Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

Void · 2024-11-17 09:22:46

This is a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTK1FoR3kqM
Quote:

Ayn Rand: The Real Motive for the Socialist Mindset
PhilosophyInsights
433K subscribers

My current thinking:
It is rather simple but we have a hard time seeing it. If a society, decides that they will redistribute wealth by violence directed by special verbalizations, then you know that they are trying to gain possession of a means of productivity. This is to enslave a process and quite often to eat the seed corn. (Seed Corn = Differed Consumption, or Capital).

Rather than nurturing the means of production, they wish to consume the means of production not just the production.

By subordinating social subsections to a stone age intelligence, they strangle the means of production which are forms of productive intelligence. It is sort of an embezzlement process.

And we a hypnotized into believing that the verbal and violent, are the justified rulers. (They do tell us so).

I guess I will leave it there except to say that it is curious how well royal thinking goes with a socialist embezzlement process. Both see productivity and want to have the right to appropriate it for their empowerment with words and directed violence. Communication is required to bring technological means into existence, but the non-technological people will seize the means of production without reasonable payment. They wish to use words and directed violence as a sort of credit card that they never have to pay off, as if they can kill and imprison those who complain, then they do not have to pay.

But then then kills off the technical skills, and replaces it with more of the non-technical genome and memes. Some people emerge from the stone age as there is not socialist method to enslave them and nature has selected them to have technical skills. They build and advancement beyond the stone age and wealth is produced. Then the verbal and violent try to seize that wealth, and ultimately have to kill off the technical skills so that they can possess what they regard with a jealous awareness.

And this may be why the Democrats have been rejected for the moment, as their party is about satisfying would be royal people by using socialist verbal and violent means to seize wealth. The democrat party used to be in part about the working class, but it is no longer so.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-11-17 09:40:17)

RobertDyck · 2024-12-11 18:26:11

YouTube: Why the Russians Need Georgia and the Caucasus || Peter Zeihan
He predicts Europe will get involved with Georgia.

Void · 2024-12-23 10:51:21

This video annoyed me so much that I want to put it here as what I consider idiot attempts to mess with international relationships, and in this case with stupidity and also against the interests of creative western efforts to lift the human race.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=WRVORC
Quote:

Here's the REASON why ELON MUSK must INVEST in the PHILIPPINES
YouTube
HYEW.
314 views
2 days ago

In the nonwestern world it is typical that people think that if you have wealth, you took it from someone. The author of this video is probably a type of person who has every intention to take other peoples wealth.

OK, I suppose if no mixing processes existed then Deuterium could settle into the bottom of a deep sea trench. Otherwise if it is mixed as average to ocean water, then yes a deep trench of water would have a lot of Deuterium. But only because it has a lot of water.

I will welcome a correction if I need one.

Elon Musk would go to the North Mariana Islands or Guam, if a deep trench was a wonderful thing for Deuterium, as of course "The Mariana Trench".

As for the voice, there some very left wing British, but the voice easily may mask some other source of mischief.

Anyway, the idea that Elon Musk is after someone's Deuterium, is looking to me like typical trickster games. The objective being to indicate that Elon Bad.

The value of the Philippines is that it is one of the few places where the Catholic Church was able to set something substantial up in the East Asian area. That was mostly the work of the Spanish. Americas subsequent actions made English somewhat a language in the Philippines. So obviously it has some of the "hooks" that could make it more compatible with so called "Western" objectives, as to some extent they may in some cases be the preferred objectives of the Philippines themselves.

I think you could use the argument that the Philippines can have water transport. Sort of an inside out American Midwest in the tropics.

Catholisysm has had a hard time taking hold among the East Asians. Simply an interesting fact. Protestantism is more common in China, I believe. So, the Philippines is an interesting artifact.

So, as I have said, probably a good launching pad in the Philippines to interrelate with the rest of East Asia. The Philippines has a significant Chinese population as well.

And I think that the Philippines may be a future place to launch Starships from. After all they will be looking into Sea Launches down the line and there could be that possibility both in the Philippines and Indonesia.

Deuterium? I don't think so.

Ending Pending

A query for "HYEW" suggests Viet Nam. So, perhaps socialist/communist instigation of some sort.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-12-23 11:11:27)

Void · 2025-01-20 10:34:01

I have seen other reports of this, some which are mentioned in this video:
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:

China's Real Population Numbers are Shocking (Demographic Collapse is More Advanced than we Thought)
YouTube
Based Camp with Simone & Malcolm Collins
27.1K views
2 months ago

So, they touch on why some nations may have false statistics on demographics.

A thing we have that might be a bit similar is how supposedly the democrats want to bring in outsiders who they think they can enroll in their party, to preserve the system they have where they attract favor by offering gifts to the people who they struggle to keep poor. Trying to gerrymander the culture. They love a patronage/protection racket method of control.

And also, nature some animals want to posture as bigger and more threatening than they actually are.

A similar thing they mention for Nigeria, is that to distribute oil money, a subregion has an incentive to inflate their population numbers to get a bigger share.

I am not interested in fighting all Deamons, I just want to know where they are, and their tricks.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-01-20 10:44:11)

Calliban · 2025-01-21 02:31:51

The latest video from Zeihan discusses the demographic crisis in China.
https://youtu.be/kI5onbXSByc?si=ujfBahKmnV-aZnaB

As of November 2024, birthrate has declined to 0.5 per woman. That is less than 1/4 of replacement rate. Which is quite horrific. The Chinese state really doesn't have much life left in it. The average age of a Han Chinese is now 45. So their domestic consumption base is shrinking fast. With birthrate as low as this, the chinese population will be half what it is now by 2060. At the same time, the US and Europe now view China as a geopolitical threat and are erecting tariff walls against Chinese imports. With a rapidly shrinking domestic market and an increasingly protectionist outside world, the Chinese economy faces an economic crisis far worse than what the Japanese are going through.

