8 ms·

Hence why Canada is now considering bailing on its purchase of F-35s. The prospect of getting cut off is hardly theoretical: the US already partially halted su

Hence why Canada is now considering bailing on its purchase of F-35s. The prospect of getting cut off is hardly theoretical: the US already partially halted support for Ukraine's F-16s (I'm not sure where this stands at this precise moment). The US is clearly demonstrating it is an unreliable partner in defence. Western nations cannot buy into a platform when its supplier might go from being a democratic part of the West to aligning with dictators and autocrats literally overnight. This doesn't just mean that platforms like F-35 are vastly less desirable to Western militaries, it also means that other things we thought we could rely upon, like the nuclear umbrella, are also unreliable, which is likely to lead to nuclear proliferation.

bigyabai 2y ago
The purchase didn't make much sense in the first place. The F-35 is intended to operate in contested airspace, which Canada is not. It cannot intercept serious supersonic threats or maintain a strategic advantage in WVR/VFR escorts. If Russia is the threat, the F-35 is not a real defense. It's a cool jet, but there's something to be said about having the right tool for the job. Canada doesn't need a joint strike fighter, they need a cost-effective interceptor.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  Canada doesn't maintain a military for self defence. If it did we would have pursued nuclear weapon ambitions in the 1940s and focused overwhelming on terrestrial missile systems and attack submarines. Even the interception routine of playing the games with Russian bombers at the edge of airspace is just meaningless theatre -- not only would those bombers long have deployed cruise missiles in a real conflict, the vast majority of devastation would have come from ICBMs launched by ground and sea. In reality our peacetime military has been a welfare project to assist the US in whatever (mis)adventures it gets in around the globe. Our choice of jets, guns, vehicles, and so on is predicated on "when the US drags us into some conflict or other, what equipment integrates with whatever their goals are". So when we signed up for the F-35, that was purchasing criteria. The world is quite obviously changing. If Canada were seriously interested in true self defence against all realistic foes, it would be nuclear weapons and nuclear powered submarines...like the sort the US blocked us from being able to buy from the UK back in the 80s.
  - labster 2y ago
    Canada should really consider creating its own nuclear deterrent. Or becoming the 51st state to get one. I think those are the two options. Trump has told the truth about dismantling his own government, its best to believe him on Canada and assume he intends to do the same to yours.
    - jgilias 2y ago
      Right. So Canada needs a nuclear deterrent in order to _not_ become the 51st state.
      - bcrl 2y ago
        Pretty sure France would lend Canada some nukes when needed.
    - bigyabai 2y ago
      1985: Worrying about nuclear proliferation, trying to stop terrorists from designing nukes, drafting security arrangements to disarm nuclear nations 2025: Promoting nuclear proliferation, trying brinkmanship diplomacy with Iran, drafting security arrangements to privatize space-based interceptors Metal Gear Solid 4 was right, war really has changed!
    - Lio 2y ago
      There’s at least a 3rd option, closer collaboration with the UK and an extension of the UK’s nuclear deterrent to Canada. I’ve heard a lot of talk of CANZUK again recently and it makes a lot of sense to me.
      - labster 2y ago
        Doesn’t the UK’s nuclear program rely on America to service it?
        sillywalk 2y ago
        I believe the UK uses the same Trident SLBMs as the US, but with their own warheads. I'm not sure if the US maintains the missiles.
- Rendello 2y ago
  A Canadian supersonic interceptor you say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow
  - onenukecourse 2y ago
    Now let's talk program and unit cost and combat range. The Arrow was a brilliant plane for its time and purpose. But its cancellation was not wrong (if perhaps immature) - if there are no Tu-92 to shoot down, there's no need for the Arrow. It's like the CANDU that solved a problem (Canadian inability to enrich U and make welds for PWR) using a solution at hand (world's largest capacity to make heavy water) but that is now largely obsolete (the CANDU's have been increasing their enrichment is an attempt to gain market share). EDIT: I know that Tu-92, like B-52s still fly as part of the triad. But when the Arrow was designed there was no triad, or even diad. But what does the Arrow do to Tu-92s that an (modern, not the '50s crap) AA missile can't do better?
- nickff 2y ago
  Which ‘serious supersonic threats’ to Canada is the F-35 incapable of intercepting? The problem isn’t a lack of F-35 capabilities, the problem is that Canada doesn’t know what it wants. AFAIK Canada only has two fighter bases, and given the fact that the country is arguably the largest in the world, this means Canada is not serious about intercepting adversary aircraft. Canada also hasn’t had over 100 fighters in a long time, so it doesn’t have a significant deployable force. So what does Canada want?
  - toast0 2y ago
    Realistically, as long as the US is a stable ally (which is currently in dispute), what does Canada need from its military? It's highly unlikely to be attacked based on distance to potential foes and proximity to the US. An attack from the US would be hard to defend on a military basis --- the difference in forces is overwhelming. Canada would need to heavily rely on alliances to defend against attack from the US, but logistics would be difficult; better to push on diplomacy and/or convincing US armed forces to refuse orders to attack their neighbor. The Canadian armed forces participate in international missions in cooperation with other forces, and in domestic matters. You don't really need fighter aircraft for domestic missions; and for international missions you need whatever will work in coalitions. With a stable US pushing the F-35, the F-35 is a reasonable candidate for coalition work. Without a stable US, the F-35 is a poor candidate; presuming Canada would continue to be allied with NATO ex-US, whatever that group decides is the future is going to be a better choice.
