• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CAN-USA Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

'National interest' needs to include protection from foreign and domestic interference from environmental and special interest groups. Charges laid and sentences given need to reflect the seriousness of our resolve to get this done.

It also needs to legislate a cure to future interference from another special interest government like our current one.
 
Something, something, I told you so, keep bouncing around in my skull.

It may already be too late, but you can't give China the slightest toe hold in any country, without long term damage to said country.

Plain and simple, their long game is world domination and sole ownership of all resources. WEF are amateurs, comparably, when it comes to installing friendly officials in foreign governments. Even though the goals appear the same.

We have had enough espionage, smuggling, political interference, coercion and theft of intellectual property, by Beijing to justify a complete severance from them. If we can't buy back what they now own here, we should nationalize it and squeeze them out.

We should help them go green and make them start using all the wind generators and solar panels they export by stopping our coal shipments to them.
Coal, and wheat/grains also.

A billion + mouths to feed surely isn't easy, and humans start to act irrational and dangerous when they start to go hungry.

I imagine food shipments (or certain key ingredients such as wheat, grains, etc) are our secret weapon against China, in addition to coal.



I don't know if China and the WEF share the same goals, at least not in a competitive sense.

China wants to dominate the world, and plays the long game to see that it happens. I don't know if they want to eliminate all of the nations of the world, but they certainly do want to influence their politics and control their resources.

The WEF on the other hand seems more interested in the destruction of the idea of the nation state, the elimination of borders, the elimination of unique & rich cultures in favour of a mass migration "meh" culture shared world wide, and the systematic elimination of humans.

...

I agree with you. China does make the WEF globalists look like amateurs by comparison.
China still practices statemanship, in it's own form. They want other countries to turn to China for their economic needs, and they want other countries to allow them to build infrastructure there for future use - so they try to maintain good relations, because its more economically beneficial to both parties.

The WEF has gotten sloppy in terms of their political interference, most likely due to just sheer arrogance. They've corrupted and disrupted the proper functioning of all levels of government in so many western countries, they certainly seem a lot less concerned about the spotlight being shown on them or their plans.

I would also agree with you that China does long term damage to whatever countries they focus on. I would just suggest that the WEF does also, and to an equal degree
 
Ah yes, the WEF.


Think About It GIF by Big Potato Games
 
Putting this onto the pile of chips - cost of entry into the US market?




Breaking Defense on "Iron Dome USA (NORAD?)"


...

It's late in the day, but it is movement in the right direction as far as I am concerned.
Is this really where we want to spend our defence dollars?


From the article:
A new study of US missile defenses has found that — after 70 years and some $350 billion in investment — no “system thus far developed has been shown to be effective against realistic ICBM threats” to the homeland.
And here's a good interview on the subject on the Angry Planet podcast:


Participate on the sensor side of the program? Absolutely. (i.e. NORAD Modernization)

Spend a ton money on extremely expensive intercept missiles that are only around 50% effective in highly unrealistic best case scenario tests and in quantities that are effectively irrelevant considering the number of missiles that would be incoming in a nuclear conflict? No

There are literally hundreds of areas of defence spending where our money would be much better spent.
 
Is this really where we want to spend our defence dollars?


From the article:

And here's a good interview on the subject on the Angry Planet podcast:


Participate on the sensor side of the program? Absolutely. (i.e. NORAD Modernization)

Spend a ton money on extremely expensive intercept missiles that are only around 50% effective in highly unrealistic best case scenario tests and in quantities that are effectively irrelevant considering the number of missiles that would be incoming in a nuclear conflict? No

There are literally hundreds of areas of defence spending where our money would be much better spent.

Is the ICBM threat the primary threat? The old plan was Ballistic Missile Defense. The new plan is Integrated Air Missile Defense which encompasses Ballistic Missiles of all types (ICBM, MRBM, SRBMs, SLBMs) as well as all manner of air vehicles, from cruise missiles and aircraft to helicopters and UAS, launched from all manner of platforms including boats, ships, trucks and aircraft. And they can be launched by all manner of adversaries, foreign and domestic, political and criminal.


Emphasizing the UAS threat, General Guillot told the committee that there were 350 UAS detections over a total of 100 different U.S. military installations in 2024. Currently, just over half of U.S. installations fall under U.S. Code Section 130i, defining them as “covered” installations that are allowed to defend themselves from UAS incursions.

In response, he requested that Section 130i be reviewed and its coverage expanded to all military installations. He underlined the benefits of extending the range of self-defense beyond installation boundaries, allowing defensive operators to defeat incoming threats before reaching them.