RobertDyck · 2025-01-30 13:50:15

YouTube: The Geopolitics of Climate Change || Peter Zeihan

He is BRUTAL. Short version: Trump administration is obsessed with opportunities from climate change, critical minerals, shipping, etc. Which is why he's obsessed with Greenland and Canada. But the Arctic is a mess. Yellowknife is the capital of the Canadian territory called Northwest Territories, the only community with a population large enough to call it a city. It's about 400km (250 miles) south of the Arctic Circle, and only has one road. That road is across tundra that is a swampy mess in summer so you have to wait until winter to send anything in or out. But you would want to mine in summer, when ground isn't frozen. But it has permafrost, so beneath a certain depth it's frozen all year. Siberia has the same problems. He claims it would take 200 years to build infrastructure to harvest resources from the Arctic, so not within a human lifetime.

Shipping has similar problems. Securing a shipping rout requires waiting until it's ice free in winter. Otherwise moving sea ice will destroy navigation aids every winter. Russia has good icebreakers but building new ones requires components from the West which sanctions prevent. And equipment to build a new icebreaker was on a ship that sank in the Mediterranean last month. He claims Canada's icebreakers are descent, but Canada barely has enough for the Canadian Arctic, certainly can't patrol the coast of Siberia.

He goes on. Just watch the video. It's only 6 minutes 53 seconds.

Terraformer · 2025-01-30 16:51:32

A hovercraft might be able to do it. An Addis Single Rail Tramway, too. I expect ground conditions preclude traditional dual rail, but perhaps an Addis Tramway could do it, since there's no need to align rails. Just one rail to bear the weight and something vaguely road like for the balancing wheels. Might need quite narrow and long trains to keep the ground pressure low idk.

RobertDyck · 2025-01-30 17:51:22

Well, Peter Zeihan does oversimplify, but does raise good points. The rail line from "The Pas" to Churchill in Manitoba is a single track traditional rail line. It runs along gravel eskers on tundra. The rail line requires a lot of maintenance, but it works.

Hey! I just checked. There is a rail line from Edmonton to Hay River, NWT. That's on the south shore of Great Slave Lake. Yellowknife is on the north shore of the same lake. That's the northernmost rail line in Canada. One website says northernmost in North America, but there's one in Alaska, ending at Fairbanks.

kbd512 · 2025-01-31 00:51:00

This is normally how oilfield trucks drive across swampland and snowy tundra.

Mattracks - Commercial Tracks

It started with military models, but progressed to a wide range of commercial models for light vehicles to heavy equipment:

There are also simpler and cheaper solutions such as these, sold by a Canadian company:

Heavy Equipment Guide - Track conversions keep operations trucking in difficult conditions

When construction sites move off the road and into challenging conditions, it's often the trucks that serve on those sites that are the most affected. Environmental requirements to reduce damage on wet, marshy sites, in snowy conditions or a number of other manners mean that trucks on tires are limited in where they can go.
If it's impractical to build haul roads or other ways to get those trucks from point to point, one option may be to look at track conversions. Developed initially for smaller vehicles, easy-to-install tracks for trucks are growing in popularity.
Edmonton, Alberta-based Right Track Systems developed its track systems for small vehicles such as ATVs, UTVs and skid steers, around 15 years ago, according to General Manager Tom Zaleski. It was the oil and gas industry that moved their designs toward truck tracks.
"A few years back, oil companies came to us and said that when they're servicing sites, or out on the patch, they run into really difficult ground conditions - mud, sand, snow and all that, which makes servicing rigs really difficult," Zaleski said.
Oil industry drives interest in tracks for trucks
Initial designs of rubber tracks for larger units were developed based on the smaller vehicle systems and scaled up to fit over the tires of large service rigs used in the oil patch, offering greater flotation for vehicles having to deal with those softer surfaces like mud and snow.
"The guys in Fort McMurray and elsewhere would use these to run up and down the cut lines, to service their wells, and in those kinds of situations. They found it provided a great reduction in ground pressure, a lower environmental footprint, and increased their traction," Zaleski described. "Instead of having to hire big Cat machines or helicopters to come out and drag their units out of the sand and snow, they could just outfit their own units with tracks and traverse that difficult terrain."
Once track conversions had begun making their way through the oil industry, other sectors started to look at the technology. Many businesses work in sloppy conditions and need to find ways to get more traction and move their trucks through mud and other wet ground, and the utility sector, construction companies and agriculture operations started showing interest.
Simple approach for rubber track selections
Zaleski said the approach taken by Right Track is a simple one: a rubber track is simply wrapped around the tires, tightened and put to use on the site. While there are some undercarriage systems that switch out the entire tire system with a sprocket-driven unit, those are quite cost-prohibitive in most cases. Rubber truck tracks are easier to use and maintain, he noted.
The design has gone through several iterations over the years to find the best capability possible for weight and speed, especially considering that the tracks will be likely to face a broad range of conditions.
"Guys don't necessarily want to put the tracks on and just stay in the soft stuff - they want to traverse the site and go several miles," Zaleski said. "They want to be able to do that quickly and efficiently while having a track to hold up to that speed and weight."
Broad range of vehicles can be converted
Truck tracks can be installed on a broad range of popular vehicle options in the construction sector. They are available for everything from smaller vehicles up through tandem and tri-axle vehicles all the way up to large mining trucks, Zaleski noted.
"The standard in the truck and trailer industry is generally tandem axle trucks running 11R22 or 24/25 dual tires on a tandem axle, running roughly a 15- to 20-ton load," he said.
Different uses require different types of track, which can handle a range of weight and ground conditions. Right Track's versions start with a standard track that can handle loads of up to 30 tons at travel speeds of 30 to 35 mph, Zaleski explained. The company's Off Road Construction (ORC) tracks are used on larger vehicles like articulated dump trucks or mining vehicles, and can handle the same speeds but carry up to 80 ton weights.
...

