加拿大拒绝特朗普200亿美元潜艇采购请求——美国国防崩溃！贸易战、关税、钢铁
活塞评论员
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntdfF1WegTk
加拿大令人震惊地拒绝了唐纳德·特朗普200亿美元的潜艇采购请求。在德国蒂森克虏伯和韩国韩华集团的竞争下，渥太华的举动重塑了国防、工业和联盟格局。这对美国就业、北约以及北极安全的未来意味着什么？敬请关注。
*?? 00:00 | 简介
1?? 00:48 | 加拿大的大胆行动——为什么是现在？
2?? 02:05 | 特朗普斥资200亿美元收购美国造船厂。
3?? 03:44 |加拿大潜艇战略——韩华 vs. 蒂森克虏伯。
4?? 05:19 | 美国余波——工厂停工，影响力受质疑。
5?? 06:42 | 撼动版图——北约及其全球影响。
08:00 | 结论：加拿大的反抗，美国的困境。
在本视频中，我们将探讨加拿大耗资 600 亿美元的潜艇项目如何改变国防格局、影响美国造船厂以及改变北约格局。千万不要错过这场深入探讨权力、政治和未来海军霸权的深度视频。
引言
今天，我们正目睹几十年来最具爆炸性的国防争端之一。华盛顿和渥太华之间这场高风险的冲突正在内藤县引起轩然大波。美国总统唐纳德·特朗普希望与美国造船厂签订200亿美元的潜艇合同。但加拿大拒绝了这一要求，继续推进其自身价值600亿美元的巡逻潜艇项目，目前由德国蒂森克虏伯和韩国羽屋公司主导。这不仅仅关乎钢铁和声纳。这关乎主权、工业和盟军防御的未来。
让我们深入了解关键进展。
1??.加拿大的大胆行动——为何是现在？
加拿大于1998年从英国购买了维多利亚级二手潜艇，原本打算作为权宜之计，但几十年来一直运行不畅，因为维护成本高、可用率低，通常一次只有一艘潜艇处于待命状态。
如今，北极地区正在快速变化。融化的海冰开辟了新的航线。俄罗斯正在加强冰区巡逻，中国也在展示其远洋雄心。
再加上北约（NAITO）施压，要求加拿大将国防支出占GDP的2%作为目标，因此，建设现代化舰队的重要性毋庸置疑。加拿大巡逻潜艇项目的目标是在20世纪中期，也就是维多利亚级潜艇退役前13年，交付新的巡逻潜艇。这些潜艇必须能够承受北极作战。
保持隐身性能并扩大航程，同时推动加拿大从哈利法克斯到温哥华的工业发展。
通过排除美国制造商，并要求国内参与。渥太华正在规避关税和政治风险。赌博。依赖贸易来增强韧性。接受短期政治阻力，以确保为加拿大水域和优先事项量身定制潜艇。
而这正是特朗普介入的地方。决心让加拿大的采购成为美国优先的机遇。
2?? 特朗普斥资200亿美元推动美国造船厂。
特朗普斥资200亿美元推动美国造船厂。
唐纳德·特朗普的信息直截了当。
如果加拿大要购买潜艇，就应该在美国建造。
就加拿大而言，他声称这是三赢。
确保格罗顿和纽波特纽斯等造船厂城镇的美国国防工作供应链，
并展示美国优先的产业政策。
200亿美元的头条数字象征着美国预计将在钢制船体和电子产品领域建立的生命线工厂。
但渥太华拒绝了，
将其最大的海军合同拱手让给了海外。
这与其优先事项相冲突。
主权保障。
国内工业。
以及免受美国政治周期影响的保护。
对钢铁和铝关税的记忆加剧了风险。
成本飙升和延误。项目进行到中期。
特朗普的盟友称加拿大的立场是对美国工人的背叛，
以及对北约团结的背叛。
警告说，这削弱了民主的武器库。
渥太华反驳说，多元化可以增强韧性，
并避免单点故障，尤其是在美国船厂已经满负荷运转“哥伦比亚”级和“弗吉尼亚”级潜艇的情况下。
结果就是政治僵局和工业的分岔路口。
重塑边境两侧的国防经济。
但如果美国继续愤怒的话。
加拿大已经转向新的现实，
在两家外国供应商之间做出选择。
在我们继续之前。
请务必点赞并订阅 Piston Pundit。
这有助于我们更深入地了解塑造我们世界的机器、
市场和动态。
3?? 加拿大的潜艇战略——韩华 vs. 蒂森克虏伯。
加拿大已将选择范围缩小到两家造船巨头：韩国的本田海洋公司和德国的蒂森克虏伯海洋系统公司（简称 TCM）。
本田以其 CSIS 三号设计提升速度和创新，该设计采用锂离子电池，可实现更长的潜水时间。先进的传感器和未来升级空间。其激进的方案是在 2026 年签署，到 2035 年交付四艘潜艇，并在 2014 年初将潜艇舰队规模扩大到 12 艘。
TCM 则以 NAITO 的信誉进行反击。
德国和挪威已订购了212艘该型潜艇，
该型潜艇依靠氢燃料、电池推进和成熟的盟军后勤保障，
从而提供互操作性并降低风险。
该潜艇的时间表与加拿大20世纪30年代中期的目标一致，
