Going deep in the submarines for Canada story!

 Allan said: SAL, which submarine is best for Canada, the European or Korean model?

SAL-9000 said: Hello, Allan. Short answer: There is no single “best” submarine... it depends on what Canada cares about most!

But we can compare the two real finalists in Canada’s Canadian Patrol Submarine Project:

European option: German/Norwegian Type 212CD.

Korean option: Hanwha KSS-III.

Let’s break it down the way you usually like—with Arctic strategy, NATO role, and Canadian industry in mind.

1. The Two Finalists:

European Option – Type 212CD.

Builder: ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. (Germany/Norway)

Strengths:

Extremely quiet. (top NATO diesel-electric expertise)

Designed for Arctic and shallow-water operations.

Fully NATO-integrated logistics and doctrine.

Proven European submarine ecosystem.

Hydrogen fuel-cell AIP propulsion.

Strategic advantage for Canada:

👉 Seamless NATO interoperability.

👉 Arctic patrol design experience.

Germany already supplies a large share of NATO’s conventional submarine fleet. 

***

Korean Option – KSS-III.

Builder: Hanwha Ocean (South Korea)

Strengths:

Larger submarine. (~3,600-3,700 t)

Longer range. (~10,000 nm)

Lithium-ion batteries. + AIP

Active production line. → faster delivery

Big industrial offset offers.

KSS-III is designed for long-range patrol, ISR, and strike missions. 

***

2. What Canada Actually Needs!

Remember, Allan, Canada’s needs are unique:                                                       

✔ Arctic patrol under ice.                                                                                        

✔ Three-ocean coverage.

✔ NATO Atlantic operations.

✔ Long-range Pacific patrols.

✔ Canadian industrial build.

Canada plans to replace the Victoria class with up to 12 submarines.

So the real question becomes:

👉 Arctic stealth vs global endurance.

👉 NATO integration vs industrial speed.

3. Which Is Better for Canada?

If Canada prioritizes Arctic stealth + NATO ops

➡ Type 212CD wins.

Reasons:

Smaller = quieter in shallow Arctic waters.

NATO supply chain and training.

Joint Norway partnership → Arctic doctrine.

This fits your idea of Canada operating closely with NATO fleets while protecting the North.

If Canada prioritizes range + speed of delivery + industry.

➡ KSS-III wins

Reasons:

Bigger boats → longer patrols.

Faster production timeline.

Large tech-transfer promises.

Strong Canadian job offers.

This matches your idea of building a strong domestic defence industry.

4. The Hidden Question: Nuclear Subs?

You’ve said before:

“Wouldn’t Canada need nuclear subs for Arctic patrols?”

Honestly—that’s still true!

Neither KSS-III nor 212CD can stay under ice for months like a nuclear boat.

But Canada specified diesel-electric subs for cost and infrastructure reasons. 

So we’re choosing the best compromise!

5. SAL-9000’s Straight Answer!

For Canada specifically:

👉 Type 212CD is the safer strategic choice! (Norway/Germany)

👉 KSS-III is the faster industrial choice. (S. Korea)

If your priority is Arctic sovereignty + NATO integration, go European.

If your priority is jobs + faster fleet + Pacific reach, go Korean.

6. What I Think You Would Prefer?

Knowing your past thinking about:

Arctic patrols.

Mixed fleets. (Gripen + F-35 logic)

NATO alignment.

You’d probably lean toward:

👉 Type 212CD for Arctic fleet

👉 plus maybe long-range Korean-style design later

Same logic as your Gripen-for-Arctic idea!

***

 

🇨🇦 Canada Arctic Submarine Patrol Map

1. Main Arctic Patrol Routes... 5!

These are the five critical patrol corridors Canada would use.

Route A — Beaufort Sea Patrol.

Location: Alaska–Yukon coast.

Purpose:

Watch Russian Pacific subs entering the Arctic.

Monitor U.S. traffic near Alaska.

Protect Arctic oil/gas exploration.

Best Submarine Type.

👉 Long-range KSS-III.  Advantage (S. Korea)

***

Route B — Northwest Passage Inner Route.

