The "LOLCANADA" thread...again

ya I know all about that. Its not their freakin ships tho. its a land war wtf are you talking about. Germany is not a naval power korea is. They are surrounded by china and north korea and have a top 5 navy in the world. Germany is ranked 19th . Thats also ignonig that korea is the western aligned leader in non military production and germany has no industry.

South Korea ranks second globally in vessel production and shipbuilding volume, right behind China, which holds the top spot. While China leads in overall volume and bulk orders, Korea holds about 20-28% of the global market share and dominates the construction of high-value, eco-friendly vessels like LNG carriers and ultra-large container ships.

Their pzh 2000 have been a disaster tho france's equipment has performed way better then Germanys even in ukraine

Like what are we talking about here making leopard tanks is not the same as making submarines. Take the L on this one time

Stop now you can't expect to use logic on Uke

The confidence of this post is dazzling. Take the L Carney, take it! Moving Target used chatgpt to search for a couple stats so OBVIOUSLY you made the wrong choice in which military submarine platform to purchase. If only Carney had been informed of these facts, we could have been saved. Unless, of course, the Canadian military assessed that both platforms would satisfy the needs of the Canadian military.

what's your point zero facts refuted.

like the correct thing to say is something like "well Germany is in nato so its good to do this for politics" or" well korea is more aligned to the us so it defeats the point of seperating from them"

Its obvious they chose the inferior maker for political reasons and honestly I could be talked into that being ok because buying subs is all political anyway they won't be useful so you may as well make an allie happy .

The korean supplier was reported to be much quicker for production timelines and to add more jobs domesticly.

Your better then this lozen was right I don't believe it!

Lmao at the armchair military procurement expert who is endlessly confident that inferiority is "obvious", as if you remotely have the capabilities to judge the military capabilities of an advanced submarine like this and the numerous geopolitical, economic, and strategic additional effects. I'm not trying to refute facts because I'm not making a claim that one of the subs is better for Canada than the other - only you thinks it is obvious one is inferior. I've been upfront I don't have the breadth of experience required to meaningfully evaluate this. So I'm just lolling at you guys ITT who so confidently proclaim you can.

So based on this your saying Justin Trudeau was not qualified to campaign on canceling the F35 contract as he had no knowledge on the contract and the intricacies of the plane ?

It was a policy I agreed with him on as well and another reason why I voted for him the first time

I have no idea. I would hope he was surrounded by actual experts who could actually speak authoritatively and prove accurate information, as I hope Carney is as I hope Poilievre is. Certainly when you are in government you have a lot more access than when campaigning. In that specific case he paused it but then after reopening the procurement process the military again selected the F35.

Guys it is ok to have some humility in a subject area where you don't know more than a few data points from youtube video you watched. I'm confident about a lot of things I've done a lot of reading and thinking about, but I'm happy to say when I am not at all confident about things and don't really have the information for a strong opinion and absolutely the submarine issue is such a thing. I think people in general are WAY too eager to claim super simplistic "obvious" answers such that our political opponents are making mistakes without really having any depth on the issue at all.

Yes I am sure he had experts that advised him on this maybe you could cite some of those sources ?

Just as he had experts that told him he could deliver clean drinking water to everyone in 4 years and plant 2 billion tress and balance the budget .

Oh goodie, you are on to your justin trudeau list again.

It's the end state of basically any conversation with you.

I feel just the opposite. Subs are fine. We can be anywhere and nowhere at the same time. Those optics are important for Canada, as in the past our roles "assisting with supply ships" or frigates was damn embarrassing.

Where else would the resources go? We can rule out carriers obv, as too costly and you need a ton of supporting and resource ships. I know a carrier was never, ever in consideration for Canada since the beloved Bonny, but I am not sure why any country would invest billions into what could now be a huge target. Even superpowers don't need to be close to enemy targets anymore, unless they are just flexing muscle.

But, even when you get into destroyers, the technology with a variety of missiles (and now drones) is so good that any surface vessel just seems like it would take a ton of resources to defend. You'd be attacked with stealth and/or volume in so many ways. So, I am thinking I'd rather have more subs than the new River Class destroyers, but then again optics of visible surface ships is important I guess.

Canada is in an odd spot because we really just need to have a competent military and be seen as pulling our weight on the NATO front, which I think we have improved. And though I hate Trump, he was right about countries paying their share.

Subs seem like a good way to go..

On the air force side more fighter jets are needed for optics, but if we get into a conflict that is not centered on defence, the first thing we'd need to do is get some jets to the conflict. But even when we got them to the base of an overseas ally or friendly partner, they would probably just sit as a threat.

Also, what role are fighters playing in the Russia/Ukraine conflict? Russia doesn't seem to want to get fighters anywhere near high tech anti-aircraft systems. Would Canada feel any different using fighters in an offensive role?

Yeah, I like investing in subs. They don't need a ton of support vessels, and we won't be under the microscope in NATO et al drills and exercises.

As for Germany or South Korea, and who had the better subs, I don't have a clue. Germany is NATO and German engineering has always been top notch. As long as they don't leak like our other ones from the Brits, I am good.

