Today's letters: Canada no longer stands a chance against Trump
Canada no longer stands much chance
Article content
The failure of world leaders to earlier recognize, unite and respond to the relentless political and economic threats of President Donald Trump's 'economic divide and conquer warfare strategy' is enabling the achievement of his goal for political, economic and commercial subjugation, exploitation and dominance.
Article content
Article content
His determination to ensure the placement of America at the top of the power pyramid through tariff tyranny is succeeding.
Article content
Article content
Unfortunately for Canada, the die has now been mostly cast, and we will be limited in our avenues of defence or retaliation. Our geographical sovereignty may be preserved but the underlying engines that sustain our nation's economy, self-reliance, political strategies, social and cultural mores may be forever changed.
Article content
In what remains of 2025, the Canadian Navy plans to decommission eight of the Kingston class inshore patrol ships (and four more over the next three years, while the Canadian Coast Guard (now being considered for NATO expenditure purposes as part of the Canadian Armed Forces) could do with at least some of those ships.
Article content
The Coast Guard is still tasked to provide ships for fisheries patrols on behalf of DFO Conservation and Protection; it is still responsible for search and rescue; and it is involved in the intervention of contraband (drugs mainly) and human trafficking.
Article content
Article content
The Kingston class ships were built in 1994-98 and are about the same size as CCGS Chebucto (built in 1966 and retired in 1997), a near-shore fisheries patrol vessel. The Kingstons are powered by diesel/electric to two propellers in pods that rotate, making the ship very manageable in close quarters. With modifications to deploy a rigid inflatable motorized boat easily, and a good towing bollard so that distressed fishing boats and small ships can be salvaged, these ships would make an excellent addition to the Coast Guard fleet, which was severely diminished when many ships reached end of life and were not replaced.
Article content
Article content
A transfer of naval ships to the Coast Guard would not only be cost-effective but also would demonstrate that the Canadian Coast Guard is a para-military organization and worthy of being considered in Canada's allotment of military expenditures. Since the 12 ships of the Kingston class are virtually identical, it would be reasonable for the Coast Guard to accept more ships than it actually needs and put the excess in 'moth balls' for later use or cannibalization of parts.
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
2 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Public opinion has changed on Gaza — so why are so many leaders still stuck?
There's a growing gulf in this country — not just between political parties or between Canadians of different backgrounds, but between the Canadian public and the institutions that claim to represent them. The latest Angus Reid poll confirms what many have long sensed: Canadians want their government to show moral courage on Gaza. Nearly two-thirds (63 per cent) say Canada should move forward with recognizing Palestinian statehood even if it angers Donald Trump. Only 20 per cent think Canada should back down to preserve relations with the U.S.
Japan Forward
an hour ago
- Japan Forward
80 Years After the Atomic Bombings, Reconciling Idealism and Reality
As we mark the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings against Japan, discussions on the significance of nuclear weapons have also taken place in the United States' capital. In contrast to Japan's idealistic call for their abolition, the prevailing American stance remains focused on the effect of nuclear weapons to deter wars. The most notable commentary came from George Will, a prominent conservative political commentator, as the anniversary of the August 6 US atomic bombing of Hiroshima approached. In his commentary published in The Washington Post , Will argued that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "effectively ended 'the first modern conflict in which far more civilians were killed than combatants.'" This, he suggested, however, was a sign of "moral regression." As an example of this decline, he pointed to the killing of 100,000 civilians on a single night in the Tokyo air raids, just five months before the two atomic bombings. But on the question of whether dropping the atomic bomb was justified, Will quoted Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the plane that bombed Hiroshima. "I hoped until the very end that Japan would surrender," Tibbets said. By doing so, the author conveyed a view largely in line with the US consensus that the bombs were used to end the war with Japan sooner. Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, where many gathered on the morning of August 6 to honor the victims and pray for peace. (©Sankei by Kotaro Hikono) On this point, Will drew on an article by renowned British historian Antony Beevor published this summer in a major American foreign affairs magazine. Beevor wrote that Japan's military government was "prepared to sacrifice millions of Japanese civilians by forcing them to resist an Allied invasion." Atomic bombings, therefore, he argued, were carried out to prevent such losses. What further drew attention in Will's commentary was his concern that there could be a third use of nuclear weapons, eight decades following Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He reminded that it would not be that challenging for even a poor nation to develop nuclear weapons if determined. Will also noted that the declining reliability of the American "nuclear umbrella" could provide a similar incentive "to nations from South Korea to Poland." Meanwhile, as these fundamental debates over nuclear weapons were unfolding, developments in real-world international security also warranted attention. On August 1, President Donald Trump announced that he had ordered two US Navy nuclear submarines to be "positioned in appropriate regions" in anticipation of a potential attack on Russia. It was a move that could have been seen as an expression of the Trump administration's "peace through strength" policy in response to repeated Russian nuclear provocations. US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin (©Getty via Kyodo) Reacting to the US proposal for further economic sanctions against Moscow over its refusal to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine, former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, warned, "President Trump should remember the 'Dead Hand.'" The "Dead Hand" refers to the Russian military's automatic nuclear retaliation system. Trump saw these remarks as a nuclear threat against the US and ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines in response. "Just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important and can often lead to unintended consequences. I hope this will not be one of those instances," the President later explained. The exchanges between Washington and Moscow highlight the reality that nuclear weapons continue to serve as tools of deterrence and intimidation within the foreign policies and international security strategies of both nations. This stands in stark contrast to the idealistic view held by some in Japan, who advocate for the complete abolition of all nuclear weapons. Author: Yoshihisa Komori, Associate Correspondent in Washington, The Sankei Shimbun ( Read this in Japanese )
National Post
2 hours ago
- National Post
Canadians are torn about whether to put their elbows up or down in U.S. trade war: poll
OTTAWA — Canadians are split on whether Canada should go into trade negotiations with the U.S. with elbows up or down when it comes to retaliatory tariffs, according to a new poll. Article content The Leger/Postmedia poll suggests that 45 per cent of Canadians still believe Canada's position vis-à-vis U.S. President Donald Trump should be 'elbows up.' That means that Canada should impose counter-tariffs on all new U.S. border levies, even if it risks further retaliation from the Trump administration. Article content Article content But on the other hand, 41 per cent of respondents said they'd prefer Canada's response be 'measured' and focus more on getting a new trade deal even if it includes some tariffs on Canadian goods. Article content Article content The split among Canadians puts Prime Minister Mark Carney in somewhat of an 'awkward position' as he must navigate conflicting views on how to deal with an erratic and unpredictable Trump administration, said Leger executive vice-president Andrew Enns. Article content On the one hand are those who still believe in the 'eye for an eye' approach with the U.S., and on the other hand is the growing number of Canadians who favour a slightly more conciliatory and measured approach. Article content 'I think there's been a bit of a tempering, a bit of a diminishment of the 'elbows up' aggressive approach. It's still very present, and you know, not to be ignored,' Enns said. Article content 'But I certainly would say that there's a stronger sort of view now starting to show up in Canadian opinion that says, 'Well hold on here, maybe we ought to think this through, let's not be hasty.' Article content Article content The new survey is in stark contrast to polling just six months ago, when a substantial 73 per cent of respondents told Leger they supported dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs against any U.S. border levy on Canadian goods. Article content Article content For Enns, it means many Canadians — and particularly Gen Xers and Boomers over 55 years old who expressed particularly fierce Canadian patriotism earlier this year — are having a moment of 'sober second thought' as the trade war with the U.S. drags on. Article content The shift in public sentiment could also be a reflection of the change in tone from Carney himself. During the Liberal leadership race in February, Carney said he supported suggestions of dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs. Article content But since becoming prime minister, he has not retaliated to any of Trump's new tariffs on such key Canadian sectors as steel, aluminum and automobiles. In fact, he suggested last week that Canada may remove some tariffs on U.S. imports if it's beneficial to Canadian industry.