The USAF and the US Army are trying to figure out themselves how to slice the air defense pie. Who is responsible for what and if they have the right tools in the right number.

I will go one step further and suggest that military bases and vital points are not the sole, or even primary points that need protection. Canada lists the following Critical Infrastructure segments.

Energy and utilities
Finance
Food
Government
Health
Information and communication technology
Manufacturing
Safety
Transportation
Water

Fortunately most of those elements come together in our urban centres so if we gear ourselves to protect those centres then we probably cover the vast majority of the nodes related to the Critical Infrastructure. So if we have a plan to protect our "places" then we have done much to protect ourselves and our lifestyle.

On the other hand there are a lot of "spaces" between the "places" in Canada and a lot of the infrastructure is dedicated to connecting those "places" across those "spaces". Sometimes it is the difficult matter of protecting thousands of kilometers of linear features like roads and railways, power lines and pipelines. Sometimes is a matter of protecting isolated but significant nodes, everything from Cell Towers to places like Hardisty.

Hardisty is a town in Flagstaff County in east-central Alberta, Canada. It is approximately 111 kilometres (69 mi) from the Saskatchewan border, near the crossroads of Highway 13 and Highway 881, in the Battle River Valley. Hardisty is mainly known as a pivotal petroleum industry hub where petroleum products such as Western Canada Select blended crude oil and Hardisty heavy oil are produced and traded.

To that we can add places like the Burnaby oil terminal, the Kitimat LNG terminal and even New Brunswick's Belledune port should it, like Manitoba's Churchill or Ontario's Moosonee find a renaissance.

The vertical threat is no longer simply ICBMs delivered by state actors. That is probably the least of our worries. I suggest that the aerial threat is now a lot more prolific and a lot more mundane and that that is what the Integrated Air Missile Defenc(s)e needs to be about. That is what I think Homeland Security/Northern Command/NORAD are all seized with that issue. And that is one that I hope we can find common ground with the US even in Trump's world.

By the way, I suspect that an effective IAMD system for Canada would eat up a large portion of the 5% of GDP that Trump wants allocated to our defence.
 
Is the ICBM threat the primary threat? The old plan was Ballistic Missile Defense. The new plan is Integrated Air Missile Defense which encompasses Ballistic Missiles of all types (ICBM, MRBM, SRBMs, SLBMs) as well as all manner of air vehicles, from cruise missiles and aircraft to helicopters and UAS, launched from all manner of platforms including boats, ships, trucks and aircraft. And they can be launched by all manner of adversaries, foreign and domestic, political and criminal.




The USAF and the US Army are trying to figure out themselves how to slice the air defense pie. Who is responsible for what and if they have the right tools in the right number.

I will go one step further and suggest that military bases and vital points are not the sole, or even primary points that need protection. Canada lists the following Critical Infrastructure segments.

Energy and utilities
Finance
Food
Government
Health
Information and communication technology
Manufacturing
Safety
Transportation
Water

Fortunately most of those elements come together in our urban centres so if we gear ourselves to protect those centres then we probably cover the vast majority of the nodes related to the Critical Infrastructure. So if we have a plan to protect our "places" then we have done much to protect ourselves and our lifestyle.

On the other hand there are a lot of "spaces" between the "places" in Canada and a lot of the infrastructure is dedicated to connecting those "places" across those "spaces". Sometimes it is the difficult matter of protecting thousands of kilometers of linear features like roads and railways, power lines and pipelines. Sometimes is a matter of protecting isolated but significant nodes, everything from Cell Towers to places like Hardisty.



To that we can add places like the Burnaby oil terminal, the Kitimat LNG terminal and even New Brunswick's Belledune port should it, like Manitoba's Churchill or Ontario's Moosonee find a renaissance.

The vertical threat is no longer simply ICBMs delivered by state actors. That is probably the least of our worries. I suggest that the aerial threat is now a lot more prolific and a lot more mundane and that that is what the Integrated Air Missile Defenc(s)e needs to be about. That is what I think Homeland Security/Northern Command/NORAD are all seized with that issue. And that is one that I hope we can find common ground with the US even in Trump's world.

By the way, I suspect that an effective IAMD system for Canada would eat up a large portion of the 5% of GDP that Trump wants allocated to our defence.
There are a lot cheaper AD options to deal with air-breathing threats and those options tend to be much more mobile than the ABM systems (and don't get me started on the "Star Wars" fantasy of space-based interceptors).

Do we need AD capabilities? Yes!
Do we need NORAD upgrades to improve our domain awareness? Yes!
Do we need ABM and space-based interceptors? No!

