To address the article's context, is the E-3 Sentry superior to the Erieye/GlobalEye?
Canada has unfortunately been in conflict with Boeing since before either of Trump's terms, originally triggered by Boeing's trade complaints regarding Bombardier's government subsidies.
norad might not exist in 5-10 years
The E-7 Wedgetail is a vastly more capable platform than the Erieye/GlobalEye in pretty much every way, but costs four times as much, and there are other issues with Canada and Boeing as have been pointed out by another commenter.
The airframe itself, perhaps. As for the radar, that remains to be seen. The E-7 uses an L-band AESA radar, whereas the GlobalEye's radar operates in the higher-frequency S-band. In general, higher frequencies are better for engaging smaller/faster targets, but perform worse in adverse weather conditions.
It's been a long time since I took my electronic warfare courses, but in a situation where the radar is expected to spot small drones and other targets I would prefer a higher frequency radar.
It should be noted that the US military itself didn't want the Wedgetail in favor of a space-based solution, until Hegseth forced them for publicity reasons.
The Saab is likely cheaper to operate as it's a smaller plane and Canada only has to patrol its northern border.
I'm genuinely curious to know what you think the author's pre-existing beliefs are.
You seem to have a few of your own: "Canada only has to patrol its northern border"
And fine, buy all of your military hardware elsewhere. When will you be leaving NORAD and NATO then? Of course you won't. So this is performative.
I'm an immigrant to the US. I'm sorry you are so ready to throw away what people went through hell to get.
That's true. But if America is so bad, why are you still in it?
Another belief I hold is that you didn't care to click the link or read past the title because it literally states "aircraft to patrol Arctic territory" in bold font in the sub-heading.
You're being deliberately obtuse with nothing constructive to add to this discussion.
the Canadians do not aggressively patrol the southern border because that is where all of the people are -- unlike the north -- and because the reality is that the entire Canadian military is basically a speedbump for if/when the US invaded in earnest.
You need a special kind of personality to be this confident while currently losing a war, one that is, well, associated with Americans.
At what point on this current trajectory in the US would that change... mostly facetiously, but not entirely..
No coincidence that Albertans are sparking up the seceding issue again. When 10% of the population produces nearly 20% of the country's GDP it's a breeding ground for contempt. And it also seems like Albertans are the butt of a lot of jokes from the other Canadians anyway.
I'm sure this US government would love to see an "independent" Alberta.
Alberta is very important economically. I'm from there. Ontario (I live there) and Quebec and BC are also massively important. And fanning the flames of disinformation and playing grievance politics to make Albertans feel discriminated against has become an extremely serious problem.
Wab Kinew was very eloquent on this topic yesterday.
When Alberta at least catches up to Quebec in practicing being independent (runs its own police, collects its own taxes, has its own pension system, maintains foreign services, ... They might decide the extra taxes to pay for such is less "fun". And they need a border to ship stuff through.
rounding errors east and west dont particularly matter
Ontario is one of Alberta's biggest customers.
Then there's westbound ... TMX capacity of 890,000 barrels a day, to BC ports (and then on to China).
vs southbound lines to the US
Keystone, 640,000 BPD
and Express 310,000
Please check your facts.
Nunavut and NWT have higher per capita numbers, but that's territory versus province:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and...
Yukon and SK are in the >90k range, both ~5k below AB.
Show me the distribution. Show me the median not just the mean. Show me the standard deviation.
Otherwise ... abused.
Yes, we all know oil is an extremely profitable (and environmentally destructive) commodity. That doesn't make the typical Albertans somehow responsible for holding up all of confederation. Just means oil is making some people very rich. For now.
I'm from there and my family is in Alberta. I can tell you now that the oil industry ain't doing jack squat for them.
https://www.pgic-iogc.gc.ca/eng/1588343274882/1588355750048
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/abaondoned-oil-well-o...
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/what-did-alberta-do-with...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-more-than-1...
But Trudeau had it out for Alberta. Better off separating. Yep.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
> Estimates have placed Alberta's losses between $50 billion and $100 billion because of the NEP.[32][33] Alberta still initially enjoyed an economic surplus due to high oil prices, but the surplus was heavily reduced by the NEP, which, in turn, stymied many of Lougheed's policies for economic diversification to reduce Alberta's dependence on the cyclical energy industry, such as the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and also left the province with an infrastructure deficit. In particular, the Alberta Heritage Fund was meant to save as much of the earnings during high oil prices to act as a "rainy day" cushion if oil prices collapsed because of the cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry.
