CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

[PPCLI Guy]

So....25% tariff on Canadian Aluminum, but none on Russia???

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-outlines-aluminium-rare-earth-deals-with-us-2025-02-24/

Trump is bailing out Putin at the exact moment when his regime (and country) is about to collapse in ruins.

 

[dapaterson]

.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is this really where we want to spend our defence dollars?

No US missile defense system proven capable against 'realistic' ICBM threats: Study - Breaking Defense

Missile Defense Agency pushes back, pointing Breaking Defense to positive report from Pentagon tester, laudatory comments from senior military officials and recent test wins.

breakingdefense.com

From the article:

And here's a good interview on the subject on the Angry Planet podcast:

The American Iron Dome Is an Expensive Boondoggle That Won’t Work

Joseph Cirincione reflects on a long career of listening to politicians and generals pitch an impossible missile defense system.

angryplanetpod.com

Participate on the sensor side of the program? Absolutely. (i.e. NORAD Modernization)

Spend a ton money on extremely expensive intercept missiles that are only around 50% effective in highly unrealistic best case scenario tests and in quantities that are effectively irrelevant considering the number of missiles that would be incoming in a nuclear conflict? No

There are literally hundreds of areas of defence spending where our money would be much better spent.

Is the ICBM threat the primary threat? The old plan was Ballistic Missile Defense. The new plan is Integrated Air Missile Defense which encompasses Ballistic Missiles of all types (ICBM, MRBM, SRBMs, SLBMs) as well as all manner of air vehicles, from cruise missiles and aircraft to helicopters and UAS, launched from all manner of platforms including boats, ships, trucks and aircraft. And they can be launched by all manner of adversaries, foreign and domestic, political and criminal.

Northcom and NORAD Commander highlights military installation UAS protection needs

Northcom and NORAD Commander highlights military installation UAS protection needs - cuashub.com General Gregory Guillot, Commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, has highlighted the need to extend C-UAS capabilities and legislation for US military...

cuashub.com

The USAF and the US Army are trying to figure out themselves how to slice the air defense pie. Who is responsible for what and if they have the right tools in the right number.

I will go one step further and suggest that military bases and vital points are not the sole, or even primary points that need protection. Canada lists the following Critical Infrastructure segments.

Energy and utilities
Finance
Food
Government
Health
Information and communication technology
Manufacturing
Safety
Transportation
Water

Fortunately most of those elements come together in our urban centres so if we gear ourselves to protect those centres then we probably cover the vast majority of the nodes related to the Critical Infrastructure. So if we have a plan to protect our "places" then we have done much to protect ourselves and our lifestyle.

On the other hand there are a lot of "spaces" between the "places" in Canada and a lot of the infrastructure is dedicated to connecting those "places" across those "spaces". Sometimes it is the difficult matter of protecting thousands of kilometers of linear features like roads and railways, power lines and pipelines. Sometimes is a matter of protecting isolated but significant nodes, everything from Cell Towers to places like Hardisty.



To that we can add places like the Burnaby oil terminal, the Kitimat LNG terminal and even New Brunswick's Belledune port should it, like Manitoba's Churchill or Ontario's Moosonee find a renaissance.

The vertical threat is no longer simply ICBMs delivered by state actors. That is probably the least of our worries. I suggest that the aerial threat is now a lot more prolific and a lot more mundane and that that is what the Integrated Air Missile Defenc(s)e needs to be about. That is what I think Homeland Security/Northern Command/NORAD are all seized with that issue. And that is one that I hope we can find common ground with the US even in Trump's world.

By the way, I suspect that an effective IAMD system for Canada would eat up a large portion of the 5% of GDP that Trump wants allocated to our defence.

There are a lot cheaper AD options to deal with air-breathing threats and those options tend to be much more mobile than the ABM systems (and don't get me started on the "Star Wars" fantasy of space-based interceptors).

Do we need AD capabilities? Yes!
Do we need NORAD upgrades to improve our domain awareness? Yes!
Do we need ABM and space-based interceptors? No!

UAV's are certainly a threat (and so are rockets and mortar shells) so SHORAD, C-RAM and EW capabilities are definitely required but don't need to be part of a North-America wide Iron Dome system.