UAV's are certainly a threat (and so are rockets and mortar shells) so SHORAD, C-RAM and EW capabilities are definitely required but don't need to be part of a North-America wide Iron Dome system.

If a raft of hypersonic glide weapons and/or cruise missiles are launched against us I guarantee that ICBM's will very shortly after be flying in both directions. The US will not risk such a conventional attack being an attempted decapitation first strike and will launch on the instigator. And they in turn will retaliate with their own ICBM's.

MAD is very much alive and well. Attempting to create an effective ABM shield over the US/North America (assuming it doesn't bankrupt us first) will just result in our enemies increasing their number of missiles to overwhelm whatever systems we put in place. And if it actually looks like we are on the verge of creating a system that would allow us to survive an enemy attack then there would be a HUGE incentive for our enemies to strike first before it's in place because once it is they will be wide open for a US first strike.

Let Trump waste his tariff money for four years and get no meaningful defence in return. We've got much more useful things we can spend our money on.

$0.02
 
Is the ICBM threat the primary threat? The old plan was Ballistic Missile Defense. The new plan is Integrated Air Missile Defense which encompasses Ballistic Missiles of all types (ICBM, MRBM, SRBMs, SLBMs) as well as all manner of air vehicles, from cruise missiles and aircraft to helicopters and UAS, launched from all manner of platforms including boats, ships, trucks and aircraft. And they can be launched by all manner of adversaries, foreign and domestic, political and criminal.




The USAF and the US Army are trying to figure out themselves how to slice the air defense pie. Who is responsible for what and if they have the right tools in the right number.

I will go one step further and suggest that military bases and vital points are not the sole, or even primary points that need protection. Canada lists the following Critical Infrastructure segments.

Energy and utilities
Finance
Food
Government
Health
Information and communication technology
Manufacturing
Safety
Transportation
Water

Fortunately most of those elements come together in our urban centres so if we gear ourselves to protect those centres then we probably cover the vast majority of the nodes related to the Critical Infrastructure. So if we have a plan to protect our "places" then we have done much to protect ourselves and our lifestyle.

On the other hand there are a lot of "spaces" between the "places" in Canada and a lot of the infrastructure is dedicated to connecting those "places" across those "spaces". Sometimes it is the difficult matter of protecting thousands of kilometers of linear features like roads and railways, power lines and pipelines. Sometimes is a matter of protecting isolated but significant nodes, everything from Cell Towers to places like Hardisty.



To that we can add places like the Burnaby oil terminal, the Kitimat LNG terminal and even New Brunswick's Belledune port should it, like Manitoba's Churchill or Ontario's Moosonee find a renaissance.

The vertical threat is no longer simply ICBMs delivered by state actors. That is probably the least of our worries. I suggest that the aerial threat is now a lot more prolific and a lot more mundane and that that is what the Integrated Air Missile Defenc(s)e needs to be about. That is what I think Homeland Security/Northern Command/NORAD are all seized with that issue. And that is one that I hope we can find common ground with the US even in Trump's world.

By the way, I suspect that an effective IAMD system for Canada would eat up a large portion of the 5% of GDP that Trump wants allocated to our defence.
There you go making sense again.
 
Enbridge weighs in...

Enbridge CEO Calls for "National Interest" Designation for Major Pipelines in Canada

Enbridge Inc. CEO Greg Ebel said Canada must designate major pipeline projects as being "in the national interest" before companies will reinvest in them.

Speaking Friday during a quarterly earnings conference call, Ebel outlined several conditions necessary for Enbridge to consider future major oil pipeline projects similar to the company's cancelled Northern Gateway pipeline project.

Ebel said such a designation would require legislative changes at both the federal and provincial levels. He cited the need for permitting reforms and the repeal of federal legislation like Bill C-69, which altered the process for federal reviews of major projects.

He also emphasized the importance of increased Indigenous consultation and loan guarantees for Indigenous groups seeking equity stakes in these projects.

Ebel criticized federal environmental policies, including Bill C-59's greenwashing regulations and the oil and gas emissions cap, arguing that government policies should support energy production rather than curtail it.

Enbridge CEO Calls for "National Interest" Designation for Major Pipelines in Canada | Pipeline Technology Journal

Further to....

“For any project to be economically viable, it will require significant regulatory reform to happen in Canada. Many projects are technically achievable.”


A long-shelved proposal to build a northern branch off the Trans Mountain pipeline system to the northern British Columbia coast is attracting renewed interest as the Canadian oilpatch and federal and provincial governments grapple with a response to new trade headwinds with the United States.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX) may have sufficient capacity to support a so-called TMX Northern Leg, which would involve constructing a new lateral pipeline branch off the mainline near Valemount, B.C., to carry crude to an export terminal in Kitimat, according to sources familiar with the federally owned pipeline system.