Well the pound of flesh has been paid to the alter of Trump - and with that the Gordie Howe bridge is allowed to open. And it is one expensive pound of flesh too, taking half the revenue and putting it into a vague slush fund for the region. And more importantly for the ambassador bridge owner and trump donor, the americans now get a say on the tolls so that the ambassador bridge can remain profitable. Sickening that one can sign a deal and pay to build the entire bridge and then Trump can just rip it up and extract whatever the **** he wants.

healthcare or reducing the debt. no one in nata is gonna make the quota like last time anyway. I don't particularly feel like we have to meet it (we won't anyway) I don't feel like we have to spend money its pointless for our pov

It's a tragedy of the commons problem. If Canada alone turned inwards and focused purely on domestic priorities (as we kinda did for a long time to be honest) maybe this doesn't tip the geopolitical scale. But if country after country in NATO acts like this, then it does collectively weaken us an embolden aggressors. I think we all have a collective responsibility here.

they already do that....

As Shifty would say Elbows up.If you never stand up to Trump he will keep screwing you

When has Canada focused on Canada first ?

I thought the conservative take is we should NOT stand up and instead should genuflect to every Trump desire? It is not remotely clear what, if anything, Carney can do differently. Did he give up too much to open the bridge? Should he have sought for less, or would that just exacerbate things and leave it closed longer. So hard to evaluate.

Canada has clearly focused on Canada first instead of global problems. We were a military laggard for decades. Similarly we are among the world's most per capita polluting countries yet barely itch the surface of any carbon reduction policy and as a populace rejected the one attempt to do just a little bit. As with any number of other issues. This isn't even necessarily bad, it's just that it exemplifies the tragedy of the commons where any individual country is incentivized to do the least to solve global problems, which means the global problems don't get solved. I do appreciate Carney's multi-lateral approach here, building coalitions that work in tandem is absolutely the way to go imo.

looks like we caved to trump on the bridge we paid for and built. So much for Canada first.

trump "they will build a wall and pay for it too" who knew we would actually be doing that with the bridge.

Blaming the conservatives again when your party won on anti american boomer votes wanting you to fight back. ummmmmm

He could have simply not opened the bridge untill trump was out of office or it was used in trade negotiations. The next dem in office is not going to go back on the deal now that its done

Such an unbelievable moment in history where "just don't use the fully built 6 billion dollar bridge that will help our economy for 3 years to wait out the bully" is a viable political strategy to suggest. Like I don't even know if you are wrong. Maybe he should have. Maybe he shouldn't. I can't seem to judge any of these decisions these days. It's just unbelievable that this is where we are at.

Your assuming a dem will be the next president? Depends on whom the Democrats select and I guarantee the next Republican candidate will pivot like Carney did

another rep would do it too .

I feel like not using a bridge for 2 or so years would have minor maintenance costs less then if it were active. Not like we didnt wait 12 years already for it whats another 2. You might not even need to wait that long just wait till your negotiating something and give up that position for something else or vice versa. caving for nothing is not ideal

The worst part of this is that Michigan didn't stand up and say "we have a deal, we have a signed contract. This is no time to be discussing anything about the bridge or tolls or whether anyone is getting ripped off. "

I hope the payback is a future **** you to Trump on more F35s.

It sucks that Trump can even inject himself in a written, legal contract that was signed by the parties involved. And, the Michigan Republicans (at lease one of them) jumped on the "we are getting ripped off" Trump bandwagon. Cowards and bootlickers.

Every member of the house and senate from Michigan should have told Trump to get lost.

Anyway, the lesson learned is no more joint projects with the US as long as Trump is in office.

The toll revenue is needed to make payments on the money that financed the bridge.

what revenue there's no way its profitable at half revenue. it might not cover maintenance fees while america does not have to pay for maintenance out of their side of the revnue and can lower the toll. more like a 70-30 split

I don't even think the word profitable factors into things, though profit has been used in the media. The original plan, as I understood it, was that Canada paid for/financed the bridge and therefore it would get 100% of all tolls until the financing was paid off. After that, Michigan and Canada would split the toll revenue. But, there are going to be maintenance and repair costs over the lifetime of the bridge, so I would imagine there would never be any "profit." Rather, the hope would be that the 50/50 toll split would cover maintenance and repair. That would actually be an awesome outcome if it worked, but I doubt it would. At some point the repairs would be too costly for tolls to cover alone and Michigan and Canada would have to pony up more money.

The only thing I feel sure about with the new deal is that it is bad for Canada and I am pissed off. I am a Carney supporter but it looks like he conceded big time to the bully. And, once again, we get nothing in return. Carney talked like this was just clarifying things, or a minor tweak, but the new deal takes half of the toll revenue away right away. No way Canada can make payments on that.

That said, leaving the bridge closed for 2 years was never a good option. The payments would not go away.

In the end I hope the plan is this. When Trump is out of office, Canada pleads with the new administration to revert to the original deal, as it can't repay the financing at 50% of the toll rate. Hopefully, the new administration would see the logic and won't be of the mindset of the Trump administration, who thinks that every deal must involve the other party being harshly punished, even if they are an ally.

Only Trump could do this. Have another other country finance a jointly owned bridge, and instead of celebrating the fact it cost the US nothing, argue that the Canada is ripping off the US. ffs.

It's so hard to measure the harm things like this do to the United States. One of the reason you can sign agreements and spend billions of dollars on shared projects is because you trust the other side. Countries don't normally have an agreement and then rip it up and demand a better agreement after one side pays for 100% of the thing. So like there is a cost to the US. They are now known to be less trustworthy and over time this kind of thing leads to less collaborative things - indeed Canada trying to become more multilateral and do more trade with other countries harms the US (not that Trump counts those harms as harms). But the challenge is that it is sort of diffuse and hard to measure. What precisely are the costs of this one specific thing? Who knows. But we do get a very precise and specific harm to Canada: half the toll revenue to repay the debt is now gone.