Greenland, Canada, Panama & Trumps Ambitions For Them --(CLOSED)

[NCDinosFan]

Congratulations, not many Americans understand this; in fact, Canada should annex the USA. We already have almost all of that in your description.

I've been saying this. I mean even if I get taxed 50% of my yearly I can still afford a super car and my means of living, I will still be able to buy a house outright. My issue is not many Americans understand that the economy is becoming formula creator based. The people who are cogs in the formula will get cheaper and cheaper, but the creator of a formula/system won't. If anything in comparative value they just go up.

For people to work and not just want to die leaving a gap in the work areas you need to subsidize it. Aka let bring the work down for the "lower denominator" to do the menial work, or offer benefits that gov/company in conjunction work to create. A lot of people happily work if you solve the issue of housing/healthcare for them. If they know that their work will bring that in the now, they'll do the work happily and not leave the company because it'd be too hard to start over and deal with all of that stuff.

 

[Publius]

In my opinion, there's currently a split in the GOP. Marco Rubio is the leader. I know this because of the off-camera meetings between Canadian representatives and American representatives without Trump present.

Scenario: Hey! Donald, you abandon your threats of annexing Canada and Greenland. For Panama, we're going to make them a very generous offer. As for tariffs, we'll see! Otherwise, Donald, you'll be impeached!

Oh I can’t help it you guys are funny. Nonsensical but funny.

 

[Publius]

I would point out that the reason they don’t pay enough is because the jobs were off loaded overseas for cheap labor.

What sense does that statement make? I (me) personally won't go down to whole foods and pay $25 bucks for bread when I can go to Walmart and get the same bread for $5 if it meets the requirements of the prior.

Menial labor is the same thing as bread, you can pay 25 or 5 for the same product. Another issue is if you aren't an established brand it costs a lot more to make the product than an established brand.. aka Walmart/amazon and big box is cheep because they can bulk buy because they have warehouses compared to local shops.

When we talk about educated fields there is a lot more that go into it. Your line worker is menial, your scientist who creates the formulation of the materials that the lineman just monitors/pushes the button on for blank seconds or bends for blank seconds is menial. Money today is generated in the formation or creation of an operation, not in the manufacturing itself. We care about the efficiency/reduction of waste in our product, we care about the time it takes to create via our methods/formula.

When you are at the store you don't give a fuck if the deodorant is mint from dial or mint from Gillette, sometimes brand awareness helps that via ads. Why do people prefer McDonald over KFC or Subway over Paneria bread. It's the formula created by the degree/uppers. Not the people on the line because the people on the line have minimal impact on the product. It's all about the formula and the system in place created by the architects and the engineers/chemical people. Sure you can fuck up the production line via raising temps and neglecting it outright, but it's easy to replace people on a line via moving operations if you can't find enough.

My issue is America is no longer a country of production, but of formulas. The medical field in a whole is a formula from root canals to heart surgery, and nursing. Law is the same, tech is the same, and so are many other fields including even the basics of construction. America in the future will be predominantly trade (formula based trades people who are doing new things) and Intelligent work. We won't have people following a step by step process in the "creation" aka line workers: the reason is because they can't afford a good lifestyle or the ability to do it.

So this is where it gets really weird and I've had friends in other industries push for this and I think it's unethical. We want to make simpler systems to pay the "lower denominator" is the word they use (individuals with disabilities/heavy mental (disabilities). To do the work because it would allow individuals who aren't currently in the workforce to participate and earn some extra money even though that money wouldn't be good enough for a person not living on disability.


So I mean that's a good way to bring manufacturing back which is simplify it even more so the "lower demonstrator" as they call it can work and fill those jobs for that low pricing because a normal person won't fill it. The future of money as an employee is in creating formulas, not being apart of the formula.

Limits: I PERSONALLY don't believe tech has a limit as we still have a lot of areas to create formulas in and provide them to companies from big topics to really small topics. The workers in the tech industry that are basically just programming the solution that others have provided to them won't be successful in the next 30 years. You have to be willing to create your own formula and you'll always be employable. The key issue is for stuff to get cheaper I believe we need to appeal to what these businesses are referring to as the "lower denominator" and implement them into the workforce with super simple work. Meanwhile we need to open the door to train the future generations to focus on creating a formula instead of being a cog in the formula. Because the cogs will always get cheaper, the groundbreaking formulas won't.

If we want manufacturing aka the cog to work again we need to offer benefits that make it so they can't refuse. This is government subsidization which would be kind of communist... The cog needs offered subsidized living such as housing credits by the workplace/government (if they are fulfilling a role that needs fulfilled for american security/manufacturing. I believe if we had either heavy tax breaks or the government offering free-healthcare or housing credits for the cog they would work. If someone knows that they are being cheated and they won't be able to survive off a wage and have no support why would they partake in that role? this would also bring the cost to "employ" down especially if we had the two sectors of public and private working together to house these workers and offer no cost medical to them.

