"European military hardware." Topic

I've been skim-reading about European military technology lately. TBH, a lot of the tech is over my head.

Certainly, militarily, it seems to offer viable alternatives to US weapons, naval & air assets. The Swedish Gripen E , for instance:

link

I can't find what the US makes in arms sales. I'm guessing a lot?
The European arms industry has received a boost over the past few weeks.

Anyway, competition is a good thing even if it results in a lot of lost sales.

In fiscal year 2024, the US sold $117.9 USD billion. Here is a list:

link

The Swedes do make some nice kit. I always had a soft spot for the Saab Viggen.

Europe as a whole has been a global arms trader for quite awhile, with France being the most prolific dealer.

Not counting Ukraine, the top US weapons importer is Japan, followed by a number of Middle East allied states.

This just seems to be business as usual.

No, it looks as various nations are taking their business elsewhere:
link

Hasn't Portugal just deleted an order of F35 jets?
I think that many European nations will start buying more in Europe and less in the US

Canada, Sweden, Finland and Portugul have stoped further buying or intended buying of the F35. You don't buy weapons from at best unreliable enemies, if not actual axis of evil states. Trump has gost the US an enourmouse loss in arms sales by his heavy handed appropach.

@UshCha are you saying the US is an enemy of Europe and an Axis of Evil member?

The Canadian PM has asked for a review of the purchase. There has been no decision to cancel; and it would be a mess if they did, since 16 F35 aircraft have been paid for and will be delivered soon. Switching to another option would leave the RCAF with maintaining two fleets instead of one; plus cancelling would likely delay replacing the CF-18. (Note: the only other option meeting requirements was the Grippen which has US components, so the US could block the sale – or at the very least delay it.) Hoping that politics doesn't yet again mess with procurement (e.g., the RCAF Sea King replacement).

The fly in the ointment is that the contract has some components for the F35 being built in Canada. President Trump wants those jobs back in the US, which would mean renegotiating the contract. That might look good for domestic politics but it would be counter-productive to the US desire to see a more capable Canadian military, since even if the contract was negotiated it would delay procurement.

UShCha,

I can understand why Europe may feel the US, right now, is a bit unreliable. But the US is not your enemy nor have we aligned ourselves with the Axis of evil. Russia probably.

The US has in different ways threatened the territorial integrity of Denmark, Canada, Mexico and Panama. One thing that history teaches us is when a country with a powerful military threatens your territorial integrity, it is best to take such threats seriously. Countries making such threats are not allies.

"The US has in different ways threatened the territorial integrity of Denmark, Canada, Mexico and Panama. One thing that history teaches us is when a country with a powerful military threatens your territorial integrity, it is best to take such threats seriously. Countries making such threats are not allies."

Yes, we and DER Fu…OPPs.. the President and Elon Eichmann… OPPs… Musk, are currently in discussions, as to after making Canada our 51st state. Moving forward into Western Europe. We just can't decide whether it will be the 52nd state or each country will be its own separate state. Which would you prefer?

We plan on using Greenland as our base of operations and of course coming in over the Arctic.

Now our evil plans are exposed!!

😆🤣

The US is not threatening the territorial integrity in those countries in the same manner Russia and China threaten their neighbors. Seeing Trump's words as that kind of threat and treating them as such is laughable.

The reality is that we are globally returning to a multipolar world with spheres of influence. The post war system is dead. Trump is paying out what America's core sphere of influence is, which is North America. A North American Union of some kind will protect everyone in it. Whether it's a union like the EU backed by American military power or it's a unified country (which logically would mean expanding the US to include the other countries as states or groups of states). Europe is upset because they have to look after their own sphere of influence and frankly lack the defense investment to do so and thus want the lie that the post war order still exists to continue. The EU should look to its own defense and work with the US when it's in the best interests of both.

