Thailand wanted the F-35 [0], but the we will not give it to them given how close the Thai government has become to China after the junta [1].
Their junta and King wants to keep Thailand as an authoritarian illiberal democracy. The Biden admin on the other hand strongly opposed democratic backsliding in Thailand [2]
As a result, they - like Cambodia - decided to flip to China.
But in the 2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy, build an independent press (a number of Cambodian journalists used to be HN users back in the day), invest in rural healthcare expansion, and even sponsored Hun Sen's son to study in the US.
The Cambodian leadership didn't want any of that. They wanted to continue to rule as an oligarchy, and Western development funds came with oversight requirements and American firms followed the FCPA.
On the other hand, Chinese vendors were fine paying bribes to leadership in Cambodia and ignoring rising criminality (it was a win-win for China as well - they were able to "convince" organized crime to leave China).
China's elite centric approach [0][1] to foreign relations is better than grassroots democracy promotion that a subset of Americans believed in.
If Cambodia or Serbia or Thailand's leadership want to remain a dictatorship or oligarchy, let them. It's not our problem. Our commitment to democracy should be within our borders. Let other countries be dictatorships or democracies as long as they align with our interests. This is what China and Russia does.
Yes, the Chinese are horrible people. Only if these countries could look into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Vietnam, and on and on, they would realise that the Americans are indeed the trustworthy and reliable partner.
> But in the 2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy, build an independent press
History of US-Cambodia relations -
1970 - CIA aids Lon Nol coup against government. US invades Cambodia. US kills 4 student protesters against invasion at Kent State, 2 at Jackson State
1970-1973 Operation Freedom Deal, US drops 250,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia
1975 King Sihanouk, overthrown by CIA assisted coup in 1970 returns to power, in coalition with communists. The destabilization of the country by the US is what is seen to help bring the communists to power
1979 Split in Cambodian communists, Vietnamese-aligned side comes to power. US immediately begins to arm the coalition of Sihanouk and the so-called "Khmer Rouge". The US also fights to keep the Khmer Rouge coalition as Cambodia's UN representatives. The New York Times reports on the arms shipments in the early-mid 1980s
[...]
"2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy"
Thanks for this insightful rebuttal. I've briefly fact-checked what you wrote (don't take this personally; it's just something I do), and your timeline is overall correct.
I've noticed that alephnerd's comments are often tinted with pro-U.S. propaganda. Note that I'm not accusing him of being disingenuous or malicious. I think he shares his thoughts and viewpoints in good faith. But his bias is very obvious when he writes about topics I'm familiar with, which makes me a bit skeptical when he writes about topics I'm not familiar with.
In 2010 nothing noteworthy (politically) happened in Cambodia. The most democratic elections were run by UNTAC in 1991. There were a few USAID projects that did try to help defeat CPP since then.
We the US cannot have a values based foreign policy - all that matters is power.
Cambodian and Thai leadership wants to retain power, so they decided to work with the Chinese - who don't care if you are an autocracy or a democracy, while we tried to make an example out of Thailand (and Cambodia) for regressing into authoritarian military governments.
We the US need to return to the same mercenary foreign policy. We are starting to do that again with rappoachment to Pakistan, shielding Israel, and arm twisting the Europeans.
Welcome to a multipolar world - only the powerful can set the rules.
This is exactly why countries are deciding to reduce their dependence on the US. If you're one president or one policy away from being cut off from technology, tariffed to death or otherwise bullied you're going to choose other partners.
Politics is about power, that much is true. But power exercised with restraint. China isn't increasing its influence by arm twisting but the opposite. Simply saying "we're open for business" and not interfering in the domestic politics of other countries as long as that's reciprocated. This is effectively a reversal of the Cold War, which they learned a lesson from. Acting like the Soviet Union isn't going to serve the US well.
The more you look like a desperate empire in its late stages losing its grip, replacing mutual benefit with brutality the faster you're done. That ought to be the lesson of the 20th century.
No, it’s a side effect of US hypocrisy. We apply “standards” - or at least claim to - in some cases but not others. We apply or seek to apply international law in some cases but not others. There was never a true values-based foreign policy. It has always been nothing more than holier than thou posturing.