Meanwhile the people who are making the formulas are excluded from this policy and pay themselves because the formula creators make more than enough money to sustain themselves. If we don't have a system like this America's manufacturing is gone. We need to implement the "lower denominator" into the workforce or we need to offer benefits that let the cog feel valued in terms of housing credits and medical credits.


I'm okay personally with paying 40% tax, maybe 50% if the deal for the rest of America is good. I make over 650k a year. I can live off 150k in almost any state. It doesn't hurt me to get taxed high if it means general america receives help and the cog feels valued. I could clear easily 5m a year if I didn't value my workforce and wanted to chop our housing program and our medical program thus making them lose more.

(but it makes us competitive because people have to worry about less: it's also cheaper than our employees going out and doing it themselves because we get bundled deals based on the amount of people we "register for".)


Prime example of cog getting cheeper but formula isn't:

The price of a laptop 10 years ago vs the price of a laptop now. The price of a home blender now vs in the past. The price of a nuclear reactor in the past compared to now, the price of renting a server now vs in the past (which is very very cheep), the price of a camera now compared to in the past. The price of a phone now vs in the past (and the modules such as camera, touch screen, and such that are now included with them).

The devices to produce a product are cheeper and simpler, the formula or underlying concept of the formula is still the same price

Think of facebook...facebook is just a computer program a formula, yet it's worth a lot more now than before...yet the servers it operates on are cheeper. Same thing for the NSA datacenters... they are cheeper to operate on now, but the forumals to compute are expensive to purchase/have consulting on.

So just so I understand your somewhat elitist attitude. It’s irrational for a nation to protect its manufacturing jobs, let’s say, in providing access to living wage as it is called.
Because menial labor simply does not deserve a living wage?
But freely use the low manufacturing wages in the states are some societal fault that burdens the US.


You defend paying 50% taxes but accuse protecting jobs thru tariffs as communist subsidies.

You dismiss the fact that middle class jobs left america because they could be done cheaper elsewhere. And it is somehow irrational for people to care about stuff like that. Yet ignore the reality that tariffs are that off set to cheaply manufactured goods overseas.

It’s a nice world of Alohas Beta’s Gammas Deltas and eplsilons your envision there.

you use your claimed work and pay experience as if it is a model for all and then justify belittling or demeaning others choice or lot in life as slavery.
that’s pretty fucking arrogant. Your work experience is not a model for 7 billion people and to use it a measure is repugnant and elitist

 

[NCDinosFan]

So just so I understand your somewhat elitist attitude. It’s irrational for a nation to protect its manufacturing jobs, let’s say, in providing access to living wage as it is called.
Because menial labor simply does not deserve a living wage?
But freely use the low manufacturing wages in the states are some societal fault that burdens the US.


You defend paying 50% taxes but accuse protecting jobs thru tariffs as communist subsidies.

You dismiss the fact that middle class jobs left america because they could be done cheaper elsewhere. And it is somehow irrational for people to care about stuff like that. Yet ignore the reality that tariffs are that off set to cheaply manufactured goods overseas.

It’s a nice world of Alohas Beta’s Gammas Deltas and eplsilons your envision there.

you use your claimed work and pay experience as if it is a model for all and then justify belittling or demeaning others choice or lot in life as slavery.
that’s pretty fucking arrogant. Your work experience is not a model for 7 billion people and to use it a measure is repugnant and elitist

If you have to use debt to alleviate pain or keep a roof over your head, that's slave labor. You're generating equity off people who are just trying to survive while working a job.

It's not elitist. Those jobs were leaving because the cog won't work for bad wages and it's hard to keep those places staffed. Middle-class work is not debt inducing work. If you go into debt for medical/health/ or just covering the rent in your home that's called being a slave.

I personally never said anything about tariffs. I said we need to provide living/healthcare to those doing the work that doesn't pay enough if we want to keep those jobs here, aka factory work.

I never dismissed the fact, I stated the fact is that the jobs left 1 because Americans won't work to be in debt with no way out (because that work is getting cheaper) without government assistance thus leading to those jobs going elsewhere because that's how capitalism works

Are you saying capitalism is wrong because the work can be done elsewhere cheaper and people in the market over here don't want those jobs because the cost of living is high? Oh wait...that's just capitalism baby~ I get it cheeper and at the same quality over there so why should I get it here? Plus, if I can get a better job in another industry why would I go work in that industry just to be in debt and poor with shitty healthcare?