    - onenukecourse 2y ago
      Why should Canada do coalition missions? They have nothing to do with Canada. Coalition missions are euphemism for beating up a weaker country. As far as I can remember, the F-35 in Canada was always argued by those who want to play John Wayne in foreign lands. If Canada can't defend against the US, then they should just accept they'll be swallowed by it or start making babies and populating the prairies. In the meantime, if Canada wants to contribute to defense of its allies, it should focus on creating a credible air counter to the Arctic.
- rjsw 2y ago
  The US required that Canada buy the F-35 to be able to fit the communications equipment needed for NORAD. I think the Eurofighter would have been a better fit for Canada. It is already built on multiple production lines, no problem adding another one in Canada for their aircraft.
  - wuschel 2y ago
    Germany almost got the Eurofighter Typhoon, but it was not certified to carry nuclear weapons, and lacks SEAD mission capability for the next ~10 years. There is nothing that can replace the Tornado in the German arsenal at the moment.
    - dragon-hn 2y ago
      Germany has purchased many Typhoons.
      - wuschel 2y ago
        You are right, they did. Let me rephrase it: The F-35 purchase is about having a multi role platform in the next 10 years to have nuclear and SEAD mission capability.
- the__alchemist 2y ago
  What alternatives exist, for your model, that can intercept serious supersonic threats and maintain a strategic advantage in VFR escorts that the F-35 cannot?
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    An F-104 would do the job, with modern avionics and engineering. If you want to guarantee bomber intercept capability, you have to be ready to tackle the nightmare scenario planes in the formation. The F-35 could intercept a Tu-95M with ease, but so could a F-16 or a F-117 armed with Sidewinders. You have to be capable of intercepting the real threats like the Tu-160 or Flanker strike formations, neither of which the F-35 can do much about.
    - the__alchemist 2y ago
      An F-104 with modern avionics and engineering is an undefined, non-existent airplane. Historically, there are few aircraft that fit that niche. (Mig-25, Mig-31, F-104 as you said etc). It would be cool to have a modern interceptor like that (F-15Ex with the pods, CFTs, and pylons removed??), but there's no existing solution that fits what you seek.
thinkingkong 2y ago
The part I thought was interesting was how Israel “secured rights to modify” their F35 deliveries. Like… what kind of airplane that costs 100s of millions requires additional contracts for “replace component” rights? How insane is this contract? Its so unreasonable to assume that the value of the fighter to the manifacturers is only in the maintenance. Its like the BMW heater subscription, only for national defence.
- nradov 2y ago
  When you have the only working 5th-generation multirole fighter on the export market then you can drive a pretty hard bargain. That's how monopolies work.
  - Teever 2y ago
    Wasn't the F-35 a collaborative project between many different countries? So why don't those countries get equal access to the thing that they all went in on creating?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - nradov 2y ago
      Some partners are more equal than others. There are 3+ program levels depending on how much funding they put into the initial development and how many units they committed to order. This impacts the level of access they get. The UK is the only Level 1 partner. Italy and Netherlands are at Level 2. Others are down at Level 3 (except Israel, which had sufficient political influence to negotiate a special deal despite a relatively small investment). I sympathize with the F-35 customers who are now feeling uneasy about their choice due to recent changes in US foreign policy. But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.
      - 2y ago
nradov 2y ago
The US hasn't blocked other countries from transferring more old F-16s to Ukraine. On or about 2025-03-07, the US apparently cut off intelligence support for the AN/ALQ-131 electronics countermeasures pods (jammers) carried on some F-16s. Those can still be used but will become less effective without constant software and configuration changes to adapt to changes in Russian radars. Some of that support might have at least partially resumed in recent days but the details haven't been publicly reported. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/07/france-to-the-rescue-french-made-mirage-2000-jets-could-become-ukraines-most-important-aerial-radar-jammers/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/07/france-to-t...
- aforwardslash 2y ago
  > The US hasn't blocked other countries from transferring more old F-16s to Ukraine. Most of those transfers were done in the context of upgrading a fleet (with F-35); They did block the transfer initially. > On or about 2025-03-07, the US apparently cut off intelligence support for the AN/ALQ-131 electronics countermeasures pods (jammers) carried on some F-16s If you cutoff a feature of the equipment you sold, it is effectively a kill switch; its not really relevant what was the political rationale of cancelling the subscription. Thing is, this dumb flex move (it is possible to migrate the jammers to european platforms) just killed the F35 commercial roadmap, and will make the just-announced F47 a dud (it will be a struggle to find partnerships on this one with the same terms).
lawn 2y ago