The United States has become an unreliable security partner
ridiculous politics, open bribery and extortion... which impacts other countries. The decoupling has begun, spurred by Americas adversaries and our own abhorrent behavior
“Selling the F-35, or American systems for that matter, will certainly become more complicated for American companies,” said Gesine Weber, a Paris-based fellow at transatlantic think tank German Marshall Fund.
“An important factor in the purchase of the F-35 by European governments was the idea that European defense would be built on a transatlantic basis in terms of strategy, institutions and capabilities,” she said, adding that “the Trump administration is in the process of dissolving the transatlantic link, and the purchase of American systems will therefore no longer have any added value for Europeans.”
“If you keep punching your allies in the face, eventually they’re going to stop wanting to buy weapons from you,” said a Western European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. “Right now we have limited options outside of U.S. platforms, but in the long run? That could change in the coming decades if this combativeness keeps up.”
If you are Boeing or Northrup Grumman, etc. most of your focus is on the coming decades. A huge part of your budget is getting governments to sign procurement deals that are 20 years out. They know that will guarantee revenues 40 years out.
Boeing's string of disasters over the last couple of years isn't so much a concern for its short-term health as it is for Boeing's ability to land any long-term payouts. They hire people today to deliver a product twelve years from now. If there is no prospect for twelve years from now they start caving in today. You just don't see the dust cloud for a few years.
Except the reason people say decades is that's how long military procurement programs run for. Companies have order books past 2035 for many systems and standing up new programs takes time.
You start making yourself look unreliable now, then you prompt a transition away and by the time it's underway there's no reason to switch back anyway - i.e. traditionally stable companies "suddenly" are having trouble finding sales.
I think the comment is calling out how Europe can be slow or indecisive when it comes to building businesses, startups, industries, etc. Not that Europe doesn't have a desire to do so.
I can’t see a world in which this stuff isn’t considered on a decades long scale. It’s not like you go year to year ordering a couple of different fighter jets here and there.
If you are buying military equipment that you will keep around for a few decades, you need to look into the future to make reasonable buying decisions.
It makes good sense though. International weapons systems integration has massive inertia. If not for that the US would sell a lot less than it does right now, people are not buying because they want to, but because they have to. There has been some progress on integrating more diverse systems but it is slow, the number of people able to do this work is not large outside of the circles where the systems were developed in the first place. But Europe has never really shut down its defense industry, and there has been a massive revival in the last couple of years. It is still ramping up as far as I can see and it will for the foreseeable future. No matter what the outcome of the Trump-Putin summit (I refuse to call it the Ukraine peace summit, just like I wouldn't call the Molotov Ribbentrop meeting the Polish, Latvian and Estonian peace summit).
The USA has left Ukraine in the lurch after signing the Budapest memorandum. They should’ve kept their Nukes and Russia wouldn’t have been able to invade and steal all their land, kidnap and auction off children , commit massacres etc.
Because America is currently an untrustworthy ally who is 100% American first and thinks deploying the military on home soil and applying harsh tariffs to its allies is more important than anything else, it’s best to countries no longer rely on the USA for basically anything. That will probably mean the end of the USD as a global reserve currency at some point too. Which is fine because it’s what the majority of voting Americans wanted. Isolationist, American first policies.
Go look at how Zelensky was treated in the interview with Trump and Vance and how the literal red carpet is rolled out for Putin and other world leaders with a brain see that and say, no thanks…
Re: Ukraine defending itself with the nukes it gave up as part of Budapest memorandum - the nuclear code required to activate the warheads never left Moscow.
Maybe the Ukrainians could have tinkered with these warheads and find out how to enable them.... but that is quite risky.
People have an extremely bad understanding of nuclear security: yes, if you have a warhead and a few days you aren't going to be able to arm it...but nuclear bombs can be built with 1940s machining technology. They are not complicated devices.
If you have a warhead and a few months (definitely if more then a year) then you have a warhead.
Ukraine has rocketry expertise and nuclear scientists and powerplants. As a nation they were easily capable of reactivating Russian warheads - physical access is total access.