RobertDyck · 2025-01-31 10:28:20

I could post video of a tractor stuck in mud. Or a tractor stuck, rescued by another tractor that just got stuck too, and another, etc. Let's call it non-trivial. The Alaska highway was built during WW2, through British Columbia and Yukon. It was difficult, but was done. Peter Zeihan as always over-simplefied. His point was harvesting minerals or natural gas from the Arctic is difficult, expensive, and would take significant time. For Trump to invade an ally of the US to annex a territory (Greenland) is stupid, especially considering the project to harvest those minerals would be expensive and time consuming. Harvesting resources from Canada's Arctic is also difficult. One complication Zeihan didn't mention is the danger of forest fire.

Canada has expanded extraction of tar sands aka oil sands to Alberta's north. This isn't Arctic, it's a province, and there are roads. But it's in the middle of a vast forest. And fire is a natural part of any forest. Fire did strike Fort McMurray. Insurance experts told homeowners to clear trees away from houses or any structure to a certain distance. Barracks housing owned by the corporation did comply, but most homeowners of houses liked trees so left them too close. The result was all houses in most residential neighborhoods were destroyed by fire in 2016. The forest extends hundreds of miles in all directions. Continuous forest that crosses multiple provinces. A lightning strike will start fire. It isn't a question of if, it's how many forest forest per year. Building a town in that forest, you have to prepare for the inevitable fire. The fire of 2016 started in unoccupied forest a long way away. Just natural fire, but the town was not sufficiently prepared.

kbd512 · 2025-01-31 16:29:10

RobertDyck,

If the Alaska highway was built during WWII with the construction equipment of that era, which was objectively far less capable compared to modern construction equipment, then using modern equipment it should be practical to construct new roads into places previously thought to be inaccessible. Whether or not that will be done is based upon the value proposition of having a road built.

We were never going to invade Canada or Greenland, but we'll make you think we intended to if that's what it takes. If you actually believe that was ever going to happen, then you're going to be waiting for a very long time. President Trump's true objective was to get the Europeans to send ships and submarines to guard Greenland so the US doesn't have to, and to develop your own abundant resources so you're less dependent upon Russia and China. He was successful. I thank your leaders for "taking the bait". France and Denmark are sending ships and men to guard that approach to the US and Canada, so we no longer have to. While the lot of you are fixated on him or his off-hand remarks, we (the US) managed to get the one thing we really needed from our NATO allies, which was to do something more than paying lip service to the idea of defending your own territory, and to make yourselves independent sovereign nations, even if that has a real price tag. Our entire military is about to be fully engaged in the Pacific, once again. We cannot spare the ships or personnel to guard those places as well, but we know that you can, even if your leaders don't want to spend their own money to do it.

President Trump gave your governments tasks that he thinks they can manage. If he came out and asked for Canada and Denmark to act as if defending their territory was a vital part of security and sovereignty, then they'd immediately come up with all manner of nonsense excuses not to do it. Instead, he chose something he knew your leaders could not possibly resist responding to, because they're so desperate to "prove him wrong". We really have no interest in telling you how to run your affairs, but when what your leaders are doing is so obviously wrong, and can only end in disaster the moment bad actors (Russia and China) puts your BS theory of foreign policy to the test, as Russia did in Ukraine, a faithful partner will point that out to you, because he doesn't want to see your people hurt as a result of their dismissive attitudes towards security. President Trump did it in a way he knew they'd understand and respond to appropriately.

President Trump also knows it would be deeply unfair to expect the Canadian and/or Danish Navy to go toe-to-toe with the Chinese Navy, so he didn't ask for anything like that. Taiwan is America's problem. It's going to take a lot to convince China to quit attacking their neighbors, but once upon a time it took a lot to persuade the Imperial Japanese government to stop invading their neighbors, yet convince them we did.

RobertDyck · 2025-01-31 19:20:25

Canada never did import anything from Russia. We did have Russian vodka in liquor stores, but that ended with the invasion. A lot of people of Ukrainian descent; their ancestors came over during Holodomor in 1932/'33. Canada supported Ukraine in 2014, initially providing humanitarian and non-lethal aid only. Trainers were sent from the Canadian military after invasion of Donbas. Canada pressured the US to join us in supporting Ukraine. Canada had considered trade with Russia after a visit from a Russian minister in 2008, but Russia really didn't have anything we wanted. But after invasion of Crimea in 2014, that ended.

Relations with China went down the toilet after they abducted the two Michaels. That was during Trump's first presidency.

Trump has greatly damaged NATO and the US relationship with Canada. Canadians are already looking for alternatives to made-in-US goods. Politicians are serious about causing damage in retaliation.

Trump claimed the AutoPact is the worst deal the US ever made. He doesn't get it. The AutoPact is compensation for damages done. In the 1950s, Canada developed the Avro Arrow. Purpose built to intercept and shoot down Russian bombers. If Russia tried to attack the US by flying over Canada, the only way a Tu-95 Bear could fly that far, the Arrow would shoot it down while still over Canada. The financial plan was to sell to Canada's allies. But the US didn't like the fact Canada had the most advanced fighter jet in the world for the time. Yes, the F-22 can do everything the Arrow could do and more, but F-22 entered service in 2005. Arrow was scheduled to enter service in 1963. The US didn't just refuse to buy, the US threatened all of Canada's allies (customers) to not buy it. Without customers, Canada couldn't afford it. It cost $1.1 billion in the 1950s, '53-'59; in today's dollars that's $11.44 billion. The AutoPact gave jobs to aircraft factory workers. If Trump wants to cancel the AutoPact, is he willing to pay $11 billion?

After WW2, Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world. But the Arrow isn't the only problem. The US insisted Canada not build nuclear weapons itself, but buy them from the US. Even though Canada was one of the 3 partners of the Manhattan Project. Yes, Canada got rid of its nukes on Canadian soil in 1972, and those in Canadian bases in Europe some time later. In the late '80s Canada developed the best Frigates in the world. A frigate is a small navy ship, so rather lame. But the US couldn't even let that stand. The US quickly developed Arley Burk ships with all the same features but bigger. So much bigger it's been classified as a destroyer. The US has consistently demanded that Canada depend on the US for defence, would never let Canada have the best in the world of anything. So fine, Canada cut back to minimum. You want to provide defence, then you can have it. If Trump doesn't like it, then Trump will have to tell the US government to knock it the hell off!!! Let Canada develop and have best in the world of something, one major defence something. Something better than the US. At this point I don't know what that would be.