If a raft of hypersonic glide weapons and/or cruise missiles are launched against us I guarantee that ICBM's will very shortly after be flying in both directions. The US will not risk such a conventional attack being an attempted decapitation first strike and will launch on the instigator. And they in turn will retaliate with their own ICBM's.

MAD is very much alive and well. Attempting to create an effective ABM shield over the US/North America (assuming it doesn't bankrupt us first) will just result in our enemies increasing their number of missiles to overwhelm whatever systems we put in place. And if it actually looks like we are on the verge of creating a system that would allow us to survive an enemy attack then there would be a HUGE incentive for our enemies to strike first before it's in place because once it is they will be wide open for a US first strike.

Let Trump waste his tariff money for four years and get no meaningful defence in return. We've got much more useful things we can spend our money on.

$0.02

Further to the above discussion

Trump administration weighing C-UAS role in Iron Dome for America, two-star general explains - Breaking Defense

“There is no single silver bullet. We have to look at this as a layered approach that we look at both really exquisite capability to get after a [UAS] threat, but also trying to get after more affordable capability," Maj. Gen. David Stewart told Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials are crafting a plan to expand the United States’s missile defense system under the “Iron Dome for America” initiative, and grappling with whether new tech to down aerial drones should also be included, according to a two-star Army general.

“There’s talk about does that involve counter-UAS [unmanned aerial systems] or will counter-UAS be established [separately],” Maj. Gen. David Stewart told Breaking Defense earlier this month.

Stewart — dual hatted as the director for the Joint Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office and Army fires — said he and his team are working with Pentagon leaders and other agencies to determine just what route to take.

Interesting meld there - Army Fires and Joint C-UAS
Is Air Defence an Army, Air Force or Space Force responsibility, or even an Navy, Marines responsibility?
And when the Air Force is looking at using Army Howitzers in the Air Defence role things are getting complicated?

US Army Seeks Inexpensive 155mm Cannon-Based Air Defense System

The US Army is seeking a wheeled, self-propelled 155mm cannon-based air defense system capable of firing cheaper hypervelocity rounds.

thedefensepost.com

'Everybody's going to have to figure this out': Army, Air Force debate base defense amid new threats - Breaking Defense

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall recently suggested his service could take over the task of defending its air bases from the Army, as long as adequate funding was provided.

breakingdefense.com

New threats pushing Air Force and Army to rethink approach to base defense

A recent report outlines how the U.S. is falling behind China in building resilient air bases.

www.defenseone.com

In late January, President Donald Trump issued the Iron Dome for America executive order calling for greater investments for a multilayered homeland air defense system, including a requirement for the development of space-based interceptors. That order started a 60-day clock for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to develop a plan to defend the homeland against “ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks from peer, near-peer, and rogue adversaries.”

It is the term “other advanced aerial attacks” in the EO, that Stewart said has the department working through if C-UAS should be included.

“As we take on Iron Dome for America … the intent is really to [be as] cutting edge as we possibly can as a nation,” he said.

“What do we have right now that gets out [to] the cutting edge [and] is that the right capability, versus what do we need to invest in,” Stewart later added.

The proliferation of aerial drones on the battlefield has been pushing the services to focus on new counter-drone weapons for years to varying degrees of success. More recently, though, there have been a plethora of reports of drone sightings and incursions on military installations throughout the US.

“I have no doubt that there’s significantly more incursions that we don’t see, either with a system or with our eyeballs,” Gen. Gregory Guillot, the commander of US Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), told reporters in October 2024.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why is so much of Trump's attention on money?

The real reason Trump is waging a global trade war

Underlying the US president’s bombardment of tariff threats is an uncomfortable truth: America needs cash

www.telegraph.co.uk

In the middle of Donald Trump’s tornado of tariff announcements, policy analysts have been clinging to a single hope.

There is a perceived wisdom that the US president is using the higher charges primarily as a threat designed to extract concessions from his trading partners. Or in other words, that his bark will be worse than his bite.

Trump certainly is using tariffs as a negotiating tactic to bring world leaders to their knees. But optimists are overlooking a second truth: the US president is also desperate for cash.