> the nuclear code required to activate the warheads never left Moscow
It's an open question among people who research these things whether the weapons stored in Ukraine even had the PALs you're referring to (Permissive Action Link). The literature is contradictory and while wikipedia insists they did, other (quite credible IMO) accounts indicate the PALs were only used on submarine devices at the time. In any rate, it is well known that the Ukranians could have reverse engineered and bypassed the devices; even the US State Dept contemporaneously estimated the PAL would last only "months".
I have no idea what was actually on those weapons but the popular notion that they had the PALs installed is not actually that well founded once you look at the primary sources. Whether it makes any difference is of course another story (I suspect not).
Would you mind listing these “primary sources”? Until you do that here are some of my sources [0], [1] and [2]
[0] https://russianforces.org/RussianStrategicNuclearForcesC2Pag... page 61-62 see references to authorization codes required for launch in retaliation . See page 64 for launching retaliatory strike when supreme command has been eliminated- again authorization codes are required.
[1] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0297russians/ References the January 25 1995 incident when Boris Yeltsin activated the Kazbek command and authorization system as a result of a false alarm. Again: authorization from supreme command is required
Ah, you put me on the spot! Here's what i can dig up in short order.
Reed, Thomas C. At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War. Presidio Press/Ballantine Books, 2004
relevant quote (from 1992):
> The Soviets were well aware of nuclear weapon safety issues. Even though that subject touches on the internals of weapon design, they were willing to talk and seek advice. They discussed the merits of their transportation containers, which they felt to be superior to U.S. models, and they confirmed that their weapons were “disabled” when in storage, whatever that meant. On the other hand, security (preventing theft or misuse) was a new subject to them. Throughout the Soviet system nuclear weapons had been secured by operational means: people watching people who watched still other people. The Soviets confirmed that there were no electronic or mechanical locking devices on their weapons (as there are in the U.S.), a subject that grew to be of enormous concern as the KGB disappeared, the army disintegrated, and well-financed terrorists infiltrated the country.
> There are two ways to do this. One way is to use a mechanical device, which prevents the arming of the weapon unless the proper code is entered. In the United States, such devices, used extensively on U.S. weapons, are called Permissive Action Links (PALs). The other way is to use specially selected personnel in an organization separate from the military to maintain weapons control. This method was used in the old Soviet Union and is still used by Russia. India must decide on the combination of these two methods that it wants to use.
Interesting report from Sweden's defense research agency in 2005 - concluding that no-one knows if Russia's tactical nukes have PALs (majority of warheads in UA were tactical) - https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--1588--SE
I hope this at least shows that it's not quite as settled a question as some make out! And I realize these aren't quite as "primary" as I had remembered; I thought they had more direct quotes, but I do find these sources quite credible.
If the Ukranianians had started trying to reverse engineer the nukes, the US and Russia would have invaded together and regime changed Ukraine in under 12 hours.. Just political and military reality.
It’s not about that, it’s about doing the right thing and trusting alliances. Ukraine seems to trust it alliance with Europe , probably because they need Ukraine to defend them now. But Ukraine could also build a nuke but they know it would’ve just give the current administration an excuse to never help them again. They’re hostages.
If they had nuclear weapons they’d be respected, like North Korea now. No one going to mess with them.
He's implying the Gripen deal was a result of Trump.
In reality, the US-Thailand relationship has been dead since the Junta took over in Thailand, and for domestic brownie points we decided to make an example out of them and Cambodia for democratic backsliding during the Biden admin [3]
Edit: cannot reply below (@Dang am I being rate limited)
The US has consistently rejected Thailand's F-35 request under the Biden admin [0][1]. If forced to buy a 4th gen jet, may as well buy the cheapest option on the market, which is the Gripen, as they have been using the Gripen for decades [2].
European affairs have little to do with affairs in Asia.
But Thailand is far from alone in this move away from US weapons. Spain cancelled their bid for F-35s and Switzerland is looking into doing the same. Denmark recently expressed regret over their purchase of F-35s. Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.
