加拿大拒絕特朗普200億美元潛艇采購請求——美國國防崩潰！貿易戰、關稅、鋼鐵
活塞評論員
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntdfF1WegTk
加拿大令人震驚地拒絕了唐納德·特朗普200億美元的潛艇采購請求。在德國蒂森克虜伯和韓國韓華集團的競爭下，渥太華的舉動重塑了國防、工業和聯盟格局。這對美國就業、北約以及北極安全的未來意味著什麽？敬請關注。
*?? 00:00 | 簡介
1?? 00:48 | 加拿大的大膽行動——為什麽是現在？
2?? 02:05 | 特朗普斥資200億美元收購美國造船廠。
3?? 03:44 |加拿大潛艇戰略——韓華 vs. 蒂森克虜伯。
4?? 05:19 | 美國餘波——工廠停工，影響力受質疑。
5?? 06:42 | 撼動版圖——北約及其全球影響。
08:00 | 結論：加拿大的反抗，美國的困境。
在本視頻中，我們將探討加拿大耗資 600 億美元的潛艇項目如何改變國防格局、影響美國造船廠以及改變北約格局。千萬不要錯過這場深入探討權力、政治和未來海軍霸權的深度視頻。
引言
今天，我們正目睹幾十年來最具爆炸性的國防爭端之一。華盛頓和渥太華之間這場高風險的衝突正在內藤縣引起軒然大波。美國總統唐納德·特朗普希望與美國造船廠簽訂200億美元的潛艇合同。但加拿大拒絕了這一要求，繼續推進其自身價值600億美元的巡邏潛艇項目，目前由德國蒂森克虜伯和韓國羽屋公司主導。這不僅僅關乎鋼鐵和聲納。這關乎主權、工業和盟軍防禦的未來。
讓我們深入了解關鍵進展。
1??.加拿大的大膽行動——為何是現在？
加拿大於1998年從英國購買了維多利亞級二手潛艇，原本打算作為權宜之計，但幾十年來一直運行不暢，因為維護成本高、可用率低，通常一次隻有一艘潛艇處於待命狀態。
如今，北極地區正在快速變化。融化的海冰開辟了新的航線。俄羅斯正在加強冰區巡邏，中國也在展示其遠洋雄心。
再加上北約（NAITO）施壓，要求加拿大將國防支出占GDP的2%作為目標，因此，建設現代化艦隊的重要性毋庸置疑。加拿大巡邏潛艇項目的目標是在20世紀中期，也就是維多利亞級潛艇退役前13年，交付新的巡邏潛艇。這些潛艇必須能夠承受北極作戰。
保持隱身性能並擴大航程，同時推動加拿大從哈利法克斯到溫哥華的工業發展。
通過排除美國製造商，並要求國內參與。渥太華正在規避關稅和政治風險。賭博。依賴貿易來增強韌性。接受短期政治阻力，以確保為加拿大水域和優先事項量身定製潛艇。
而這正是特朗普介入的地方。決心讓加拿大的采購成為美國優先的機遇。
2?? 特朗普斥資200億美元推動美國造船廠。
特朗普斥資200億美元推動美國造船廠。
唐納德·特朗普的信息直截了當。
如果加拿大要購買潛艇，就應該在美國建造。
就加拿大而言，他聲稱這是三贏。
確保格羅頓和紐波特紐斯等造船廠城鎮的美國國防工作供應鏈，
並展示美國優先的產業政策。
200億美元的頭條數字象征著美國預計將在鋼製船體和電子產品領域建立的生命線工廠。
但渥太華拒絕了，
將其最大的海軍合同拱手讓給了海外。
這與其優先事項相衝突。
主權保障。
國內工業。
以及免受美國政治周期影響的保護。
對鋼鐵和鋁關稅的記憶加劇了風險。
成本飆升和延誤。項目進行到中期。
特朗普的盟友稱加拿大的立場是對美國工人的背叛，
以及對北約團結的背叛。
警告說，這削弱了民主的武器庫。
渥太華反駁說，多元化可以增強韌性，
並避免單點故障，尤其是在美國船廠已經滿負荷運轉“哥倫比亞”級和“弗吉尼亞”級潛艇的情況下。
結果就是政治僵局和工業的分岔路口。
重塑邊境兩側的國防經濟。
但如果美國繼續憤怒的話。
加拿大已經轉向新的現實，
在兩家外國供應商之間做出選擇。
在我們繼續之前。
請務必點讚並訂閱 Piston Pundit。
這有助於我們更深入地了解塑造我們世界的機器、
市場和動態。
3?? 加拿大的潛艇戰略——韓華 vs. 蒂森克虜伯。
加拿大已將選擇範圍縮小到兩家造船巨頭：韓國的本田海洋公司和德國的蒂森克虜伯海洋係統公司（簡稱 TCM）。