It's an open secret that the US blocked Sweden from sending Gripen to Ukraine (because Gripen depends on parts from the US). Many countries are now reevaluating their US dependence and I'm sure it's a very high priority throughout the world to reduce or eliminate it.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  It's not an "open secret", it's a publicly known and legal fact that all countries retain export rights of the military HW they sell, not just the US. If you want to re-sell the 100% made Swedish arms you already bought, to a third party, you'll also need Sweden's consent for that. This isn't a US exclusive thing.
  - lawn 2y ago
    The secret isn't that they have the capability to block, it's that they used it.
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      I don't follow why this is special. Many other countries vetoed arms re-exports recently. Where's the secret here?
      - lawn 2y ago
        Because they don't admit to it publicly.
FredPret 2y ago
Having nukes looks like such a great idea right now. - Ukraine exchanged nukes for beautiful promises. - North Korea which has comically bad diplomacy, but also nukes; rendering them un-invade-able. - Even Canada faces threats to its sovereignty from its closest ally. Nukes would render this concern moot.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  >- Ukraine exchanged nukes for beautiful promises. Why do people keep parroting this false trope? They had no other choice but to hand over their nukes since the nukes were never theirs to begin with, they belonged to Russia, and they had no launch codes for them anyway, which were in Moscow, nor the resources to maintain them. And that's not exactly what the world needed at the time: unkempt nukes in the hands of a bankrupt and corrupt nation going through political and economic turmoil of the 90s USSR collapse, guaranteeing them to get "lost" and end up in the hands of despots and warlords. So giving them up was the correct and only choice for them. Otherwise they would have been persuaded by force to give them up either through sanctions or even through military intervention.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Perhaps so - but imagine they could somehow have had those nukes ready to go. History would've gone differently; likely in a much, much better direction.
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      >Perhaps so - but imagine they could somehow have had those nukes ready to go. What does imagining have to do with reality? Imagine you could fly, shoot lasers from your eyes and shit money out your ass. There's no point in talking about unrealistic hypotheticals. There was 0% chance UN or any world powers would approve Ukraine keeping any of those nukes they inherited from the USSR. And even if we were to imagine they did get to keep them, given Ukraine's situation back then, it was a big chance that some of those nukes or fissile material would end up in the hands of warlords creating more way problems than what we have right now. > History would've gone differently; likely in a much, much better direction. And now Saddam or Ghaddafi or Binladen or 9/11 planes could have been carrying fissile material stolen from poorly kept nukes in Ukraine at the USSR breakup. How is that a better direction? This is the issue when people make short sighted emotional arguments without considering the second order effects of what their decisions would cause. It's like the trolley problem.
bad_user 2y ago
There will be other unintended outcomes from this. If the US can't be relied on as a military ally, then why should US clouds or the software it exports be trustworthy? Couldn't the US government also kill all Windows workstations, iPhones or AWS servers? Of course they could. Smaller companies or individuals may not care, but governments or bigger companies that are risk averse? Of course they'll care.
- NikkiA 2y ago
  1979 and the F-14 issue should have been plenty of wake-up for that. It seems people don't learn until it directly affects them.
- verzali 2y ago
  A lot of people are now very aware of that risk.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> The US is clearly demonstrating it is an unreliable partner in defence. This feels like exaggeration to me. How is the US an ‘unreliable partner’? Has any country had parts for their existing defense purchases restricted? This type of reaction to the US choosing to not spend its own taxpayer money or military equipment on a far away conflict doesn’t make sense. If anything, the truth is the opposite. The other countries in NATO have been unreliable partners that did not meet their spending requirements. For example, Germany, France, and Canada all underspent but benefited from the US taxpayer spending a lot. > Western nations cannot buy into a platform when its supplier might go from being a democratic part of the West to aligning with dictators and autocrats literally overnight. The US is not aligning with dictators. Pushing for a resolution to a conflict that is costing the world hundreds of billions, not to mention huge amounts of Ukrainian lives, is the only reasonable path. The EU has literally no solution for this conflict - just complaints that America is now seeking resolution and doesn’t want to keep wasting money or lives.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  > Has any country had parts for their existing defense purchases restricted? Iran in olden times. Venezuela recently. I wonder who is next? Also denial of certification for 'shared nukes' for Eurofighter comes to mind.
pjmlp 2y ago
Portugal also cancelled the order, as tiny as we may be, it was still a few million dollars down the drain.
- aforwardslash 2y ago
  Portugal hasn't cancelled any order, because there is none. There were initial talks about the F35 program, but no actual commitment. I agree on stepping away from the F35 (as it raises valid questions on the maintenance autonomy), but most media outlets got this incorrect - Portugal has not cancelled an order, it just said it wont be considering F35 anymore to replace our (fleet of 6, I think) F16.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Then the source I got that from, was not correct, some YouTubers from Canada.
    - aforwardslash 2y ago
      The defense minister really said that, but we were not in formal negotation phase. I'm portuguese,and I actually fully support what was said (the minister of defense is not a popular guy)