A threat is a threat, and to consider it laughable that anyone is taking it seriously is not something to base a sound defense strategy on. After all, some countries in recent history have been the subject of US aggression – for example Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Iraq. When the President of the US threatens a country, it is prudent to take him seriously.
Pulling out of existing defense treaties such as NATO is to some extent at least understandable. Threatening ex allies is something else.

I would like to think that any real steps to invade any of those countries would meet with some resistance from the US military, even up to the point of removing the president, either for insanity or for his illegality. But these days, who knows ?

Maybe I'm wrong and you're right. Come to think of it all those countries Trump threatened and their European allies are about as significant in global events as Haiti and Grenada. The whole of Europe (minus Poland) is pretty pathetic.

Think about this before getting your knickers in a knot.

What would have to be involved in making Canada our 51st State (🤮 all those liberal democrat voters). How much do you know about how an area becomes a state based on our laws. That's why this is so hilarious.

I bet most of you think we would go in there and militarily take over and automatically make them a state. That would make them a conquered country, but not a state and not very happy either. Dudley Do-Right would get mighty angry. 😡

About the only one I give any kind of credence to, is the Panama Canal, and that not much. But possible. That idiot Mister Carteeeeer, had no business giving it up. But he did many, many stupid and weak things.

Do I think that the US will invade one or more of these countries, probably not. However, if I were in a leadership position in one of these countries, would I be developing contingency plans that I would not have even contemplated six months ago – absolutely yes. Threats, once made, need to be taken seriously.

Martyn you are not answering the question.

How would they become a state?

Once that is understood, any thoughts of invasion are ridiculous.

Can he hurt the Canadian economy? Of course, and badly. That in their case is the much bigger danger and the one that needs to be worked out. That may require concessions Canada does not want to make. But we will see.

The world is not dealing with a dementia riddled old man any longer, nor a globalist liberal, who hated his country and his countries heritage. There is a new sheriff in town, and he is "America First" sheriff.

I bet most of you think we would go in there and militarily take over and automatically make them a state.

No, you'd turn them into an over-inflated Puerto Rico/American Samoa/Guam. But would they be incorporated or unincorporated, 35th? Probably not a Permanently Inhabited Territory, though, as you wouldn't want Canadians or Greenlanders getting automatic US citizenship rights.

I think it's another distraction sound-bite, designed to get the rabid response that the media has, predictably, given.

But I also think that nations are wise to be cautious. What seems to be a distraction could be testing the waters.

I think it bootless to speculate how much a fascist is the American president or how illegal his threats to other nations' sovereignty are.
My original point was how effective is the current generation of European weaponry – evidently as good or even better than American.
Although I would hesitate to describe the US as an "enemy" yet, it is certainly "unreliable" in the repeated assertions it would not come to their allies' aid. Those "insignificant" countries would be foolish to consider spending defence dollars with someone they can't trust.
This series of 4 videos is interesting "The Staggering cost of losing European's arms market"
YouTube link
Of course if you can't rely on the US, why would you buy its weapons? Could you expect them to supply spare parts if you were embroiled in a war against Russia?
Keep out the emotion – this is just pragmatism.
Now as to the catastrophic impact on the US arms market & the devastation to the US economy, well that isn't our problem & comes under the umbrella of consequences of half-baked policy.

"America First" by all means. Probably "America Alone" as well?

Ochoin, good luck on your own. 🍀

After all, You were so successful without us in WW2.

My bet is your economies go down the drain before ours. You already have southern Europe dragging the EU down.

But I've been wrong before. 🤔 But then so has Europe.

Dal, yes Hyperbole. But it's got the media and politicians crapping their knickers. 😉

Surprisingly most Americans don't want Canada. There are good people there, but way too many liberals. There would never be another republican president. 😂

Another, Congress would never back a war with CA nor the American people.

An economic war is the real war here. I tried to find all the tariffs Canada had on the US prior to Trump also how much of their industry is partially subsidized by the government, this an advantage to Canada.