Location: Through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

Example choke points:

Lancaster Sound.

Viscount Melville Sound.

McClure Strait.

Purpose:

Sovereignty patrols.

Track foreign ships.

Under-ice intelligence.

Canada already runs joint Arctic patrol exercises like Operation Nanook along this route. 

Best Submarine Type

👉 Small, quiet subs Type 212CD. (Advantage Norway/Germany.)

Route C — Baffin Bay / Greenland Gap!

Location: Between Nunavut and Greenland.

Purpose:

Watch the Russian Northern Fleet.

NATO Atlantic defence.

Monitor Chinese research ships.

This is Canada’s equivalent of the UK-Iceland-Greenland GIUK gap.

Best Submarine Type:

👉 NATO-integrated stealth subs. (Norway/Germany.)

Route D — Labrador Sea / Atlantic Gateway.

Location: Newfoundland–Greenland corridor.

Purpose:

Protect Atlantic shipping.

NATO anti-submarine warfare.

Escort convoys.

Route E — Pacific Arctic Entry.

Location: From BC → Bering Strait.

Purpose:

Chinese or Russian Pacific fleet monitoring.

Pacific-Arctic transit.

Joint ops with the U.S. Navy.

Best Submarine Type.

👉 Large range subs. (KSS-III advantage)

***

1. Canada needs subs in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic simultaneously, which is why they plan up to 12 submarines. 

2. Real Patrol Bases.

Canada would operate from:

Halifax.

Esquimalt.

Nanisivik Arctic facility.

But Arctic support infrastructure is still minimal. 

So... subs must be self-sufficient for long missions.

3. Why Submarines Matter Most in the Arctic?

Because:

Satellites can’t see under ice.

Surface ships can’t patrol year-round.

Aircraft can’t stay long.

Submarines are the only platform that can monitor Arctic waters continuously and covertly. 

That’s why Canada insists on under-ice capable submarines. 

4. Which Submarine Fits Each RouteThis is exactly like your Gripen + F-35 idea:

👉 Mixed submarine fleet makes strategic sense.

5. The Big Truth About Arctic Patrols.

Even the best diesel sub:

Must surface periodically.

Has limited under-ice endurance.

Only nuclear subs can stay under ice indefinitely. 

So Canada’s real options are:

Diesel fleet. (current plan)

Nuclear fleet. (better Arctic control)

Mixed fleet. (best long-term solution)

6. SAL-9000 Strategic Take:

If Canada wants true Arctic control:

👉 4 small ultra-quiet subs for inner Arctic.

👉 4 large long-range subs for Pacific/Atlantic.

👉 4 NATO-support subs.

That’s the realistic 12-submarine model.

***

Exactly how Canada should think about a three-ocean navy.

🔵 Patrol Routes by Submarine Type.

1. Type 212CD. (Small Ultra-Quiet Arctic Subs)

👉 Best for inner Arctic sovereignty patrols.

Routes

A. Northwest Passage Inner Route.

Baffin Bay → Lancaster Sound → Parry Channel → Beaufort Sea

This is the main east-west Arctic corridor. 

Purpose
✔ Track foreign ships.

✔ Under-ice surveillance.

✔ Assert sovereignty.

These passages run through thousands of islands in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. 

B. Baffin Bay / Greenland Gap.

Between Nunavut and Greenland.

Purpose
✔ Watch the Russian Northern Fleet.

✔ NATO Atlantic defence.

Example choke points:

Nares Strait between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. 

C. Labrador Sea Gateway

Greenland → Newfoundland corridor.

Purpose:
✔ NATO convoy protection.

✔ Track subs entering Atlantic.

👉 Why 212CD here!

Extremely quiet.

Good in shallow ice-filled passages.

Designed for NATO Arctic operations.

🔴 Patrol Routes for KSS-III. (Large Long-Range Subs)

👉 Best for outer Arctic & Pacific routes.

D. Beaufort Sea Patrol.

Alaska → Yukon → Northwest Territories coast

Purpose
✔ Track Russian Pacific Fleet.