Why does my company succeed so well with implementations to solve the issues that led to an issue with retention in middle-class workers in America...it's because we provide the backbone to a system that works and a formula that works. Aka offering better healthcare, and housing options to our employees which shows us retain more employees and have a cheaper "out of pocket" in terms of salary to keep them because we offer them easy access, and they offer us a body to fill a role and a number that allows us to negotiate for better pricing for them to live and receive medical .


I'm saying you need to have more American companies subsidize living and offer better healthcare, or outright wages inorder to keep people wanting to work here so they don't export the jobs. But many won't and will just export the job elsewhere because it's the same quality (aka same cogs just a cheaper price).


I'm already wealthy out of the ass, and I will admit I believe we need taxed 40-50% in the 300k+ earnings bracket to retain jobs here in America via government assistance to those workforces...else you can't bitch about nobody wanting to work those jobs and they go elsewhere because Americans won't work for that cheep.

Capitalism is a bitch at heart isn't it cheaper product elsewhere is just free market bro . You should be happy base level capitalism is working, or should you be mad at me for exposing a system and how fucked up it is and how me and my company are working to solve that issue by keeping and providing jobs in America and within other nations?


It's logical, you won't retain those jobs unless you offer benefits to the workers, and if some companies aren't able to meet that (Or aren't willing) they'll move out and that's an issue with what the market around the world offers It's capitalism baby noooo big govnt stepping in yeee old country.


It's whatever, I'm still going to be a millionaire today, tomorrow, and the day I die. When you have a high cost of living, you can expect a high price to pay for work, when you try to offer under that people don't want to work for it because it's not worth it: aka the jobs will get exported. If there is no equal tradeoff people won't do the work. So I don't know why republicans bitch about "Mer jerb" whenever their concept of the free market is "Choose what you want to do and where you go, get the best price for the product and just be effective with money".

We are effective with money and we have had no hiring issues... most of the stuff in the media is coming from companies who are dogshit at creating deals for their employees and creating a mutual situation for employee/management to benefit. So why do you guys wish to support something like that, when there are better alternatives? The middle class jobs aren't being destroyed, the American people won't go for the shitty wage/conditions, or the company simply won't offer benefits that people need to not be in recursive debt.

Once again: you tell me that I work 60 years of my life just to be in debt and can't retire, or retire with a measley 125k-200k in my bank account...I rather put a bullet in my skull.

Imagine working just to be in debt and the debt continues to spiral, and once you hit bankruptcy after using that loan money to survive and put towards basic needs such as housing and food even if you work your 40+ hour a week job you still can't afford to live..what kind of sense does that make to even work at that point?

use logic and make an arugment of that. you know you'll go into debt that will push you to bankrupcy, you have no time to relax, you have no discretionary funds, and the medical/dental/insurance portion is going to sink you into debt or maybe just the housing itself?

Do you agree people should just become slaves and accept it because it benefits you aka a person who had a better situation, or do you as a person with a better situation advocate for those and attempt to offer solutions to that via YOUR own business or an option in the market, or do you say fuckem I scraped by. Saying fuckem isn't being a human, it's called being self-centered: it also shows a lack of life experience in multiple shoes.

 

[Publius]

I'm saying you need to have more American companies subsidize living and offer better healthcare, or outright wages inorder to keep people wanting to work here so they don't export the jobs. But many won't and will just export the job elsewhere because it's the same quality (aka same cogs just a cheaper price).

By “subsidizing” which you mean pay wages living wage which they can’t compete with and that because they can’t those jobs are destined to leave in the end any way. All while ignoring the problem that no company will be able to stay in business doing that if cheaper products can be found overseas. They will simply go broke.
Which you have dismissed with a “what about capitalism” trope. That you can’t support tariffs and claim to be a free market capitalist.
Capitalism was never meant to be what it is in its current form in the world today.


The founder of the economic system of capitalism,Adam Smith, Not only didn’t espouse that tariffs were never a good thing. He even allowed the use of tariffs, even retaliatory tariffs, are not only good but necessary for one’s gov to impose on imports to “guess what!” Protect its nations economy and jobs.

It is never unreasonable to impose trade restrictions or tariffs if the nation you are trading with is using what you determine to be unfair practices. Like actual slave labor, child labor, or their own restrictions that block imports from your country.
So rather than being offend that my nation might impose them, I’m pissed off that they haven’t already

Businesses “Formulas” are not transplantable from one industry to another and to argue this is so is an oversimplified argument that it is. Is not a rational argument. But rather as a social activist argument to alter society not improve workers living standards.

Which brings us back around to your actual argument. Government sustained life Health, housing, even the elusive well being quotient. You do so by defending high taxes or even high yet.
Which is socialism, which is a return to mercantilism where resources are owned by the monarchy or government in its current form. Il

If a government has a defacto “lien” on your life via the legal construct of taxes.
Who exactly in this system are you really a “slave” to?