bigyabai 2y ago

The purchase didn't make much sense in the first place. The F-35 is intended to operate in contested airspace, which Canada is not. It cannot intercept serious supersonic threats or maintain a strategic advantage in WVR/VFR escorts. If Russia is the threat, the F-35 is not a real defense. It's a cool jet, but there's something to be said about having the right tool for the job. Canada doesn't need a joint strike fighter, they need a cost-effective interceptor.

llm_nerd 2y ago
Canada doesn't maintain a military for self defence. If it did we would have pursued nuclear weapon ambitions in the 1940s and focused overwhelming on terrestrial missile systems and attack submarines. Even the interception routine of playing the games with Russian bombers at the edge of airspace is just meaningless theatre -- not only would those bombers long have deployed cruise missiles in a real conflict, the vast majority of devastation would have come from ICBMs launched by ground and sea. In reality our peacetime military has been a welfare project to assist the US in whatever (mis)adventures it gets in around the globe. Our choice of jets, guns, vehicles, and so on is predicated on "when the US drags us into some conflict or other, what equipment integrates with whatever their goals are". So when we signed up for the F-35, that was purchasing criteria. The world is quite obviously changing. If Canada were seriously interested in true self defence against all realistic foes, it would be nuclear weapons and nuclear powered submarines...like the sort the US blocked us from being able to buy from the UK back in the 80s.
- labster 2y ago
  Canada should really consider creating its own nuclear deterrent. Or becoming the 51st state to get one. I think those are the two options. Trump has told the truth about dismantling his own government, its best to believe him on Canada and assume he intends to do the same to yours.
  - jgilias 2y ago
    Right. So Canada needs a nuclear deterrent in order to _not_ become the 51st state.
    - bcrl 2y ago
      Pretty sure France would lend Canada some nukes when needed.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    1985: Worrying about nuclear proliferation, trying to stop terrorists from designing nukes, drafting security arrangements to disarm nuclear nations 2025: Promoting nuclear proliferation, trying brinkmanship diplomacy with Iran, drafting security arrangements to privatize space-based interceptors Metal Gear Solid 4 was right, war really has changed!
  - Lio 2y ago
    There’s at least a 3rd option, closer collaboration with the UK and an extension of the UK’s nuclear deterrent to Canada. I’ve heard a lot of talk of CANZUK again recently and it makes a lot of sense to me.
    - labster 2y ago
      Doesn’t the UK’s nuclear program rely on America to service it?
      - sillywalk 2y ago
        I believe the UK uses the same Trident SLBMs as the US, but with their own warheads. I'm not sure if the US maintains the missiles.
Rendello 2y ago
A Canadian supersonic interceptor you say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow
- onenukecourse 2y ago
  Now let's talk program and unit cost and combat range. The Arrow was a brilliant plane for its time and purpose. But its cancellation was not wrong (if perhaps immature) - if there are no Tu-92 to shoot down, there's no need for the Arrow. It's like the CANDU that solved a problem (Canadian inability to enrich U and make welds for PWR) using a solution at hand (world's largest capacity to make heavy water) but that is now largely obsolete (the CANDU's have been increasing their enrichment is an attempt to gain market share). EDIT: I know that Tu-92, like B-52s still fly as part of the triad. But when the Arrow was designed there was no triad, or even diad. But what does the Arrow do to Tu-92s that an (modern, not the '50s crap) AA missile can't do better?
nickff 2y ago
