bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 And even they obviously don't know everything. There are thousands of major classified projects going on at any given time and information on many of them is just not distributed around for no reason. Right...by design...nobody knows "everything", including financing for black projects. For purposes of this thread, Canada is a Tier 3 program partner with an option to buy aircraft and supporting systems. Any interoperability (e.g. Link 16 data comm) will be in accordance with existing arrangements. What the Canadian DND wants to avoid is an embarrassing repeat of obsolete radios, IFF, FLIR pods, munitions deployment, etc., with an obsolete CF-18 aircraft. If you don't want them...don't buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Well I find it strange that companies like Dalsa are "bought out" and destined to be integrated into the US military war machine - yet did Canada block it? Could Canada turn around and buy Teledyne? I think canada really needs to wise up on the two faced dealings of the US and their businesses buying up Canadian patents then blocking equal action by Canadian interests. it is backward. I'm quite convinced the deal isn't in Canadian interests for various reasons. Canada would be better off finding another system because the US is not trust worthy enough to be sole sourced for Canada's sole future fighter capacity. It isn't a trusted partner in defence, in large part because Canada isn't treated as an open and equal partner in defence, and the US just wants to take away more fredoms and violate more domestic Canadian laws. Simply put the f35 is a US aircraft, it will never be a Canadian aircraft, the US is too selfish a country to be partners with on defence aquisitions matters. It is like giving money away at high mark ups and getting nothing in return but more costs. The US should go to hell with their f35. And Mr McKay should get a ticket to the US if he thinks this is Canada's best option becuase frankly it is appearing to be Canada's worse option more by the day. ‎Stephen Harper needs to wake up and realize this. Frankly I think that a total change of dealings with the US needs to take place yesterday, and the traitors in Canada who want to sell out Canada to US military control ought to also accompany Mr McKay to the US where their interests may be better served. We need people for Canada not sellouts and traitors. An agreement where the wealth only goes one direction is servitude, canada need none of that and I'm willing to die for that I'm willing to kill for that. Witht eh mentality of suposed americans like Bush Cheney I'd say burn every American Flag in Canada and send the Americans packing right behind them. They arn't allies they are scum with that type of selfish backstabing mindset. Just look to how many once Canadian defence manufacturors are now US subsideraries, then Bush Cheney comes along and spits in Canadians faces. Edited January 28, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Well I find it strange that companies like Dalsa are "bought out" and destined to be integrated into the US military war machine - yet did Canada block it? Could Canada turn around and buy Teledyne? I think canada really needs to wise up on the two faced dealings of the US and their businesses buying up Canadian patents then blocking equal action by Canadian interests. it is backward. It is up to Canada whether to allow any specific Canadian company to be sold to a foreign entity. The government can and has blocked such transactions in the past. You can't blame the US for this. I'm quite convinced the deal isn't in Canadian interests for various reasons.Canada would be better off finding another system because the US is not trust worthy enough to be sole sourced for Canada's sole future fighter capacity. It isn't a trusted partner in defence, in large part because Canada isn't treated as an open and equal partner in defence, and the US just wants to take away more fredoms and violate more domestic Canadian laws. Yes, that evil US, just sitting there itching to find more ways to violate domestic Canadian laws. Lol. Simply put the f35 is a US aircraft, it will never be a Canadian aircraft, the US is too selfish a country to be partners with on defence aquisitions matters. It is like giving money away at high mark ups and getting nothing in return but more costs. Of course it's a US aircraft. They spent most of the money to develop it, they are ordering more of them than anyone else, and they are made by an American company. The US should go to hell with their f35. And Mr McKay should get a ticket to the US if he thinks this is Canada's best option becuase frankly it is appearing to be Canada's worse option more by the day.