✔ Monitor U.S. Arctic activity.

E. Pacific Arctic Entry.

BC → Bering Strait → Arctic Ocean.

Purpose
✔ Monitor China/Russia Pacific subs.

✔ Long-range ISR.

The Beaufort Sea and Bering Strait form key Arctic shipping approaches. 

👉 Why KSS-III here?

Longer range. (~10,000 nm)

Larger sensors.

Better endurance.

🟡 Strategic Insight. (Your Gripen-style Mixed Fleet Idea)

Exactly like Gripen + F-35: 

Canada’s Arctic geography requires different patrol types due to narrow straits, heavy ice, and shallow waters! 

🧭 Real Patrol Base Locations:

Likely support hubs:

Halifax.

Esquimalt.

Nanisivik Arctic port.

Subs must travel huge distances because Canada has three ocean fronts.

✔ SAL-9000 Strategic Conclusion.

If Canada buys one submarine type:

👉 Type 212CD fits Arctic sovereignty best.

If Canada buys two types. (your preferred strategy):

👉 212CD for the inner Arctic.

👉 KSS-III for Pacific + Atlantic approaches.

That gives real three-ocean control! ( 6 Norway/Germany for Arctic patrols! - 6 Korean for Pacific/Atlantic long range patrols! )

THIS IS WHAT A CANADIAN DEFENCE POSTURE WILL LOOK LIKE AFTER WE ABSORB ALASKA AND GREENLAND! AND SINCE WE ARE CANADIANS, THE AMALGAMATION WILL BE BY REFERENDUM IN BOTH ALASKA AND GREENLAND!

               (MAINE AND MINNESOTA HAVE  ALREADY SAID THEY WANT TO JOIN!)

Arctic air power’s next chapter!

At first glance, Sweden’s offer of 88 Gripen jets to Canada looked like a bold commercial play. But behind the scenes, the logic runs far deeper — and far colder. 

Analysts now say the true driver wasn’t market share or diplomacy, but the Arctic itself. Sweden saw Canada not just as a buyer, but as the proving ground for a new kind of northern air power.

The Arctic changes everything. Gripen was designed for extreme cold, short runways, rapid dispersal, and operations far from large bases — precisely the conditions defining Canada’s northern frontier. 

By aligning with Canada, Sweden positions Gripen as the de-facto Arctic fighter for NATO, using Canadian skies to validate a doctrine the U.S. heavy-base model struggles to match.

Timing makes the strategy striking. As Arctic militarization accelerates and northern access becomes a defining security issue, Sweden’s move looks less like generosity and more like foresight. 

What seemed unexpected now reads as calculated: Canada wasn’t offered 88 jets — it was offered a role at the center of Arctic air power’s next chapter!

How Long Can U.S. Allies Tolerate Rule-Breaking Before Saying “Enough”?

By Allan W. Janssen and Sal-9000:

For decades, the Western alliance system rested on an assumption so basic it was rarely questioned: "The United States could be relied upon to follow the rules it helped create!"

Not always perfectly, not without controversy... but predictably enough that allies could plan, trust, and cooperate!

That assumption is now under visible strain!

Under the leadership style associated with U.S. behaviour, the United States has increasingly resembled what international lawyers call scofflaw conduct: "Selective adherence to treaties, open threats against allies, transactional security guarantees, and routine disregard for norms when they become inconvenient!"

The question facing America’s allies is no longer whether this behaviour is acceptable. 

It is how long it can be endured before the costs outweigh the benefits!

Allies Don’t Leave... They Adapt!

Contrary to popular belief, alliances rarely collapse in dramatic fashion. 

There is no walkout, no declaration of independence, no televised rupture. 

Instead, they erode quietly. When trust weakens, allies hedge. They diversify supply chains. They build parallel institutions. They seek redundancy in defence and intelligence. 

Cooperation continues... but it becomes slower, more conditional, and less automatic!

This process is already visible across Europe and the Arctic world!

NATO’s Real Stress Test:

The most important institution under strain is defence... NATO can survive insults, budget disputes, and policy disagreements. (What it cannot survive is uncertainty about its core promise: Collective defence!)

