top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 199 points 9 months ago (4 children)

So if they don't buy any we're just gonna give them out free? That's dumb.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    It does sound really weird, however, the way I see it is both countries are under obligation for defense forces anyway, and already go into each other's air space in order to do this. So, by Canada not buying the jets( Which I agree with that decision at this point because the US has heavily dropped the ball while increasing prices.) that doesn't change the fact that they were counting on those jets for coverage, which means that they need to gain that coverage from somewhere in order to uphold current agreements.

    The ambassador was just stating that they will need to attempt to alter NORAD's deal with them because if Canada isn't going to supply the coverage, then if they were to keep the same coverage, the US would have to send more jets in which he is complaining about.

    Honestly, the title of this article is clickbait to the point where I don't even think the article title itself is accurate to the article anymore. It's borderline misinformation at this point

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 121 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    This is just robbery, we weren't able to make our schedule and modified the price. "$27.7 billion in cost – up from its initial $19 billion."

    Yet expect them to just give us $7 billion dollars because we failed to meet the contract?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Duh. That's how extortion works.

    You think the mob ever delivered anything on time and under budget?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Now I want a short story where the Mob accidentally hires the most effective project manager ever

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    There's actually an anime where a corporate worker gets summoned into another world because they need him to use his efficiency to get their shit together.

    It's called "Headhunted to Another World: From Salaryman to Big Four!", and it's pretty good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 89 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    "Buy or weapons or else..." Maybe we should look for a more reliable supplier and close our airspace to their jet fighters.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    There isn't one, the only stealth fighters are in the US or Russia/China. If you don't have stealth fighters at all you will lose very badly in an air war against someone that does. That's just how it is, you have an overwhelming advantage if you can shoot your enemy but they can't even see you at range.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Air superiority has never won a war.

    Source: History.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    “Give us money or we will attack you” is generally not something you say to an ally you want to keep. Trump is literally insane, trying to start WW3.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 47 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    It's kinda loud in here, did the headline say 'piece of shit fuckface Trump gives Canada reason #563 to stop trading with the US and increase trade with Europe, China, etc'?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 41 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Canada could do something really funny and start buying chinese anti-aircraft missiles.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Isn't that similar to the shit that got Turkey kicked out of the F35 program?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago*

    Yes, except Russia instead of China.

    To what extent it was the US sending other countries a message "Buy American or else" vs "We think you'll let the radar systems send data on F-35s to Russia", we don't know, but if the second was a genuine concern, all the better for keeping F-35s away from your airspace.

    IDK if it was the second tho, since the US flies F-35s near the North Korean border every spring, and if Russia wanted radar data, they'd just give one to the DPRK.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 9 months ago
    [–] 32 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Buy our fighter jets or we'll send you fighter jets

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Basically: you are getting those F-35's whether you want them or not.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago

    You know, like you do to allies when the commander in chief isn't a Russian asset.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago
    [–] 18 points 9 months ago

    Whatever it takes to distract from the Epstein files sir!

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I was walking past the 7-11 the other day and the manager came out and forced me to buy a slurpee by gunpoint. USA! USA! /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 46 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    What

    Buy our fighters jets or we invade with fighter jets ?

    What absolute fuck is wrong with this country

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    No, I definitely read.

    Canada doesn't want to pay for the massive cost overruns. The US said "fine, but we'll have to shore up the NORAD system by sending OUR fighters into YOUR airspace as necessary." If there is no agreement as to how that occurs and the US does it anyway, that is an invasion. Quite literally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    Part of NORAD already allows both Canada and the US to enter each other's airspace in the interest of dealing with threats. This is an existing negotiation.

    What the ambassador is stating is that if Canada does decide to backtrack on the program (which full disclosure I agree with because they failed to meet their deadline and the cost overrun is through the roof), In order to "prevent gaps", they would increase their f35 presence Which is also why they referenced that they would need to alter the current NORAD plan.

    This is a quote from one of the sources that the article uses for its claims.

    "NORAD would have to be altered," U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra told CBC News in an exclusive interview at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. He says the United States would likely need to purchase more of the advanced fighter aircraft for its own air force, and would fly them more often into Canadian airspace to address threats approaching the U.S. "If Canada is no longer going to provide that [capability], then we have to fill those gaps," said Hoekstra.