尽管联合生产需要精心安排。
渥太华考虑的不仅仅是精美的宣传册
北极生存能力、续航能力、声学隐身
有效载荷选择和长期维护能力，所有这些都与加拿大获得的知识产权和国内生产能力息息相关。
两家竞标者都承诺创造就业机会和技术注入。
最终，加拿大必须在本田快速推进的
电池推进模式和TCM联盟测试的模式之间做出选择，
目标是按照加拿大的优先事项和时间表建造一支舰队。
然而，当加拿大选择自己的道路时，美国却不得不面对
经济和政治上的后果。
美国的后果——工厂停工，影响力成疑。
4??.美国余波——工厂停工，影响力成疑。
对美国来说，加拿大的拒绝意味着期望破灭。美国造船厂已经因哥伦比造船厂的建设而捉襟见肘, A级和弗吉尼亚级潜艇项目将加拿大订单视为贸易周期的缓冲。从宾夕法尼亚州的钢厂到关注声纳积压订单的电子公司，供应商们都为额外的工作做好了准备。然而，这种需求一夜之间消失了。
影响是不均衡的。
大型船厂仍在忙于海军合同，但小型供应商现在面临着管道减少和单位成本上升的问题，这对海军和民用航空航天生产线都产生了影响。
对于劳动力来说，错失了雇佣焊工、电工和熟练技工的机会。该行业在政治上迫切需要这种举措，这削弱了美国的工业外交。
几十年来，华盛顿通过共享装备和后勤保障与盟友保持联系。渥太华的反抗表明其他国家可能会效仿。批评人士指责关税政策迫使合作伙伴走向自力更生，而特朗普的支持者则认为，这证明盟友应该在战略上增加国内支出。美国现在面临着信誉考验。如果连亲密盟友都绕过它的造船厂，它还能继续成为民主的武器库吗？
而这为更大的图景奠定了基础。这对纳多和全球平衡意味着什么？
5??. 撼动版图——北约与全球涟漪。
撼动版图——北约与全球涟漪。潜艇不仅仅是舰船，更是主权的象征。加拿大决定绕过美国造船厂，标志着其向多极国防供应链的更大转变。中等强国正在构建区域生态系统，以减少对任何单一国家的依赖。欧洲已经通过联合项目
和有利于本地就业的产业政策朝着这个方向发展。如果加拿大与本田的亚洲项目或TCM的欧洲管道保持一致，这将强化这种区域国防枢纽的趋势。对纳多来说，情况好坏参半。分散的舰队使互操作性和后勤保障变得复杂。
然而，多元化生产增强了抵御制裁、网络攻击或瓶颈的能力。渥太华认为，如果有标准和联合演习的支持，韧性将超过成本。
对手正在注视着。如果盟军潜艇产量放缓，中国将获益；如果北极巡逻滞后，俄罗斯将获益。
因此，加拿大2030年代中期的最后期限至关重要。
及时交付标志着对西北航道的控制。
与此同时，电池、静音技术和无人机自主技术方面的进步可能会波及民用工业，为加拿大带来就业和创新方面的重担。结论：加拿大的反抗，美国的困境。结论：加拿大的反抗，美国的困境。加拿大拒绝美国潜艇建造厂不仅仅是一场采购闹剧。
对加拿大来说，这是两个最亲密盟友之间防务关系的转折点。对美国来说，这关乎主权、就业和北极安全。这是一个警告。影响力和工业实力不再是理所当然的。
特朗普200亿美元的需求可能适得其反，加速了加拿大向欧洲和亚洲的扩张。
现在，本田和蒂森克虏伯占据了主导地位。
渥太华的决定不仅会影响其海军，还将影响其在2014年的盟友关系。
那么您怎么看？加拿大应该以联盟团结的名义支持美国造船厂吗？还是应该优先发展本国的工业？
您认为特朗普的高关税策略是否有助于赶走加拿大？
或者，渥太华无论如何都会采取这一举措？
展望未来，这是否会引发更多盟友绕过美国国防供应商的趋势？
请在下方评论区分享您的想法和经验。
Canada REFUSES Trump’s $20B Submarine Demand — U.S. Defense COLLAPSES! Trade War, Tariffs, Steel
Piston Pundit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntdfF1WegTk
Canada’s stunning decision to reject Donald Trump’s $20 billion submarine demand. With Germany’s ThyssenKrupp and South Korea’s Hanwha in the race, Ottawa’s move reshapes defense, industry, and alliances. What does this mean for U.S. jobs, NATO, and the future of Arctic security? Watch to find out.
