Everybody calm down. USA and Canada have an agreement allowing them to enter each other’s air space. They said that if Canada doesn’t buy enough F-35s USA will have to send more jests into Canada’s airspace to fill in the gaps. That’s it. It’s not “buy our jets or we will invade you”. It’s “if Canada doesn’t buy F-35 we will have to do more work in our agreement”.
Honestly, I’m a little surprised that this post wasn’t locked or had a comment pin stating that the title of this post is misinformation and that the actual body isn’t what the title indicates
Cute, but its obvious everybody checks replies first and you do so specifically to avoid giving clicks to bad actors so they can draw people in to sell ads
Bad headlines will get worse if you RTFA after falling for the clickbait. The incentives are fucked.
Sir, this is Lemmy. We thrive on clickbait headlines here :(
Seriously though. For all of Twitter’s awfulness, I think Lemmy could use a similar “reader added context” bubble right below the headline text. A corrective comment doesn’t really fix the engagement the headline gets.
But Hoekstra warned that if Canada chooses to purchase Saab’s Gripen E jets, the U.S. would still need to reconsider how it works with its northern neighbor on security.
“If they decide they’re going with an inferior product that is not as interchangeable, interoperable as what the F-35 is, that changes our defense capability,” Hoekstra said.
“And as such, we have to figure out how we’re going to replace that,” the ambassador added.
---- (end quote)
They are just saying that if Canada changes its plans US will have to adapt. Looking at what’s happening in Greenland this can be somehow considered as a threat (if you can’t defend yourself we will have to take over…) but it’s really a stretch. US will probably decide to deploy more F-35s there or something which makes total sense.
Idk. Sounds like the US whining but I guess a news article also isn’t going to reveal exact security terms and threats. Canada was going to use the same number of planes but from a different country and manufactured on Canadian soil with Canadian jobs. I think thats the biggest “threat” trump is worried about.
Also you should consider seperating your opinion from the quoted text using mark up.
“Such a nice airspace you have here, it would be a shame if something would happen to it”
Also doesn’t say they would invade… still it’s a clear threat.
Putting a correlation on “more fighters jets in your airspace” on them buying more planes that cannot really be used to protect from the US (for software limitations) sounds a lot like a threat.
Everybody calm down. USA and Canada have an agreement allowing them to enter each other’s air space. They said that if Canada doesn’t buy enough F-35s USA will have to send more jests into Canada’s airspace to fill in the gaps. That’s it. It’s not “buy our jets or we will invade you”. It’s “if Canada doesn’t buy F-35 we will have to do more work in our agreement”.
This community really needs a clickbait title flagging process.
Our media needs to fucking quit the click baity titles.
Honestly, I’m a little surprised that this post wasn’t locked or had a comment pin stating that the title of this post is misinformation and that the actual body isn’t what the title indicates
The process is RTFA :)
return to fucking acronym. english is hard
Cute, but its obvious everybody checks replies first and you do so specifically to avoid giving clicks to bad actors so they can draw people in to sell ads
Bad headlines will get worse if you RTFA after falling for the clickbait. The incentives are fucked.
That’s why some of us have to do the hard work of reading before replying.
Which is why a flagging process creates a better incentive loop and reduces stupid incentives.
Sir, this is Lemmy. We thrive on clickbait headlines here :(
Seriously though. For all of Twitter’s awfulness, I think Lemmy could use a similar “reader added context” bubble right below the headline text. A corrective comment doesn’t really fix the engagement the headline gets.
But why isn’t Canada allowed to use whatever other jets it buys for that? Why does it have to be American made f-35s?
But Hoekstra warned that if Canada chooses to purchase Saab’s Gripen E jets, the U.S. would still need to reconsider how it works with its northern neighbor on security.
“If they decide they’re going with an inferior product that is not as interchangeable, interoperable as what the F-35 is, that changes our defense capability,” Hoekstra said.
“And as such, we have to figure out how we’re going to replace that,” the ambassador added.
---- (end quote)
They are just saying that if Canada changes its plans US will have to adapt. Looking at what’s happening in Greenland this can be somehow considered as a threat (if you can’t defend yourself we will have to take over…) but it’s really a stretch. US will probably decide to deploy more F-35s there or something which makes total sense.
Idk. Sounds like the US whining but I guess a news article also isn’t going to reveal exact security terms and threats. Canada was going to use the same number of planes but from a different country and manufactured on Canadian soil with Canadian jobs. I think thats the biggest “threat” trump is worried about.
Also you should consider seperating your opinion from the quoted text using mark up.
A better question is why buy a shitty jet that even the US Navy rejected?
These turds have been parked in LA on software bugs for TWO YEARS.
They are the Jeep Wranglers of the military.
They are saying it is because of compatibility issues I assume. Everything is likely tied together to communicate based on the planes being F-35s.
Seems like something easy enough to fix by installing those same communication systems into the other planes.
“Such a nice airspace you have here, it would be a shame if something would happen to it” Also doesn’t say they would invade… still it’s a clear threat.
Putting a correlation on “more fighters jets in your airspace” on them buying more planes that cannot really be used to protect from the US (for software limitations) sounds a lot like a threat.
But, sure, you are technically correct