RobertDyck · 2025-01-31 19:40:52

If you don't like Trudeau, don't worry, Canadians don't either. Polls show the Liberals will lose the election this year. In fact, it got so bad that the Liberal caucus convinced him to resign. Politicians were happy to ride on his coattails when they thought it helped him, but now they're scrambling to save their jobs. But too little, too late. They're doing an accelerated leadership race, but the leading candidate is just as bad as Trudeau. Mark Carney has never been elected, so hasn't sunk in that they need real substantial policy change, not just superficial. Polls show Conservatives will get a majority, the BQ will be official opposition, Liberals will either be the 3rd or 4th party in the House of Commons.

Trump didn't need to do anything. Just sit back and wait.

Terraformer · 2025-02-01 11:52:55

Mark Carney? Not the same Mark Carney who was governor of the Bank of England? Oh so he is the same Mark Carney who was governor of the Bank of England. Huh.

kbd512 · 2025-02-01 12:57:50

RobertDyck,

You still don't get it, do you?

This isn't about Biden vs Trump, Trudeau vs Poilievre, America vs Canada, nor anything else of the sort. Russia and China aren't playing games, but our leaders have been treating what's going on like some sort of stupid game. We've won enough stupid prizes. The most probable outcome is that things are about to get worse before they get better. While America and the rest of NATO were thumbing their noses at the entire notion of national defense and sovereignty, Russia and China were busy arming themselves to the teeth, because they intend to fight.

The Canadian Government Decision to Cancel the Avro Arrow
I already posted a document containing declassified Canadian government source material used as the basis for the decision to cancel the Arrow, which was written by the Canadian leadership of the time. The Arrow wasn't cancelled because of anything America did or did not do. Decisions to purchase American hardware were made after the decision was made to cancel the Arrow, and even then, decisions were still rife with internal dissent within the Canadian government. Your own political leadership, using Canadian-sourced intelligence analysis on what Russia was actively pursuing, thought the Arrow had little chance of intercepting any Soviet bombers, because Russia was almost entirely fixated on using ICBMs to deliver nuclear weapons, rather than bombers. After the Cold War ended, we learned that was precisely what the Russians were up to. Canadian intelligence made a judgement call pertaining to what Canada's greatest threat was, and history indicated that they were correct. Arrow never had a prayer of intercepting incoming ICBM warheads, and it was never going to respond any faster to a high altitude bomber strike than a missile, whereas Bomarc had a minor chance of a successful interception against incoming ICBM warheads, and worked even better against bombers, so your Prime Minister purchased Bomarcs, because he thought ICBMs would be the weapons that Russia would ultimately use against Canada in the event of a nuclear war, not a handful of nuclear capable bombers which would undoubtedly be sent to launch missiles against American military installations.

Arrows, Bears and Secrets: The Role of Intelligence in Decisions on the CF-105 Programon the CF-105 Program

The Nuclear Question in Canada

Throughout his term as Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker struggled to determine whether Canada should acquire nuclear weapons. Minister of Defence George Peakes recommended that Canada integrate its air defences with the United States in order to present a united front designed to protect both nations. The North American Aerospace Defence Command policy (NORAD) was approved by Diefenbaker in early 1957. Although NORAD represented a major defence commitment, the decision was made without discussion with Cabinet or the Defence Committee.
In order to meet the requirements of NORAD, Canada planned to make a significant investment in upgrading its military technology and resources. Previously, Canada’s military planning had focused primarily on the development of the Avro Arrow interceptor. After a lengthy debate, it was determined that the Avro was too costly and unable to effectively meet Canada’s security needs. The Avro project was abandoned, and in its place the government agreed to establish an arrangement with the United States for the sharing of Bomarc ground-to-air missiles as well as utilizing the American Semi Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE), a system for tracking and intercepting enemy aircraft.
The Bomarc missile was designed exclusively to carry a nuclear warhead; therefore arrangements had to be made for Canada to acquire them. According to Minister of National Defence Douglas Harkness “it was unreasonable to secure the Bomarc without the nuclear warhead.” By September of 1958, the direction of the Canadian Defence Policy indicated that the nation fully intended to acquire nuclear warheads from the United States.
A number of delays were encountered as the negotiations over the details of storing, transporting and authorizing the nuclear missiles continued. In May 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy met with Diefenbaker in Ottawa. The intention of Kennedy’s Administration during the meeting was to push the issue of Canada’s incorporation of nuclear missiles into its national defence policy. However, Diefenbaker’s cabinet was increasingly divided over the question of whether nuclear warheads should be utilized at all.
Internationally, Canada objected to the spread of nuclear weapons. The new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Howard Green, attempted to discourage the use of nuclear missiles in the nation's defence plan as it would be inconsistent with foreign policy. At the same time, Diefenbaker began receiving letters and petitions from Canadian citizens who felt the same way. The cabinet failed to make a firm decision on the issue and it was put on hold, despite public scrutiny of the delay.
In 1963, Liberal Leader of the Opposition, Lester B. Pearson declared his support of acquiring nuclear weapons in order to meet the obligations of Canada’s NATO and NORAD agreements. Pearson expressed his misgivings over the defence role that Canada had agreed to play but stated that until Canada’s defence policy changed, a Liberal government would not evade its commitments.
Tension mounted within the Diefenbaker Cabinet until 3 February 1963. In a Cabinet meeting that morning, Harkness announced that the “people of the nation, Party, Cabinet and he had lost confidence in the Prime Minister”. Diefenbaker asked for a standing Vote of Confidence and, upon seeing several of his Ministers remain seated, left to submit his resignation to the Governor General. Diefenbaker was persuaded to return to the meeting and remain as Prime Minister. His government fell in the House of Commons on 6 February. In the election that followed, the Liberals emerged victorious and formed a minority government while Diefenbaker took up the position of Leader of the Opposition. Pearson quickly concluded an agreement with the United States to obtain nuclear warheads and presented it to the House of Commons in September of 1963. In January 1969, Canada ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the missiles were phased out. Canada is currently a member of every international disarmament organization and is committed to pushing for an end to nuclear weapons.

