U.S. Annexing Canada (split fm Liberal Minority thread)

[GR66]

I was the biggest proponent of buy American before you/them went and got all 51st statey on us.

I still think the best option for most things is American, simply because that sustainment tail is unbeatable. But I dont think the political or social will is there to spend money down there right now.

Your/their Prez really fucked things up. This is on the USA, not Canada.

I agree with you as I was in the same "buy America" boat for most things but I think it's important that we don't bite off our nose to spite our face.

The reality is that the defence of Canada (and North America) will always be a joint effort between Canada and the United States. Close cooperation and interoperability with the US will continue to be important factors in much of our defence procurement - especially in the Air and Naval side of things. Even on the Army side of things any expeditionary conflict we get in will likely have a major US involvement.

Regardless of who's kit we decide to buy we should always make the effort to do so as joint ventures with at least key components (if not full product) production in Canada where possible and volumes, etc. make sense.

So long as Canada is a credible partner in the joint defence of North America the US would have absolutely zero incentive to in any way to do anything to reduce our military effectiveness in being able to help defend themselves.

As far as Europe is concerned - we have forces deployed there with plans to be able to surge more forces in the case of conflict. How many European countries have plans in place to deploy forces to Canada to defend our territory in case of hostilities?

 

[RangerRay]

I was the biggest proponent of buy American before you/them went and got all 51st statey on us.

I still think the best option for most things is American, simply because that sustainment tail is unbeatable. But I dont think the political or social will is there to spend money down there right now.

Your/their Prez really fucked things up. This is on the USA, not Canada.

I agree 100%.

Having said that, I don’t favour reopening our current projects (e.g. F-35, P-8, etc.). We should be focusing our new desire to diversify on future projects where we haven’t already chosen a platform.

 

[Remius]

The US remains the most stable and powerful country on the planet despite the out of control media narratives acting like the end of the world because American's exercised democracy and elected someone outside the establishment.

Powerful yes. Stable not so much. Whims seem to change daily. We can’t count on TACO always being in effect.

Logistics is one of the most important aspects of a successful military. Extending supply chains into the unknowns with countries probably less aligned to Canada's interests isn't the play many think it is. Sure some from the EU or SK, but most from the US.

Stable supply chains. The US is increasingly looking to be isolationist. American First does not include Canada.

The only thing the 51st state rhetoric achieved was showing how insecure Canadians are. Canada is in the position it is because of Canada and Canadians.

Anti Canadian sentiment. Sorry but that is just what it is. And now that Canada is poised to actually do something about it the response is to rely even more on the US?

If anything Canadians seem to be very secure in their position that they don’t want to be the 51st state and won’t accept being insulted by what they thought was a friendly country. While we can deride the elbows up silliness the fact is that the boycott of US products and tourism is having an effect and is sticking. One that will likely take a generation to fix.

The world is in fact dangerous with adversarial players doing bad things, Canadians are resentful because their safety blanket got pulled back and they are forced to make choices they hoped the US would keep making for them: free social programs vs security/defence. It turns out security/defence are super expensive and it's unfair to expect someone else to do it for you forever.

Correct. But with that comes the opportunity to look elsewhere and diversify. The US is retreating in on itself. We are not part of their plan beyond the NA context.

In this period of global uncertainty (which is every period since the dawn of humans), to counter the major threats (Russia/China/Iran/NK) the most pragmatic move is food/resource/defence security and tighter unity of the North American continent while remaining aligned with the EU and other commonwealth of nations. Personalities, egos, media narratives, and special interests are making that difficult.

We had tight unity of the NA continent with the best free trade arrangement in the world. The US is throwing that away. Not us. We have to adapt to that reality.

Golden dome? NORAD? Yes and yes. Everything else though is up to us. The US should no longer be seen as a friend but as someone with interests that may align with us and that could very well change their interests to our detriment. Like any other country.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Watching America turn off equipment supplied to Ukraine when Trump took power indicates to me for the higher tech equipment we shouldn’t be buying American. I don’t like others having that type of control over our goods.

Especially considering from a national security standpoint the US is and always has been the largest existential threat to Canada.

 

[Remius]

Trump raises the price for Canada’s inclusion in the Golden Dome defence system

Canada will need to pay US$71 billion to be included in the Golden Dome defence system, U.S. President Donald Trump revealed.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[PrairieFella]

Trump raises the price for Canada’s inclusion in the Golden Dome defence system

Canada will need to pay US$71 billion to be included in the Golden Dome defence system, U.S. President Donald Trump revealed.

www.ctvnews.ca

Thanks but no thanks

 

[QV]

Watching America turn off equipment supplied to Ukraine when Trump took power indicates to me for the higher tech equipment we shouldn’t be buying American. I don’t like others having that type of control over our goods.

Especially considering from a national security standpoint the US is and always has been the largest existential threat to Canada.

List me a country that is more aligned with Canadian interests than the US.

Then list a country who supplies major military hardware that couldn't/wouldn't turn it off if your use isn't aligned with their interests.

You'd just be going from sub-optimal to worse.

 

[Eaglelord17]

List me a country that is more aligned with Canadian interests than the US.