It’s an old story and based on repeatedly failed efforts to usher in some illusory just society.

By the way your, I make such and such and have no problem giving 50% to the gov. argument. Is weak when people who make 3/4’s of that are also having 50% consumed by the government. Fed state property sales consumption sin taxes and road use taxes.

How long does my indentured servitude to the government last?
Yeah to the day I die.

 

[NCDinosFan]

By “subsidizing” which you mean pay wages living wage which they can’t compete with and that because they can’t those jobs are destined to leave in the end any way. All while ignoring the problem that no company will be able to stay in business doing that if cheaper products can be found overseas. They will simply go broke.
Which you have dismissed with a “what about capitalism” trope. That you can’t support tariffs and claim to be a free market capitalist.
Capitalism was never meant to be what it is in its current form in the world today.


The founder of the economic system of capitalism,Adam Smith, Not only didn’t espouse that tariffs were never a good thing. He even allowed the use of tariffs, even retaliatory tariffs, are not only good but necessary for one’s gov to impose on imports to “guess what!” Protect its nations economy and jobs.

It is never unreasonable to impose trade restrictions or tariffs if the nation you are trading with is using what you determine to be unfair practices. Like actual slave labor, child labor, or their own restrictions that block imports from your country.
So rather than being offend that my nation might impose them, I’m pissed off that they haven’t already

Businesses “Formulas” are not transplantable from one industry to another and to argue this is so is an oversimplified argument that it is. Is not a rational argument. But rather as a social activist argument to alter society not improve workers living standards.

Which brings us back around to your actual argument. Government sustained life Health, housing, even the elusive well being quotient. You do so by defending high taxes or even high yet.
Which is socialism, which is a return to mercantilism where resources are owned by the monarchy or government in its current form. Il

If a government has a defacto “lien” on your life via the legal construct of taxes.
Who exactly in this system are you really a “slave” to?

It’s an old story and based on repeatedly failed efforts to usher in some illusory just society.

By the way your, I make such and such and have no problem giving 50% to the gov. argument. Is weak when people who make 3/4’s of that are also having 50% consumed by the government. Fed state property sales consumption sin taxes and road use taxes.

How long does my indentured servitude to the government last?
Yeah to the day I die.

By “subsidizing” which you mean pay wages living wage which they can’t compete with and that because they can’t those jobs are destined to leave in the end any way. All while ignoring the problem that no company will be able to stay in business doing that if cheaper products can be found overseas. They will simply go broke.
Which you have dismissed with a “what about capitalism” trope. That you can’t support tariffs and claim to be a free market capitalist.
Capitalism was never meant to be what it is in its current form in the world today.

I am stating that the businesses here will be the headquarters aka the formula makers. It's becoming a rich mans country and the ethics are getting thrown out the door. But hey, it's not hard to be ethical and make a great living while doing it: same for the investors.

I don' think you're looking at the bigger pictures. formulas are the process of doing something the process of creating a way to solve an issue in an industry to make the industry more effective for a given cash price or power requirement. The process of creating processors is more effective year over year, same for recon of material scrap, ect. The person doing the work isn't paid well, the person creating the formula and providing the mechanism to do such is, not the person operating the mechanism.


I never said that the people under need to raise tax, I'm saying that us the formula creators need to pay 40-50%...you're putting words in my mouth saying that lower or middle needs to pay 40-50%. I don't believe those groups need a hike, I think they need a reduction.

But once again. I am stating the country is losing because the offerings in the market over here aren't able to compete oversees even without child labor, remove child labor and America still can't keep up because the cost of living in America is too high compared to other countries. That's why my company is successful in staffing and retention is because we offer housing credits, onsite food free, and medical coverage (no copay out of the worker's pocket). because we can negotiate a way better deal while we can negotiate lower overall facevalue salary. People will accept 60-70k for a 120k+ job if you just offer them housing and really good medical. If they know they don't have to worry they won't need to plan for issues thus needing more discretionary spending. the reason we can do that is because we can negotiate with apartments/healthcare/dental providers en masse and offer way better than our competitors in this sector of tech...thus saving us money and saving the employees money at the same time: it's mutual. Meanwhile a company will give you shitty insurance and no housing offerings (discounts), and no on-job training, and even no quality dental where you get your ass pounded.

But we won't agree on the simple ethics of treating humans like humans and offering something to a market that's both good for the business and the individual.

You know what, maybe one day I'll invite you out all expenses covered to come see one of our regional offices and I'll let you talk to any of our staff from high to low to show you what a quality workplace does and how it contributes to a healthy lifestyle and employee retention. When you as a business front most of the costs of your employees scary/concern areas they will work with you and offer you value too, be it buying tickets to local sporting, offering housing credits/money, or offering medical/dental that won't break the bank with copays...it's called being a good company and human.