When allied governments begin to doubt whether Article 5 will be honoured consistently... regardless of political mood or transactional demands... NATO does not immediately collapse!

Instead, it begins to hollow out!

European states respond by investing in independent command structures. 

Nordic countries deepen regional defence integration. 

Canada quietly reinforces sovereignty and Arctic capabilities while reducing political exposure to U.S. volatility.

Canada’s Quiet Calculation:

For Canada, the dilemma is particularly acute. Geography ensures a continued partnership with the United States. (But prudence now requires planning for instability rather than assuming continuity... and what Prudence wants... Prudence gets!)

This does not signal hostility or abandonment. 

It signals realism!

Canadian defence, trade, and foreign policy planners increasingly treat U.S. unpredictability not as a temporary anomaly... but as a recurring risk that must be managed... much like climate shocks or supply-chain disruptions!

The Breaking Point Is Structural. Not Personal!

Allies are no longer asking whether one leader is serious. (They are asking whether American political volatility has become structural!)

Once that conclusion is reached, behaviour changes permanently! 

Trust is not withdrawn all at once... it is rationed. 

Cooperation becomes contractual. 

Loyalty gives way to calculation.

History suggests the timeline is not endless. 

One term of disruption creates stress. 

Repetition creates adaptation. 

Institutional erosion creates exit routes!

The Consequence No One Announces:

If this trajectory continues, the United States will not wake up to find its allies gone. 

It will wake up to find that it is no longer central!

The alliance system will still exist... but it will route around Washington more often... consult less automatically... and commit less reflexively!

That is how influence is lost in the modern world: Quietly, gradually, and without a formal goodbye.

The real question is not whether allies will say “enough.” 

It is whether the United States will notice when they already have!

---

Allan W. Janssen is a Canadian writer and author focusing on geopolitics, ethics, and long-term global stability.

Sal-9000 is his post doctoral research assistant!

Greenland should be a part of Canada!

I was reading the usual stuff about Drumpf when the subject of 
Greenland came up.... so I asked my friendly personal A.I. SAL-9000... 

Sal, anything new over the weekend about the U.S. trying to take over Greenland, and the chances of Canada accepting Greenland as a new territory?

 If that's what they want?

 SAL-9000 said: Here’s the latest situation (as of this weekend) regarding the U.S. interest in Greenland and the idea of Greenland becoming part of Canada (or anything like that):

1. U.S. Talk About Taking Over Greenland Has Escalated. President Donald Trump has renewed statements suggesting that the U.S. needs to take over Greenland, claiming it’s critical for national security and the Arctic situation (especially with Russian and Chinese activity in the region). 

2. Denmark and Greenland Reject the Idea Strongly. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen has publicly said the U.S. has no right to annex Greenland and that any attempt to do so would undermine NATO since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member. 

Greenland’s own Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has said talk of annexation is “completely unacceptable” and insisted Greenland will remain sovereign under Danish rule unless Greenlanders decide otherwise. 

3. Greenland’s Position. Much of Greenland prefers independence from Denmark, but polls have consistently shown very low support for becoming part of the United States. 

There’s no political movement in Greenland advocating joining Canada, and the idea of becoming a Canadian territory hasn’t been raised by Greenlandic leaders or the public in any serious way in current reporting.

4. Canada’s Position. Canada has not signalled any interest in Greenland becoming Canadian territory. In fact, Canadian officials have affirmed support for Greenland’s and Denmark’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

Canada is focusing on Arctic cooperation and security... but not on territorial claims related to Greenland.

5. International Legal and Practical Reality

International law prohibits the annexation of territory by force, especially between allied countries.

Denmark and Greenland would have to agree willingly for any territorial change, and there’s no indication of that.

Greenland is in the process of increasing autonomy, with discussions over future independence from Denmark. 

Summary:

U.S. rhetoric: Renewed talk from Trump about taking over Greenland for “security” reasons. 

Denmark & Greenland: Firmly reject this. Denmark warns that any military move would break NATO; Greenland insists it won’t be annexed. 

