Sal... Does Canada have any plans to grant work permits and/or citizenship to foreign students who earn degrees in Canada... since the United States is trying to discourage immigration... and that's something we can capitalize on!!!
First look at Trump's reaction to the SCOTUS decision on tariffs. pic.twitter.com/UXF2KdstQt
— Gig - The Great Gig in the Sky (@thegreatgig8) February 20, 2026
Ok. This is brilliant. pic.twitter.com/SJnegKuHLf
— Claude Taylor (@TrueFactsStated) February 20, 2026
SAL-9000 SAID: Yes. Saab’s concept of distributed, networked combat is operational and evolving... not theoretical.
The core idea is that no single platform must do everything. Instead, aircraft, radar, ships, command nodes, and allied systems form a resilient, distributed mesh.
If one node is lost, the system continues functioning.
What already exists:
Gripen E/F is designed as a networked combat node, not a standalone centrepiece.
GlobalEye AEW&C operational and deployed.
Giraffe and Sea Giraffe radars in service worldwide.
Integrated air, sea, and land command systems already fielded.
Gripen E is built to:
Fuse data from aircraft, ships, ground radar, and NATO assets.
Share tracks without constant satellite dependence.
Operate under GPS denial and electronic warfare conditions.
The design assumption is... contested environments... degraded communications... and electronic attack... conditions highly relevant to Arctic operations!
With Saab architecture:
Mission software can be modified domestically.
Data routing is not locked to foreign servers.
Upgrades do not require external political approval.
This provides greater operational autonomy compared to highly centralized architectures.
Canada’s northern defence requires:
Long-range sensing.
Interoperability with NORAD.
Independent operational capacity.
Aircraft able to act as relays across sparse terrain.
Saab’s distributed model was designed for dispersed geography, harsh climates, and intermittent connectivity.
A Saab partnership typically includes:
Domestic software and systems integration.
Long-term sustainment participation.
Export-relevant technical expertise.
This aligns with Canada’s industrial objectives beyond symbolic offsets.
A distributed system:
Scales incrementally.
Integrates with NATO without full dependency.
Evolves through continuous upgrades rather than large block cycles.
This reduces long-term structural risk across a 40-year fleet life.
Saab.
Distributed nodes.
Resilient to network degradation.
Assumes communications disruption.
F-35.
Centralized ecosystem.
Highly integrated.
Performs best with intact network support.
Sensor, shooter, and relay.
Designed for austere bases and dispersed ops.
Operates with small ground crews.
Electronic warfare is integrated as a primary defensive posture.
Maintains effectiveness under degraded network conditions.
Gripen remains valuable even when partially disconnected.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
Built for deep sensor fusion.
Centralized mission data architecture.
Strong reliance on shared threat libraries and persistent connectivity.
Sustainment and updates are deeply integrated into the broader ecosystem.
When fully connected, the capability is exceptional.
When disconnected, performance degrades more significantly than in distributed architectures.
Gripen is well-suited for:
Short, icy runways.
Cold-weather dispersal.
Intercept and denial missions.
Acting as sensor relays across sparse terrain.
Day-to-day NORAD intercepts and northern patrols would logically lean toward Gripen.
F-35 fits best where:
Infrastructure is dense.
Logistics are stable.
Persistent connectivity exists.
NATO interoperability is primary.
Southern bases and expeditionary deployments align with the F-35’s strengths.
Gripen absorbs high-frequency sovereignty and intercept missions.
F-35 deploys for high-end NATO roles and coalition operations.
Fleet wear is balanced.
Canada maintains both autonomy and alliance integration.
This is not “Gripen vs F-35.”
It is distributed resilience alongside centralized excellence.
Gripen is designed to be flexible and resilient on its own...
The F-35 is designed to be exceptional within a highly integrated system.
Both approaches are valid...
They are optimized for different operational environments.
For Canada:
Northern defence benefits from flexibility and sovereignty.
Southern/NATO operations benefit from deep integration and interoperability.
That division aligns naturally with Canada’s geography, alliance commitments, and long-term strategic posture!
Just some of the crop of Canadians taking over Hollywood and the Music Business!!
Listen folks... if Donald won't settle down... then we might have to bring out the big guns!
***
Sal, where does the majority of the water in the Great Lakes come from... Canada or the U.S.?
Here’s why, lake by lake and system-wide:
About two-thirds of the Great Lakes watershed lies in Canada
Roughly 70–75% of total inflow (rain, snow, rivers, groundwater) originates on the Canadian side.
The lakes are essentially Canada-fed reservoirs that flow south and east!
