Canada and Portugal were both in the process of buying F-35 jets from the US.
The new Canadian Defence Minister has announced that Canada may only take the first 16 jets, scheduled for delivery this year, cancel the rest, and may go to Saab for a new contract, because of the tension with the US.
Portugal has made a similar announcement.
And Australia has been told that the US may not deliver any of those nuclear subs, leaving them
In US hands and Australia only providing docking services.
The world needs to move on without us. The US public is far too dysfunctional to be trusted with power. Trump is a reflection of the ~70 million people who voted for him 3 times.
I hope Europe builds up its own domestic arms industry above and beyond what it already has. I know they have their own tanks, artillery, fighter jets, etc but I don’t know if they have the equivalent of patriot missile systems or other missile interceptors.
It sucks that China is probably going to take over the role left by the US in world leadership.
I agree. Even if Trump vanished tomorrow, America has proven it’s just too unreliable to be trusted. We can’t even be trusted to look out for our own self interest. You don’t want to rely on a nation that’s completely unpredictable, especially for your defense needs.
ISTM the ideal would be to break the mess of the USA up into 5-7 countries. Not that any of them will be homogeneously red or blue, wise or stupid, malign or benign. Nor would homogeneity be an explicit goal of the partition. It’s a good bet most would end up being some flavor of modern (not necessarily current) USAian.
But rather that if each of them wasn’t big enough to be world dominating, neither would all of them. Kinda like e.g. the UK, France, and Germany are collectively large & wealthy but the natural differences in their goals & attitudes mean they don’t march in lockstep. Which makes their influence (bad or good) on the larger world less than it would otherwise be if they were fully united.
The downside to this clever plan of course is that leave China as the sole true large scale unified powerhouse on Earth. And that won’t be a happy outcome either.
It could start by realizing the vision of Ernest Callenbach’s 1970s novel, Ecotopia, where parts of California, Oregon, and Washington secede to create, well, an ecotopia. Like utopian novels, the book ain’t great literature, but the vision is compelling as a critique of the world.
As for China, it has its own problems that may mean it too would split into smaller units; fear of the US binds it together just as fear of of the USSR and China during the Cold War bound the US and NATO.
Here’s another look at the same idea.
Although both your and my cited books are talking about slicing regions along cultural lines. Whereas for my post upthread, that is a non-goal. It might go that way, but it doesn’t have to. My point was/is merely that breaking the USA into chunks will restrict its ability to actually implement malevolence, even if all of the subdivisions are as attitudinally malevolent as ever. Nobody quakes in their boots when mighty Madagascar pitches a hissy fit.
Aside:
The 40+ intervening years since my cited book was published (so ~50 years since the research was done) have changed the facts on the ground a lot. The US today is a lot more homogenous on a regional scale; the real cultural divides are rich / poor, educated / not-educated, and rural / (sub)urban. I suspect much the same is true in Canada.
Points taken, but on what grounds and through what mechanism would/could the US be broken up if not economic/cultural (I see those as closely connected in most cases) differences? Do we need to consider how big business would transcend those boundaries to continue to seek its own ends to the detriment of the new regions?
All this to say, I hope you’re working on the novel! Put me down for a copy.
Madagascar does not, to my knowledge, have nukes. Let alone a whole shitload of them.
Yeah. I’m pretty sure the result of somehow breaking the US up would be the Right dominated regions trying to conquer/genocide the other regions, and resorting to nuclear weapons when they can’t do it conventionally.
And probably launching some at other nations at well, including possibly China/Europe with the intention of setting off a global thermonuclear exchange - recall how powerful the Christian End Timers are in the Right. Some of those nukes would be in the hands of factions that consider the end of the world a desirable goal.
Hour-long video from everyone’s favourite Australian defense economy analyst Perun focusing on future European defense spending increases and how that interplays with desires for decreased reliance on US-sourced systems.
TL:DW Europe collectively is looking to greatly increase defense spending and is simultaneously questioning the reliability of US as a defense partner. Focusing future procurement on European-sourced systems without critical US sub-systems (like, say, jet engines) is both possible and likely.
We also have the problem of competing “national champion” arms manufacturers. As a recent op-ed in the Guardian put it:
Yet, besides more arms production, Europe desperately needs its rationalisation and consolidation. Europe has about 170 major weapon systems compared with about 30 for the US. Consolidation would mean agreeing that this kind of fighter plane should be produced in, say, Italy and Sweden, closing a factory in France, while that sort of air defence system should be produced in France and Britain, closing a factory in Germany. Imagine how easy that will be.
Even setting aside the political difficulties, the process cited by @Gorsnak will take decades to reach fruition.
it is certainly true that the journey of a thousand miles begiins with a single step, so that’s not reason not to take that single step. But even if successful, the fruits of this effort will come long after trump has died of old age.