That is your own nation's history. I feel like you should at least attempt to learn some of it, regardless of what you believe to the contrary.

Canadian Nuclear Weapons Acquisition
Canada never had any proven technical ability to build their own nuclear weapons. All the facilities to build nuclear weapons were located in America, because America spent the money to design, test, and build them. More to the point, Canada's political leadership of the time wasn't interested in building nuclear weapons because possessing nuclear weapons ran directly contrary to their publicly stated policy positions on nuclear weapons. Canada only begrudgingly acquired nuclear weapons because nuclear warheads were the only kinds of warheads Bomarc missiles were equipped with. Bomarcs had nuclear warheads because radar guidance tech of that era was so inaccurate that a small nuclear explosion was required to guarantee a first-round hit.

American Attempts to Interfere with Acquisition of Avro Arrows by NATO Allies
There is zero evidence that the US ever threatened any allied nations over the purchase of the Arrow. Our own US Air Force wanted to buy the Arrow, but they couldn't acquire them, either, because your own leaders decided that they were killing the Arrow project because they thought it was unworkable using 1950s tech and it was intended to counter a threat which Canadian Intelligence Services believed either no longer existed or was a very distant secondary threat to ICBM warheads. History has proven that they were correct. If anyone ever had a working radar system and active homing radar-guided missiles, then the Arrow may have been worth pursuing as an interceptor, but no active radar-guided missiles were forthcoming for decades after the Arrow project was killed.

My unprovable personal opinion on this matter is that the reason such tech didn't exist was a direct result of all nations constantly spending mad money on new airframe and engine designs, rather than better computers, sensors, and guidance systems. America developed and discarded at least a dozen different combat jet designs in the span of 20 years, from the late 1950s to the late 1970s. Hindsight is always 20/20, but how could one not grasp the notion that the money pot is not unlimited, so whereas sensors and weapons do the actual killing, fancier airframe and engine designs typically do not? In other words, equipping a F-4 with F-35 sensors / avionics / weapons would make it every bit as lethal on the kinetic end as a F-35, but without the extreme expense of stealth and a giant engine, or purchasing that entire "teen" series of new airframes that weren't meaningfully "better" than upgrades to the existing F-4s. F-14s / F-15s / F-16s / F/A-18s didn't win their literal handful of modern dogfights because they were vastly kinematically superior planes in combat configuration, because they weren't. They won due to superior sensors / weapons / aircrew training.

Immature 1950s Search Radar and Active Radar Missile Guidance
This is how ancient the Sparrow missile is (that's a F6F Hellcat testing the Sparrow I at Pt Mugu):

From firing off 25,000 AIM-7 Sparrow missiles in combat during the Viet Nam War, it's a darn good thing that Canada never relied upon Sparrows to bring down Soviet bombers. The highest success rate for any version of the Sparrow was a bit less than 15%. Arrow would only carry 3 of them.

The first generation of active radar-guided air-to-air missiles that actually worked more often than not, first entered service in the 1980s, regardless of who designed them. Ryan built the first active radar-guided air-to-air missile in the late 1940s, but it was a very immature subsonic design with a range of around 8 miles, using a combination of solid and liquid fuel propulsion, and could only be fired in clear weather. The missile was suitable for attacking piston engine bombers from within visual range during daylight hours only.

Less than 10 years later, while radar / missile / computer tech was still in its infancy, the Arrow was born. The Arrow's stated reason to exist, was to fire multiple active radar-guided variants of the Sparrow missiles at incoming Soviet nuclear strike bombers, using 1950s radar and missile tech. The chance of that working as intended was very low. The US messed around with what would later become the active radar-guided Phoenix missile for decades, starting in 1957. The missile development project started life as the GAR-9, later redesignated the AIM-47 Falcon, then finally put into production in 1966 as the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The ASG-18 radar system weighed 2,100lbs and was developed following a 1954 competition. Technically, the ASG-18 radar set would fit in the nose of the Arrow, but it was about 1,100lbs heavier than the APQ-41 radar that the Arrow was already equipped with. Each AIM-47 weighed 818lbs, 308lbs heavier than AIM-7. Both the radar suite to find distant targets and the missile were far larger than what the Arrow could realistically carry, and neither ever worked properly. Phoenix was an operational failure that was, thankfully, never used in combat by the US. Phoenix repeatedly failed to function properly during multiple realistic test scenarios. 1970s era missile radar and computer tech was still too immature, even in its final design iteration. Nobody else had a successful active radar-guided air-to-air missile built upon 1950s radar and computer tech, either.

Given that fact, let's think this through...

Avro is going to build a few squadrons of Mach 3 capable bomber interceptors using vacuum tube radar, avionics, and active missile guidance radars that wouldn't become workable, regardless of who designed them, for another 30 years. On top of that, the ASG-18 was the only 1950s airborne radar suite with the range and power to acquire bomber-sized airborne targets at ranges of 100 miles or more, and it only functioned in the context of a handful of factory-supported units during developmental testing, since it was never operationally deployed. Nobody's radar and air-to-air missile combination would demonstrate sufficient operational reliability until early 1980s solid state electronics tech became available. That means no amount of money or wishful thinking was going to make the Arrow's weapon systems function as intended. ASG-18 technically fits in the nose of an Arrow, but Arrow's installed APQ-41 radar was 1,100lbs lighter, and 2 of the GAR-9 missiles weighed as much as the 3 of the Sparrow missiles that the Arrow was actually designed to carry:

Since no part of the Arrow magically became any stronger, that means giving up 162 gallons of precious fuel, which the Arrow drank like a fish. The Arrow's empty weight was 5,000lbs greater than the MiG-25, which was mostly steel. Arrow's maximum radius of action was 725 miles at low cruising speeds, and combat radius with significant afterburner usage was only 400 miles, which was less than a Bomarc missile's range.