Because ye-ye capitalism doesn't work anymore. You can't just make Americans work in a factory for shit wages and go home to their shitty home and wake up and do it just for the right to live another day and go into excessive debt till they have to go bankrupt and eventually die because they can't pull no more loans. It creates a toxic workforce, it creates a toxic homelife. But hey... lets just stay in America and take a loss and complain because "we can't pay reasonable wages". instead of thinking what can we offer so people will work with us and be retained by us. OH that's right, basic amenities... and not making them go into debt just to survive so they have to work more and hate their life which will cause them to quiet quit and slowly decrease their productivity.

But hey, I guess when you didn't have those offerings to you at the time you want to hate on another grouping of people for having that offer...because you want people to work in a place that abuses them and keeps them poor and in a recursive loop... just because you didn't get the opportunity doesn't mean you should cockblock others from your situation from getting into a better life position with policy. Nobody wants to get treated like shit and work in shitty conditions/shitty jobs that put them in debt, so why do you want that for others?

 

[Brychnik]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/11/trump-pursues-new-trade-war-on-seas-targeting-china-containerships.html

In his speech to Congress last week, Donald Trump announced that he would create a new office of shipbuilding in the White House that would offer special tax incentives to bring more shipbuilding back to the U.S.

China is known for having the worlds largest container ships. The US has fallen behind over years, as have other nations.

Tangentially related to the Arctic ice melting and allowing for trade in the Arctic, Panama canal being seized by the US. Panama canal is too small for new ships. Many American ships limit themselves to the width of the canal. Tangentially related to new orders for USCG Icebreakers.

If rhetoric is pushing toward occupation of states regarding important world trade routes, including control of emerging trade routes in the melting Arctic, a shipbuilding force would fit such agendas. Makes sense with the rhetoric suddenly feeling warm up to Russia (Arctic Security Partner?), rhetoric against Greenland, Canada, Panama, etc.

 

[Torch]

That you can’t support tariffs and claim to be a free market capitalist.

Of course a person can.

 

[william]

First Lockheed had to FIND something for the Canadians to build. Need is the wrong word. Every country on the original buyers list gets to build something for everyone.

Canada can cut theirs silly order. We can use the airframes here. You are talking about 80 some at this point. We (the US) are buying thousands. Canada has an over valued sense of their impact upon the US.

If Canada wants to pass on the best (by a furlong) fighter and only stealth out there then go ahead and take their ball and go home. In fact if NATO gets in a war with China the Canadians exploding can be our fighters early warning system. Chinese stealth fighters will tear them apart.

Heck Israel with buy the production slots. They are asking for more now.

It will be fantastic. Good plan.

Canada won’t dump F-35​

With Trump back in the White House as of January 2025, his recent musings about slapping 25% tariffs on Canadian imports—set to kick in on April 2 unless Ottawa bends on issues like fentanyl trafficking—have only turned up the heat.

Add to that his offhand remarks about Canada becoming the “51st state” or facing economic retribution, and you’ve got a recipe for some serious hand-wringing north of the border. A handful of voices, mostly on the fringes, have even floated the idea that Canada should ditch its $19 billion deal for 88 F-35s from Lockheed Martin as a kind of geopolitical middle finger to Washington.

It’s a bold notion, but when you peel back the layers of rhetoric and dig into the realities—military, strategic, and practical—it’s clear that Canada isn’t walking away from this jet anytime soon.

Let’s start with the nuts and bolts of why Canada even signed up for the F-35 in the first place. The Royal Canadian Air Force has been flying CF-18 Hornets since the 1980s, and those birds are long past their prime. By the early 2000s, Ottawa knew it needed a replacement—something that could keep pace with modern threats and integrate seamlessly with its allies.

After years of waffling, including a messy procurement process that saw contenders like the Saab Gripen and Eurofighter Typhoon in the mix, Canada finally locked in the F-35 deal in January 2023. Deliveries are slated to start in 2026, with the full fleet operational by the early 2030s.

The choice wasn’t random. The F-35’s stealth capabilities, sensor fusion, and network-centric design make it a fifth-generation fighter that leaves fourth-gen options in the dust. For a country with a vast, sparsely populated northern frontier and a front-row seat to the Arctic, that kind of edge matters.

The Arctic is where this gets real. Russia’s been flexing its muscles up there for years, ramping up military infrastructure and buzzing NATO airspace with bombers like the Tu-95 and Tu-160. Just last month, on February 9, 2025, NORAD tracked a pair of Russian Il-78 tankers and Su-35 fighters skirting Canadian air defense zones near Alaska—a routine provocation, but a reminder of what’s at stake.