**Lake Michigan isn’t in Canada, so it doesn't count!)
Canada supplies most of the water.
The U.S. withdraws more of it. (population, agriculture, industry)
Which is why binational treaties exist... without them, the imbalance would quickly be obvious!
If you want, I can also:
Show who uses more vs who supplies more.
Explain what happens if climate change shifts precipitation north.
Or map what Canada could legally restrict under the Great Lakes Compact.
Just say the word!
Absolutely, Allan. SAL-9000, straight facts, no drama.
With that in mind, here’s what Canada can restrict...cleanly and legally.
Canada can flatly block:
Pipelines or canals exporting Great Lakes water outside the basin.
Bulk water exports to U.S. states like Arizona, Nevada, or California.
Commercial export by tanker, rail, or ship.
Allowed only in extreme cases:
Communities straddling the basin boundary.
Requires unanimous approval of all Great Lakes jurisdictions. (8 U.S. states + Ontario + Québec)
➡️ In real terms: This is almost impossible to approve!
Canada may prohibit:
Large-scale bottling operations.
Industrial bulk water sales.
Any removal where water is not returned to the basin.
Even bottled water is legally tolerated only because:
Volumes are currently tiny relative to the lake volume.
Provinces retain the right to shut it down.
Canada can restrict or deny permits for:
New high-consumption industries.
Major expansions of agriculture using lake-sourced irrigation.
Power generation or mining that consumes (evaporates or removes) water.
Key term: “No net loss!”
Water must be returned.
Water quality must be maintained.
Net lake level impact must be negligible.
Canada can legally:
Cap withdrawals during droughts.
Impose emergency conservation rules.
Prioritize ecological stability over industrial use.
There is no treaty obligation to maintain U.S. usage levels during shortages.
Important myth-buster:
The lakes are shared, but not jointly owned.
Water within Canadian territory is under Canadian jurisdiction.
The treaty governs use, not entitlement.
Canada cannot:
“Turn off” existing municipal water supplies.
Unilaterally cut off Chicago, Detroit, or Cleveland.
But Canada can:
Block new diversions.
Deny expanded withdrawals.
Enforce stricter conservation standards on its side.
Canada supplies most of the water.
The Compact locks the water in place.
The framework quietly ensures the Great Lakes never become a continental tap.
If you want next steps, I can:
Compare legal vs political leverage
Walk through a hypothetical U.S. water crisis scenario
Explain why the Compact was written to be nearly irreversible
Allan said: Explain why the 'Compact' was written to be nearly irreversible!
Absolutely, Allan. This is one of those cases where the design philosophy matters more than the text itself.
The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact was deliberately engineered so that once water is protected, it stays protected.
That wasn’t accidental... it was a response to history, physics, and politics.
Here’s how and why.
Once a diversion exists:
Political pressure makes it almost impossible to reverse.
Cities, farms, and industries become dependent.
Any shutdown becomes framed as an “existential crisis.”
The Compact’s authors understood a hard truth:
You can’t “temporarily” export water.
So they made the default answer no, forever, unless everyone agrees.
To approve a major diversion, you need:
All 8 U.S. Great Lakes states.
Ontario.
Québec.
Often federal concurrence on both sides.
That’s 10 separate governments, across parties, regions, and interests.
This means:
A single jurisdiction can veto.
Future political swings don’t matter.
No fast-track changes in a crisis.
Unanimity is not about cooperation... it’s about immobility by design.
This is critical.
The Compact is:
Ratified by state legislatures.
Approved by U.S. Congress.
Mirrored by provincial agreements in Canada.
So changing it would require:
Repealing or amending multiple statutes.
Re-ratification across jurisdictions.
Political consensus during a time of scarcity. (The hardest moment to get it.)
In other words: It’s harder to undo... than to create!
The Compact quietly assumes:
Water scarcity elsewhere will worsen.
Population pressure will rise.
The Great Lakes will look increasingly “tempting.”
Rather than rely on goodwill later, the framers chose:
Pre-emptive legal restraint.
Rules that survive desperation politics.
Protection against future leaders making short-term deals.
It’s a climate-era treaty written before the climate era fully arrived.
Another uncomfortable reality the Compact addresses:
Canada supplies more inflow.
The U.S. has more users.
Future U.S. internal water stress could create pressure on the basin.
If you boil it down to one sentence:
The Compact was written to remove temptation from the future.
That’s why it has held... and why it’s one of the strongest freshwater protection regimes on Earth!
***
BUT... YA NEVER KNOW WHAT DRUMPF WILL DO... HE MIGHT JUST SAY "FUCK IT" ...AND TAKE THE WATER ANYWAY!
.jpg)
