▲ 471 ▼ US warns they will send fighter jets into Canadian airspace if F-35 deal doesn’t go through | The Independent (www.independent.co.uk) submitted 6 months ago by slothrop@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world 138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 45 points 6 months ago (1 child) What Buy our fighters jets or we invade with fighter jets ? What absolute fuck is wrong with this country permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nomy@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) Nobody reads. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) No, I definitely read. Canada doesn't want to pay for the massive cost overruns. The US said "fine, but we'll have to shore up the NORAD system by sending OUR fighters into YOUR airspace as necessary." If there is no agreement as to how that occurs and the US does it anyway, that is an invasion. Quite literally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* Part of NORAD already allows both Canada and the US to enter each other's airspace in the interest of dealing with threats. This is an existing negotiation. What the ambassador is stating is that if Canada does decide to backtrack on the program (which full disclosure I agree with because they failed to meet their deadline and the cost overrun is through the roof), In order to "prevent gaps", they would increase their f35 presence Which is also why they referenced that they would need to alter the current NORAD plan. This is a quote from one of the sources that the article uses for its claims. "NORAD would have to be altered," U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra told CBC News in an exclusive interview at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. He says the United States would likely need to purchase more of the advanced fighter aircraft for its own air force, and would fly them more often into Canadian airspace to address threats approaching the U.S. "If Canada is no longer going to provide that [capability], then we have to fill those gaps," said Hoekstra. The Posted article cherry-picks the hell out of its sources to try and make a mountain out of a mole hill. The entire article could be summarized with "US ambassador states that if Canada backs out of F-35 deal, US will need to increase resources to fill the gap" But instead of doing so, the author decided to make a title that makes it indicate that the US ambassador is threatening to invade Canada over it. Disingenuous reporting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nomy@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) Nobody reads. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) No, I definitely read. Canada doesn't want to pay for the massive cost overruns. The US said "fine, but we'll have to shore up the NORAD system by sending OUR fighters into YOUR airspace as necessary." If there is no agreement as to how that occurs and the US does it anyway, that is an invasion. Quite literally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* Part of NORAD already allows both Canada and the US to enter each other's airspace in the interest of dealing with threats. This is an existing negotiation. What the ambassador is stating is that if Canada does decide to backtrack on the program (which full disclosure I agree with because they failed to meet their deadline and the cost overrun is through the roof), In order to "prevent gaps", they would increase their f35 presence Which is also why they referenced that they would need to alter the current NORAD plan. This is a quote from one of the sources that the article uses for its claims. "NORAD would have to be altered," U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra told CBC News in an exclusive interview at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. He says the United States would likely need to purchase more of the advanced fighter aircraft for its own air force, and would fly them more often into Canadian airspace to address threats approaching the U.S. "If Canada is no longer going to provide that [capability], then we have to fill those gaps," said Hoekstra. The Posted article cherry-picks the hell out of its sources to try and make a mountain out of a mole hill. The entire article could be summarized with "US ambassador states that if Canada backs out of F-35 deal, US will need to increase resources to fill the gap" But instead of doing so, the author decided to make a title that makes it indicate that the US ambassador is threatening to invade Canada over it. Disingenuous reporting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 child) No, I definitely read. Canada doesn't want to pay for the massive cost overruns. The US said "fine, but we'll have to shore up the NORAD system by sending OUR fighters into YOUR airspace as necessary." If there is no agreement as to how that occurs and the US does it anyway, that is an invasion. Quite literally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* Part of NORAD already allows both Canada and the US to enter each other's airspace in the interest of dealing with threats. This is an existing negotiation. What the ambassador is stating is that if Canada does decide to backtrack on the program (which full disclosure I agree with because they failed to meet their deadline and the cost overrun is through the roof), In order to "prevent gaps", they would increase their f35 presence Which is also why they referenced that they would need to alter the current NORAD plan. This is a quote from one of the sources that the article uses for its claims. "NORAD would have to be altered," U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra told CBC News in an exclusive interview at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. He says the United States would likely need to purchase more of the advanced fighter aircraft for its own air force, and would fly them more often into Canadian airspace to address threats approaching the U.S. "If Canada is no longer going to provide that [capability], then we have to fill those gaps," said Hoekstra. The Posted article cherry-picks the hell out of its sources to try and make a mountain out of a mole hill. The entire article could be summarized with "US ambassador states that if Canada backs out of F-35 deal, US will need to increase resources to fill the gap" But instead of doing so, the author decided to make a title that makes it indicate that the US ambassador is threatening to invade Canada over it. Disingenuous reporting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* Part of NORAD already allows both Canada and the US to enter each other's airspace in the interest of dealing with threats. This is an existing negotiation. What the ambassador is stating is that if Canada does decide to backtrack on the program (which full disclosure I agree with because they failed to meet their deadline and the cost overrun is through the roof), In order to "prevent gaps", they would increase their f35 presence Which is also why they referenced that they would need to alter the current NORAD plan. This is a quote from one of the sources that the article uses for its claims. "NORAD would have to be altered," U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra told CBC News in an exclusive interview at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. He says the United States would likely need to purchase more of the advanced fighter aircraft for its own air force, and would fly them more often into Canadian airspace to address threats approaching the U.S. "If Canada is no longer going to provide that [capability], then we have to fill those gaps," said Hoekstra. The Posted article cherry-picks the hell out of its sources to try and make a mountain out of a mole hill. The entire article could be summarized with "US ambassador states that if Canada backs out of F-35 deal, US will need to increase resources to fill the gap" But instead of doing so, the author decided to make a title that makes it indicate that the US ambassador is threatening to invade Canada over it. Disingenuous reporting. permalink fedilink source parent