Problem is Google just returns anti Trump tariff propaganda. Good OL Google search. 🙄

Ochoin,
On the European defense technology capabilities, I have a number of thoughts:
- On ships, the European have some great technology. the Type 45 is very much as capable as the Arleigh Burkes. The latest UK carriers are great and are designed for local power projection. There is not much need for larger carriers such as the US carriers as the requirement is not for long distance power projection. The latest UK and French subs are also great. Swedish conventional subs are also formidable. So the ship side of things is good.
- A ship is only as good as the radar and missiles. Europe is fairly self sufficient on missile tech. The Aster missile, NSM, Storm Shadow and others give a great capability in terms of missiles. The BAE radars as well as some other manufacturers are cutting edge.
- On fighter and strike aircraft. Eurofighter show a production capability. Even though the F.35 is cutting edge, let's remember that a lot of the knowledge is European. The lift system on the naval version is Rolls Royce. The software is BAE. I think that a lot of the rear fuselage is European and some of the stealth is GKN. So no 6th generation fighter at the moment, but that does not mean that the capabilities aren't there in the five year time frame.
- Ground combat vehicles. Challengers and Leopard production exist. I would arguably take a challenger over the latest M1. The capability certainly exists.
- Ammo – Rheinmetal has significantly ramped up.
- Drones – let's not forget that Ukraine is probably the most dynamic and cost effective producer at the moment. I would argue that they are ahead of US capabilities.
Nuclear – how much do you need – once these are being used the game is lost for all parties. Uk and France have capabilities
Intelligence – 4 of the 5 eyes remain on board.
Satellites – there are European options here

Now where is the gap. One of the major gaps that I see is in the electronic warfare intelligence gathering and electronic suppression aircraft. The US has the major forces in this area. Detecting enemy SAM system emissions and getting this data out to aircraft software updates is important. Especially as operation wavelengths etc change every few weeks. The Europeans need to develop aircraft of this type. I think that the technology capability is there but they need to design and build the aircraft. I also believe SAM suppression aircraft will need to be developed.

So I think that Europe needs to ramp up efforts on a 6th generation fighter and move away from the F.35. Also they need to ramp up the development of ELINT and SAM suppression aircraft.
I am sure that I have missed a lot out, but I don't believe that Europes' arms industry is in a bad shape. What is needed is greater investment.

My original point was how effective is the current generation of European weaponry – evidently as good or even better than American.

In some categories, Ochoin, they are. In others, eg helicopters, the US leads. Then there's South Korea, Brazil and South Africa to consider, as well. So situation normal- no nation has a monopoly on good equipment, no matter what its citizens think (and I'm not just referring to the US).

More importantly, sometimes European nations can be more difficult to deal with than the US or UK. The sub fiasco wasn't an anomaly, and similar "issues" can be seen as early as 1968ish. Sweden sold us CG M2's- and refused to deliver the ammo' because they didn't want us to use it in Vietnam. There were benefits of the Swedish decision, though, as we started making our own ammo' under license and were self-sufficient by the late '70's.

As usual, 35, you miss the point.Reading comprehension difficulties again. eg "we're" not leaving the alliance, it looks as though the Americans are.
BTW if "any thoughts of invasion are ridiculous." does that, ipso facto, make the person who uttered them ridiculous?

@ Martyn – thanks for your cogent summary. Are you aware of JORN?
link
Admittedly not airborne but I guess that means the potential is there? I cannot claim any expertise in the field of modern weaponry.
@ Dal – certainly.I guess there's many reasons for buying some item of military equipment & I'd hope the excellence of the product is a major reason! However, you can't divorce politics & I certainly understand why the list of countries who are saying they won't buy American is growing. The situation is a golden opportunity for European (& Australian & others) arms dealers.

In a perfect world we'd only buy the best for our forces, mate. In the real world, though, that's not happening. Politics, project managers and directors that don't know what or how the kit will be used, "catalogue shopping", lying gun-runners and corruption all influence what the ADF gets.