‎Stephen Harper needs to wake up and realize this. Frankly I think that a total change of dealings with the US needs to take place yesterday, and the traitors in Canada who want to sell out Canada to US military control ought to also accompany Mr McKay to the US where their interests may be better served. We need people for Canada not sellouts and traitors. Yes, because buying some fighter planes is the same as putting Canada under US military control, lol. An agreement where the wealth only goes one direction is servitude, canada need none of that and I'm willing to die for that I'm willing to kill for that. Witht eh mentality of suposed americans like Bush Cheney I'd say burn every American Flag in Canada and send the Americans packing right behind them. They arn't allies they are scum with that type of selfish backstabing mindset. Ok, feel free to go die somewhere, no one is stopping you. As for killing the Americans and driving them off, you might want to go meet up with bin laden, I hear he shares similar goals. Looks like you've gone off the deep end before even getting to 100 posts. Oh well. Another one bites the dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Umm, because the US would not allow a foreign government to purchase one of their defense contractors involved in classified projects? Look up ITAR sometime. Things change. A few years ago you would have thought the US wouldnt be trying to sell the Penssylvania TurnPike to wealthy muslims either The broker you get the more stuff youre willing to flog. Edited January 28, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 This topic has everyone coming out and giving their opinion and here's an former RCAF retired pilot having his view and some on here probably won't like it including the Harper government. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/883396--f-35-fighters-are-not-what-we-need Best post I've seen so far on this thread... Sadly, the whole truth of this entire matter is that it's very likely any new manned stealth/superiority/strikefighter like the F-35 will be surpassed by unmanned airframes controlled by "pilots" hundreds to thousands of miles away in a secure environment before any delivery of them actually occures... Ergo, we're committing to buying aircraft that will be obsolete upon delivery and Canada will be unable at that time to purchase the new tech airframes because of this untendered commitment... The bottom line in all of this is that the relative capability of an airframe has very little to do with the purchase and a whole lot more to do with politics and creating the right atmosphere, ie - jobs, in targetted ridings by the Gov. of the day... No different than the CF-18 purchase that shunned Winnipeg/Manitoba, the best place for the "job" of servicing them, in favour of Quebec... However this time around the costs and stakes are a whole lot higher considering the current state of the worlds economies and resulting turmoil... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Best post I've seen so far on this thread... Sadly, the whole truth of this entire matter is that it's very likely any new manned stealth/superiority/strikefighter like the F-35 will be surpassed by unmanned airframes controlled by "pilots" hundreds to thousands of miles away in a secure environment before any delivery of them actually occures... This is a very old premise. We can go all the way back to Diefenbacker, when they cancelled the ARROW, a manned interceptor, in favour of Bomarck missiles that supposedly could 100% knock down any incoming Soviet nukes. Turned out not to be true. We were left with no airplane in the Arrow's class at all and no interceptor missiles either. Many times during the Space Program someone has suggested eliminating manned missions in favour of robots. Admittedly, it IS cheaper! You don't need to include an expensive life support system. However, this idea has never worked as well as it was thought either. So far no one has come up with a robot as intelligent and quick-thinking as a man. Exploration, like combat, has a LOT of unforeseen variables that require instant decisions! Until Commander Data is invented, this idea doesn't fly either. We HAVE drastically cut back on manned space flight in favour of machines but anyone who says we've progressed just as fast and as far hasn't actually looked at the progress! Machines take only baby steps. Slow baby steps at that. Now we're looking at 'teleo-operations', where we will fly unmanned drones. It does eliminate the risk to a pilot's life but are we anywhere near the level of techology where an unmanned fighter craft could win in combat with a manned plane like the F-35? The difference between flying an unmanned drone over Afghanistan and engaging in combat with a manned F-35 is like the difference between an F-18 and a Cessna. A remote-controlled, TOY Cessna! WHEN and IF our remote control technology gets to that level is the time to examine eliminating manned planes! That could easily be 40-50 years. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Sit on our asses and tell each other that we won't need them? Demand that the world treat Canada as an international player for peace keeping when we don't have sufficient or new enough equipment to do the job? Past glories don't cut it, in combat. I would agree that unmanned planes may someday happen. I just don't think they are ready TODAY! What's more, given Canada's track record with these sorts of decisions, if we abandon the F-35 in favour of a program to develop unmmanned equivalents it's a sure bet that 10 years from now we will have neither the F-35 OR the drones! It's the Canadian way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 ....Witht eh mentality of suposed americans like Bush Cheney I'd say burn every American Flag in Canada and send the Americans packing right behind them. LOL! Canadians already burn American flags....especially in Quebec. Go for it. They arn't allies they are scum with that type of selfish backstabing mindset. That's American "scum" to you! Just look to how many once Canadian defence manufacturors are now US subsideraries, then Bush Cheney comes along and spits in Canadians faces. So does that mean you want to return all the other scum American aircraft too? Too funny..