Look at the size of those GAR-9 missiles:

This is what a real Mach 3 capable interceptor looks like (ridiculously huge):

YF-12 was still grossly impractical, so it was also cancelled, but without any of the name calling and finger pointing associated with the Arrow.

Interestingly, the tube-based Soviet Smerch radar installed in the MiG-25 had all the limitations of the earliest ASG-18 variants, but was only half as heavy, and was less than half as capable in terms of detection range and tracking performance. The Zaslon radar eventually entered front line service in 1983, and while impressive in certain ways, lagged further behind the performance of the equally heavy AWG-9 radar in the nose of the F-14, which was the first radar truly capable of reliably finding and tracking multiple targets at the desired ranges specified during that 1954 competition which resulted in the ASG-18 and GAR-9, but the missile radars and inertial guidance systems were still too unreliable.

There were a literal handful of realistic medium range patrol aircraft platforms for carrying an ASG-18 radar set and 2 to 6 GAR-9 / AIM-47 / AIM-54 missiles in late 1950s to early 1960s:

1. Avro CF-100 (2 missiles)
2. Douglas A-3 (6 missiles)
3. Grumman A-6 (4 missiles)

A-3 Weapons Test with AWG-9 / AIM-54A:

What's the use case for the Arrow if it would not be able to accurately guide long range interceptor missiles to shoot down incoming Soviet bombers?

The Arrow's range and combat radius were quite limited when compared to the CF-100, A-3, or A-6. Overall, the A-6 is the best missile truck that still maneuvers like a fighter and is capable of all-weather operation, with good short-field performance to boot.

Bomarc Electronics
Bomarcs can and did hit multiple targets well beyond 100 miles, and this was demonstrated multiple times during testing. By 1960, Bomarcs could reach targets up to 430 miles away, and they flew at speeds of Mach 2.8, from mere seconds after launch until warhead detonation. No expensive aircraft or pilot training was required to operate Bomarcs. Each missile weighed 16,000lbs / 18ft long / 35 inches in diameter, the size of a small fighter jet, and were directed towards distant targets using massive fixed radar sites with no significant weight, volume, or power limitations. The DPN-53 radars in the noses of those Bomarcs were the very first successfully deployed active radar homing sets that kinda-sorta worked. Bomarc's onboard radar was the same size and weight as a typical fighter jet radar of that era, and that's why it worked, despite using 1950s electronics tech.

AutoPact As Compensation
America is not obligated to compensate Canada for decisions that the Canadian government made on their own, 66 years ago, without any input from America. I reject this plainly false narrative.

Canadian Acquisition of F-22s
Canada can't afford to purchase and operate any F-22s, in much the same way that Canada could not afford Arrows back in the 1950s. America decided that we couldn't afford to own and operate significant numbers of stealth jets that required constant maintenance of their stealth coatings, either, so we stopped building them. F-22s were / are so expensive that they've scarcely received any upgrades since they were built. President Obama made the correct decision using the information he had at the time. F-22s had prototype technologies that were successfully applied to the F-35 after another 15 years of testing. You seem to think there's something magical about having twin engines, or the fact that the US wouldn't sell F-22s to anyone 25 years ago.

Canadian Patrol Frigate Project / Halifax Class and Arleigh Burke Class
The Ticonderoga (not real cruisers) and Arleigh Burke destroyers were both built on the Spruance class destroyer hulls, which pre-dated the Canadian Patrol Frigate Project (CPFP). We started building Spruance class hulls in 1972, about 3 years before CPFP began. The SPY-1 radar developed as part of the AEGIS Combat System began in 1973, so 2 years before CPFP began. UNIVAC's development of the UYK-7 computer for AEGIS began in 1970.

By the time your own shipbuilding industry and government quit squabbling over the Halifax class, the US Navy had already built 68 of the 71 Perry class frigates. That's why we didn't buy any Canadian frigates. Halifax was never an option available to Uncle Sam when he needed new frigates. You only have yourselves to blame for that. America started production of the Perry class during the same year that Canada started designing their Halifax class. Here in America, we work on time tables. We gave the Perry class frigate design team, IIRC, less than 90 days to complete their design.

I like the Halifax design, primarily because it has such great range and a hull design suitable for heavy seas, but in order for it to be accepted into US Navy service, it would have to meet our compartmentalization and damage control requirements.

Conclusion
You need to stop re-imagining history as it never was. Your beliefs are not supported by written historical evidence, nor Canadian historians' interpretation of that evidence. Blaming America for Canada's military procurement decisions makes about as much sense as me blaming other nations for America's procurement mistakes, of which there have been many. Anybody with access to the internet can look up everything I've stated here and refute what I've stated if any part of it was inaccurate or misleading, but everything I've stated is plain open-book public knowledge that is not hidden from anyone.

RobertDyck · 2025-02-01 13:40:01

Terraformer,
Yup. He claims he knows finance. But he wants to replace the retail carbon tax with an industrial carbon tax that's heavier. If you tax business, they'll just pass costs in to customers, so prices will go up even more. And he wants to maintain high taxes with "rebates". Canadians know those rebates are.only a fraction of taxes taken from average working people. So they want to control our money, while keeping taxes high and cost of living high.

Prior to the 1984 election, Liberals replaced Pierre Trudeau with John Turner. That was Justin Trudeau's dad. Result was Conservatives got the largest majority in Canadian history. Conservative leader Brian Mulroney promised to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and reduce taxes. This would be accomplished by reducing government spending and reducing the number of individuals in the federal civil service. He did the opposite of everything he was elected for. The straw that broke the camel's back was replacing the federal sales tax (FST) with Goods and Services Tax (GST). In 1993 voters were out for revenge. Conservatives replaces Mulroney with Kim Campbell, Canada's first and only female Prime Minister. Be she kept all the same cabinet ministers, so voters were not included to trust her. She refuses to campaign on any issue. One report cornered her and asked her bluntly what that election was about. She said "An election is not a time to discuss issues. An election is a time to discuss personallies. We're discuss issues once I'm elected." That was on camera, shown in national new TV. In the 1993 election Conservatives went from majority to only 2 MPs elected. The Progressive Conservative party never recovered. The Reform party was founded shortly after that election, and the PC party had to merge with the Reform party to get elected.

