3 ms·

Canada has 20 light and medium icebreakers and just started a new project to build two more that will apparently "be among the most powerful conventional icebre

by cgh 2y ago

Canada has 20 light and medium icebreakers and just started a new project to build two more that will apparently "be among the most powerful conventional icebreakers in the world": https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/acquisitions/defence-marine/national-shipbuilding-strategy/projects/large-vessels/polar-icebreakers.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/service... Given the close economic and cultural ties of these countries, surely some kind of knowledge transfer could happen, if not actual nearshoring the construction. Could NAFTA (or whatever it's called now) be used to get around the Jones Act somehow?

mmooss 2y ago
Finland is a NATO ally; but sure Canada makes sense too. And Norway and Sweden and whoever else might have the skills and experience.
- cgh 2y ago
  Canada is a founding member of NATO.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Yes; I meant that Finland has a pretty good relationship with the US; I didn't say anything about Canada and NATO.
    - cgh 2y ago
      My mistake, sorry. I thought you were implying Canada wasn't a NATO member. I agree with your economic nationalism comments. But Canada is in a special position here: the US Arctic is contiguous with Canada's much larger Arctic region and a US/Canada icebreaking partnership seems to make sense. The US nationalists might be okay with it because of NAFTA, generally close economic ties and the whole "fortress North America" thing. Canada has at least two shipyards capable of building icebreakers and the US has money. Another example of this close, almost ambiguous economic relationship: the US Department of Defense is funding Canadian mining juniors. I have never heard of this happening before: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3777044/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/377704...
      - wmoxam 2y ago
        Canada and the US have some disagreements about the arctic, particularly about the Northwest Passage: https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2020/04/the-u-s-canada-northwest-passage-dispute/ https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2020/04/the-u-s-canada-nort... That's got to be a factor here
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > The US nationalists might be okay with it because of NAFTA Why are nationalists ok with NAFTA, which is just like any other international fre trade agreement? Is it because Trump backed it - meaning, of course, that they aren't nationalists but Trumpists.
- stevekemp 2y ago
  For clarity Finland is a full member of NATO, as of 4 April 2023. Perhaps that's what you meant, but Ally makes it sound like they're friendly with NATO rather than an actual member.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    It's amazing how hard communication can be! My simple sentence, "Finland is a NATO ally; but sure Canada makes sense too." has three interpretations - all reasonable IMHO: 1. cgh's: 'Finland is ok because they are in NATO; Canada, who in contrast are not in NATO, also makes sense.' 2. yours: 'Finland is an ally of NATO, not a member.' 3. mine: 'Canada may have 'close economic and cultural ties' (from the parent comment), but Finland is a member of the NATO alliance. Canada still makes sense (no comment on their NATO membership, which is a fact).' I think some is context: In what I read, 'NATO ally' is a somewhat common term for members of NATO (an alliance, of course), and I instinctively used it. It's hard to remember that other people read their own materials.

by cgh 2y ago

mmooss 2y ago

Finland is a NATO ally; but sure Canada makes sense too. And Norway and Sweden and whoever else might have the skills and experience.

cgh 2y ago
Canada is a founding member of NATO.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Yes; I meant that Finland has a pretty good relationship with the US; I didn't say anything about Canada and NATO.
  - cgh 2y ago
    My mistake, sorry. I thought you were implying Canada wasn't a NATO member. I agree with your economic nationalism comments. But Canada is in a special position here: the US Arctic is contiguous with Canada's much larger Arctic region and a US/Canada icebreaking partnership seems to make sense. The US nationalists might be okay with it because of NAFTA, generally close economic ties and the whole "fortress North America" thing. Canada has at least two shipyards capable of building icebreakers and the US has money. Another example of this close, almost ambiguous economic relationship: the US Department of Defense is funding Canadian mining juniors. I have never heard of this happening before: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3777044/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/377704...
    - wmoxam 2y ago
      Canada and the US have some disagreements about the arctic, particularly about the Northwest Passage: https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2020/04/the-u-s-canada-northwest-passage-dispute/ https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2020/04/the-u-s-canada-nort... That's got to be a factor here
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > The US nationalists might be okay with it because of NAFTA Why are nationalists ok with NAFTA, which is just like any other international fre trade agreement? Is it because Trump backed it - meaning, of course, that they aren't nationalists but Trumpists.
stevekemp 2y ago
For clarity Finland is a full member of NATO, as of 4 April 2023. Perhaps that's what you meant, but Ally makes it sound like they're friendly with NATO rather than an actual member.
- mmooss 2y ago
  It's amazing how hard communication can be! My simple sentence, "Finland is a NATO ally; but sure Canada makes sense too." has three interpretations - all reasonable IMHO: 1. cgh's: 'Finland is ok because they are in NATO; Canada, who in contrast are not in NATO, also makes sense.' 2. yours: 'Finland is an ally of NATO, not a member.' 3. mine: 'Canada may have 'close economic and cultural ties' (from the parent comment), but Finland is a member of the NATO alliance. Canada still makes sense (no comment on their NATO membership, which is a fact).' I think some is context: In what I read, 'NATO ally' is a somewhat common term for members of NATO (an alliance, of course), and I instinctively used it. It's hard to remember that other people read their own materials.