparedness.
I was surprised to find out that if my wife and I (both in our mid-60s) lived in Sweden, we could potentially be drafted into military service. Scary times, but Canada needs all the preparedness it can muster.
Evan Bedford Red Deer, Alta.
Old faithful
Re “Let me tell you a story about my wonky refrigerator” (Jan. 29): My experience has been that the older the appliance, the more durable.
Our longest-lasting fridge must have originated in the 1950s. It never did stop working, but we donated it to the Great Refrigerator Roundup, where people pick up old models to encourage the purchase of more energy-efficient ones. This one is still running, 25 years later (but without an ice maker; we did not find it strenuous to add water to ice cube trays).
Stoves we buy used with detachable electrical elements in the oven, as we had a bad experience with one run by a motherboard. With cars, we were told never to buy one less than two years old, as the first owner pays for the privilege of “getting the bugs out.”
And so we live on in our little time-warp bubble, resisting planned obsolescence and hoping to outlive the robots.
Carol Lewis London, Ont.
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com