this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
113 points (96.7% liked)

Canada

10972 readers
583 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 8 points 12 hours ago

The actual proposal is that the US would have to fund NORAD more, with their own planes. That should be great for all of Canadians. In fact, since NORAD defends the US from Russia, the US should pay Canada for use of our bases, and the privilege of using our airspace. The US only lives because of Canada.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Canada is in the process of leaving an abusive relationship

[–] escapeVelocity@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 hours ago

And It will get worst before it gets better

[–] NordicAnalyst@lemmy.ca 9 points 17 hours ago

Ah, i never heard a better arguement for NOT buying the f35

[–] rxbudian@lemmy.ca 5 points 17 hours ago

Free Airspace Military Support. We don't have to spend billions of dollars buying and maintaining the F-35s. Adding to the Gripens, there's going to be more coverage on our airspace for less money...

[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 15 points 23 hours ago

What the actual fuck? Buy shit from us or we will invade you. I'm fucking disgusted with my country.

They say, as though if we agree they won't simply use the same threat later for something else, and then ignore the agreement when it suits them.

Might as well just ignore the threat

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If Lockheed Martin wants to abandon the US and give us all the classified information it has then the deal can proceed, if they want to continue to do business with the US or keep parts of their tech hidden then no deal can take place.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

For some reason this reminds me of the the 9-11 bombings. In my Canadian newspaper (Globe and Mail from 9/11), it stated that the usa's FAA will shut down the airspace between usa/Canada if Canada did not prevent Salman Rushdie from entering the usa, from Canada. I was shocked that the FAA would threaten Canada like that. Then the destruction came and I never read or heard about that Salman Rushdie thing again.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 day ago

So, extortion... I am not surprised.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is more reason to get out of the deal and get more grafins.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

~70% of the lifetime revenue of the F-35 program would be the support costs on top of the purchase price. Even if Canada paid for every plane it ordered and grounded them the USA would be out 40Billion in revenue.

Meanwhile the planes cost 80-100 Million each to build. So if we refused to buy the remaining ~70 they'd be out 5.6Billion in production costs.

This new threat is a pathetically naked admission that the USA is hurting for revenue.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 46 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

"We certainly can’t control President Trump, but … we can control our defense investments, who we award contracts to and how we are ultimately able to create jobs in Canada. So we’re going to focus on that.”

We need much more of this sort of thing.

It needs to reach the point at which the universal international response to Trump's latest bullshit is a diplomatically phrased (or even not) "Fuck you."

Whatever it is and whoever is on the receiving end - "Fuck you."

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

Subscription freedom for Canadians.

[–] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I know this US ambassador is an a-hole, and he tends to shoot his mouth like Trump. However. After reading the article, it isn't as bad as the headline implies. Sending their jets isn't as a threat, but what the ambassador is saying is that more F-35s are needed to fill in whatever security roles it plays in their defensive strategy if Canada buys something else. In the event of some other jets we're using, they would have to alter NORAD in order to allow more US F-35 jets to patrol the skies over Canada.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why would the Jets have to be f35s?

The agreement existed before f35s existed, so it can't be due to something unique to the f35 itself.

[–] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not sure. These are the only type of its kind. It has capabilities other jets don't have and they work together with other F35s and defense systems.

NORAD worked with jets of other kinds, without the interplane networking, before the f35 existed.

To say that they depend on some feature or ability of the f35 is disingenuous.

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Had to scroll pretty far down to find someone that actually read it....

Yeah, this is already something they can (and do) do under the terms of NORAD.

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago
[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago

And we shall send a flock of geese in return.

[–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Buy our warplanes or we're gonna bomb you.

What the actual Shit???!!

[–] randy@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

That's not at all what the article is saying.

Under the current terms of NORAD, the U.S. and Canada can operate in one another’s airspace to track or intercept threats.

Ambassador Pete Hoekstra cautioned that if Canada purchased fewer fighter jets, the U.S. would “fill those gaps” in security concerns.

"NORAD would have to be altered," Hoekstra told CBC News.

One can read threats into that, but it's quite far from threats of bombing.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

There is simply no level of stupid that will surprise me from them anymore.

In that case, US airspace is fair game for Canada. Rules don't mean anything anymore so fuck them.