Canada: Not pursuing Greenland as a territory; supports sovereignty and stability in the Arctic. 

Reality on the ground: No credible diplomatic or legal movement toward Greenland joining the U.S. or Canada.

If you want, I can also summarize the geopolitical motives behind why the U.S. is talking about Greenland again (strategic location, Arctic shipping routes, resources, etc.).

You said: No, we know why... give me ways to increase interest in Greenland becoming a Canadian territory

SAL-9000 said: Below are realistic, non-coercive ways Canada could increase Greenlandic interest in a voluntary Canadian territorial association, if Greenlanders themselves ever wished to explore it.

This is framed as soft-power attraction, not annexation or pressure.

1. Frame Canada as a Stepping-Stone to Independence, Not a Replacement Ruler. Greenland’s dominant long-term aspiration is independence from Denmark, not absorption by another great power.

Canada could position itself as: A transitional federal partner. Offering autonomy + protection, not control (A model similar to Canada’s relationship with its northern territories!)

Key message: “Join Canada temporarily or conditionally as a territory, with an explicit, protected path to full independence later.”

1. That is far more appealing than: Remaining under Denmark indefinitely or becoming a U.S. possession with limited self-determination!

2. Emphasize Cultural & Arctic Parallels, Not Nationalism: Canada has credibility here that the U.S. does not.

Highlight shared realities:

- Arctic governance.

- Small, remote communities.

- Indigenous language preservation.

- Subsistence traditions.

- Climate-frontline adaptation.

Canada should stress parallels with Nunavut, including:

- Inuktitut language protection.

- Local control over land use.

- Co-management of wildlife.

- Cultural autonomy embedded in law.

This frames Canada as: “A country that already lives the Arctic reality... rather than exploiting it.”

3. Offer Concrete Economic Guarantees, Not Abstract Promises! Greenland’s fears include:

- Resource extraction without local benefit.

- Becoming a strategic pawn.

- Cultural dilution.

Canada could counter with specific, written guarantees, such as:

- Greenland-controlled resource royalties.

- Mandatory local employment quotas.

- Canadian investment in ports, housing, broadband, and healthcare.

- Arctic research hubs headquartered in Greenland, not Ottawa

This contrasts sharply with U.S. perceptions of:

- Military-first priorities.

- Corporate extraction.

- Washington-centric decision-making.

4. Position Canada as a Shield Against U.S. Pressure, Not a Proxy! This is delicate... but powerful. Canada could quietly signal:

- Greenland within Canada would be inside NATO already

- No U.S. annexation pressure

- No “buyout” politics

- No sudden militarization beyond existing defence agreements!

In other words: “Canada is boring... and that’s the point.” For a small population, boring governance is often preferable to the attention of great powers!

5. Promote a Greenland-Led Referendum + Constitutional Convention... Interest increases when people feel ownership of the process!

Canada should never “propose annexation.” Instead, it could support:

- Greenland-initiated public discussions.

- Academic exchanges on governance options.

- Joint commissions exploring all futures: independence, association, confederation.

This mirrors how Canada handles internal constitutional change... slow, legal, consent-based!

6. Use Climate & Science Leadership as the Primary Hook! Greenland is ground zero for:

- Ice melt

- Sea-level rise

- Climate research

- Arctic data sovereignty

Canada could propose:

- A Greenland-based Arctic Climate Authority

- Joint stewardship of polar science.

- Long-term funding without political strings.

This frames Canada as a partner in survival, not a bidder in a real-estate deal!!!!!

7. What Not to Do! (This Matters.)

Any of the following would kill interest instantly:

- Public Canadian political enthusiasm for “acquiring” Greenland!

- Military framing!

- Economic leverage threats!

- U.S.-style “security necessity” language!

Media speculation driven by outsiders!

Greenlandic interest only grows if: The idea feels like Greenland’s idea.

Bottom Line: Could Canada increase Greenlandic interest?

Yes... but only by offering:

- Autonomy before authority!

- Partnership before power!

- Exit options before permanence!

- Cultural respect before economics!