Liberals are now trying to change their leader last minute. They're facing a loss as big as 1984 or 1993.

RobertDyck · 2025-02-01 13:52:51

kbd512,
TLDR. I did read your conclusion. Very long-winded attempt to rewrite history. Americans have said this all along. Bottom line is the American government threatened Canada's allies, who were also America's allies, if they bought the Avro arrow. The US government killed all purchase orders that were placed for Avro Arrow aircraft, and ensure any who hadn't yet placed an order never would. Killing all purchases is what killed the Arrow. Your attempt to avoid accountability sounds like a teenage girl. Some GenZ women are trying to avoid accountability. If you don't want to be personally responsible for actions of the US government in the late 1950s, I suggest you stop making excuses for them.

RobertDyck · 2025-02-01 14:13:20

YouTube: Canadian shoppers ditching made-in-USA goods as tariff threat looms

Trump isn't backing down. He hasn't said this is a ploy to gain something else. The 25% tariff on Canadian goods is scheduled to take effect February 1st. For non-Americans here, Canada has had a free trade agreement with the US since the mid-1980s. The last renegotiation was under Trump during his first administration. But Trump doesn't care, he'll blatantly violate it. kbd512 has already argued on this forum that the US president doesn't have to comply with any treaty ratified by Congress. The Free Trade Agreement has a dispute resolution mechanism with penalties for doing what Trump is threatening, but Trump ignores that, says he'll whatever he wants anyway and won't pay any penalty. Canadians are scared. No, this won't result in Trump dictating to Canada. This will result in Canadians boycotting American goods, and a trade war. Canada purchases more goods from the US than any other country period. So Trump is trying hard to kill that.

tahanson43206 · 2025-02-01 14:48:42

For RobertDyck re Canada/US relations and upcoming events...

I am genuinely bewildered by why anyone would want to impose tariffs on Canada, but it appears that is going to happen.

I just checked, and Justin Trudeau is still PM, having given notice with a due date in late March.

It seems to me that Canada needs NOTHING that the US supplies. Everything that Canadians need could be provided by sources elsewhere.

This could be a golden opportunity to expand trade with Mexico, as it too is apparently likely to be under tariffs soon.

This is also an opportunity for Canada to import thousands of highly educated, highly productive Americans who (apparently) will soon be looking for new opportunities.

Update a bit later ... Here is a response from a provincial official...

“It's moments like these where you have a choice — you can surrender and give up, or you can stand up. And for British Columbia, we're going to stand up. We're going to respond to tariffs,” said Eby.
“We will respond in kind, and they will feel it.”
Last week, Eby’s government released an assessment of how a 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian imports would impact the province. The preliminary assessment found B.C. would see the loss of 124,000 jobs and $69 billion in economic activity over the next three years.
On Tuesday, Eby said B.C.’s side of a Canadian levy package could extend to U.S. alcohol, electricity sent down the West Coast, bidding on government contracts, and even charging American trucks travelling through the province to supply Alaska.
When it comes to making travel plans, the premier said Canadians might want to reconsider supporting a country launching a “deliberate economic attack on families in our province.”
He added: “We should really be thinking carefully about spending our money in that country.”
The province’s strategy to weather potential tariffs includes diversifying B.C.’s trading relationships in other parts of the world, including looking at re-opening trade offices in Asia, said Eby.
In the lead-up to Eby’s remarks, another high-profile leader said he would reverse his position on a controversial pipeline project in light of Trump’s threats.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Poll/5291 … ng-the-U-S-

(th)

RobertDyck · 2025-02-01 16:18:48

Yea, it's stupid. A major trade war with our greatest ally and greatest trade partner.

Point-to-point from Trump's concerns:
Fentanyl: there's more smuggled from the US into Canada than the other way around. The US is the source. Cocaine is made from cocoa leaf, which grows on cocoa trees. Those grow in a tropical environment, they won't grow in Canada or northern US states. The few places in the US they could grow do not because they're trees, are easy to spot. US drug authorizes could just cut down or burn the orchard. So it must be grown in a tropical country, smuggled into North America. So US officials obsessed over borders. But fentanyl is Duffy, it's made from chemicals. Anyone with high school chemistry in a garage with a hot plate can make it. Ingredients can be ordered from China, and they're completely legal because they have other uses. If the border is closed to fentanyl, the guys who make it will just move.

Border: illegal immigrants are coming from the US into Canada. In my city the concern is people trying to cross the border in a forest or along a rail line where there's no border security. Immigrants tend to come from warm countries that don't understand winter. Why do they try to walk across in winter? A number have major frost bite, often require fingers or toes amputated. The Canada-US border has beeen the longest undefended border in the world. This is cost saving for both countries. Trump wants to treat the border the same as the Mexican border. He doesn't get it. Should Canada reduce temporary foreign workers and foreign students? He'll yes! Foreign students pay full tuition, Canadian citizen pay reduced tuition: 1/3 paid by student, 2/3 by government. So foreign students are profitable. But they're supposed to return wherever they came from after graduation. Many are not. During COVID the government paid people to stay home, not go to work. Many employers couldn't get enough workers. Well, the obvious answer was to end COVID payments, but the government didn't do that. Instead they brought in temporary foreign workers. They're supposed to leave Canada when their work visa expired, but again many didn't. In 2023 permanent immigrants were 471,771 and Trudeau promised to reduce the quota from 500k to 395k. But what about the other 800k newcomers? Temporary foreign workers, foreign students, refugees. Canadians know it's an issue. There are more people entering Canada than homes, including houses, condos, and apartments. It's driving up housing costs. Housing is more expensive in Canada than the US. But Pierre Poilievre will be Prime Minister some time this year.

