A Gripen does not do the same things that an F35 does.
Europe simply does not have an answer to 5th or 6th generation fighters and I feel like wanting to be supporting of peoples respective countries and acknowledging the US being pretty awful right now is making people unwilling to acknowledge this glaring and incredibly important fault in western arms manufacturing outside of the US.
Humans benefit greatly when people, groups etc, specialize as less resources need to be wasted reinventing the wheel, but when it comes to defence, the current situations shows how flat footed CANZUK+EU* has been left by allowing the US to basically become the single source for some of the most crucial defence items.
Projects like FCAS need to cut the bureaucratic bullshit and speed up development as its increasingly obvious that the US is not a stable partner. CANZUK+EU* despite years of warning about these facts remained unwilling to spend, viewing it as inefficient, and with every individual state that has the capabilities holding recalcitrant attitudes, fighting over who gets to build what.
Basically, what I am saying, is that I would love to have non US weaponry, but if that weaponry can’t compete with US weaponry, there isn’t much of a point.
I mean, quite frankly, for us, Canada, the most important thing we could possibly do this decade, is to internally create our own ultimate strategic deterrents. Anything short of that would leave us completely defenceless to our greatest military threat, and largest neighbour. There is literally no chance we win any conventional war, so in a way, not even this fighter deal matters.
I agree you on all points, but i want to add that weapon systems where manufactorer has a back door open and they can do things like remotelly lock the missile systems or other weapons, does not really sound appealing.
Basically, what I am saying, is that I would love to have non US weaponry, but if that weaponry can’t compete with US weaponry, there isn’t much of a point.
the best fighter jet is still useless if it can just be disabled, and/or if the other support service can just be stopped
I think we’d do not badly in a conventional war when you factor in the fact that the Americans would be fighting on two fronts - within Canada against Canadians, and within America against the substantial chunk of Americans who would be trying to bring down the regime that was causing something as insane as an invasion of Canada to be undertaken. Plus there’d be international support at play. It would be a huge mess. Canada would just need to make the mess as big and as long as possible.
That said, preventing America from invading in the first place would be ideal, so the more preemptive preparation to strengthen Canada’s position and weaken America’s the better. Shifting our military supply lines to European sources is a step in that direction for many reasons. I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.
within Canada against Canadians, and within America against the substantial chunk of Americans who would be trying to bring down the regime that was causing something as insane as an invasion of Canada to be undertaken.
Given the current trajectory, I have little faith that they would mount an effective internal resistance.
I think we’d do not badly in a conventional war when you factor in
No matter what, conventional war is horrific and wed be losing our families, homes, friends, and more. Effective strategic deterrents make it such that we would never reach that stage and as such, is far more economical and moral.
I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.
You cant make nukes loudly in such a situation, but as we’ve seen, you definitely cant make them under the gun. The only time is before the circumstances that you feel would necessitate them when we are still not viewed as enemies.
Disarming yourself as to avoiding presenting as a threat clearly does not work.
Right, it would be done before the US invades, to prevent them from invading. Nuclear weapons are deterrence, you don’t want to actually use them.
I fear my point is being missed.
My point was in response mainly to this last sentence:
I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.
My point is that it cant be further down, because if you are down that far, its too late. We’ve seen this was most countries that became under the gun when they would benefit dearly from having nuclear weapons of their own.
Notably, if Ukraine did so before they would have been fine, but during, they have no chance.
Iran similarly has a difficult time.
Its not about the nation, its about the fact that if you are at a point where you feel the heat is on, its too late to build nukes. Now is the time to build them.
It should be noted that they were never actually their nukes (not their codes or delivery systems), but that this would have been a good time for them to make their own nukes.
A lot of the nuance is also one of threat assessment, and risk tolerance.
We can prepare for a situation where we’re attacked by the US, but given all probabilities is that worth it compared to preparing for a situation where we get attacked by China or Russia, or is that even worth considering vs preparing for a situation where we can ramp up industrial military production as fast as possible and become a resource rich manufacturing powerhouse?
There’s no way of knowing which path the world will go down, and preparing for everything simply isn’t possible, so every decision is going to be a matter of what risks to take for what potential benefits.
We can prepare for a situation where we’re attacked by the US, but given all probabilities is that worth it compared to preparing for a situation where we get attacked by China or Russia, or is that even worth considering vs preparing for a situation where we can ramp up industrial military production as fast as possible and become a resource rich manufacturing powerhouse?
Get real. If US, China or Russia attacks us, there is nothing we can do with 100X the military spending.
We can prepare for a situation where we’re attacked by the US, but given all probabilities is that worth it compared to preparing for a situation where we get attacked by China or Russia
Very much so. Russia is not that big a threat as they are an easy sell to alliances. China and the US would steamroll us regardless, hence, given that we have no one resembling near peers, ultimate strategic deterrents are literally the only things that can defend us should the worst come.
vs preparing for a situation where we can ramp up industrial military production as fast as possible and become a resource rich manufacturing powerhouse?
This is not happening when we don’t even have our own jets and every country with fancy jets (etc) wants to build them in house.
There’s no way of knowing which path the world will go down, and preparing for everything simply isn’t possible, so every decision is going to be a matter of what risks to take for what potential benefits.