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Canada would be better off finding another system because the US is not trust worthy enough to be sole sourced for Canada's sole future fighter capacity. Looking back historically the US has been a trusted defense partner, The CF has dozens of wpns systems that we have purchased from the US without any problem, Perhaps you can put some meat behind your remarks and fill us in. It isn't a trusted partner in defence, in large part because Canada isn't treated as an open and equal partner in defence, and the US just wants to take away more fredoms and violate more domestic Canadian laws. Norad , NATO and other defense related treaties and agreements would say different, i think your talking out your ass. As for Canada being treated as a equal perhaps the problem translates into how Canada itself looks at defense, and if we are not going to meet them atleast half way with funding and manning on mutual defense agreements then do you really think the US should treat us with equality....Canadians can't have the cake and eat it to.... Simply put the f35 is a US aircraft, it will never be a Canadian aircraft, the US is too selfish a country to be partners with on defence aquisitions matters. It is like giving money away at high mark ups and getting nothing in return but more costs.The US should go to hell with their f35. And Mr McKay should get a ticket to the US if he thinks this is Canada's best option becuase frankly it is appearing to be Canada's worse option more by the day. Simply put most of our aircraft we've ever owned have been US made and designed,go figure, we tried the design your own and build it how did that work out. As for getting nothing in return read the contract one more time. Once again all those that oppose this purchase will never have to strap themselfs into any jet fighter and be asked to defend this country....if they did i'm sure they would be singing another tune... ‎Stephen Harper needs to wake up and realize this. Frankly I think that a total change of dealings with the US needs to take place yesterday, and the traitors in Canada who want to sell out Canada to US military control ought to also accompany Mr McKay to the US where their interests may be better served. We need people for Canada not sellouts and traitors. Maybe it's not stephen that needs to wake up , but perhaps Canadians and their attitude towards defense....if they are not willing to do it our selfs then the US is going to at the expense of some of our freedoms.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Looking back historically the US has been a trusted defense partner, The CF has dozens of wpns systems that we have purchased from the US without any problem, Perhaps you can put some meat behind your remarks and fill us in. Norad , NATO and other defense related treaties and agreements would say different, i think your talking out your ass. As for Canada being treated as a equal perhaps the problem translates into how Canada itself looks at defense, and if we are not going to meet them atleast half way with funding and manning on mutual defense agreements then do you really think the US should treat us with equality....Canadians can't have the cake and eat it to.... Simply put most of our aircraft we've ever owned have been US made and designed,go figure, we tried the design your own and build it how did that work out. As for getting nothing in return read the contract one more time. Once again all those that oppose this purchase will never have to strap themselfs into any jet fighter and be asked to defend this country....if they did i'm sure they would be singing another tune... Maybe it's not stephen that needs to wake up , but perhaps Canadians and their attitude towards defense....if they are not willing to do it our selfs then the US is going to at the expense of some of our freedoms.... Well said Army Guy. I also don't think Canadians understand that the US has been a trusted defense Partner. Personally, I don't think the timing is good for the purchase of these Aircraft. A case can be made for anything and their is always a need for something. I often think (although I am open to debate on this) that the Airforce tends to get the cream of the crop when it comes to spending, and our other forces are not held with the same level of commitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I also don't think Canadians understand that the US has been a trusted defense Partner. I think if we looked at it from their piont of view it's them have been carrying most of the load when it comes to North American defense, and they have developoed an attitude that we simply don't care, and they know if they want to protect the entire continent they will have to do it by themselfs , with Canada playing a minior role. I mean how many times have i seen Canadians outwardly say it in threads, "nobody is going