Which ‘serious supersonic threats’ to Canada is the F-35 incapable of intercepting? The problem isn’t a lack of F-35 capabilities, the problem is that Canada doesn’t know what it wants. AFAIK Canada only has two fighter bases, and given the fact that the country is arguably the largest in the world, this means Canada is not serious about intercepting adversary aircraft. Canada also hasn’t had over 100 fighters in a long time, so it doesn’t have a significant deployable force. So what does Canada want?
- toast0 2y ago
  Realistically, as long as the US is a stable ally (which is currently in dispute), what does Canada need from its military? It's highly unlikely to be attacked based on distance to potential foes and proximity to the US. An attack from the US would be hard to defend on a military basis --- the difference in forces is overwhelming. Canada would need to heavily rely on alliances to defend against attack from the US, but logistics would be difficult; better to push on diplomacy and/or convincing US armed forces to refuse orders to attack their neighbor. The Canadian armed forces participate in international missions in cooperation with other forces, and in domestic matters. You don't really need fighter aircraft for domestic missions; and for international missions you need whatever will work in coalitions. With a stable US pushing the F-35, the F-35 is a reasonable candidate for coalition work. Without a stable US, the F-35 is a poor candidate; presuming Canada would continue to be allied with NATO ex-US, whatever that group decides is the future is going to be a better choice.
  - onenukecourse 2y ago
    Why should Canada do coalition missions? They have nothing to do with Canada. Coalition missions are euphemism for beating up a weaker country. As far as I can remember, the F-35 in Canada was always argued by those who want to play John Wayne in foreign lands. If Canada can't defend against the US, then they should just accept they'll be swallowed by it or start making babies and populating the prairies. In the meantime, if Canada wants to contribute to defense of its allies, it should focus on creating a credible air counter to the Arctic.
rjsw 2y ago
The US required that Canada buy the F-35 to be able to fit the communications equipment needed for NORAD. I think the Eurofighter would have been a better fit for Canada. It is already built on multiple production lines, no problem adding another one in Canada for their aircraft.
- wuschel 2y ago
  Germany almost got the Eurofighter Typhoon, but it was not certified to carry nuclear weapons, and lacks SEAD mission capability for the next ~10 years. There is nothing that can replace the Tornado in the German arsenal at the moment.
  - dragon-hn 2y ago
    Germany has purchased many Typhoons.
    - wuschel 2y ago
      You are right, they did. Let me rephrase it: The F-35 purchase is about having a multi role platform in the next 10 years to have nuclear and SEAD mission capability.
the__alchemist 2y ago
What alternatives exist, for your model, that can intercept serious supersonic threats and maintain a strategic advantage in VFR escorts that the F-35 cannot?
- bigyabai 2y ago
  An F-104 would do the job, with modern avionics and engineering. If you want to guarantee bomber intercept capability, you have to be ready to tackle the nightmare scenario planes in the formation. The F-35 could intercept a Tu-95M with ease, but so could a F-16 or a F-117 armed with Sidewinders. You have to be capable of intercepting the real threats like the Tu-160 or Flanker strike formations, neither of which the F-35 can do much about.
  - the__alchemist 2y ago
    An F-104 with modern avionics and engineering is an undefined, non-existent airplane. Historically, there are few aircraft that fit that niche. (Mig-25, Mig-31, F-104 as you said etc). It would be cool to have a modern interceptor like that (F-15Ex with the pods, CFTs, and pylons removed??), but there's no existing solution that fits what you seek.