Canada’s CF-18s can still scramble to intercept, but they’re outmatched against newer Russian hardware. The F-35, with its low radar cross-section and ability to track targets at extreme ranges, changes that equation. It’s not just about keeping up appearances; it’s about having a credible deterrent in a region where Moscow’s ambitions are only growing.

China’s poking around up there too, eyeing resource plays and testing the waters with surveillance ships. Canada can’t afford to be caught flat-footed, and the F-35 is the tool that keeps it in the game.

Then there’s the NATO angle. Canada’s been a cornerstone of the alliance since 1949, and interoperability with the United States and other partners isn’t optional—it’s a hard requirement. The F-35 isn’t just a plane; it’s a flying data hub that ties into NATO’s command-and-control networks.

Its Link 16 datalink and advanced sensors let it share real-time intel with everything from American F-22s to British frigates. If Canada opted for, say, the Gripen instead, it’d be stuck with a capable jet but one that doesn’t plug into that ecosystem as seamlessly.

The United States Air Force alone plans to operate over 1,700 F-35s, and with allies like the UK, Norway, and Australia already flying them, the jet’s basically the backbone of Western air power.

For Canada to step outside that circle now would mean sidelining itself in joint operations—think NORAD missions or coalition deployments—where split-second coordination is non-negotiable.

Trump’s bluster doesn’t change those fundamentals. Sure, his tariff threats sting. Canada exports about 75% of its goods to the U.S., and a 25% hit could shave billions off its economy. But the F-35 deal isn’t some discretionary trade item that Ottawa can swap out like lumber or oil. It’s a locked-in contract, with payments phased over years and production lines already churning out parts.

Canceling it would trigger penalties—likely in the hundreds of millions—plus the sunk costs of a decade-long selection process. Lockheed Martin’s supply chain spans both countries, too; Canadian firms like Magellan Aerospace and Héroux-Devtek are building components for the jet, supporting thousands of jobs. Walking away doesn’t just burn bridges with Washington—it kneecaps Canada’s own aerospace sector at a time when economic resilience is already under scrutiny.

Some critics might argue that Trump’s unpredictability makes relying on American tech a liability. What if he slaps export controls on F-35 parts or strong-arms Canada into concessions? It’s a fair question, but the reality is that the program’s too big and too multinational for even Trump to derail.

Fourteen countries are in on the F-35, and its logistics backbone—think software updates, maintenance hubs, and spare parts—is spread across places like Italy, Japan, and the UK. The U.S. can’t unilaterally choke it off without screwing over its own allies, which even a hardball player like Trump would think twice about. Plus, Canada’s not exactly defenseless here.

It’s got leverage as America’s top energy supplier—think oil sands and hydroelectricity—and a shared border that’s too critical to both sides for a full-on rupture.

The military math backs this up. Canada’s defense budget sits at about $26 billion CAD annually, or roughly 1.4% of GDP, well below NATO’s 2% target. That’s tight, and the F-35’s price tag—around $85 million per jet, plus operating costs—already stretches it thin.

Starting over with a new fighter competition would take years and billions more, all while the CF-18s limp along on life support. The last major upgrade for those Hornets came in the early 2000s, and they’re slated to retire by 2032.

Any delay in the F-35 timeline risks a capability gap that Canada can’t plug with stopgaps like used F/A-18s from Australia, which it bought in 2018 as a temporary fix. Time’s not on Ottawa’s side, and the F-35’s the only option that’s ready to roll.

Geopolitics aside, there’s a practical angle to this that’s easy to overlook. The F-35 isn’t just about fighting wars—it’s about projecting power and securing influence. Canada’s got a 5,500-mile coastline to patrol, plus commitments to everything from UN peacekeeping to countering piracy in the Indo-Pacific. The jet’s multirole design lets it switch from air superiority to ground attack on the fly, with a range and payload that outclasses anything else in its class.

That flexibility matters for a middle power like Canada, which needs to punch above its weight without breaking the bank. Ditching it for a protest vote against Trump would leave the RCAF with a hole it can’t fill, and no amount of national pride fixes that.

Trump’s noise isn’t irrelevant, though. His tariffs and “America First” agenda could complicate things down the line—higher costs for maintenance, maybe, or pressure to align more closely with U.S. foreign policy. But those are risks Canada’s been managing since NAFTA’s early days. The F-35 deal’s too far along, too entrenched in NATO’s framework, and too vital to national security for Ottawa to back out now.

The handful of analysts pushing for a rethink are loud, but they’re missing the forest for the trees. This isn’t about feelings or flexing sovereignty—it’s about cold, hard necessity. Russia’s not waiting, China’s not slowing down, and the Arctic’s not getting any less contested. The F-35 keeps Canada in the fight, and that’s a reality no tariff tantrum can rewrite.