March 9 the Liberal Party will select a new leader. He/she will be sworn-in as the new Prime Minister. Parliament will resume March 24. Every new session starts with a throne speech. This sets the goals for government. It must be voted on by Parliament. If Parliament votes it down, that's a non-confidence vote so forces an election. Parliament will be dissolved shortly after (later the same day or the next business day), and election date set. The "writ period" is the time from dissolving Parliament and election day. It's usually 6 weeks, but has been 4 in 2011, or 8 in 2006. In 2006 it was over Christmas, no one wants a politician knocking on their door Christmas Day. In 2015 it was 3 months, an attempt by outgoing PM to limit election spending of opposition parties, but it didn't work, he wasn't re-elected. There are legal limits to election spending during the writ period, but they don't apply other times. We'll see what happens this time. Probably an election late April or early May. If the Liberals can convince the NDP party (the 4th party) to support them one more time, election could be delayed to October. By law it can't be delayed further. And caucus members of the NDP are angry with their leader for supporting Liberals this long. If he tries to support Liberals again, the NDP caucus could remove their own leader. So we're looking at an April or May election. Just wait, Trudeau is on his way out.

kbd512 · 2025-02-01 17:48:47

RobertDyck,

Canadian government leadership wrote down their reasoning for killing the Arrow project, reproduced here:
Arrows, Bears and Secrets: The Role of Intelligence in Decisions on the CF-105 Program on the CF-105 Program

The American government had nothing to do with the Arrow's cancellation.

Blaming America for developing the kinds of weapons that were more generally useful and cost-effective than manned interceptor aircraft for shooting down both ICBM warheads and enemy bombers is rather pointless.

You feel that Canada poured its heart and soul into developing a cutting edge interceptor aircraft. I happily acknowledge the earnest nature of that effort, and that Avro Canada did good work. The problem with your emotional attachment to the Arrow is that the enemy gets a vote regarding what kinds of weapons will be used in war. The Soviet Union voted for ICBMs over bombers. Since resources are always limited, you focus the most effort on stopping the greatest threat. If you can acquire certain kinds of weapons capable of stopping multiple different threats, even better.

Your attempt to avoid accountability sounds like a teenage girl. Some GenZ women are trying to avoid accountability. If you don't want to be personally responsible for actions of the US government in the late 1950s, I suggest you stop making excuses for them.

Your claims are directly refuted by what Canadian leadership wrote about their decision making process.

You're applying emotion where rational decision making is called for. That never ends well when it comes to war.

Skip the personal attacks and attempts to assign blame so you can put more effort into the subject matter.

RobertDyck · 2025-02-01 18:30:55

kbd512: fighter jets still exist. They were never obsolete.

RobertDyck · 2025-02-01 18:35:11

The Guardian: Trump signs order authorizing tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China

Donald Trump has signed an order authorizing tariffs after vowing to impose dramatic taxes on goods from Canada, Mexico and China.
The decision could set the stage for a damaging trade war between the US and three of its top trade partners. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs against European Union nations.
Trump signed three executive orders on Saturday imposing tariffs of 25% on all goods from Mexico and Canada, the New York Times reported. Trump imposed a 10% tariff on Canadian oil exports, as well as a 10% tariff on items from China.
The Times reported that Trump’s tariffs were scheduled to go into effect on Tuesday. An official told the newspaper that these tariffs contained a retaliation clause that would ratchet up American tariffs if Mexico, Canada or China tried to place their own tariffs on US goods in response.

Canada will retaliate.

kbd512 · 2025-02-01 20:30:20

RobertDyck,

kbd512: fighter jets still exist. They were never obsolete.

I never once claimed fighter jets were obsolete, but nice strawman.

RobertDyck · 2025-02-01 23:07:32

kbd512 wrote:

I never once claimed fighter jets were obsolete, but nice strawman.

Really?

kbd512 wrote:

Blaming America for developing the kinds of weapons that were more generally useful and cost-effective than manned interceptor aircraft for shooting down both ICBM warheads and enemy bombers is rather pointless.

What existed in the early 1960s, when Arrow was supposed to be deployed, were CIM-10B Bomarc missiles. With late 1950s and early 1960s technology their ability to hit a Tu-95 Bear bomber was close to zero. To be effective they had a nuclear warhead. If the missile detonated far from target it would still destroy the target because blast radius of the nuke. But this meant deliberately detonating a nuke over Canadian soil. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

As for taking out an ICBM reentry vehicle, you you seriously believe a Bomarc would have snowball's hope in hell? The Bomarc was single purpose, for aircraft that cannot maneuver to dodge the missile.

The Tu-160 Blackjack (Russians called it White Swan) was developed later, but an Arrow with AIM-7 Sparrow missiles could still shoot it down.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2024-11-17 09:22:46

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#177 2024-12-11 18:26:11

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#178 2024-12-23 10:51:21

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#179 2025-01-20 10:34:01

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#180 2025-01-21 02:31:51

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#181 2025-01-30 13:50:15

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#182 2025-01-30 16:51:32

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#183 2025-01-30 17:51:22

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#184 2025-01-31 00:51:00

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#185 2025-01-31 10:28:20

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#186 2025-01-31 16:29:10

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#187 2025-01-31 19:20:25

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#188 2025-01-31 19:40:52

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#189 2025-02-01 11:52:55

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#190 2025-02-01 12:57:50

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#191 2025-02-01 13:40:01

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#192 2025-02-01 13:52:51

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#193 2025-02-01 14:13:20

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#194 2025-02-01 14:48:42

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#195 2025-02-01 16:18:48

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#196 2025-02-01 17:48:47

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#197 2025-02-01 18:30:55

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#198 2025-02-01 18:35:11

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#199 2025-02-01 20:30:20

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

#200 2025-02-01 23:07:32

Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:

Board footer