The problems for Oz developing a successful defence industry, though, are many. Governmental (all parties) aversion to R&D sees possibilities go OS every year. Add in that as soon as a company starts to become successful, or the government wants quick dollars and privatises a capability, a foreign buyer steps in- Thales, BAE Systems, one of the US Big Three, etc- and the FIRB allows the purchase (under ministers' orders?).

I did work (supporting equipment, not JORN) at the JORN sites in the noughties. The gear is more impressive than the news clips showed and has become a bit of a foreign tourist attraction, if you know what I mean? It's ITAR-free, but the sale to Canada is likely to be the only sale.

I was going to ignore this, but

After all, You were so successful without us in WW2.

You'll never know. Dougie Mac wrote the US press releases and "history" you'll have read.

"As usual, 35, you miss the point.Reading comprehension difficulties again. eg "we're" not leaving the alliance, it looks as though the Americans are.
BTW if "any thoughts of invasion are ridiculous." does that, ipso facto, make the person who uttered them ridiculous?"

As usual Ochian you missed the essence. But Trump derangement does that to an individual.

Please find an "exact" quote by President Trump where he said "invade"Canada. You won't. That is the twist and jump made by the liberal media. Also how they warp reality.

Trump says things like this:

"The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty-First State,"

That is "State", not invade, not conquest. I guess one hears what one wants to hear.

Your every post dealing with politics, since the election, has been anti Trump and anti U.S..

For the second time you have insulted me.

You are an Aussie, but you did not even know what your own form of government was. You kept saying Australia is a democracy. You insinuated the US was as well. Wrong on both counts.

If Europe wants to stop purchasing US weapons, more power to them. It's a free world. Of course they may need parts for what they have already and you know what happens if you pi#s on this President.

Also if Europe wants to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine, fine. But remember, that negates NATO alliances.

But then again, you are Aussie, so shouldn't you be worried about your own countries interests, not advising Europe on what to do?

Please go on the web and read past your comfort level, same with the TV news.

Also
@Dal G +1

Oh and Dal, I have no use for Dougie M. 😉

@Dal G +1

So all you have read are Mac's press releases and self-serving "histories"?

I can recommend some reasonable, not too "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!"#, real SWPA histories, mate.

Oh and Dal, I have no use for Dougie M.

This may give you a chuckle, 35th:

link

# that chant gives me the irrit's….

"But then again, you are Aussie".

Swing & a miss. I must admit, you're consistent. 100% wrong on all things. How *do* you do it?

"Missed the essence" Oh I can smell BS, don't worry about that.

"Trump Derangement". What's that? Is it similar to "Trump Infatuation"?

And "my own form of government". You really need to stop using just Wikipedia. It gives you, at best, a facile understanding & lends no credence to your often wild and partisan claims.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings but when you're this wrong….

You Don't hurt my feelings. 😂 I've had much better on TMP insult me before. Insult wise, I'd assign you about the same rank as Kamala Harris was a politician.

But I find your post, are the worst form of Leftest Main Stream Media tripe and pablum liberal propaganda. I doubt seriously, you read any news that would challenge your preconceived views. I'm sure you would be right at home in Columbia or other liberal ivory tower academia.

If you smell BS, maybe you shouldn't wipe your nose after cleaning the cattle barn. 🙂

I take your political posts as a whole, and include not just this one. Again you don't like Trump and you very much have TDS. Deny as you like.

Back to the original point about weapon quality it's a mixed bag with Europe. Brutish and German artillery is excellent by all accounts I've seen from Ukraine. Good air launched stand off munitions. Grippen is good…Thais using them in training against the PLAAF did well against 4+ Gen fighters.

US aircraft overall are far superior. The arsenal of weapons available to US aircraft is superior. Javelin is unmatched. Bradley is the best AFV in the world and has way outperformed expectations in combat from 1991 to the present. Abrams is on par with Challenger and Leopard 2 (but mechanically simpler than the Leopard and can run on almost any fuel).

Europe has a few standouts. Mostly British, German, and Swedish equipment. French stuff is crap from what I've seen from Ukraine.

35, I'm sure you've been insulted by LOTS of other people.