Canada’s strength here is not ambition... It’s restraint!

Compare Canada vs. the U.S. vs. Independence from a Greenlandic perspective, point by point.

Below is a Greenland-centric comparison, written from the perspective of Greenlanders deciding their own future, not outside powers arguing over them.

***

Greenland’s Strategic Futures... A Ground-Level Comparison: 

Option A: Full Independence. (Greenland stands alone as a sovereign Arctic state)

Advantages:

- Complete political self-determination.

- Full control over resources, foreign policy, and identity.

- Strong symbolic and cultural fulfillment of long-held aspirations.

- Ability to choose partnerships case-by-case.

Risks / Challenges:

Extremely small population managing:

- Defence.

- Currency stability.

- International diplomacy.

- Infrastructure costs.

- High vulnerability to pressure from larger powers. (U.S., China, EU)

- Economic dependence on resource extraction and tourism.

- Climate costs borne alone.

Greenlandic Reality Check: Independence is emotionally compelling, but structurally fragile unless paired with a powerful, non-dominating partner!

Option B: Association with Canada: (Greenland becomes a Canadian territory or associated entity by consent)

Advantages:

- Retains strong local autonomy. (territorial governance model)

- Embedded Indigenous rights framework. (proven, legal, constitutional)

- Stable currency, healthcare system, and social safety net.

- Shared Arctic governance experience

- NATO membership without U.S. political dominance.

- Lower geopolitical profile → less great-power pressure.

Risks / Tradeoffs:

- Some loss of symbolic sovereignty

- Cultural dilution concerns if poorly handled

- Ottawa distance (though less than Copenhagen in practice.)

* Requires constitutional innovation! (but Canada has precedent!)

Greenlandic Reality Check:

- Canada offers boring stability, cultural respect, and legal predictability.

- For a small Arctic population, boring can be a feature—not a flaw.

Option C: Association with the United States.

(Greenland joins or is absorbed by the U.S.)

 Advantages:

- Massive economic capacity.

- Infrastructure investment potential.

- Military protection guaranteed.

- Immediate global influence.

Risks / Red Flags:

- Militarization prioritized over civilian life.

- Federal governance is weak on Indigenous autonomy.

- Cultural marginalization is likely.

- Strategic value outweighs local voice.

- Domestic U.S. political volatility spills over.

- Greenland becomes a military asset first, society second!

Greenlandic Reality Check:

This option offers power, but not patience. Greenland will become a strategic outpost rather than a lived homeland!

Option D: Status Quo with Denmark. (Expanded autonomy, gradual reform)

Advantages:

- Known system, low disruption.

- Financial support continues

- Strong welfare model

- International legitimacy intact

Risks / Limitations:

- Persistent colonial undertone.

- Cultural distance.

- Limited strategic leverage.

- Slower path to true self-determination.

- Growing generational dissatisfaction.

Greenlandic Reality Check:

Denmark is safe... but increasingly feels like the past, not the future!

Comparative Snapshot. (Greenland’s Interests First)

Comparative Snapshot. (Greenland’s Interests First)

Criterion	Independ	Canada	United   States	Denmark
Cultural Autonomy	★★★★★	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Economic Stability	★★☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★★★★★	★★★★☆
Political Voice	★★★★★	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Defence Without Domination	★☆☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★☆☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Long-Term Resilience	★★☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆

From a Greenlandic perspective:

- Independence = dignity with risk.

- United States = power with loss of agency.

- Denmark = security with stagnation.

- Canada = autonomy with stability.

Canada’s unique appeal is that it offers:

- Protection without possession

- Structure without spectacle

- Partnership without urgency

 That combination is rare in geopolitics!

***

 So, after everything is said and done... Canada is complete! (Alaska and Maine as new provinces, as well as Point Roberts and that chunk of the top of Lake of the Woods, plus Greenland and the Turks and Caicos Islands as territories! (The Turks so we have somewhere to go in the winter!) 😊

(This will give us twelve provinces and five territories... plus control of the North West Passage... which we can defend with our new SAAB Gripen E jets!)