So, when the first Canadian F-35 rolls off the line in 2026, don’t expect Ottawa to blink. Trump can tweet—or X-post, rather—all he wants about tariffs and takeovers, but the strategic calculus hasn’t shifted.

Canada’s locked in, not because it loves Uncle Sam, but because it knows what’s at stake. The jet’s not perfect, and the politics are messy, but in a world where threats don’t care about borders or bruised egos, it’s the best tool for the job. And that’s what matters.

This article is spot on IMO.

Dream on, liberals: Canada won’t dump F-35 over MAGA’s tantrums

Canada stands firm on F-35 fighter jets deal despite MAGA threats and Trump’s tantrums. Liberals cry, but reality rules—why Ottawa won’t ditch the jet.

bulgarianmilitary.com

 

[Torch]

But we won't agree on the simple ethics of treating humans like humans and offering something to a market that's both good for the business and

Nobody wants to get treated like shit and work in shitty conditions/shitty jobs that put them in debt, so why do you want that for others?

So just so I understand your somewhat elitist attitude.

Starting to get nasty and personal and mean.
Certainly unhelpful.

This is a “not warning” warning to both you and @OReid STOP IT.

Both of you almost always treat others with respect and I doubt this would get worse. But it could, and it would if it would if it was anyone else.

We are really tightening the zero tolerance on personal attacks and bad behavior.

You both are A+ members and this is a fine infraction for me to point this out without having to take a boatload of crap over it. So…don’t get any worse, debate the position not the man or you’re just gonna find your posts deleted.

 

[Deleted account]

"History is a dish hurriedly served on elegant platters by unctuous waiters whenever ordered by the man in charge."

If one country wants to subjugate another then it doesn't matter who wronged whom, or who started a trade dispute, or whether both countries have historically been in an alliance or at war, or who has better medical care, or who's better at hockey, etc., etc. Literally none of that matters.

What does matter is that Guy A wants to take Guy B's stuff - and feels he can get away with it. Everything else is window dressing.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/11/trump-pursues-new-trade-war-on-seas-targeting-china-containerships.html

China is known for having the worlds largest container ships. The US has fallen behind over years, as have other nations.

Tangentially related to the Arctic ice melting and allowing for trade in the Arctic, Panama canal being seized by the US. Panama canal is too small for new ships. Many American ships limit themselves to the width of the canal. Tangentially related to new orders for USCG Icebreakers.

If rhetoric is pushing toward occupation of states regarding important world trade routes, including control of emerging trade routes in the melting Arctic, a shipbuilding force would fit such agendas. Makes sense with the rhetoric suddenly feeling warm up to Russia (Arctic Security Partner?), rhetoric against Greenland, Canada, Panama, etc.

Wouldn't a passage through the Arctic be controlled by Canada, Russia, and the US?

 

[Brychnik]

Yes, though Greenland definitely can have a stake. Its very effectively positioned to exert influence in the area.
Supposedly, those Canadian islands are not very easy to build on.

Check out these pictures:

 

[Brychnik]

This EO is probably related to Canada.

Addressing the Threat to National Security from Imports of Timber, Lumber

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 232 of the Trade Expansion

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[GBS61]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/us-border-canada-quebec-stanstead-library-1.7489528


Another ridiculous decision by the US suggests that this isolated incident demonstrates the extent of the future division between the West and the US. Americans, you will have to change your software; your future alliances will be with former enemies... Furthermore, the US is no longer able to lead the free world; France will do so with or without Macron.

 

[Deleted account]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/us-border-canada-quebec-stanstead-library-1.7489528


Another ridiculous decision by the US suggests that this isolated incident demonstrates the extent of the future division between the West and the US. Americans, you will have to change your software; your future alliances will be with former enemies... Furthermore, the US is no longer able to lead the free world; France will do so with or without Macron.

Oh, this is rich:

The new restrictions at the library come amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Canada, and nearly two months after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem visited the library. According to Boudreau, when Noem visited she stood on the American side and said "U.S.A. No. 1" and then, after crossing onto the Canadian side, said "the 51st state." Boudreau told CBC News she did this multiple times.

How cartoonishly evil can you get...?

 

[Deleted account]

Trump dismissed the idea that annexing Canada as the nation’s 51st state, as he’s repeatedly suggested, might cause an influx of Democratic voters, telling reporters he’s more focused on adding Canada’s "beautiful landmass" to the United States.

Source

Yep, this smells of death camps. My heart goes out to my Canadian friends.

 

[GBS61]

Trump talks about annexing Canada almost every day; it's become his obsession!