A strategic deterrent program is the least expensive and most all encompassing. We generally stay out of the business of other countries so the bipolar fascist next door is the biggest threat to physical safety/sovereignty. We’re also uniquely well equipped to start one. We need to have a Can du attitude.
There is unfortunately a lot of nuance here.
A Gripen does not do the same things that an F35 does.
Europe simply does not have an answer to 5th or 6th generation fighters and I feel like wanting to be supporting of peoples respective countries and acknowledging the US being pretty awful right now is making people unwilling to acknowledge this glaring and incredibly important fault in western arms manufacturing outside of the US.
Humans benefit greatly when people, groups etc, specialize as less resources need to be wasted reinventing the wheel, but when it comes to defence, the current situations shows how flat footed CANZUK+EU* has been left by allowing the US to basically become the single source for some of the most crucial defence items.
Projects like FCAS need to cut the bureaucratic bullshit and speed up development as its increasingly obvious that the US is not a stable partner. CANZUK+EU* despite years of warning about these facts remained unwilling to spend, viewing it as inefficient, and with every individual state that has the capabilities holding recalcitrant attitudes, fighting over who gets to build what.
Basically, what I am saying, is that I would love to have non US weaponry, but if that weaponry can’t compete with US weaponry, there isn’t much of a point.
I mean, quite frankly, for us, Canada, the most important thing we could possibly do this decade, is to internally create our own ultimate strategic deterrents. Anything short of that would leave us completely defenceless to our greatest military threat, and largest neighbour. There is literally no chance we win any conventional war, so in a way, not even this fighter deal matters.
I agree you on all points, but i want to add that weapon systems where manufactorer has a back door open and they can do things like remotelly lock the missile systems or other weapons, does not really sound appealing.
the best fighter jet is still useless if it can just be disabled, and/or if the other support service can just be stopped
I don’t disagree at all, hence my conclusion that if neither is effective we must do what is:
oh okay sry i misunderstood then i think ^^
I think we’d do not badly in a conventional war when you factor in the fact that the Americans would be fighting on two fronts - within Canada against Canadians, and within America against the substantial chunk of Americans who would be trying to bring down the regime that was causing something as insane as an invasion of Canada to be undertaken. Plus there’d be international support at play. It would be a huge mess. Canada would just need to make the mess as big and as long as possible.
That said, preventing America from invading in the first place would be ideal, so the more preemptive preparation to strengthen Canada’s position and weaken America’s the better. Shifting our military supply lines to European sources is a step in that direction for many reasons. I do think a nuclear deterrent would be ideal, but that’s a couple of steps of escalation further down the line I think.
Given the current trajectory, I have little faith that they would mount an effective internal resistance.
No matter what, conventional war is horrific and wed be losing our families, homes, friends, and more. Effective strategic deterrents make it such that we would never reach that stage and as such, is far more economical and moral.
You cant make nukes loudly in such a situation, but as we’ve seen, you definitely cant make them under the gun. The only time is before the circumstances that you feel would necessitate them when we are still not viewed as enemies.
Disarming yourself as to avoiding presenting as a threat clearly does not work.
Which is why I said “preventing America from invading in the first place would be ideal”
Right, it would be done before the US invades, to prevent them from invading. Nuclear weapons are deterrence, you don’t want to actually use them.
I fear my point is being missed.
My point was in response mainly to this last sentence:
My point is that it cant be further down, because if you are down that far, its too late. We’ve seen this was most countries that became under the gun when they would benefit dearly from having nuclear weapons of their own.
Notably, if Ukraine did so before they would have been fine, but during, they have no chance.
Iran similarly has a difficult time.
Its not about the nation, its about the fact that if you are at a point where you feel the heat is on, its too late to build nukes. Now is the time to build them.
What’s sad, is that Ukraine did have nukes. Then this happened in '94: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum Guess who is now a bully.
It should be noted that they were never actually their nukes (not their codes or delivery systems), but that this would have been a good time for them to make their own nukes.
A lot of the nuance is also one of threat assessment, and risk tolerance.
We can prepare for a situation where we’re attacked by the US, but given all probabilities is that worth it compared to preparing for a situation where we get attacked by China or Russia, or is that even worth considering vs preparing for a situation where we can ramp up industrial military production as fast as possible and become a resource rich manufacturing powerhouse?
There’s no way of knowing which path the world will go down, and preparing for everything simply isn’t possible, so every decision is going to be a matter of what risks to take for what potential benefits.
Get real. If US, China or Russia attacks us, there is nothing we can do with 100X the military spending.
Very much so. Russia is not that big a threat as they are an easy sell to alliances. China and the US would steamroll us regardless, hence, given that we have no one resembling near peers, ultimate strategic deterrents are literally the only things that can defend us should the worst come.
This is not happening when we don’t even have our own jets and every country with fancy jets (etc) wants to build them in house.
A strategic deterrent program is the least expensive and most all encompassing. We generally stay out of the business of other countries so the bipolar fascist next door is the biggest threat to physical safety/sovereignty. We’re also uniquely well equipped to start one. We need to have a Can du attitude.