It could just be tariff backlash—aircraft have historically been the US' largest export. But I do wonder if the recent tests of US military tech in Russia/Iran had any hand in this
It seems the recent volatility from this American administration is being overlooked. They’ve turned their back on allies, resorted to bullying, and even issued outright threats, while walking away from commitments. Buyers may be weighing the risk that when they need service for their purchase, they could be strong-armed with threats of withheld maintenance — or worse, face a remote kill switch being activated.
If Trump were to broker a deal that would "instantly end the war", it would be only by and for the sake of looking after his own interests. In the process he would ignore the interests and long-term security of Ukraine while likely yielding to Putin's wishes where he -- not Ukraine -- feels like he isn't losing a lot.
There's no other way Trump can broker a quick end to the war. He doesn't have the kind of leverage to persuade a peace deal without giving Putin what Putin wants, and even if he did, there's a good chance the calculating manipulator Putin would still play him like a fiddle due to Trump's egotism.
Even if Trump were to be able to broker a quick peace -- which he has been promising since day one but obviously not achieved -- he would not be doing that for the sake of the allies of the US.
That's wildly optimistic that Trump would convince Putin to admit his mistake and fully retreat from all of occupied Ukraine, but I admire the sentiment.
You are clearly overlooking his threats to withdraw from NATO, and his rhetoric about possibly not coming to the aid if another member was attacked. Of course, Trump being Trump later stated he would abide by Article 5.
The fact his response was not an immediate yes response to supporting Article 5 is destabilizing. As a result, the other NATO members are hedging their bets.
There are many more trees in the world than the Ukraine shaped tree that you can't seem to look around.
God, a warmonger is currently dealing with someone who cosplays as a strongman/world-leader, and poorly.
I can't imagine the stupidity to imagine he's going to make a good deal. But then again, that Koolaid is going to make you believe that it will be a good deal, and if Zelensky or the EU don't want it, they're ungrateful losers...
Buying US weapons puts you in a position of needing US backing for decades. You need replacement parts, maintenance training, and a million other dependencies. Naturally, you'd need similar from any supplier. So an important part of your calculus has to be, "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years.
Now it is.
I don't think anybody fears that the US will cease to be a country. Or even that it will cease to be an important country. The question is whether they will be your reliable ally in 25-40 years, or even in four years. Or will they start some pattern of being your friend for a couple years, then cutting you off for a few years, then trying to re-friend you? That is not a relationship on which anybody wants to build their national security support.
> "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years.
From the POV of the time? Sure, we can see with the benefit of hindsight that even 40 years was true up until at least 1985, but did people plan that far ahead at the time?
25 years, sure, I think that was true for most of it, with only a handful of exceptions like France and the UK being upset about what happened in response to their actions in the Suez Crisis. IMO correct call by USA there, and I say that as a British citizen by birth, but still means "can we rely on them?" resolves "no", and this loss of de facto independence in what they could do explains much of British foreign policy since then.
I still think US military tech is king, especially their fighter jets. eu countries cancelling or regrets is just geopolitics pandering
fighter jets are unicorns on the same level as chips you cant just procure 3nm chips tomorrow because you want too. I'm not super knowledgeable on them, but its interesting to see how difficult maintaining and making new gens are for example gripens still rely on US engine, china relies on Russian engines etc and the US seems to be always ahead
Perhaps. But the US is less and less capable of producing them. Especially since the tariffs back-and-forth with China that lead to an exports control on rare earth minerals. Even before that, US manufacturers were consistently under-delivering and behind schedule on orders
Not to mention there are key areas that the US is widely considered to be behind on (e.g. hypersonic glide vehicles and drones) compared to the "Second World" powers. And there's been lots of talk—even from within the US—that drones have become more important to modern warfare than manned jets.
When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it, even if you block the management engine for privacy.
When you buy a fighter plane you should expect to not be able to fly for the full duration of a single conflict the manufacturing country disagrees about.
Lack of MDFs does not mean that you can't fly missions. It's an intelligence product that assists with mission planning. That's like saying your car is completely unusable if the builtin maps are a few years out of date.
Ukranian hackers know how to hack John Deere tractors.. hah, downloading files from a Ukranian web forum to install on your F-35 would be very dystopian cyberpunk.