*?? 00:00 | Intro
1?? 00:48 | Canada’s Bold Dive — Why Now?
2?? 02:05 | Trump’s $20 Billion Push for U.S. Shipyards.
3?? 03:44 | Canada’s Submarine Strategy — Hanwha vs. ThyssenKrupp.
4?? 05:19 | Fallout in America — Factories Idle, Clout in Question.
5?? 06:42 | Shaking the Map — NATO and the Global Ripple.
08:00 | Verdict: Canada’s Defiance, America’s Dilemma.
In this video, we explore how Canada’s $60 billion submarine project changes the defense game, impacts U.S. shipyards, and shifts NATO dynamics. Don’t miss this deep dive into power, politics, and the future of naval supremacy.
Welcome to your ultimate pitstop Piston Pundit.
Today we're staring into one of the most explosive defense disputes in decades.
A high stakes clash between Washington and Ottawa that's making waves across Naito.
U.S. President Donald Trump wants $20 billion in submarine contracts directed to U.S. shipyards.
But Canada has slammed that demand shut, forging ahead with its own
$60 billion Canadian patrol submarine project
with Germany's ThyssenKrupp and South Korea's Haniya now in the driver's seat.
This isn't just about steel and sonar.
It's about sovereignty, industry and the future of allied defense.
Let's dive into the key developments.
Canada’s Bold Dive — Why Now?
Canada's Victoria class submarines bought used from the U.K.
in 1998 Were meant as a stopgap, but have limped on for decades, plagued
by high maintenance and low availability, often with just one boat ready at a time.
Now the Arctic is changing fast.
Melting sea ice is opening new routes.
Russia is stepping up under ice patrols and China is flexing blue water ambitions.
Add NAITO pressure for Canada to edge toward 2% of GDP on defense
and the case for a modern fleet is undeniable.
The Canadian patrol submarine project aims to deliver
new patrol subs by the mid-20th 13 before the Victoria's retire.
These boats must endure Arctic operations.
Stay stealthy and extend range while also fueling
Canadian industry from Halifax to Vancouver.
By excluding U.S.
builders and demanding domestic participation.
Ottawa is hedging against tariffs and politics.
The Gamble. Trade reliance for resilience.
Accepting short term political pushback to secure
submarines tailored for Canadian waters and priorities.
And this is where Trump entered the picture.
Determined to make Canada's procurement story an America first opportunity.
Trump’s $20 Billion Push for U.S. Shipyards.
Donald Trump's message was blunt.
If Canada is buying submarines, they should be built in America.
On Canada's dime, he pitched it as a triple win.
Secure supply chains for U.S.
defense jobs for shipyard towns like Groton and Newport News,
and a showcase for America First Industrial Policy.
The headline figure, $20 billion became symbolic of the lifeline U.S.
plants expected in steel hull work and electronics.
But Ottawa refused,
handing its largest naval contract overseas.
Clashed with its priorities.
Sovereign sustainment.
Domestic industry.
And protection from U.S. political cycles.
Memories of tariffs on steel and aluminum reinforced the risks.
Cost spikes and delays. Mid program.
Trump's allies called Canada's stance a betrayal of American workers
and NATO's solidarity.
Warning it weakens the arsenal of democracy.
Ottawa countered that diversifying strengthens resilience
and avoids single point failures, especially as U.S.
yards are already maxed out with Columbia and Virginia class subs.
The result a political stalemate and an industrial fork in the road.
Reshaping defense economics on both sides of the border.
But if America is left fuming.
Canada has already shifted gears toward a new reality
choosing between two foreign suppliers.
Before we go further.
Make sure you hit that like button and subscribe to Piston Pundit.
It helps us bring you more deep dives into the machines,
markets and moves shaping our world.
Canada’s Submarine Strategy — Hanwha vs.