    The Posted article cherry-picks the hell out of its sources to try and make a mountain out of a mole hill.

    The entire article could be summarized with "US ambassador states that if Canada backs out of F-35 deal, US will need to increase resources to fill the gap" But instead of doing so, the author decided to make a title that makes it indicate that the US ambassador is threatening to invade Canada over it. Disingenuous reporting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago

    I mean it's always been like this basically.
    But less publicly

  • source
  • [–] 78 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    Everybody calm down. USA and Canada have an agreement allowing them to enter each other's air space. They said that if Canada doesn't buy enough F-35s USA will have to send more jests into Canada's airspace to fill in the gaps. That's it. It's not "buy our jets or we will invade you". It's "if Canada doesn't buy F-35 we will have to do more work in our agreement".

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    But why isn't Canada allowed to use whatever other jets it buys for that? Why does it have to be American made f-35s?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    But Hoekstra warned that if Canada chooses to purchase Saab’s Gripen E jets, the U.S. would still need to reconsider how it works with its northern neighbor on security.

    “If they decide they’re going with an inferior product that is not as interchangeable, interoperable as what the F-35 is, that changes our defense capability,” Hoekstra said.

    “And as such, we have to figure out how we’re going to replace that,” the ambassador added.

    ---- (end quote)

    They are just saying that if Canada changes its plans US will have to adapt. Looking at what's happening in Greenland this can be somehow considered as a threat (if you can't defend yourself we will have to take over...) but it's really a stretch. US will probably decide to deploy more F-35s there or something which makes total sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    Idk. Sounds like the US whining but I guess a news article also isn't going to reveal exact security terms and threats. Canada was going to use the same number of planes but from a different country and manufactured on Canadian soil with Canadian jobs. I think thats the biggest "threat" trump is worried about.

    Also you should consider seperating your opinion from the quoted text using mark up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago*

    Sir, this is Lemmy. We thrive on clickbait headlines here :(

    Seriously though. For all of Twitter's awfulness, I think Lemmy could use a similar “reader added context” bubble right below the headline text. A corrective comment doesn’t really fix the engagement the headline gets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    “Such a nice airspace you have here, it would be a shame if something would happen to it” Also doesn’t say they would invade… still it’s a clear threat.

    Putting a correlation on “more fighters jets in your airspace” on them buying more planes that cannot really be used to protect from the US (for software limitations) sounds a lot like a threat.

    But, sure, you are technically correct

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    This community really needs a clickbait title flagging process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Honestly, I'm a little surprised that this post wasn't locked or had a comment pin stating that the title of this post is misinformation and that the actual body isn't what the title indicates

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Cute, but its obvious everybody checks replies first and you do so specifically to avoid giving clicks to bad actors so they can draw people in to sell ads

    Bad headlines will get worse if you RTFA after falling for the clickbait. The incentives are fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Is that what the pundits said about the president and his appointee threatening canada again? Yeah he threatened them but what he meant was best friends forever! Kind of a hard sell at this point I'm afraid. The US is the enemy, they are deeply hostile make no mistake, in league with Russia to blow up Nato, and in a confrontation with the west over territory could trip the kill switches they have in high end military gear they sell, bricking those jets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    To do what? Fly around, wasting tax payer money?

  • source
  • [–] 62 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    That’s technically a declaration of war, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago

    NORAD already has shared skies provisions. US jets can fly into our airspace as needed to intercept foreign attackers. We can do the same with them.

    None of this constitutes a threat, despite Hoekstra's weird, fumbling attempt to deliver it like one.

    He basically said "If you don't give us your business, we'll have no choice but to protect your airspace even harder!" Oh, wow, scary. No, please, don't do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Not even close.

    They’re suggesting that Canada won’t be able to defend its own airspace so US will have to be able to operate more freely in Canadian than they already do. They are saying that the NORAD agreement would need to be updated to accommodate this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Pretty sure that is the exact explanation that Russia uses when it violates Finnish and Swedish airspace.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    And neither Finland nor Sweden are at war with Russia. Bullshit scare tactic used by fucking putin yes, but it's not itself an act of war. At least, it isn't generally treated as such.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You seem to be applying a pretty strict definition to what is actually an arbitrary term. An act of war can be anything that any nation wants to call an act of war.