People think jets are things that should work even if they aren't supported by the manufacturer. Javelin and patriot don't work that way? How exactly does someone beside the us manage the hydrazine supplychain without usa logistics?
F-35s parked on the runway because the tangerine clown told LM to withhold this week's software update is a lot less useful than a squadron of 4th gen fighters in the air chock a block full of state-of-the-art missiles.
Do we know this to be true still? There's a lot of new modern equipment that other countries have that have not gone head-to-head against to really know that any more.
At the end of the day it just doesn’t matter whether these countries buy F-35s or not except as additional profit streams for US defense companies and in some ways it’s good that they are looking to buy EU jets instead since the EU needs to invest more in its “domestic” defense industry.
Do we really think Spain and Portugal are going to fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere? I don’t. Isn’t Switzerland a neutral country? This isn’t a slight against any of these countries but let’s be realistic.
1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO?
2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO?
How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.
And just to make sure the record is very clear I am very grateful for our allies and their contributions, particularly to the war in Afghanistan, but that’s Afghanistan, it’s not Russia or China. And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?
2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
They’ll buy. Also the OP said
“Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.”
Did they lose interest? Doesn’t appear to be the case for Canada.
>How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.
It's a perfect argument. You declared that Spain (and Portugal) would likely not help in a NATO action. Yet, recent history proves you directly and unequivocally wrong. Spanish blood was spilled to prove that point, so maybe have some respect?
>How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.
>...
>And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?
You answered your own question. Well done.
Note: I'm not supporting their decision, just pointing out that it's arguably quite rational from a certain point of view.
Lastly, the linked article still doesn't say what you claimed it said. If you were responding to a falsehood, that doesn't excuse confidently posting another falsehood.
> It's a perfect argument. You declared that Spain (and Portugal) would likely not help in a NATO action. Yet, recent history proves you directly and unequivocally wrong. Spanish blood was spilled to prove that point, so maybe have some respect?
Not all wars are created equal. It’s not the same thing. You either are unrealistic about how the world works or you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
> Lastly, the linked article still doesn't say what you claimed it said. If you were responding to a falsehood, that doesn't excuse confidently posting another falsehood.
OP
> Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.
Canada’s military
> we Strongly recommend and encourage buying F-35s
But hey you know at least I provided a source… so I’ll just throw the OP’s claim away since they are unable to provide a source.
> You answered your own question. Well done.
Yes, and it demonstrated the point that I made. QED
>Not all wars are created equal. It’s not the same thing. You either are unrealistic about how the world works or you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
It's very simple. You said you didn't think Spain would ever "fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere". I pointed out that recent history unequivocally proves you wrong. But instead of conceding the point you're changing the criteria to some imaginary scenario that makes it impossible for anyone to counter-argue.
So yes, you're right... I have no idea how Spain would respond to some imaginary scenario playing out in your head right now. But I do know what their actual, historical record is. There are dead and maimed soldiers that prove it.
It's such a disgrace for American civilians to make up some vague hidden criteria for why allied deaths and injuries don't "count". Furthermore, it's exactly this kind of demeaning talk that might makes allies not want to help in the future.
There is a lot more proof for the Europeans fighting alongside the USA than for the reverse if we ignore WWII. And even in WWII the USA would have stayed out much longer if not for Pearl Harbor.
I don’t really know what you mean, nor why we would selectively exclude the most important war which requires the most contributions from any nation, but regardless past actions don’t guarantee future actions.
But let’s take a step back - I specifically mentioned Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. I didn’t say France or the United Kingdom wouldn’t fight alongside the United States, for example. So let’s not lump all European countries together unfairly.
> nor why we would selectively exclude the most important war which requires the most contributions from any nation
Because the United States from back then is completely gone now.
All that's left is people who had nothing to do with it claiming the heritage while acting in the opposite spirit.
> But let’s take a step back - I specifically mentioned Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. I didn’t say France or the United Kingdom wouldn’t fight alongside the United States, for example.
Switzerland shouldn't even be in that list and Spain and Portugal are just about able to stay afloat, a little bit ahead of Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on some dimensions and at party on others.
> So let’s not lump all European countries together unfairly.