The 300,000-to-400,000-barrel-per-day (b/d) expansion was part of former pipeline owner Kinder Morgan Inc.’s original plans for a multi-stage TMX program, which was laid out in previous service agreements with shippers and in 2011 submissions to the federal regulator over pipeline tolls and tariffs.

...

sources familiar with the pipeline say the Northern Leg remains an option and that the TMX was built with sufficient capacity along its length from Edmonton through Jasper National Park and Mount Robson Provincial Park to handle it.
 
This could probably go in a number of different threads, but this one might be the most suitable.

Terry Glavin doesn’t hold back. No coated sugar.


The United States was once truly the greatest country on earth. Canadians were proud to serve alongside Americans, from Korea to Afghanistan, and our love for our American friends has not dimmed. But after we fought like lions in Kandahar, we saw the writing on Barack Obama’s wall, and it was signed by his scheming vice-president, Joe Biden. You surrendered to the Taliban.

That was Biden’s idea, and Trump’s doing, and Biden put Trump’s surrender into motion when it was his turn again to stick knives into the backs of our Afghan comrades. Democrats and Republicans both squandered the legacy of their own war dead in Afghanistan, in equal measure, and Vladimir Putin noticed. Bashar Assad noticed. Hundreds of thousands ended up dead because of American cowardice.

This is not to absolve Canada or the other NATO countries for the long decline of democracy around the world these past 17 years. But you say you don't want to be "the world's policeman" anymore. Fine. Go home.

You've become a crooked cop who colludes with the world's most vile gangsters. Your "foreign policy" has become an extortion racket preying on the wounded and the maimed.

You were once a shining city on a hill, and you now draw to your borders only the trudging downtrodden and the dregs of the world's poorest backwaters. You're a hollowed-out relic undergoing a final dismemberment run from the White House by a ketamine-addled oligarch who wants to be the American viceroy of a Mars colony. Your president has lost his mind.

Among civilized people everywhere, America has become an object of pity, revulsion and contempt. And yet you still claim to want Canada to "renegotiate" an alliance with you, after you've just negotiated a grand-bargain alliance with the torturer and mass murderer Vladimir Putin, the sworn enemy of civilized people everywhere.
For Canadian subscribers, here’s a proper Conservative. As you might imagine, he is not among the fifth of Canada’s would-be Conservative voters who would be happy, if provided with the opportunity, to join the United States. His name is Stephen Harper. You may have heard of him. This is what Harper has to say for himself:

“I have repeatedly said that Canada’s alliance, partnership, and friendship with the United States is one of our country’s greatest assets. However, given a contrary American perspective, our focus now should not be on pursuing a deeper economic and security partnership. At this stage, whatever comes next from the President, Canada must avoid further dependency on the United States.

For saying exactly the same thing, I have been roundly villified by a significant cohort of Canadian “conservatives” who also style themselves, as often as not, as Albertan sovereignists, or separatists. They are millstones around the necks of every prospective candidate for Poilievre’s party. They are an encumbrance on Poilievre’s ability to articulate a distinct approach to our current predicament. Poilievre is a patriot, and it’s not fair, but life isn’t either and the Liberals are fast gaining ground.

My pal Bari Weiss, editor of the Free Press, has noticed the same thing in the United States - the rise of a reactionary, lumpen right, masquerading as conservatives. “Like the far left, they have no use for history, but judge people living and dead in the ideological light of presentism, or simply reimagine them from scratch. As the left defaced and desecrated statues of Churchill, the vandals on the right desecrate his name and his memory.

“. . .All of this seems as obvious to me as the notion that a girl cannot become a boy. But a lot of people seem to have a hard time saying these things out loud right now.”

A bracing read in the Free Press, by River Page: The Online Right Is Building A Monster.

Over in Britain, my old chum Nick Cohen’s chronicles of the left’s descent into a suicidal “antiwar” neo-Stalinism and apologetics for theocratic fascism are essential reading (see for instance his book What's Left?: How the Left Lost its Way). Nick has noticed exactly the same thing lately: Why conservatives embrace extremism: How Trumpist fantasies destroy the moderate right.

“The communists justified dictatorship by saying that democracy was a sham because capitalists secretly pulled the strings of power. The Nazis justified their dictatorship by saying the Jews controlled democracies. Today’s far right says democracy is a sham because the progressive elite rigs elections with migrants and covertly controls the deep state.

“A bitter old wine is being decanted into shiny new bottles.”
And there’s more.
 