thinkingkong 2y ago

The part I thought was interesting was how Israel “secured rights to modify” their F35 deliveries. Like… what kind of airplane that costs 100s of millions requires additional contracts for “replace component” rights? How insane is this contract? Its so unreasonable to assume that the value of the fighter to the manifacturers is only in the maintenance. Its like the BMW heater subscription, only for national defence.

nradov 2y ago
When you have the only working 5th-generation multirole fighter on the export market then you can drive a pretty hard bargain. That's how monopolies work.
- Teever 2y ago
  Wasn't the F-35 a collaborative project between many different countries? So why don't those countries get equal access to the thing that they all went in on creating?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 2y ago
    Some partners are more equal than others. There are 3+ program levels depending on how much funding they put into the initial development and how many units they committed to order. This impacts the level of access they get. The UK is the only Level 1 partner. Italy and Netherlands are at Level 2. Others are down at Level 3 (except Israel, which had sufficient political influence to negotiate a special deal despite a relatively small investment). I sympathize with the F-35 customers who are now feeling uneasy about their choice due to recent changes in US foreign policy. But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.
    - 2y ago

nradov 2y ago

The US hasn't blocked other countries from transferring more old F-16s to Ukraine. On or about 2025-03-07, the US apparently cut off intelligence support for the AN/ALQ-131 electronics countermeasures pods (jammers) carried on some F-16s. Those can still be used but will become less effective without constant software and configuration changes to adapt to changes in Russian radars. Some of that support might have at least partially resumed in recent days but the details haven't been publicly reported. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/07/france-to-the-rescue-french-made-mirage-2000-jets-could-become-ukraines-most-important-aerial-radar-jammers/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/07/france-to-t...

aforwardslash 2y ago
> The US hasn't blocked other countries from transferring more old F-16s to Ukraine. Most of those transfers were done in the context of upgrading a fleet (with F-35); They did block the transfer initially. > On or about 2025-03-07, the US apparently cut off intelligence support for the AN/ALQ-131 electronics countermeasures pods (jammers) carried on some F-16s If you cutoff a feature of the equipment you sold, it is effectively a kill switch; its not really relevant what was the political rationale of cancelling the subscription. Thing is, this dumb flex move (it is possible to migrate the jammers to european platforms) just killed the F35 commercial roadmap, and will make the just-announced F47 a dud (it will be a struggle to find partnerships on this one with the same terms).

lawn 2y ago

It's an open secret that the US blocked Sweden from sending Gripen to Ukraine (because Gripen depends on parts from the US). Many countries are now reevaluating their US dependence and I'm sure it's a very high priority throughout the world to reduce or eliminate it.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
It's not an "open secret", it's a publicly known and legal fact that all countries retain export rights of the military HW they sell, not just the US. If you want to re-sell the 100% made Swedish arms you already bought, to a third party, you'll also need Sweden's consent for that. This isn't a US exclusive thing.
- lawn 2y ago
  The secret isn't that they have the capability to block, it's that they used it.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    I don't follow why this is special. Many other countries vetoed arms re-exports recently. Where's the secret here?
    - lawn 2y ago
      Because they don't admit to it publicly.