    So I guess we should probably just use some of the countries involved in the real life case we are talking about.

    Does anyone consider violation of airspace by a nations warplanes to be in-and-of-itself an act of war or at least a proactive action worthy of escalation and retaliation? Oh yeah, the United States does. And so does Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm not applying a strict standard, I'm using the two examples you gave to illustrate my point that it's much more complex than they thought. Finland and Sweden aren't at war so no, at least in those two cases its not a declaration of war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Just kinda decided to pretend we were talking about "declarations of war" now? I can see you are either not interested in having a grown up discussion or you're genuinely unable to have one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I will continue to post this every time someone insinuates that someone else should murder Trump/ICE Agents/ etc. Do it yourself or better yet, you can focus on protecting you and yours instead.

    In the US we have the Second Amendment. The fascists have been the ones screaming and yelling about the Second Amendment, but the truth is that all Americans have the right.

    Owning a gun isn't enough. Driving to Cabela's and picking up a vermin killing .22 is not enough. You should buy a proper rifle, a pistol, and a knife or baton. (Bonus points for a shotgun) Then you need to train with said rifle, pistol and knife/baton. Go to a range and shoot. Look for local self defense/hand to hand combat with a weapon classes and train.

    I am not advocating for violence...far from it. But I am advocating for knowledge because owning a weapon and not knowing how to use it is a recipe for disaster.

    PS: If you can afford it, buy suppressors or active hearing protection. Especially for your rifles. Suppression for the common citizen isn't about stealth like in the movies, it is about protecting your hearing. Guns are LOUD. Much louder than you expect. At the bare minimum, make sure you have quality active hearing protection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Guns are LOUD. Much louder than you expect.

    Especially handguns. As a kid I'd shot lots of rifles including some beautiful .22s and the latter weren't very loud. As an adult I picked up a .22 pistol and figured I'd go out in the woods and plink a little w/it. First shot .... holy hell, WTF was that?? Yeah I got my hearing back but I've never pulled a trigger again w/o ear protection.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    This will be a devastating air campaign for the US, many F35s will be lost to mechanical and software failures and it isn't our fault it is totally Canada's fault if that happens because if they had bought our jets we wouldn't of had to break them by trying to use them as airplanes.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Sort of a joke that these planes can't fly in anything but the most ideal conditions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The planes are adaptable, multirole fighters that can, in fact, fly in all sorts of conditions. The problem is the ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours is really high. I was once quoted that it was an amortized $12k just to turn it on bring the engine to idle, and turn it off again.

    Given that reality, in peace time, many operators will pick and choose when and where they fly. In wartime, of course, the way economy will either expand to handle the maintenance, or (more likely, imo) designs will pivot to something more manufacturable and maintainable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    The F-35 Lightning II faced significant, long-term restrictions preventing it from flying within 25 miles of thunderstorms or lightning due to a faulty Onboard Inert Gas Generation System (OBIGGS) that could not safely protect fuel tanks. Although fixed in 2024 via hardware/software updates, the jet remains sensitive to environmental factors like heavy rain, requiring specialized, climate-controlled hangers to prevent stealth coating degradation

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    This is the exact real world tactical case F35 was built for!
    (Also the only one it was built for.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    I thought it was built for standoff missile attacks, not patrolling potentially hostile territory?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The F35 was built for enriching shareholders, the US military does not even own copyright over the aircraft.

    In 2014, GAO reported that the F-35 program lacked an intellectual property strategy for repair and sustainment. The program didn’t release that strategy until July 2025, eleven years later. Because the military can’t access the technical data, parts, or diagnostic tools needed to repair their own aircraft, they’re forced to pay contractors to do it for them. The contractors set the prices, control the timeline, and profit from every breakdown.

    https://pirg.org/articles/the-f-35-is-proof-we-need-right-to-repair/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    wut.

    If you don’t buy from me, I’ll bomb you.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    pretty classic US negotiating technique, actually; just normally used against "brown" countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    And what with them?

    Make them say it.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    what's a little extortion among friends.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    This is just....bonkers.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Could we possibly exchange the F-35s for store credit and purchase some healthcare to send back info America?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    27 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
    9 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    1 comment in c/boycottus@lemmy.ca view that post
    1 comment in c/boycottus@lemmy.ca view that post
    1 comment in c/boycottus@lemmy.ca view that post