America’s public finances are shot. The deficit is the highest since at least 1975 outside of a crisis period. Debt is on track to grow at double the rate of the economy in the decades ahead.

And against this backdrop, Trump has promised tax cuts that would cost in the region of $10 trillion (£7.9 trillion) over the next 10 years.

Experts warn that for Trump, tariffs are not only a means of geopolitical leverage but a key source of funds for his tax-cutting agenda. This means they will be here for the long run.

“He views them as a revenue-raiser and his team will use them to justify tax cuts,” says Michael Martins, founder of Overton Advisory and former US embassy political specialist.

And the impact of his focus?

Trump Is Ushering In a More Transactional World

Countries and companies with clout might thrive. The rest, not so much.

foreignpolicy.com

Trump’s ‘Transactional’ Diplomacy to Shape Much of Canada-Japan Relations in 2025

Canada-Japan relations in 2025 and in the years ahead will be overwhelmingly influenced by the Trump 2.0 administration’s transactional approach to foreign affairs. Ottawa and Tokyo will need to co…

nagystephen.com

Trump wants a weaker dollar but his tariff policy creates a stronger one..

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-tariffs-dollar-mexico-canada-currencies-02dd956e

But....

In the Canadian case - a strong USD would drop the price of Canadian commodities in the US (oil, gas, potash, lumber). It would also drop the price of Canadian labour making Canadian cars cheaper than US cars.

But...

Those cheaper commodities, resulting from the strong USD and weak CAD, would leave room for Trump to impose tariffs without raising the price to the US consumer. The stronger the USD to the CAD then the higher the tariff he can impose.

That then gives him room to play - once he has established a tariff revenue stream then he can start playing off foreigners wanting access to his market against each other while at the same time offering the prospect of more and better jobs to offset the higher cost of living resulting from the tariffs.

So, weak dollar vs strong dollar, low tariffs vs high tariffs - both of those are just two more levers he will leave in the hands of his successors to play with.

 

[Weinie]

To cite David Krayden (who I know both professional and personally) is the height of folly.

 

[GR66]

From Reuters:

Alcoa warns Trump's aluminum tariff could cost 100,000 US jobs​

(Reuters) -Aluminum producer Alcoa said on Tuesday that U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to impose a tariff on aluminum imports could cost about 100,000 U.S. jobs and would itself not be enough to entice it to boost production in the country.

Trump earlier this month said he would impose a flat 25% tariff on aluminum imports "without exceptions or exemptions" in a bid to lift U.S. production of the metal used to make automobiles, cans and other products.
The tariff takes effect on March 4.

Pittsburgh-based Alcoa, which produces aluminum in Canada, Iceland, Australia and elsewhere, had trimmed its output in the United States in recent years partly due to electricity costs.

Bill Oplinger, Alcoa's CEO, told the BMO Global Metals and Mining Conference in Florida that the tariffs could cost about 20,000 U.S. aluminum industry jobs and further 80,000 jobs in sectors that support it.

"This is bad for the aluminum industry in the U.S. It's bad for American workers," said Oplinger, an engineer by training who became CEO in 2023, in webcast remarks.

U.S. data showed aluminum smelters produced just 670,000 metric tons of the metal last year, compared with 3.7 million in 2000. Plant closures in recent years, including in Kentucky and Missouri, have left the country largely reliant on imports.

The tariffs alone would not be enough to entice Alcoa to restart some of its shuttered U.S. facilities, the CEO said, adding that Trump officials have asked the company to do just that.
"It's very hard to make an investment decision, even on something like a restart, without knowing how long the tariffs will last," Oplinger said.

He also said that he has lobbied Trump officials for an exemption on Canadian aluminum imports.

Alcoa would consider boosting U.S. output if it had cheap supply of power, which its Icelandic operations enjoyed, Oplinger said. Aluminum smelting consumes large amounts of electricity.

Separately, Oplinger said he believed that any end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia could see aluminum from Russia move into Europe.

Oplinger also said he believed there were opportunities for the global aluminum market to consolidate, without providing details.

Shares of Alcoa fell 2.6% to $34.10 in Tuesday morning trading.

But don't worry...the tariff free Russian aluminum will help save the US industry!