I won't pretend that I understand all your "home town" political references. That's one of your problems in that you think they matter to anyone outside your little echo chamber. "Liberal ivory tower academia"? Really? You know me? You thought I was an Aussie!!! I'm vaguely curious as to your academic achievements but I think I can guess.

I will admit your reposte to my BS line was excellent – by primary school standards. Keep trying.

As for Trump – you're the one who keeps mentioning him. "A new sheriff" – oh you slay me!
I'll remind you of this couplet you no doubt learned at your mother's knee:

"Jacky of Norfolk
Be never so bold
Dickon your master
Has been bought and sold"

Dal the +1 was for your comments on weaponry.

No I liked neither Mc or Roosevelt.

As to the article, it talks about the Philippines.

One of my Uncles and 2nd cousin fought all through the Philippines campaign. Uncle earned the Bronze Star for staying in position while being overrun by the Japs, calling in artillery. I also had a more distant cousin who survived the death March. I have about an 8 pages he wrote about the experience. All dead now.

@ Smithsco.
Thanks for returning the thread to relevancy.
I'm sure your assertions are correct. Can you cite any reliable sources to back these up?

I think as long as European & other substitutions for US weaponry are at least close to par, political considerations will make them desirable. BTW did you look at that Youtube quartet I linked?

My point about replacements & spare parts made in an earlier post stand. Can the Free World trust the Americans? Maybe, but you've recently lost a lot of your 'gloss'. IMO this is regrettable but undeniable.

Ochian weak.

As to your country. That changes as does the chameleon change its coloring.

Some of us are brave enough and have the pride to say where we are from, in our profiles. Others don't and they comment from the shroud and shadows of anonymity. 🫣

@ochoin that is all info gathered across years of reading articles, analysis, and social media posts. I unfortunately didn't save them as I read them. If you use Twitter you can find a lot about Ukrainian feedback about western weapons. They tend to hate French equipment and love American, British, and German equipment. The M777 howitzers given by the US get significant praise but that is a British system the US bought.

As a general rule with the US and Israel, if they do it best, they use their own. If someone else makes better equipment, they buy it. That's why the US is buying new small arms from Sig Sauer, howitzers from the UK, and Spike missiles from Israel. It's also why the US and Israel use American warplanes, helicopters, and air to ground munitions. The US does air warfare best and has since the 1940s.

Yes, and that matters. The US has built upon what it has done before. Our long tradition of naval aviation in one reason why we are far ahead of China in the field.

I tried to find all the tariffs Canada had on the US prior to Trump also how much of their industry is partially subsidized by the government, this an advantage to Canada.

My reaction to this was, "what a strange thing to do?" First off one needs to define 'subsidy'. For example, does it include a lower tax rate? Some countries have a 0% tax rate.

Anyway, no matter…here are some links.

US Federal Government subsidies (nearly $400 USD billion USD annually). Source: St. Louis Fed.

FRED Economic Data

Here's the left-wing (not) Fraser Institute report – about $50 USD billion CAD annually (from all levels of government):

Fraser Report on Subsidies

As for the economic war hurting Canada more…I suppose, but people here are expecting it and it seems ready to do suffer the pain…as would many if it's their country they're defending.

As for defending Canada from an aggressive Us, that's tricky. We've decided the best way is to find a way to cooperate while preserving our sovereignty. Part of this is mutual continental defence, which means interoperable is highly desirable.

"US does air warfare best" – is that why you bought the BAE Harrier Jump Jet for your Marines ?

Shad I was trying to find what products Canada was placing tariffs on prior to the election and what industries Canada Subsidizes, which might qualify for what the President considers an unfair trade advantage. So for instance, I believe Canada had tariffs on US wood products, so their wood industry would have an advantage.

I was just trying to get a list of what the President felt was unfair prior to 2020. That is what I found almost impossible to find. Could only find information on the current tariff war.