ThyssenKrupp.
Canada
has narrowed its choices to two shipbuilding giants South Korea's
Honda Ocean and Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine systems, or Tcm's.
Honda promotes speed and innovation with its CSIS
three design featuring lithium ion batteries for longer dives.
Advanced sensors and room for future upgrades.
Its aggressive pitch signed by 2026, deliver four boats by 2035
and scale to a 12 sub fleet by the early 2014.
Tcm's counters with NAITO credibility.
Its 212 seed already ordered by Germany and Norway,
relies on hydrogen fuel, cell propulsion and proven allied logistics,
offering interoperability and reduced risk.
The timeline aligns with Canada's mid-twenty thirties
goal, though shared production requires careful scheduling.
Ottawa is weighing more than glossy brochures
Arctic survivability, endurance, acoustic stealth
payload options and long term sustainment all factor in alongside
how much intellectual property and domestic production Canada secures.
Both bidders promise jobs and tech infusion.
Ultimately, Canada must choose between Honda's fast
battery forward approach and Tcm's Alliance tested model,
aiming for a fleet built on Canadian priorities and timelines.
But while Canada chooses its path, America is left to face
the fallout economically and politically.
Fallout in America — Factories Idle, Clout in Question.
For America,
Canada's rejection is a story of expectations dashed.
U.S. shipyards already stretched by Columbia class and Virginia class
programs, saw Canadian orders as a cushion against trade cycles.
Suppliers from steel mills in Pennsylvania to electronics firms
eyeing sonar backlogs prepared for extra work.
Instead, that demand vanished overnight.
The impact is uneven.
Major yards remain busy with Navy contracts, but smaller suppliers now face
thinner pipelines and higher unit
costs, affecting both naval and civilian aerospace lines.
For labor, it's a missed chance to hire welders, electricians and skilled trades.
The industry badly needs politically the move dents America's industrial diplomacy.
For decades, Washington kept allies tied in through shared kit and sustainment.
Ottawa's defiance signals others could follow.
Critics blame tariff policies for pushing partners toward self-reliance,
while Trump supporters argue it proves allies
should spend more at home strategically.
The U.S. now faces a credibility test.
Can it remain the arsenal of democracy if even close allies bypass its shipyards?
And this sets the stage for the bigger picture.
What does this mean for Nadeau and the global balance?
Shaking the Map — NATO and the Global Ripple.
Submarines aren't just vessels.
They're symbols of sovereignty.
Canada's decision to bypass U.S.
shipyards signals a larger shift toward multi-polar defense supply chains.
Mid-tier powers are building
regional ecosystems to cut reliance on any single country.
Europe is already moving this way with joint projects
and industrial policies favoring local jobs.
If Canada aligns with Honda's Asian program or Tcm's European
pipeline, it reinforces this trend of regional defense hubs.
For Nadeau, the picture is mixed.
Fragmented fleets complicate interoperability and logistics.
Yet diversified production enhances resilience against sanctions,
cyberattacks or bottlenecks.
Ottawa is betting that resilience outweighs the costs
if supported by standards and joint exercises.
Adversaries are watching.
China gains If allied submarine output slows, Russia gains if Arctic patrols lag.
That's why Canada's mid 2030s deadline is critical.
Timely delivery signals control over the Northwest Passage.
Meanwhile, tech advances in batteries, quieting and UAV autonomy could spill
into civilian industries, giving Canada both jobs and innovation weight.
Verdict: Canada’s Defiance, America’s Dilemma.
Canada's rejection of U.S.
submarine yards is more than procurement drama.
It's a pivot in the defense relationship between two of the closest allies
for Canada.
It's about sovereignty, jobs and Arctic security for the U.S.
It's a warning.
Influence and industrial clout are no longer automatic.
Trump's $20 billion demand may have backfired,
accelerating Canada's move toward Europe and Asia.
With Honda and ThyssenKrupp now in the driver's seat.
Ottawa's decision will shape not just its Navy,
but its alliances well into the 2014.
So what do you think?
Should Canada have supported U.S.
shipyards in the name of Alliance solidarity,
or was it right to prioritize its own industry?
Do you believe Trump's tariff heavy playbook helped drive Canada away?
Or would Ottawa have made this move regardless?
And looking ahead, will this spark a trend where more allies bypass U.S.
defense suppliers?
Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
We love to hear from you.
For the latest updates on the automotive world and more in-depth analysis,
subscribe to Piston Pundit and hit the notification bell.
Thanks for watching and see you next time.
You can now check out any of the videos on the screen.
There's plenty more to explore.