本田以其 CSIS 三號設計提升速度和創新，該設計采用鋰離子電池，可實現更長的潛水時間。先進的傳感器和未來升級空間。其激進的方案是在 2026 年簽署，到 2035 年交付四艘潛艇，並在 2014 年初將潛艇艦隊規模擴大到 12 艘。
TCM 則以 NAITO 的信譽進行反擊。
德國和挪威已訂購了212艘該型潛艇，
該型潛艇依靠氫燃料、電池推進和成熟的盟軍後勤保障，
從而提供互操作性並降低風險。
該潛艇的時間表與加拿大20世紀30年代中期的目標一致，
盡管聯合生產需要精心安排。
渥太華考慮的不僅僅是精美的宣傳冊
北極生存能力、續航能力、聲學隱身
有效載荷選擇和長期維護能力，所有這些都與加拿大獲得的知識產權和國內生產能力息息相關。
兩家競標者都承諾創造就業機會和技術注入。
最終，加拿大必須在本田快速推進的
電池推進模式和TCM聯盟測試的模式之間做出選擇，
目標是按照加拿大的優先事項和時間表建造一支艦隊。
然而，當加拿大選擇自己的道路時，美國卻不得不麵對
經濟和政治上的後果。
美國的後果——工廠停工，影響力成疑。
4??.美國餘波——工廠停工，影響力成疑。
對美國來說，加拿大的拒絕意味著期望破滅。美國造船廠已經因哥倫比造船廠的建設而捉襟見肘, A級和弗吉尼亞級潛艇項目將加拿大訂單視為貿易周期的緩衝。從賓夕法尼亞州的鋼廠到關注聲納積壓訂單的電子公司，供應商們都為額外的工作做好了準備。然而，這種需求一夜之間消失了。
影響是不均衡的。
大型船廠仍在忙於海軍合同，但小型供應商現在麵臨著管道減少和單位成本上升的問題，這對海軍和民用航空航天生產線都產生了影響。
對於勞動力來說，錯失了雇傭焊工、電工和熟練技工的機會。該行業在政治上迫切需要這種舉措，這削弱了美國的工業外交。
幾十年來，華盛頓通過共享裝備和後勤保障與盟友保持聯係。渥太華的反抗表明其他國家可能會效仿。批評人士指責關稅政策迫使合作夥伴走向自力更生，而特朗普的支持者則認為，這證明盟友應該在戰略上增加國內支出。美國現在麵臨著信譽考驗。如果連親密盟友都繞過它的造船廠，它還能繼續成為民主的武器庫嗎？
而這為更大的圖景奠定了基礎。這對納多和全球平衡意味著什麽？
5??. 撼動版圖——北約與全球漣漪。
撼動版圖——北約與全球漣漪。潛艇不僅僅是艦船，更是主權的象征。加拿大決定繞過美國造船廠，標誌著其向多極國防供應鏈的更大轉變。中等強國正在構建區域生態係統，以減少對任何單一國家的依賴。歐洲已經通過聯合項目
和有利於本地就業的產業政策朝著這個方向發展。如果加拿大與本田的亞洲項目或TCM的歐洲管道保持一致，這將強化這種區域國防樞紐的趨勢。對納多來說，情況好壞參半。分散的艦隊使互操作性和後勤保障變得複雜。
然而，多元化生產增強了抵禦製裁、網絡攻擊或瓶頸的能力。渥太華認為，如果有標準和聯合演習的支持，韌性將超過成本。
對手正在注視著。如果盟軍潛艇產量放緩，中國將獲益；如果北極巡邏滯後，俄羅斯將獲益。
因此，加拿大2030年代中期的最後期限至關重要。
及時交付標誌著對西北航道的控製。
與此同時，電池、靜音技術和無人機自主技術方麵的進步可能會波及民用工業，為加拿大帶來就業和創新方麵的重擔。結論：加拿大的反抗，美國的困境。結論：加拿大的反抗，美國的困境。加拿大拒絕美國潛艇建造廠不僅僅是一場采購鬧劇。
對加拿大來說，這是兩個最親密盟友之間防務關係的轉折點。對美國來說，這關乎主權、就業和北極安全。這是一個警告。影響力和工業實力不再是理所當然的。
特朗普200億美元的需求可能適得其反，加速了加拿大向歐洲和亞洲的擴張。
現在，本田和蒂森克虜伯占據了主導地位。
渥太華的決定不僅會影響其海軍，還將影響其在2014年的盟友關係。
那麽您怎麽看？加拿大應該以聯盟團結的名義支持美國造船廠嗎？還是應該優先發展本國的工業？
您認為特朗普的高關稅策略是否有助於趕走加拿大？
或者，渥太華無論如何都會采取這一舉措？
展望未來，這是否會引發更多盟友繞過美國國防供應商的趨勢？
請在下方評論區分享您的想法和經驗。
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.