The Globe and Mail speculating on how to access that 700 BUSD per year of investment capital that flows from Canada to the US


First, point out an obvious selling feature Canada already has: political stability.

Meh... mezza mezza

As a second major selling point, our political system must – at all levels of government – develop the same steady-as-she-goes reputation when it comes to vetting anything from transportation projects to new energy infrastructure.

Agreed - regulatory consistency - This has to be the number one goal of all governments in the very near term.

...for a third selling point that would make Canada the whole package for businesses and investors: a pro-growth agenda that doesn’t settle for simply mirroring U.S. moves.

....To start, it should go all the way on promoting business investment by allowing firms to claim the full cost of their capital investments up front. A dollar spent on new machinery becomes a dollar that companies can deduct from their taxes today.

This is not a bad idea.

If we can't put Canadians to work then put Canadian dollars to work for them.
 
And in keeping with where to invest....


BP’s chief executive will scrap a target to increase renewable generation 20-fold by 2030, returning the focus to fossil fuels, as part of a strategy shift announced on Wednesday to tackle investor concerns over earnings, two sources told Reuters.

BP’s shares have underperformed rivals in recent years and the oil major has already dropped its target to cut oil and gas output by 2030, Reuters reported in October.

On Wednesday, when BP holds a capital markets day, CEO Murray Auchincloss will tell investors the company is abandoning its target to grow renewable generation capacity 20-fold between 2019 and 2030 to 50 gigawatts, two sources close to the matter said. The plan to drop the target has not been previously reported.

Across the energy sector, major companies that shifted their portfolios in response to the need to lower carbon emissions and curb climate change have returned the focus to oil and gas, where returns have become easier as fossil fuel prices have rebounded from pandemic lows.
 
And in keeping with where to invest....


Funny thing.... solar doesn't do too well in the winter in northern climes, and when the wind doesn't blow the heater don't go ;)


Decline in EU renewables increases power prices and fossil fuel use​


Why are renewables in Europe underperforming?​

The winter is typically when Europe sees a seasonal peak in wind power generation. This compensates for reduced solar energy output, which hits its seasonal low period during this time. However, persistent low-wind conditions have caused wind energy production to decline over 20% in some countries.

How are European nations responding to this?​

This reduced output has led to greater demand for fossil fuels, pushing European natural gas prices to their highest level in two years. Coal prices have also increased by about 12% since mid-2024.

Energy costs could continue to rise as meteorologists forecast an Arctic blast that will bring a sharp temperature drop across northern and western Europe next week. In some regions, average temperatures are expected to fall below freezing.

 
Funny thing.... solar doesn't do too well in the winter in northern climes, and when the wind doesn't blow the heater don't go ;)


We could have told them that. Anyone with common sense could have but noooooo you peasants know nothing!! We know better?

Monty Python Ugh GIF


Oh please now do you have some fossil fuels to sell us?
 

Our water to Americans or, Americans to our water?

As their rivers continue their multi-millennial process of drying up they will continue the process of following the grasslands north. Into Canada.

And they still have more heat and light than we do so they are better positioned to grow lettuce, strawberries and almonds for us.
 
How do we get to 3% of GDP...

Idea from the previous UK Chancellor of the Exchequer (Minister of Finance).

5:15PM

Jeremy Hunt: Slash welfare to hit US defence spending levels​


Jeremy Hunt has said that the UK could increase defence spending to US levels if only welfare spending was scaled back to where it was in 2019, before the Covid pandemic.

The former foreign secretary and chancellor zoomed in on the country’s ballooning welfare budget in an intervention in the House of Commons amid debate about how to fund military spending increases.

Mr Hunt said to David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary:

If the Government came forward with plans to reduce the number of adult welfare recipients just to 2019 levels that would save £40bn a year.

It would mean that on Thursday he (Mr Lammy) and the Prime Minister could say to President Trump that we were increasing defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP or even 3.4 per cent of GDP, as the United States itself does.

That would not just secure the future of Ukraine. It would also secure the future of Nato, which is one of the most important challenges facing the Government.
Mr Lammy said he thought Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, will look at the idea “very closely”. Reforms to the welfare budget are due to be unveiled next month.

What is interesting about that exchange is that the idea was not rejected out of hand by the Labour government just because it was proposed by a Tory.

The other interesting bit is that money that the government is extracting from the economy to be pumped back as welfare payments could just as easily be pumped back into the economy as jobs for soldiers, active and reserve, jobs in MOD procurement and jobs in the arms business building weapons, trucks, comms, UAVs, missiles and ammunition etc - along with beans, blankets and bandages.
 
Back
Top