Shad, tell your fellow Canadians to rest easy, no invasion is coming….. Although I've read a few articles about some Albertans testing the water. 😉 Rumors about Quebec being ready to declare themselves a French dependent while the rest of you are preoccupied with your defenses. 🙂

Hopefully the Prince and Princess of Canada are in hiding, along with the vat of pudding. "As is tradition"

Thanks for the info.

It's why we replaced the Harrier with the F35. The Harrier offered something we hadn't developed. So we used it then made the tech better. Last time I checked the Royal Navy also switched to the F35

Well at one point the USA was the only one in NATO who could produce high quality weapons and in large numbers.

And it is not rare to out-source weapon production to a number of different businesses even to another nation to get what you want. E.g. the USA was making the IDF's Namer HAPC and shipping them to Israel. At the M1 factory plant about 3 hrs. from where I live.

But it worth repeating as I have said it so many times before. The troops, crews, leaders, log support, etc. is as much if not more so to the equipment being used. E.g. Russia had a number good capable MBTs. But with poor quality troops and leaders. Along with poor log support. The Russian's combat performance is only rated a "marginal" at best … By USA's officers [Ret], etc.

The US does air warfare best and has since the 1940s.

Air superiority is critical …

@35thOVI,

I don't think you'll get much out of that. There are thousands of line items listed when it comes to trade. The Harmonized System (HS) lists 5,000 commodity groups. Even if you find a tariff for a particular group it might not kick in until a certain quota is reached (as is the case with US dairy imports to Canada – i.e., 0% under the quota and 200-300% above the quota) or maybe its irrelevant since no one intends to export the commodity to the country with the tariff. In the case of dairy, since it's mentioned over and over, US dairy producers don't use their 0% quotas. There might be reasons for that which should be addressed, but the 200-300% tariff isn't the issue in that case.

An another example that's been brought up are US banks operating in Canada. Bankers have the retail side (that's you and me as customers) and they have the wholesale / commercial side (that's them, insurance companies, investment firms, etc.). What they really care about is wholesale banking because that's 90% of the transaction value but only 10% of the volume. We, the retail customers, are a pain since we are 90% of the volume but just 10% of the value. There are restrictions limiting a widespread retail banking presence in Canada, that has a lot to do with ensuring a stable financial system (e.g., a reason why Canada didn't suffer as much in the 2008 crisis). However, foreign banks have greater ability to operate on the wholesale / commercial side. A country's financial system is one of its 'critical infrastructure' systems so each country has its conditions for operating. Keep in mind this isn't about customers using, say, US financial services from a US based financial institution, this is about what a financial company who comes to must do to operate here. That's same in any industry operating anywhere.

That's long winded, but those are examples, that just seemed ones your Head of the Family has cherry picked for convenience – I guess. I'm sure if one looked at any country, including the US, you'd find something. The key issue is 97-98% of goods traded between Canada and the US is duty free; and, since trade volume has increased over time, what barriers there are haven't been all that restrictive.

While there may be sticky points to be discussed, I'd say the trading relationship between Canada and the US has been a mutually beneficial. Look other to places, like China for lost US manufacturing.

This then circles to the point of how to defend Canada. Long ago, Canadian figured that cooperating – economically, militarily and diplomatically, was the best way to deter a US takeover. We'd much rather deter an invasion than the costly nastiness of an actual fight. Isn't that the same idea behind 'MAD' – so, crazy no one would do it.

Honestly, trying to defend a 5,500 mile border is nonsense. If the US did militarily invade, we'd do the Danish think in WII – surrender. Buuuut, afterwards….you'd need a lot of troops to keep us.

I don't think anyone I know believes there's any invasion coming, but given a sequence of bad decisions on both sides, something spiraling out of control isn't impossible. So, yeah, ratchet down the rhetoric is a good thing to do.

You can dismiss those few Albertans who put their wallet above their country. Every country has them. And, for your information I grew up in Norther Alberta – not far from where Jordon Peterson grew up.

And…do expand your knowledge of our country beyond South Park. Not my cup of tea, but I can see the humour in it. I prefer the Red Green Show.