to attck North America, becuase the US is there" we don't need any defense.... Personally, I don't think the timing is good for the purchase of these Aircraft. A case can be made for anything and their is always a need for something. The question then becomes when is it going to be right, 5 years, 10 years from now....these programs take 10 or more years to get spun up.... I often think (although I am open to debate on this) that the Airforce tends to get the cream of the crop when it comes to spending, and our other forces are not held with the same level of commitment. Airforce equpment tends to be more multi tasked, ie, C-17 C-130J etc etc tasks that Citizens can relate to, which means more political pionts earned when purchased....ie diaster relief, air shows, etc etc....kind of hard to show our citizens, army or navy stuff in action....I'm not a big fan of the Navy, but i will say if any element is getting the bone right now it's them....and i hope they get some equipment soon....as for the army we've been getting a big portion of the pie the last 5 years or so....but all of them really need some major investments.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 This is a very old premise. We can go all the way back to Diefenbacker, when they cancelled the ARROW, a manned interceptor, in favour of Bomarck missiles that supposedly could 100% knock down any incoming Soviet nukes. Turned out not to be true. Are you suggesting that the Soviets had bombers that could fly through a 10KT detonation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Are you suggesting that the Soviets had bombers that could fly through a 10KT detonation? Bombers? Maybe, as long as there weren't too many of them. I was thinking more of ICBMs. I'm no expert but I think it possible that enough Arrows, stationed in the NWT, with advanced anti-missile missiles could have knocked ICBMs down. Or at least done a better job than making a radioactive barrage of Bomarc missile explosions, a la that old arcade game, "Missile Command". Today we have the software and hardware of Patriot systems but they were just a gleam in an engineer's eye back then. Whatever, Morris! Are you trying to pick apart my model or my point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Finally someone with a good head on their shoulders that I can discuss this subject with... Thanks... This is a very old premise. We can go all the way back to Diefenbacker, when they cancelled the ARROW, a manned interceptor, in favour of Bomarck missiles that supposedly could 100% knock down any incoming Soviet nukes. Turned out not to be true. We were left with no airplane in the Arrow's class at all and no interceptor missiles either. The Avro Arrow and "Dief the Chief" scrapping, not just cancelling but scrapping, the Arrow project in favour of the useless Bomarck missiles because, as he was told by his puppet masters the Americans, "this type of aircraft is obsolete and it's missiles that are the future, we'll GIVE you all the missiles and technology surrounding them you'll need" is even today one of the worst decisions ever made by a Canadian Prime minister... We wouldn't be buying Aircraft today, we be selling them, had this fiasco never occured... No Conservative vote ever from me just because of that... Many times during the Space Program someone has suggested eliminating manned missions in favour of robots. Admittedly, it IS cheaper! You don't need to include an expensive life support system. However, this idea has never worked as well as it was thought either. So far no one has come up with a robot as intelligent and quick-thinking as a man. Exploration, like combat, has a LOT of unforeseen variables that require instant decisions! Until Commander Data is invented, this idea doesn't fly either. We HAVE drastically cut back on manned space flight in favour of machines but anyone who says we've progressed just as fast and as far hasn't actually looked at the progress! Machines take only baby steps. Slow baby steps at that. Agreed in principle, however the rate of current technology changes is mind blowing... Even 10 years ago an unmanned Predator Drone bombing a target within measurements of a few feet or yards was the stuff of science fiction, now it's proven reality and used without a second thought in both Afghanistan and Pakistan... Now we're looking at 'teleo-operations', where we will fly unmanned drones. It does eliminate the risk to a pilot's life but are we anywhere near the level of techology where an unmanned fighter craft could win in combat with a manned plane like the F-35? The difference between flying an unmanned drone over Afghanistan and engaging in combat with a manned F-35 is like the difference between an F-18 and a Cessna. A remote-controlled, TOY Cessna! As I indicated above, yes, I do think we are at that level of technology and capability... The massive canadarm on the ISS can hold a small wrench and tighten a nut while it's also able to gently manipulate a huge and delicate solar array without damaging the most sensitive instruments and materials imaginable... Remember, we're talking 50 years of changes where today a civilian blackberry or I-pad has superior capabailities to a '60s DOD super computer taking up hundreds of feet of floor space... Another thing is that by eliminating human suport systems, as you alude to, you might be talking 3 or more unmanned fighters engaging that F-35 rather than one... That changes the odds considerably in favor of the superior numbers... WHEN and IF our remote control technology gets to that level is the time to examine eliminating manned planes! That could easily be 40-50 years. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Sit on our asses and tell each other that we won't need them? Demand that the world treat Canada as an international player for peace keeping when we don't have sufficient or new enough equipment to do the job? Here I have to disagree with you... I think the technology exists today and in all likelihood is well into it's testing stage, so I'm thinking more like 10 years to production and application rather than 40-50 years as you state... That's within the projected life span of the CF-18s perhaps augmented by some new Super Hornets to replace the oldest, first order, of our planes... I even think right now it's the economics and political will to "change over" to unmanned equipment for land, sea AND air, rather than technology issues that's keeping the new available unmanned fighting machines under wraps... Except of course when/if needed, ie - hundreds of ARMED, assault, Predetor Drone aircraft, unheard of at the beginning of the Afghan and Iraq wars, heck, even the unmanned observation drones were a totally NEW concept for in theater use, so you have to admit that the speed of change and developement in this area of operations is more rapid than anything we've seen since the developments in technology during WWII, and even those pale in comparison to todays rate of changes in technology... New technology, like computer systems etc. rolls out in weeks and months now rather than years... China is in the space race, whodda thunk it, eh... Past glories don't cut it, in combat. Exactly, but I don't know if you meant it in the way I'm taking that... I would agree that unmanned planes may someday happen. I just don't think they are ready TODAY!As I said, I believe it does...What's more, given Canada's track record with these sorts of decisions, if we abandon the F-35 in favour of a program to develop unmmanned equivalents it's a sure bet that 10 years from now we will have neither the F-35 OR the drones! Perhaps, but as I've stated earlier, it's not that Canada would be defenseless IF that were ever the case... The US Navy still likes it's F-18s and has in fact just ordered more Super Hornets, and no F-35s saying they aren't suitable for the US Navy, do they know something we don't? It's the Canadian way! Ain't that the truth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 . We wouldn't be buying Aircraft today, we be selling them, You think there's a lot of money to be made in selling obsolete aircraft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 The Avro Arrow and "Dief the Chief" scrapping, not just cancelling but scrapping, the Arrow project in favour of the useless Bomarck missiles because, as he was told by his puppet masters the Americans.... Sure, after the Americans also gave Canada lots of help to develop the Arrow in the way of: - B-47 engine test platform - Engine (until Iroquois engine was ready...it never really was) - Air tunnel testing at Langely AFB in Virginia - Missile and fire control Perhaps, but as I've stated earlier, it's not that Canada would be defenseless IF that were ever the case... The US Navy still likes it's F-18s and has in fact just ordered more Super Hornets, and no F-35s saying they aren't suitable for the US Navy, do they know something we don't? Well that's just swell as long as Canada can count on all that foreign R&D and production. Super Hornets or not, Canada will still fight and bitch about procuring any of them either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Did you know that the Chinese don't even have an engine designed for their fighter? Did you know that they can't manufacture the composite materials needed for such an aircraft? The J-20 is even further off the horizon than the Pak-Fa, which is probably at least a decade away. They are developing the new engine, in the meant time they are using the Russian ones, because they wanted to test the air frame and other systems. They could have the J20 out the door in full production in under 10 years if they go with the Russian engines. 10-15 if they decide to go with the developing Chinese engine. And they can manufacture those types of composites. If not who manufactures the composites for China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Best post I've seen so far on this thread... Sadly, the whole truth of this entire matter is that it's very likely any new manned stealth/superiority/strikefighter like the F-35 will be surpassed by unmanned airframes controlled by "pilots" hundreds to thousands of miles away in a secure environment before any delivery of them actually occures... Ergo, we're committing to buying aircraft that will be obsolete upon delivery and Canada will be unable at that time to purchase the new tech airframes because of this untendered commitment... The bottom line in all of this is that the relative capability of an airframe has very little to do with the purchase and a whole lot more to do with politics and creating the right