Then list a country who supplies major military hardware that couldn't/wouldn't turn it off if your use isn't aligned with their interests.

You'd just be going from sub-optimal to worse.

For starters the US isn’t aligned with Canadian interests, they are aligned with their interests. At the moment what those interests are is very erratic. Shutting off weapon systems to Ukraine that they themselves provided to fight what is strategically one of the largest threats to America and it’s allies indicates to me they aren’t reliable.

They are the biggest extensional threat to us, and not just in the invade and take over Canada way.

If the US ever fractures (which when you look at how quick the USSR fell, can happen overnight), that civil war/desolation will have huge consequences for us. This should be one of the largest reasons to maintain our military as that power void would be exploited by many.

The US is our biggest potential threat, why we would buy our highest tech from them is beyond me as the main people who we potentially would have to use it against is them.

Everywhere else, is us reinforcing our allies as a strategic interest as opposed to a necessity. A need is us being directed invaded, which as things stand is a threat only America is providing. Everywhere else we potentially get involved in is mostly a want.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I have to admit I have been pondering a point ever since Trump has started all this talk of 51st state and needing Greenland: How does Article 5 of NATO works in practice if the NATO country being invaded is invaded by another NATO country? Is the invader automatically kicked out of NATO, or is a vote needed? Do all the remaining NATO countries uphold their duty to come to the aid of the invaded country? Or does it mean the practical end of NATO with all countries dividing their loyalties to the invader/invaded based on their own perceived interests? And what happens then with threats external to NATO?

Some people above say that buying into the European re-armament means Canadian dollars leaving the country since we contribute nothing. To me, that is the wrong way of looking at what we could contribute both ways under such participation. WWII is the example: the European powers fighting the war (mostly England and the USSR) couldn't acquire resources and build enough military equipment for their war needs and had to import from North America. In Canada, which barely had industries at the beginning of the war, this meant building huge industrial capacity to build English equipment under license, be they airplanes, vehicles or ships, then ammunition and all sort of ancillary - including food.

If we are to buy European kit within the Re-arm, the same could be done: we buy European kit - some in Europe and some built here under license - and what is bought here under license, the Europeans agree to buy a certain percentage of their own needs (say 10 to 15 %) from us. In return, we build and maintain plants that can easily and quickly ramp up production way over our needs so if need be they can produce for Europe when the needs arise. You can look at it as an insurance policy: Europe is under attack, we build for them, we are under attack (god forbids) they ramp up and supply us. Moreover, building and maintaining such plants with over capacity can count towards our 1.5% of infrastructure expenses.

 

[Remius]

I have to admit I have been pondering a point ever since Trump has started all this talk of 51st state and needing Greenland: How does Article 5 of NATO works in practice if the NATO country being invaded is invaded by another NATO country? Is the invader automatically kicked out of NATO, or is a vote needed? Do all the remaining NATO countries uphold their duty to come to the aid of the invaded country? Or does it mean the practical end of NATO with all countries dividing their loyalties to the invader/invaded based on their own perceived interests? And what happens then with threats external to NATO?

Some people above say that buying into the European re-armament means Canadian dollars leaving the country since we contribute nothing. To me, that is the wrong way of looking at what we could contribute both ways under such participation. WWII is the example: the European powers fighting the war (mostly England and the USSR) couldn't acquire resources and build enough military equipment for their war needs and had to import from North America. In Canada, which barely had industries at the beginning of the war, this meant building huge industrial capacity to build English equipment under license, be they airplanes, vehicles or ships, then ammunition and all sort of ancillary - including food.

If we are to buy European kit within the Re-arm, the same could be done: we buy European kit - some in Europe and some built here under license - and what is bought here under license, the Europeans agree to buy a certain percentage of their own needs (say 10 to 15 %) from us. In return, we build and maintain plants that can easily and quickly ramp up production way over our needs so if need be they can produce for Europe when the needs arise. You can look at it as an insurance policy: Europe is under attack, we build for them, we are under attack (god forbids) they ramp up and supply us. Moreover, building and maintaining such plants with over capacity can count towards our 1.5% of infrastructure expenses.

Exactly. US defence industry isn’t going to come here. But the European one, one that we would be a part of, will.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I have to admit I have been pondering a point ever since Trump has started all this talk of 51st state and needing Greenland: How does Article 5 of NATO works in practice if the NATO country being invaded is invaded by another NATO country? Is the invader automatically kicked out of NATO, or is a vote needed? Do all the remaining NATO countries uphold their duty to come to the aid of the invaded country? Or does it mean the practical end of NATO with all countries dividing their loyalties to the invader/invaded based on their own perceived interests? And what happens then with threats external to NATO?

Greece and Turkey tested this out in 1974. I guess the Grey Area was that Cyprus wasn't part of either country's internal boundaries, so the rest of NATO called mulligan and let the U.N. break up the fight.

The U.S. making a move for Canada would definitely be a completely different ball of wax.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Greece and Turkey tested this out in 1974. I guess the Grey Area was that Cyprus wasn't part of either country's internal boundaries, so the rest of NATO called mulligan and let the U.N. break up the fight.

The U.S. making a move for Canada would definitely be a completely different ball of wax.