> Because the United States from back then is completely gone now.
Aaaand Europe from then is different too? Poor argument.
> Switzerland shouldn't even be in that list and Spain and Portugal are just about able to stay afloat, a little bit ahead of Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on some dimensions and at party on others.
Please do us a favor and read the OP. I didn’t bring up Switzerland, I responded to the OP.
The advantage of the Gripen isn't that it's cheap. The F-16 is cheaper.
But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well. Now, I'm a Swede, but there are claims of practical experiments in Norway trying out old some Gripen planes vs F-15C and F-16 have shown that the Gripen is simply better at air-to-air stuff.
The F-16 is obviously bigger though, so if you want to bomb somebody a lot and whoever that is doesn't have anything to put up against it then maybe it's reasonable to get one of those instead, but I don't think that's a problem Thailand has. I think they want an air force that can challenge another air force if required.
It's also nice since one can actually fly with it without breaking the bank.
I’m not any sort of analyst but from my understanding the threats Thai faces is Cambodia border skirmishes and Myanmar both of which could be handled with any aircraft.
China is a non starter, even a next gen aircraft is no match for their entire military.
Maybe, but I don't think China, despite its population, has a large pool of people suited to be fighter pilots, so I don't think they'll be throwing their pilots away against competent air forces.
A competent air-to-air capability will be a deterrent.
A country like Cambodia is screwed against Thailand whatever Thailand buys.
Yes, but this was in 2009, with a Gripen C. The F-16 thing was with Gripen A.
W.r.t. the comparison, maybe. The F-16V doesn't have Meteor though and probably has a much larger radar signature, probably also much larger IR signature, probably also worse close-in performance since the Gripen has so low wing loading.
The United States is an unreliable partner and cannot be trusted. I welcome the ongoing cultural divorce and am hoping Canada will move closer to the EU for military partnership as well.
> [I] am hoping Canada will move closer to the EU for military partnership as well.
Have you ever looked at a map?
If the threat comes from Russia, EU would struggle mightily merely to defend themselves; they're not crossing the Atlantic to come to Canada's aid. And Canada already has existing military partnerships with many EU countries through NATO... which is a creature of the US. Canada's defense against Russia relies upon integration with the US and NATO.
If the threat comes from China, there is zero chance EU nations will declare war on China for Canada's sake. Even if they did, they have zero chance of projecting meaningful force across the world against China. Canada's defense against China relies upon integration with the US.
If the threat comes from the US, there is zero chance EU nations will declare war on the US for Canada's sake. Even if they did, they have zero chance of projecting meaningful force across the Atlantic against the US. And if they did, they'd probably end up getting double-teamed by both the US and Russia. Canada's defense against the US is hopeless.
No other nation has the geographical position or force projection capabilities to pose a serious threat to Canada's sovereignty. I'm sure you're very emotional about Trump's annexation comments and tariffs on Canada, but you can't base national security strategy on your fee fees. You ought to get real about Canada's position and options and act accordingly.
Anything is better than nothing. And being an ally of America is pretty much nothing, if not worse, it seems. I think something that unsettles me so is that even reasonable Americans seem absolutely blind to the reality of how the world perceives them now.
If Trump is actually serious about annexing Canada (or at least retaining the option), development of nuclear weapons would seem more likely to precipitate an invasion than to deter one.
Building nuclear weapons specifically to use against the US would also--in some measure, at least--justify any claims that such an invasion is a national security imperative.
Obviously these situations are quite a bit different.
Canada shares a border with the US and is an ocean away from anybody else.
DPRK is an ocean away from the US and shares borders with and enjoyed very credible security guarantees from both China and Russia. DPRK also shares a border with US ally South Korea, whose capital and millions of residents they already held at risk from thousands of hardened artillery positions and mobile launchers.
From what I understand, there were the usual half-arsed plans from the same stable geniuses who invaded Iraq. I've mostly been facetious, but honestly, the fact that you would consider a response to an idle invasion threat from a serially belligerent nation as itself being a threatening act - it's pretty indicative of the problem at hand.