So you won't come see me in New York. I say this after reading a New York Times article, translated and published by La Presse, about Canadians canceling their trips to New York en masse. "Many cite Donald Trump's growing hostility toward Canada and his threats of annexation, which have triggered boycotts of American imports and a rejection of the United States as a tourist destination in that country," the article reads. Remember: these cancellations are sure to hurt New York's economy, where Canadians spent $600 million in 2024.

The Times is obviously not the only American media outlet to discuss the tourism impact of Trump's hostility toward Canada. CNN visited Old Orchard Beach, a popular summer destination for many Quebecers, where the owner of an inn admitted he had "easily" lost 90% of his revenue due to cancellations from his Canadian guests, most of whom were from Quebec.

"How are Canadians feeling about this? They're incredibly angry," the owner told the CNN reporter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903099415142793506

If you think these stories of mass travel cancellations might prompt Trump to change his tune when he talks about Canada, you're wrong. You're wrong, judging by what he just said in the Oval Office of the White House:

 

[GBS61]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903099415142793506

 

[Publius]

By “subsidizing” which you mean pay wages living wage which they can’t compete with and that because they can’t those jobs are destined to leave in the end any way. All while ignoring the problem that no company will be able to stay in business doing that if cheaper products can be found overseas. They will simply go broke.
Which you have dismissed with a “what about capitalism” trope. That you can’t support tariffs and claim to be a free market capitalist.
Capitalism was never meant to be what it is in its current form in the world today.

I am stating that the businesses here will be the headquarters aka the formula makers. It's becoming a rich mans country and the ethics are getting thrown out the door. But hey, it's not hard to be ethical and make a great living while doing it: same for the investors.

I don' think you're looking at the bigger pictures. formulas are the process of doing something the process of creating a way to solve an issue in an industry to make the industry more effective for a given cash price or power requirement. The process of creating processors is more effective year over year, same for recon of material scrap, ect. The person doing the work isn't paid well, the person creating the formula and providing the mechanism to do such is, not the person operating the mechanism.


I never said that the people under need to raise tax, I'm saying that us the formula creators need to pay 40-50%...you're putting words in my mouth saying that lower or middle needs to pay 40-50%. I don't believe those groups need a hike, I think they need a reduction.

But once again. I am stating the country is losing because the offerings in the market over here aren't able to compete oversees even without child labor, remove child labor and America still can't keep up because the cost of living in America is too high compared to other countries. That's why my company is successful in staffing and retention is because we offer housing credits, onsite food free, and medical coverage (no copay out of the worker's pocket). because we can negotiate a way better deal while we can negotiate lower overall facevalue salary. People will accept 60-70k for a 120k+ job if you just offer them housing and really good medical. If they know they don't have to worry they won't need to plan for issues thus needing more discretionary spending. the reason we can do that is because we can negotiate with apartments/healthcare/dental providers en masse and offer way better than our competitors in this sector of tech...thus saving us money and saving the employees money at the same time: it's mutual. Meanwhile a company will give you shitty insurance and no housing offerings (discounts), and no on-job training, and even no quality dental where you get your ass pounded.

But we won't agree on the simple ethics of treating humans like humans and offering something to a market that's both good for the business and the individual.

You know what, maybe one day I'll invite you out all expenses covered to come see one of our regional offices and I'll let you talk to any of our staff from high to low to show you what a quality workplace does and how it contributes to a healthy lifestyle and employee retention. When you as a business front most of the costs of your employees scary/concern areas they will work with you and offer you value too, be it buying tickets to local sporting, offering housing credits/money, or offering medical/dental that won't break the bank with copays...it's called being a good company and human.

Because ye-ye capitalism doesn't work anymore. You can't just make Americans work in a factory for shit wages and go home to their shitty home and wake up and do it just for the right to live another day and go into excessive debt till they have to go bankrupt and eventually die because they can't pull no more loans. It creates a toxic workforce, it creates a toxic homelife. But hey... lets just stay in America and take a loss and complain because "we can't pay reasonable wages". instead of thinking what can we offer so people will work with us and be retained by us. OH that's right, basic amenities... and not making them go into debt just to survive so they have to work more and hate their life which will cause them to quiet quit and slowly decrease their productivity.

But hey, I guess when you didn't have those offerings to you at the time you want to hate on another grouping of people for having that offer...because you want people to work in a place that abuses them and keeps them poor and in a recursive loop... just because you didn't get the opportunity doesn't mean you should cockblock others from your situation from getting into a better life position with policy. Nobody wants to get treated like shit and work in shitty conditions/shitty jobs that put them in debt, so why do you want that for others?

You know I didn’t even bother to read this till now, and the only thought that comes to mind is,
Hate much?