In that case, I wonder if France would make a sudden play for Quebec, you know, the 'special' relationship and such. I'm sure Trump would be only to glad to have not to deal with the Office quebecois de la langue francaise - aka The Quebec Language Police.....

In that scenario, I'd move to Quebec and hope for EU citizenship.

 

[Remius]

In that case, I wonder if France would make a sudden play for Quebec, you know, the 'special' relationship and such. I'm sure Trump would be only to glad to have not to deal with the Office quebecois de la langue francaise - aka The Quebec Language Police.....

In that scenario, I'd move to Quebec and hope for EU citizenship.

France abandoned any ambitions on New France well before the Brits took over and haver never looked back.

 

[Haggis]

In that case, I wonder if France would make a sudden play for Quebec, you know, the 'special' relationship and such. I'm sure Trump would be only to glad to have not to deal with the Office quebecois de la langue francaise - aka The Quebec Language Police.....

In that scenario, I'd move to Quebec and hope for EU citizenship.

I was born in Québec. I currently live in Ontario, about 30 km from the Québec border and I work for the feds at a workplace in Québec. Could I claim dual citizenship?

 

[dapaterson]

In that case, I wonder if France would make a sudden play for Quebec, you know, the 'special' relationship and such. I'm sure Trump would be only to glad to have not to deal with the Office quebecois de la langue francaise - aka The Quebec Language Police.....

In that scenario, I'd move to Quebec and hope for EU citizenship.

Warnings and indicators: a buildup on St Pierre & Miquelon.

 

[GR66]

I have to admit I have been pondering a point ever since Trump has started all this talk of 51st state and needing Greenland: How does Article 5 of NATO works in practice if the NATO country being invaded is invaded by another NATO country? Is the invader automatically kicked out of NATO, or is a vote needed? Do all the remaining NATO countries uphold their duty to come to the aid of the invaded country? Or does it mean the practical end of NATO with all countries dividing their loyalties to the invader/invaded based on their own perceived interests? And what happens then with threats external to NATO?

Let's be realistic. If the US were to invade Canada the rest of NATO would have no capability to do anything about it. They are not about to attack the most powerful nation on Earth on our behalf. NATO as a trans-Atlantic defence pact would end. NATO (or something similar) as a pan-European defence pact would likely take its place...and likely force Europe to cooperate even more closely as they would have no US military to back them up against Russia.

Some people above say that buying into the European re-armament means Canadian dollars leaving the country since we contribute nothing. To me, that is the wrong way of looking at what we could contribute both ways under such participation. WWII is the example: the European powers fighting the war (mostly England and the USSR) couldn't acquire resources and build enough military equipment for their war needs and had to import from North America. In Canada, which barely had industries at the beginning of the war, this meant building huge industrial capacity to build English equipment under license, be they airplanes, vehicles or ships, then ammunition and all sort of ancillary - including food.

There are definite benefits to Canada being a safe supply source beyond easy reach of Russian conventional forces.

If we are to buy European kit within the Re-arm, the same could be done: we buy European kit - some in Europe and some built here under license - and what is bought here under license, the Europeans agree to buy a certain percentage of their own needs (say 10 to 15 %) from us. In return, we build and maintain plants that can easily and quickly ramp up production way over our needs so if need be they can produce for Europe when the needs arise. You can look at it as an insurance policy: Europe is under attack, we build for them, we are under attack (god forbids) they ramp up and supply us. Moreover, building and maintaining such plants with over capacity can count towards our 1.5% of infrastructure expenses.

I'm definitely a fan of domestic production of munitions in particular which will out of necessity be joint-ventures with European (or South Korean or US) companies in the absence of a domestic industry. However, whatever capacity we build will likely not be enough to supply both our and Europe's requirements during a conflict. The solution is to use excess Canadian production to build up large stockpiles of key munitions before any conflict. We could then be a non-US source of significant munition supply during a war (and as a bonus such production would count toward our 3.5% GDP defence expenditures while at the same time providing enough volume to keep Canadian manufacturers running in peacetime).

 

[Czech_pivo]

I was born in Québec. I currently live in Ontario, about 30 km from the Québec border and I work for the feds at a workplace in Québec. Could I claim dual citizenship?

Place of Birth = Quebec, I'd say pass the language test that I'm sure they'd make you take and viola, bienvenue au quebec!

 

[Czech_pivo]

France abandoned any ambitions on New France well before the Brits took over and haver never looked back.

True, but in this case, I'm fairly certain that they would make a play for Quebec.

 

[Remius]

True, but in this case, I'm fairly certain that they would make a play for Quebec.

Quebec would be making a play for itself before France ever would. And to what end?

France has never had territorial ambitions when it comes to QC.

France is more concerned with its own back yard.

Unlike Alberta separatism, Quebec separatists are looking to have their own country, not join another one.

More curiously, why would you be certain that they would make a move? What leads you to believe that?

 

[Altair]

Frankly this thread seem to have been hijacked by a don’t buy American gear mantra.

I’m guessing very few people here have worked with European Arms companies…

Meh, we don't tend to buy kit from our geopolitical rivals, China, Russia....