Now, to do a version of this as "Two Days into Canada…" with the US as…well, watch it.

YouTube Channel Polandball

Shad been there on multiple occasions. I just find the SP Canada stuff humorous. The Royal wedding and Canada on strike were my favorites.

I honestly am not sure what he's up to with Canada. Maybe nothing more than trying to get mfg back down here. I saw where a furniture mfg is leaving Canada to relocate to their NC facility. It's all beyond my pay grade, other than I have not heard one person I know who wants Canada or even mentioned it. So not the issue here, it seems to be there. I guess none of them take him seriously. Both Trump and non-Trumpers.

Did find this:

Subject: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Announces "Fair and Reciprocal Plan" on Trade – The White House


link

I'm not surprise it's not an issue there. Up here we initially dismissed it. Shrugged our shoulders – Trump being Trump. But he is gone on and on and on about 51st state, bad mouthing our country, threatening to destroy our economy, etc. Then there's the tariffs 25% 50% today or tomorrow or the next or maybe not….people are losing their jobs…so, yeah, it's real here.

As for your quest for tariffs I had a thought which was the macro level – I.e. total goods and services imported vs total government revenue from duties. So, in CAD, about $1.00 CAD trillion imports vs $6.00 CAD billion duties.

Scotia Bank Report on Trade

Public Accounts of Canada Report

Also, from discussions last week our people had with White House trade and commerce folks it's about the nearly $2 USD trillion federal deficit you have and generating revenues via tariffs. If it was mfg it would focus on China.

Shad thanks for the articles. Yes China is the enemy.

But..

Maybe this is what he was after all along. Multiple articles out there.

🤔 What next? barron trump being made 3rd or even 2nd in line for the thrown? 😉

Subject: King Charles to make 'secret offer' to Donald Trump during State visit – after Starmer hand-delivered letter from King | The US Sun


link

But honestly Shad, I believe it is more for the things in this article.

Subject: J&J boosts investments in U.S. to more than $55 USD billion amid looming tariff threats


link

@35thOVI,

I believe it's both revenue generation and attracting mfg. doesn't have to be either / or. It's just in the case of mfg CA has lost a lot of that too maybe more than the US on a per Capita basis. At least as much anyway – can't get blood from a stone.

I found statistics for auto and auto parts mfg that may be of interest.

The US lost a lot of jobs in the sector during the financial crisis of 2008. Going from 1.3 million to 700 thousand. It's finally climbed back to about 1 million jobs. US Bureau of Labor Stats:

US Bureau of Labor Stats

Canada had about 152 thousand jobs prior to the financial crisis for auto, auto parts and motor vehicle body / trailer mfg. The sector lost 43.5 thousand but only recovered to 115 thousand by 2012.

Stas Canada

Back to 144.4 thousand by 2023

CA Job Bank

Not sure if its an exact comparison to the US data as I don't know if the US data includes trailer mfg.

For those who ask what's this got to do with TMP…well, it's economic warfare with a stated intend to "destroy their auto mfg". In the US DoD, doctrine talks about using all of a states power (military, economic, diplomatic) to coerce another a nation. Let's just be glad its not a shooting war; although, with lost jobs mental stress and, even, suicide are possibilities. So, it's not without human costs.

Shad just read 2 more. Big investments from Nvidia and the UAE in the US.

Hopefully the whole Canadian thing will end soon. I placed the King and Trump meeting out there only partially as fun, but maybe something will truly happen to rectify this.

Surprise to most of you, I do not agree with his rhetoric on Canada, nor Greenland for that matter. I understand his wanting better deals with both for defensive purposes, especially around the arctic. Possibly more bases in Greenland. Also access to raw materials there, to decrease dependence on China and Russia, especially for rare earth.

Any advantages with the resources, gives the US more options in dealing with future Chinese aggression. You don't want to be pushed into a corner, with no options.

That is also why getting chip manufacturing and medical pill manufacturing back in the US is so important.