It's much the opposite, Canada just spent $34B to ensure the Trans-Mountain pipeline got built. Alberta is the one that gets the resource revenue, but it's Ottawa that has to pay for your pipelines. That's hardly fair.
Alberta has one legitimate grievance, the NEP. Which is a plan that was cancelled by Mulroney over 40 years ago.
What hurt Alberta was every cyclical crash in oil prices, and their steadfast refusal to implement additional revenue streams like a provincial sales tax while spending instead of saving their resource-boom surpluses.
This is hardly my experience as a Canadian. They're not Newfoundlanders, for crying out loud...
Because as you would might say: I'm sure this Canadian government would love to see an "independent" California.
The only thing really stopping Alberta from leaving is whether or not BC, Ontario, and Quebec are willing to fight a war to stop it.
And that gets a lot more complicated if the US also wants Alberta to go independent....
Canada might not be willing to fight, but the Indigenous probably are.
None of this matters in this context. The indiginous people literally do not matter. It's bad, but it's just how it is when white Europeans start fighting over land in North America. We have 3 centuries of evidence.
Unlike the individual US states, Alberta never joined Canada. It was not an entity that existed prior to Canada's confederation. Alberta was basically pencil-whipped into existence by carving out a chunk of an already existing territory (the Northwest Territory).
Despite American and Russian destabilization campaigns in Canada, there is no legal mechanism by which Canadian provinces can unilaterally secede.
>And that gets a lot more complicated if the US also wants Alberta to go independent....
Recent past polling overwhelmingly showed Albertans in favor of remaining in Canada. This latest frenzy is widely known to be a foreign influence operation.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that Canada and other provinces would be obligated to negotiate terms of separation should a province ever vote to leave in a clear referendum.
Yes, support for leaving is probably at 10-20%. Just having the referendum will build the infrastructure and political machinery for keeping it alive for a long time from the first try. I live here and I'm not a fan of Smith for encouraging it at all.
I implied no such thing. In fact I was careful to use the term "unilaterally" when referring to secession. My understanding is doing it properly would require a full constitutional amendment.
Legal? Who's laws? Albertans can just declare that they don't respect Ottawa's authority, right?
Guns and bullets are the only "legal" currency. It's not paperwork.
Sure, but just like nobody gives a shit about what Sovereign Citizens do or do not respect, such a declaration would only carry weight if there are enough people that want to mount an armed rebellion. And despite what American influence operations would have you believe, there simply aren't. Most Albertans want to remain in Canada.
They (and Sask too) do swing on the higher end in GDP per capita, but it's not a 2:1 by any stretch.
Which isn't that far off from BC's 13.80%:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and...
I'd mention that whether a piece of tech can beat another one on one is a consideration but a larger concern is how maintainable your fleet is. Canada is specifically moving to grow ties with the EU (and has joined their defense industry network) which really incentivizes having a fleet that is a similar makeup to other European countries.
The tariffs and international unpredictability of the US is one motivator - but growing closer to EU markets is also a specific focus of the Carney government. The current Trump administration isn't even the only rationale for this - in 2017 the US imposed extremely heavy tariffs on Bombardier that bankrupted the majority of the corporation.
Often there are acute, specific needs, aka Canada has to land these all the time in the arctic, you need bigger hangars for the bigger gear, maybe we need 'more units for wider coverage' over large land mass.
Some gear is better v Russians, some gear for China threat.
Etc. Etc.
And in general this is how Saab has tried to court us -- by making promises (how real is unclear) to bring manufacturing jobs to Canada to build things.
That is something the US has not done, will not do, and most importantly cannot do under Trump/Bissent/etc.
Canada is very unlikely to be invaded, so the actual military effectiveness / superiority is only one factor. Reducing unemployment and enhancing our manufacturing sector is as or more important.
Except from the south.
But yes you're right. The only times we've been invaded were from that direction.
Looked it up:
4 Times the U.S. Invaded Canada
https://www.mentalfloss.com/history/war/4-times-us-invaded-c...
Pretty sure that's a prong of the southern strategy.
Now that they're older, they're sparring once again, just like siblings do over the parents' estate.
The whole neighbourhood thinks you're assholes and bullies, we're all scared. But that is bring us closer together as result, so there's some upside.
Racism? Oh man, visit any other country that is more homogenous.... lol. Everything is relative.