atmosphere, ie - jobs, in targetted ridings by the Gov. of the day... No different than the CF-18 purchase that shunned Winnipeg/Manitoba, the best place for the "job" of servicing them, in favour of Quebec... However this time around the costs and stakes are a whole lot higher considering the current state of the worlds economies and resulting turmoil... Before remote drones can be employed safely with weapon systems you have to insure quantum communications are secure. Until then the drones are suceptable to hijacking. You need quantum computing technologies for safety, solid state computers and older computer technologies are succeptable to override hijacking through EW attacks. The ideal really is though a pilot control system leading a bunch of drones,, not just drones. The bottom line is, if you can have a 100kg payload armarment or human sometimes the payload will be more useful. Also drones will be better in combat than humans. Humans may be needed for awareness and authorization or "aborts" In actual war communications channels are not gaurenteed. You can engage an operation but disengaging needs to be preset if you want it to go ahead with communications loss or to abort with communications loss. You can program this stuff but don't expect to remotely pilot, it will be AI. Edited January 28, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 It is up to Canada whether to allow any specific Canadian company to be sold to a foreign entity. The government can and has blocked such transactions in the past. You can't blame the US for this. Yes, that evil US, just sitting there itching to find more ways to violate domestic Canadian laws. Lol. Of course it's a US aircraft. They spent most of the money to develop it, they are ordering more of them than anyone else, and they are made by an American company. Yes, because buying some fighter planes is the same as putting Canada under US military control, lol. Ok, feel free to go die somewhere, no one is stopping you. As for killing the Americans and driving them off, you might want to go meet up with bin laden, I hear he shares similar goals. Looks like you've gone off the deep end before even getting to 100 posts. Oh well. Another one bites the dust. Well and civilly said my American brother... We've got your back... As Canada has always had... Including on 9/11 and during the first strikes on the ground in Afghanistan with our JTFII forces... Even in Iraq Canada had your back all the way through as the 4th largest contribution (including all the "willing", just a little more quietly) in that conflict... What unites our two countries is far more important to both our nations than those things that divide us... The fact is we need each other in more ways than 95% of the people realize in both our countries... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Well and civilly said my American brother... What makes you think he/she is American? What unites our two countries is far more important to both our nations than those things that divide us... The fact is we need each other in more ways than 95% of the people realize in both our countries... OK...but Canada needs the USA more!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) What makes you think he/she is American? OK...but Canada needs the USA more!!!!!! If Canada blocked oil export to the US you'd see them buckle. Canada is not disempowered to destroy the US if it chooses. US power grids would shutter, potentially even causing mass rioting and industrial collapse leading to economic decline as exports dwindled. If Canada so choosed the US would be doomed without firing a single bullet. You'd be eating up your stragetic reserves. Oh but would the US attack little old Canada just because of economic policies and national security. True colours show. Be thankful how gracious canada has been all these years. The US has around 30 days of oil in strategic reserve It gets about 1/3rd of its oil from Canada. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Of course the SPR can only draw a fraction of the oil it gets from Canada so it would be lamed just by the taps being shut. Edited January 28, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 What makes you think he/she is American? I'm of a lot of nationalities, but not American, not yet anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm of a lot of nationalities, but not American, not yet anyway. Sorry, last time I checked Seattle was in the States, since I'm a "newbie" here no foul intended, you still had a good post, and what I stated applies regardless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm of a lot of nationalities, but not American, not yet anyway. Of course...you have already said as much. I guess some people just make assumptions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Sorry, last time I checked Seattle was in the States, since I'm a "newbie" here no foul intended, you still had a good post, and what I stated applies regardless... Just a rookie mistake....I'm sure you will learn the landscape here in short order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 What makes you think he/she is American? OK...but Canada needs the USA more!!!!!! Glad you "winked" or I might have been offended by that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.