Does Canada have the kind of military aerospace background to speedrun a program like that? Genuinely don’t know.
Buying from America’s enemy sends a very different message. Just building your own missile looks like America’s vassal having pout; it’ll be used against NATO’s(read America’s) enemies anyway, essentially doing what Trump asked all NATO members and increasing their contribution to America’s sphere, for free. Cozying up to the other superpower signals that Canada actually prepared to break it off if the US doesn’t cut yall a better deal.
Lockheed and Boeing have a history of bribing officials, both legally and illegally. That time a porn-star 9/11’d a yakuza’s kitchen was revenge for this.
Going from supplicant to one abusive superpower to another sends the wrong message. Carney’s Davos speech spelled it out for you.
Yes. We have virtually all the skills, expertise and knowhow with a few notable exceptions. (Submarines, we could build them but at great cost and a learning curve.) We could build nukes in a year if we wanted to. The delivery system would take longer than the payload, but we could do that too.
Chinese goods are cheap because market function and the profit motive was not of central concern, neither human rights, labour rights or environmental rights. Your claim of “cheap” is badly distorted. There were costs born by the Chinese peoples across each of these domains that don’t show up on an invoice, but the bill always comes due and is paid in full. Your definition of “cheap” is a perversion of full cost accounting to suit a narrative.
So don’t put yourself into a situation where either can force abusive terms on you, not that China’s terms have been abusive, as evidenced by the development of countries who take chinese loans vs the eternal “developing” of countries which accept western “help”. I’m not even advocating entering China’s sphere, just having the threat available that the US can’t push any terms with no fear of consequences.
Chinese goods are cheap because market function and the profit motive was not of central concern
Correct, building the means of production was. Now they’ve done that, one unit of labor goes a lot further when you’re regularly setting up complex, automated assembly lines in days. If market function was the central concern, China would look like India or Africa; still exporting cheap resources and labor while your own people starve.
human rights, labour rights or environmental rights
Maybe 25 years ago when they had children working in machine presses and rivers that turned funny colors, it’s a different country now.
Does Canada have the kind of military aerospace background to speedrun a program like that? Genuinely don’t know.
Buying from America’s enemy sends a very different message. Just building your own missile looks like America’s vassal having pout; it’ll be used against NATO’s(read America’s) enemies anyway, essentially doing what Trump asked all NATO members and increasing their contribution to America’s sphere, for free. Cozying up to the other superpower signals that Canada actually prepared to break it off if the US doesn’t cut yall a better deal.
60 years ago we did. The Avro Arrow program was unexpectedly killed just as production was getting read to ramp up. Why? Who the fuck knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow
We still do. That was a nascent effort, not some built up military industrial complex and it stil exceeded all rivals at the time.
Why? Being a supplicant to a bully.
Lockheed and Boeing have a history of bribing officials, both legally and illegally. That time a porn-star 9/11’d a yakuza’s kitchen was revenge for this.
Going from supplicant to one abusive superpower to another sends the wrong message. Carney’s Davos speech spelled it out for you.
Yes. We have virtually all the skills, expertise and knowhow with a few notable exceptions. (Submarines, we could build them but at great cost and a learning curve.) We could build nukes in a year if we wanted to. The delivery system would take longer than the payload, but we could do that too.
Chinese goods are cheap because market function and the profit motive was not of central concern, neither human rights, labour rights or environmental rights. Your claim of “cheap” is badly distorted. There were costs born by the Chinese peoples across each of these domains that don’t show up on an invoice, but the bill always comes due and is paid in full. Your definition of “cheap” is a perversion of full cost accounting to suit a narrative.
So don’t put yourself into a situation where either can force abusive terms on you, not that China’s terms have been abusive, as evidenced by the development of countries who take chinese loans vs the eternal “developing” of countries which accept western “help”. I’m not even advocating entering China’s sphere, just having the threat available that the US can’t push any terms with no fear of consequences.
Correct, building the means of production was. Now they’ve done that, one unit of labor goes a lot further when you’re regularly setting up complex, automated assembly lines in days. If market function was the central concern, China would look like India or Africa; still exporting cheap resources and labor while your own people starve.
Maybe 25 years ago when they had children working in machine presses and rivers that turned funny colors, it’s a different country now.