Canadian and American racism is documented in specific events, unlike in other countries. I'd be hard pressed to find specific racism-driven events in Poland or Czechia, even though they top the racist charts.
I'm not American so your second point is completely moot.
Because comparative advantage.
Trump has nothing to do with it.
Genuinely, what makes the US untrustworthy if not Trump? I’m curious what I may be missing.
We invaded Korea, and then Vietnam, and a few hundred other interventions that don't seem to be sanctioned by the international community. All because of a hardon for ideology that doesn't seem to actually reflect the interests of the people who live here.
what a terrible bad faith arguemnt
N Korea invaded the south and the UN voted to create a joint force in there to defend it.
The entire congress and senate of the US who sit by while he does this and the supreme court who lets him, entire departments of the US government co-opted by sycophants put in place by Trump.
There is little to trust in the United States at the moment, you look a lot like the Weimar republic.
> The entire congress and senate of the US who sit by while he does this and the supreme court who lets him, entire departments of the US government co-opted by sycophants put in place by Trump.
It is amazing how much people bend the knee to further their own ends. People like Stephen Miller who probably see Trump as a useful idiot, and hold great contempt for him, as long as he can enact his white supremacist agenda.
The leftist circles I run in like to joke that this could’ve just been properly avoided if we hadn’t fumbled reconstruction as a nation.
Israel had settlements in Palestine way before the conflict outbreak, and nothing explains the systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure on Lebanon but for Israel just going supernova, like Germany and Japan back then.
What Israel has done is a completely irrelevant to what Iran has been doing.
It's certainly easy to say "X provoked Y, ignore what Y did first to provoke X".
Iran would be a better ally. China would be a better ally. Fucking Russia would be a better ally. Why did we decide to die on the hills of (loosely translated, I guess) mageddo?
But instead our state leans into exterminating people because our PR team was inspired by Goebbels and was trained to hate muslims
But again, if you don't want problems with Israel don't make problems with Israel. Their populace is militarized like few other and seemingly with a lot of political cohesion. Egypt has learned not to poke the bear. So has Jordan.
> But again, if you don't want problems with Israel don't make problems with Israel.
Israel always wanted to dominate palestine and the world doesn't give a fuck, even as they exterminate a whole civilization and stream it to the cucked west. Lebanon's existence is a problem for israel. Syria's existance is a problem for israel. Egypt's existence is a problem for israel. Now they're starting in on jordan. When will the international community start to give a fuck? When will the west grow a fucking backbone and stand up for humanity? Where are all these fucking values we were purportedly forcing on the rest of the world?
When you make frankly hysterical statements the gist of which is that Israel is uniquely evil (more than Iran which massacred over 30,000 pro-democracy protesters in the span of two days this year, for example), it is clear that you’ve left reality far behind in your rear view-hence derangement.
are you really this gullible? the last reliable numbers I saw capped the figures at ~7000, which includes people killed because they were (according to videos I saw) castrating government officials and roasting them over a spit.
Look, I'm as anti-state as any respectable person can be, but I don't see and evidence of protestor massacres.
Alas I'm not nearly funny enough to properly convey the depth of my amusement here. Who hasn't roasted a government official over a spit here and there though?
> There are Arabs in the IDF.
Oh that excuses the blatant genocide the IDF is carrying out then
None of that makes Iran better, not even now as they still execute daily. And are extremely harsh to own minorities. Oh, and to whole one gender.
Iran looks like saint when you ignore Iran actions. And again, yes, the war was bad decision.
And it is constitution itself. America had lawd trying to deal with above and supreme court gutted them.
He is unique in that he seems to have absolute control over the Republican base which makes all internal party checks fail. The rest is provided by a hyper polarized media landscape and a conservative supreme court majority that seems to be open to radical upheavals. The combination of all three has rendered the constitutional safe guards ineffective. In other words, we seem to have run into an edge case in the US constitution.
The supreme court won't change materially in the near future and likely the polarization will continue, but it's hard to image someone in the future with such an absolute grip on either party. So, hopefully a soft restart of the system in 2028 will be the last of this edge case for a while. That's the hope, anyway!
The two countries have far more in common shared interests than differences, so odds are things will drift back to normal in the future.
Trump is already, on his own, a two-time phenomenon. Leaving aside broader cultural issues and patterns, "one-time only" has been clearly incorrect for a while.
America chose this. America continues to tolerate this. America enabled this.