Trump is the symptom, not the disease. He’s recast the Republican party to view other democratic countries as the enemies of the US. We won’t suddenly see old-school Republicans retake the party the day after the state funeral.
Therefore, the other democratic countries have to cut ties with the US.
This, there is no greater threat to democracy than the United States. The most powerful nation in history is also incredibly unstable. The developed world needs to take the threat seriously and hasten its downfall.
I completely agree with your assessment. The brain-worms have taken over much of the public, and that damage will last far beyond trump. Just as the Islamic Republic of Iran has far outlived (46 years and counting) Ayatollah Khomeini who founded it and lived just a further 10 years.
I merely used trump’s eventual demise as a convenient yardstick. IOW these actions Europe is taking in response to trump will not be a timely solution to trumpism.
I really think the world should begin looking at the USA with a similar mindset to how they look at Iran. The current country / government is not like the historical country / government, and a reversion to “normal” will be the work of lifetimes, if it happens at all. Meanwhile, they will be ongoing continuous mischief makers, for really nasty forms of mischief.
Oh, yes, the MAGA mind will result in lost armament sales, no doubt about that. The mistrust is so great (and justified!) that there is talk of a “kill switch” in all the media I usually read, for instance. People fear that if Germany, for instance, buys the F-35, the USA will be able to switch it off from afar, this rendering it useless. Here is a Canadian article based on a Bild Zeitung’s article about that (Bild Zeitung! For Godott’s sake, that is not a source! Ah, never mind):
The USA does not need a kill switch, BTW: Just stopping the spare parts would do the job in a couple of weeks.
ETA: The Deutsche Welle has a video on this.
And we don’t have AWACS either. And “our” nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are more a testimonial display than really useful. And we do have tanks, indeed. See here for how many:
https://armedforces.eu/land_forces/ranking_tanks
TL;DR: Russia: about 12,000 (yes, I know about the condition). USA: over 5,600. Europe: Poland has 700, every other country much less, many (Belgium, the three Baltic Countries, the Czech and the Slovak Republics…) zero. Austria 56, Norway 44, the Netherlands 18.
Ah! And Canada 74. In case the USA goes full rogue, they will outnumber Canada by 76 to 1.
I think we have a difficult task ahead of us. We have to rearm. But it will not be done with US weapons, not if it can be avoided. Which, in some cases, will not be possible.
On a similar note: Do you know how many countries are talking of obtaining nuclear weapons? Never mind that it is very difficult, expensive and time consuming, and that it would not increase security at all (imagine what the rest of Europe would feel if Germany got the bomb or what the rest of Asia would do if Japan got it too? So much for increased safety and security). The mere fact that so many are contemplating this possibility is a bleak sign of our times.
It would increase security, at least in the short term; nukes are the only deterrent that really works against major powers. If Ukraine had nukes then they wouldn’t be fighting for their existence against Russia; if Canada had nukes they wouldn’t be facing conquest by the US.
In the long run of course they create the risk of a nuclear war…but there has to be a “long run” for that to come into consideration.
Well, there is not really a need for Trump to make all those countries enemies, just his desire to boss people and countries around. Any change that shocks is good enough for him. It goes with the America First idea in that he is not “giving” things to other countries. Other than Israel.
Absolutely correct. The Votemaster has a long discussion of this, especially about short term solutions: Electoral-vote.com. Here are two paragraphs that make these point:
" It [the kill switch] is probably not literally true (at least, Lockheed Martin is not admitting it), but it is kinda almost true. The F-35 has a vast amount of very complex software in it that connects it to GPS and networks in real time to manage its fighting ability. This software is updated constantly because Russia keeps coming up with ways of defeating the F-35, so updates are needed to win at this cat-and-mouse game. The U.S. could easily refuse to supply updates, thus degrading the fighting capacity of the planes quite easily and openly. Also, parts on these things wear out quickly and you can’t order new ones on Amazon. Additionally, critical electronics (with their software) are sealed in black boxes that the customer Air Forces may not open. They need to be sent to authorized facilities regularly for maintenance and updates."
" But do they have alternatives? Yes. There are high-end European-made jet fighters for sale. One is the supersonic Typhoon, which can fly at Mach 2.35 and is especially maneuverable in dogfights. It can reach 65,000 ft. It is not as advanced as the F-35, but experience shows that older designs are sometimes less finicky than newer bleeding-edge ones. There have been 570 Typhoons produced and they are currently in use by the Austrian, British, German, Italian, Spanish, and other Air Forces. It is also popular in the Middle East. A big plus for the Typhoon is that it is already out there in volume and many Air Forces already know it well and have pilots trained on it."
For more of the same go to the cited source. And the most important conclusion is that this is permanent. No new administration can reverse because the trust is permanently lost.
I can’t help but remember how quickly the US ramped up arms production during World War II. If America could do it then, then the Free World can do it now.