- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
It really feels like if the CBC is going to write an article about a procurement narrowing to two bidders, and is going to list the specs of one of the bids, it should also list the specs of the other bid.
Looking at the boats on offer, only one currently fills the specification Canada is insisting on. The KSS-3 from ROK has 10 VLS in its block 2 configuration, the German Type 212 has 0 VLS. If Canada requires the capability to deploy ballistic missiles that leaves it with the Korean boat , that’s also a very smart requirement since it allows for the nuclear deterrent that is obviously needed to be added down the line. The KSS-3 is currently deploying the Hyunmoo 4-4 ballistic missile, range of 800km, payload (I think) 1-2000kg. That could sling a thermonuclear warhead.
Writing tip: the first time you use an acronym, you’re supposed to write out the whole term and put the acronym in brackets, then you can use the acronym freely after that.
And I fail to see why it would be obvious that Canada would suddenly start a nuclear weapons program when we never have before.
Because the invasion of Ukraine proved that security guarantees by the US mean jack shit. They gave up their nukes on the promise of security by the States, look where that landed them.
The CBC has done other articles recently on the South Korean bids. It seems more that they are just spreading out the stories as they get ‘exclusives.
Here are two ones from May that CBC linking in the newer article featuring the details on the Norwegian-German subs.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/south-korea-canada-submarines-artillery-defence-1.7523180
If they’re doing it intentionally, then they’re just intentionally writing badly and making me read them less.
But they do it constantly across a wide variety of topics. They write an article and provide some fact or stat but almost always fail to provide the context, or the full statistics that would make that a meaningful stat to compare. Or they provide a stat that doesn’t actually tell you anything about the question at hand.
I honestly just think that they have either crappy writers, crappy editors, or some combination of them just fundamentally lacking scientific / logical thinking skills.
Our government throws a hissy fit over BC buying civilian ferries from a Chinese shipyard. But they put control of our military assets into the hands of foreign powers all the time.
What the hell.