This isn't something that Trump can be scapegoated for. This is what many Americans wanted, or at the very least, it is what many Americans are willing to tolerate.
We also take issue with them cozying up to the ChiComms.
Enough Canadians (seriously, the vast majority) live close enough to the border that they could make a weekly trip to the USA and purchase American dairy and other American goods. In fact, prior to the tariffs many Canadians did make regular shopping trips across the border.
So let's be clear: we were buying your products to the extent we wanted to, already.
canada buys US products and services to a large trade deficit where canadians get stuff in exchange for dollars.
its just oil that the americans are really buying from canada
Which is a common refrain with respect to our supply management system for dairy; but to believe this you have to ignore that the USA has _never once_ managed to export enough dairy products to Canada to meet or exceed the import quotas set by the supply management regime.
The truth is that Canadians simply don't seem all that interested in purchasing American dairy products.
Yup, taking this a bit off topic: I've always bought dairy products with the blue cow on it (signifies Canadian dairy). The US dairy industry only wants to export into Canada when they have excess, and leave us dry when they don't, so i strongly support Canadian dairy production.
does everything possible to spite the Canadian economy. then has the gall to be surprised that Canada would cozy up to people who don't shit on them
who would have guessed?
its literally just oil that makes up that trade surplus. if you want the taps turned off, that can be arranged
unless the US extinguishes all of its billionaires and somehow convinces 1/3 to 1/2 of their population to not vote against their own interests it'll happen again
How have you forgotten bush so quickly? Why would bipartisan support of this invasion of Iraq ameliorate an obvious crime against humanity?
Europe clearly has its own bigotries to deal with before it is trustworthy. And islamophobia is only the start
The US constitution has absolutely nothing at all to say about political parties or the particular state of the media landscape, or for that matter the partisan alignment of justices of the supreme court. It's incoherent to suggest that there are "constitutional safe guards" that should have prevented the election of a president (or the exercise of power by that president), who is supported by about one-half of a very polarized electorate and opposed by a separate one-half. Everything about the Trump presidency is as constitutional as every previous US presidency, including the phenomenon of opponents of the president trying to claim that specific things they do are or should be unconstitutional.
Considering the right-wing politicians are trying to turn the country into a theocratic nationalistic dictatorship and the "left-wing" politicians are content with getting votes by nothing more than not being right-wing and collecting corporate bribes: good luck with that.
This is due to sanctions. There is no trade between Russia and the USA to put tariffs on.
Sure, the new one might turn into one too, but that's no reason to stay with one who is definitely one.
Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. That's the obvious result of Trumpism - when you seek to turn every interaction into a short-term win for you, people simply stop doing business with you whenever they can avoid it.
Tens of millions of Americans voted for this guy three times, overwhelmingly twice - this is how the country wants to act.
If he and his cronies are removed from power and prosecuted and everyone pinkie swears to never go down this road again, maybe we can look into rebuilding some of that trust. In the meantime, you reap what you sow.
Canada can't solve this problem inside US politics. Only Americans can, at any one of the three boxes. It can only work to disentangle it's critical dependencies, and to protect its own interests.
Any country can elect chucklefucks or vote for something stupid. Some of them have systems that are more resistant to the long-term damage they cause. Some of them are less. The US is definitely in the 'less' category as all of the checks and balances and systemic inertia completely collapsed.
Also, the other big difference is that when Hungary or the UK sneezes, Canada doesn't catch a cold.
Even if the U.S. and Canada are enemies, if Canada is being attacked by a country that is not the U.S., then the U.S. will come to its defense because they don’t want another nation with the capability to attack Canada to have a North American presence.
So given that the U.S. is the only possible military threat to the U.S., and now that the U.S. has openly threatened Canada, it’s incredibly silly to buy weaponry from the only country that could militarily attack you and almost certainly won’t share repair material, parts, software source etc. and possibly has a kill switch.
maybe offer some targetting intelligence, but most likely the US government would look to sell out canada for peanuts, the same as trump has been looking for with ukraine, and now taiwan
I thought they were sanctioned to hell and back. Do tariffs even apply as a concept?
this has been happening before anyone even thought trump would run: in 2015 trudeau ran on cancelling the f35 purchase. So what did obama do to canadians?
* Arbitrarily slapped high tariffs on all goods from Canada while exempting Russia and Belarus.
* Threatened to take over the country by force.
* Officially suspended the Permanent Joint Board on Defense between US and Canada because of criticism of US foreign policy by the Canadian PM