- Reaction score
- 20,504
- Points
- 1,280
The US sure likes the $ and clout that CA brings though. It is the single largest GDP in the US, followed by NY - I would have thought it was the other way around, with Wall Street.
U.S. Annexing Canada (split fm Liberal Minority thread)
- Thread starter Lumber
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 22,745
- Points
- 1,260
It has 40 million people, but many Corporations are fleeing CA, due to taxes and idiotic regulations.
When CA was supposed to upgrade its water supply three years ago it was stopped due to concern over a particular fish - and now face water supply issues to fight the fires in the dry conditions.
As L.A. Burns, Elon Musk Renews Fight With An Old Friend Turned Foe — Forbes
The Trump-aligned tycoon is attacking California’s leaders for their handling of the deadly wildfires, but his beef with the state’s Democratic leaders goes back several years.
apple.news
Would totally trade CA and Lower NY for Alberta.
- Reaction score
- 708
- Points
- 810
I was wondering to myself ("self," I said, to myself) about how much of the United States desire for other countires in NATO to spend more on their militaries was driven by the size of the Arms Industry in th US. I looked at some available data and global arms trade is relatively small (but significant) compared to defence spending.
In no way should there be an expectation that NATO countries should match the US expenditure per GDP... none of them of the worldwide "aspirations" that the US does, and shouldn't be paying to shore up the US's ability to "lean on" people in the interest of the US.
In any case, although I agree that Canada needs to spend more on their military, I think that 3.5% is too high; and certainly 5% is ridiculous. Something in the range of 2-3% makes sense. For context, it was around 4% in 1960, around 2% 1970-90, bottomed out at 1% 2013-14 (for anyone watching, the end of the Harper era), and has been slowly climbing towards 1.5% since.
We need to get to 2% as quick as possible and spend it on recapitalizing current capabilites and regenerating (which includes higher pay for recruiting and retention reasons). Then we need to use the goal of 2-3% after that for adding the capabbilites that should be core (subs and sufficient AORs, airborne AEW and surveillance, expeditionary C2 and logisitics).
In no way should there be an expectation that NATO countries should match the US expenditure per GDP... none of them of the worldwide "aspirations" that the US does, and shouldn't be paying to shore up the US's ability to "lean on" people in the interest of the US.
In any case, although I agree that Canada needs to spend more on their military, I think that 3.5% is too high; and certainly 5% is ridiculous. Something in the range of 2-3% makes sense. For context, it was around 4% in 1960, around 2% 1970-90, bottomed out at 1% 2013-14 (for anyone watching, the end of the Harper era), and has been slowly climbing towards 1.5% since.
We need to get to 2% as quick as possible and spend it on recapitalizing current capabilites and regenerating (which includes higher pay for recruiting and retention reasons). Then we need to use the goal of 2-3% after that for adding the capabbilites that should be core (subs and sufficient AORs, airborne AEW and surveillance, expeditionary C2 and logisitics).
- Reaction score
- 708
- Points
- 810
As a coralary to my last... I'm not sure a lot of people realize why the US is in NATO. It certainly isn't to defend Europe; quite the opposite, it's to control them.
There was a joke in NATO a long time ago that it was created "to keep Russia out and Germany in." The point was instead of Germany having a fourth go at controlling the place, being in an alliance would check their controlling instincts. And it worked.
I'm not sure that the US wants the EU to say "f' it, we're outta here" to NATO and create a European defence alliance. In addition to the first request (like the French a long time ago) for the Americans to get out of their countries (thereby losing one of their largest expeditionary basing areas), also losing the ability to be the de facto boss of NATO and access to the European defence market wouldn't be a win.
There was a joke in NATO a long time ago that it was created "to keep Russia out and Germany in." The point was instead of Germany having a fourth go at controlling the place, being in an alliance would check their controlling instincts. And it worked.
I'm not sure that the US wants the EU to say "f' it, we're outta here" to NATO and create a European defence alliance. In addition to the first request (like the French a long time ago) for the Americans to get out of their countries (thereby losing one of their largest expeditionary basing areas), also losing the ability to be the de facto boss of NATO and access to the European defence market wouldn't be a win.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,579
- Points
- 1,010
Canada probably needs 4-5% just to get out of the hole it's in now and an ongoing 2.5% to maintain that.
The US is fair to say it shoulders the NATO burden disproportionately. The threat of Russian or Chinese aggression is higher then ever before. I'm not sure the US can handle two major peer conflicts anymore on it's relative own.
Since a country will need to go to war with the army it has (vs wants) it might behoove us to get more serious in this regard. I estimate going to war with peer adversary's on a paltry 1.5% GDP army is a losing prospect. I don't want to lose... I don't even want it to be close. The deterrence factor alone is going to save us huge in the long run.
The US is fair to say it shoulders the NATO burden disproportionately. The threat of Russian or Chinese aggression is higher then ever before. I'm not sure the US can handle two major peer conflicts anymore on it's relative own.
Since a country will need to go to war with the army it has (vs wants) it might behoove us to get more serious in this regard. I estimate going to war with peer adversary's on a paltry 1.5% GDP army is a losing prospect. I don't want to lose... I don't even want it to be close. The deterrence factor alone is going to save us huge in the long run.
- Reaction score
- 1,653
- Points
- 1,260
Would Albertans join as full U.S. citizens?
https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/519.png
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,765
- Points
- 960
That would probably be the only way your be able to do . God knows there's a hell of lot of infrastructure to be improved replaced or built duel function or not.
The territory of Alberta sounds about right. But I bet it gets renamed to Northern Montana.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,765
- Points
- 960
Our problem is aside from our political leadership is now we have to deal with American leadership where the first thought that goes through his head at 5:00 am becomes a tweet and simultaneously becomes policy.
- Reaction score
- 22,745
- Points
- 1,260
Just North Montana.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,765
- Points
- 960
Maybe they'll do something about the roads...and possibly make the trains run on time ....
- Reaction score
- 1,653
- Points
- 1,260
Or, North Puerto Rico?
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,579
- Points
- 1,010
But would they be treated better than by the natural governing party? How would their wealth look I wonder? Peter Zeihan has some comments on that which, if circulated, might change the public opinion poll by a lot.
the inhabitants of Peurto Rico are american citizens who don't get a vote in the federal elections. So if alberta were to become puerto rico north we'd be worse off than before, at least in regards to representation at the federal level.
Population would be roughly the same once you factor in a number of Canadians leaving Alberta after a secession.
- Reaction score
- 20,504
- Points
- 1,280
Speaking of Puerto Rico:
Did I miss the brief that everyone was going to try and annex everyone else today?
- Reaction score
- 22,745
- Points
- 1,260
Not correct.
PR is an odd duck, they aren’t US citizens, as it is not a state in the union, but they can join the Armed Forces (and get fast tracked citizenship). They are are a Commonwealth that is a US protectorate, they have their own semi separate legal system and various other things that separate them from being a state.
They can come and live and work in the US and become citizens if they want, but aren’t actual US citizens by birth unless their parents were. A buddy of mine from PR had to take about 20min to explain the system to me — I’m still not 100% on the entire thing.
It has very odd firearms laws, but US HR218 applies so you can carry there if LE or retired LE just like the actual states. The NFA doesn’t apply to PR, so if you are connected enough you can get a machine gun or suppressor as an individual without paying the $200 tax stamp.
according to Wiki (so grain of salt etc.) "Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since 1917... " . there is also this
"All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth."
Similar threads