FredPret 2y ago

Having nukes looks like such a great idea right now. - Ukraine exchanged nukes for beautiful promises. - North Korea which has comically bad diplomacy, but also nukes; rendering them un-invade-able. - Even Canada faces threats to its sovereignty from its closest ally. Nukes would render this concern moot.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>- Ukraine exchanged nukes for beautiful promises. Why do people keep parroting this false trope? They had no other choice but to hand over their nukes since the nukes were never theirs to begin with, they belonged to Russia, and they had no launch codes for them anyway, which were in Moscow, nor the resources to maintain them. And that's not exactly what the world needed at the time: unkempt nukes in the hands of a bankrupt and corrupt nation going through political and economic turmoil of the 90s USSR collapse, guaranteeing them to get "lost" and end up in the hands of despots and warlords. So giving them up was the correct and only choice for them. Otherwise they would have been persuaded by force to give them up either through sanctions or even through military intervention.
- FredPret 2y ago
  Perhaps so - but imagine they could somehow have had those nukes ready to go. History would've gone differently; likely in a much, much better direction.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    >Perhaps so - but imagine they could somehow have had those nukes ready to go. What does imagining have to do with reality? Imagine you could fly, shoot lasers from your eyes and shit money out your ass. There's no point in talking about unrealistic hypotheticals. There was 0% chance UN or any world powers would approve Ukraine keeping any of those nukes they inherited from the USSR. And even if we were to imagine they did get to keep them, given Ukraine's situation back then, it was a big chance that some of those nukes or fissile material would end up in the hands of warlords creating more way problems than what we have right now. > History would've gone differently; likely in a much, much better direction. And now Saddam or Ghaddafi or Binladen or 9/11 planes could have been carrying fissile material stolen from poorly kept nukes in Ukraine at the USSR breakup. How is that a better direction? This is the issue when people make short sighted emotional arguments without considering the second order effects of what their decisions would cause. It's like the trolley problem.

bad_user 2y ago

There will be other unintended outcomes from this. If the US can't be relied on as a military ally, then why should US clouds or the software it exports be trustworthy? Couldn't the US government also kill all Windows workstations, iPhones or AWS servers? Of course they could. Smaller companies or individuals may not care, but governments or bigger companies that are risk averse? Of course they'll care.

NikkiA 2y ago
1979 and the F-14 issue should have been plenty of wake-up for that. It seems people don't learn until it directly affects them.
verzali 2y ago
A lot of people are now very aware of that risk.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> The US is clearly demonstrating it is an unreliable partner in defence. This feels like exaggeration to me. How is the US an ‘unreliable partner’? Has any country had parts for their existing defense purchases restricted? This type of reaction to the US choosing to not spend its own taxpayer money or military equipment on a far away conflict doesn’t make sense. If anything, the truth is the opposite. The other countries in NATO have been unreliable partners that did not meet their spending requirements. For example, Germany, France, and Canada all underspent but benefited from the US taxpayer spending a lot. > Western nations cannot buy into a platform when its supplier might go from being a democratic part of the West to aligning with dictators and autocrats literally overnight. The US is not aligning with dictators. Pushing for a resolution to a conflict that is costing the world hundreds of billions, not to mention huge amounts of Ukrainian lives, is the only reasonable path. The EU has literally no solution for this conflict - just complaints that America is now seeking resolution and doesn’t want to keep wasting money or lives.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
> Has any country had parts for their existing defense purchases restricted? Iran in olden times. Venezuela recently. I wonder who is next? Also denial of certification for 'shared nukes' for Eurofighter comes to mind.

pjmlp 2y ago

Portugal also cancelled the order, as tiny as we may be, it was still a few million dollars down the drain.

aforwardslash 2y ago
Portugal hasn't cancelled any order, because there is none. There were initial talks about the F35 program, but no actual commitment. I agree on stepping away from the F35 (as it raises valid questions on the maintenance autonomy), but most media outlets got this incorrect - Portugal has not cancelled an order, it just said it wont be considering F35 anymore to replace our (fleet of 6, I think) F16.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Then the source I got that from, was not correct, some YouTubers from Canada.
  - aforwardslash 2y ago
    The defense minister really said that, but we were not in formal negotation phase. I'm portuguese,and I actually fully support what was said (the minister of defense is not a popular guy)