I wouldn't consider it a threatening act. But I am not Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
I am not advocating an invasion of Canada. I deplore the annexation rhetoric coming from POTUS. I don't believe there is a serious intention to annex Canada through military force, but I do believe loose talk like what we've seen harms our national security interests and understandably frightens our utterly vulnerable neighbors.
However, I also believe that in this new Great Game it's important to understand the actual state of the board and the likely actions/reactions of the other players.
Deluding oneself that Canada can resist a full-scale invasion by their only neighbor with overwhelming military, economic, industrial, financial, and diplomatic advantages because foreign nations will be obliged to join the war on Canada's side is unwise.
Deluding oneself that developing nuclear weapons would not be an easy casus belli for an actually hostile US is similarly unwise.
You're right, it's seeking and developing nuclear weapons that has been the problem historically. Once you have them it's fine, the sabre-rattling pretty much stops. Worked for India, Pakistan, China, North Korea.
I can't speak for all Canadians but in my sphere the attitude is that the U.S. is the greater threat. I think it's a very American mindset to perceive the existence of some overseas bogeyman coming and invading Canada in some way that your assertion would mean much.
If Canada's threat model really is US invasion, they shouldn't waste their time with EU alliances. Can you really imagine the EU projecting enough power across the across the Atlantic to stop the US military fighting next to their home base?
Well of course not. With oceans between us and our allies and friends, we'd be the ablative armour while the rest of the world got organized. Much like the Baltics. But they're in NATO for reasons other than expecting a prompt rescue.
> we'd be the ablative armour while the rest of the world got organized.
If the trade negotiations are any indication, I wouldn't count on a magical solution to a global coordination problem.
Those countries you are expecting to commit suicide to defend your sovereignty are much more likely to appease the US either because they depend on the US for energy, trade, or military defense (or some combination of those) and have no good alternatives; or because a war with the US would be so devastating--potentially even escalating to nuclear warfare--it is only worth risking for core national security interests.
Of course, geostrategically speaking, Canada is already just America's hat. Direct US control over Canada is not a threat to the core national security interests of any nation with a capability to intervene. So I wouldn't count on foreign intervention if I were you.
Anyway the balance of forces between the US and Canada is so lopsided that any invasion would likely be a fait accompli before any substantive foreign intervention could be launched. Certainly Canada's ports and airspace would be blockaded and closed in any opening action.
In the case of (an IMO very unlikely) US invasion, I think Canada could be isolated, have its energy infrastructure destroyed and internal logistics disrupted, and ultimately the population could be starved into submission if necessary without much difficulty. And no other nation would do anything about it.
Canada would be much better off just surrendering and trying to maintain a national identity post-annexation in the hope of a future peaceful secession.
> Canada would be much better off just surrendering and trying to maintain a national identity post-annexation in the hope of a future peaceful secession.
I think the difference between American values and real values is that there’s nothing tolerable about surrendering to Nazis in hope of some sort of better deal. For a nation that’s been a freedom and liberty cosplayer, I can understand why this idea seems sensible, logical even.
I guess your position is "Better dead than red (white and blue)".
If you really believe Americans are Nazis coming for Canada, you presumably believe the US has the capability and will to force that choice upon you. If so, posting on a US forum about how you'd resist US forces to the bitter end seems like a poor choice. Unfortunately, being dead makes it difficult to defend your values. Peter Thiel says hi.
I understand that jimmies have been thoroughly rustled and that Canadians are frightened. But this "elbows up" false bravado is a bit ridiculous. The US isn't going to invade Canada--and if they did, Canada has no real capacity to resist.
US has become an unreliable ally. Siding with war criminal, lack of intelligence services response, potential leaks to the hostile states and ability to ground planes and other weapons remotely, means US equipment has become a non-starter.
See what a coincidence that Trump becomes a president and few months later Patriots can't intercept Russian missiles.
No idea what the reasons are in this specific case, but these kinds of military procurements are inherently tied to the political side.
Planes like this quickly become paperweights if you can't get replacements parts, support and ammunition. And most buyers won't be able to get significant parts of the construction into their countries. So you must trust the political stability of the country you're buying from, that they're still your friend in a decade or a few and support your planes.
Trump and his administration are anything but reliable partners.
