this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
714 points (96.2% liked)

Canada

8766 readers
3904 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 140 points 1 day ago (3 children)

France manages to get a sub to us before the UK even deigns to comment. That says it all. Merci beacoup!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 113 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 114 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (5 children)

Hijacking the top comment to let people know this isn't in response to any American threats, this is Naval Group, a French naval defense company, showing off their submarine because Canada is looking to spend 60 billion on twelve submarines. The plans for this purchase were publicly announced on July 10, 2024.

Here's a French news article about the submarine, seeing as I couldn't seem to find any sources in English.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 16 hours ago

Naval Group, a French naval defense company

Ah shit, that's the same company Australia had a deal with to buy diesel subs, before our fuckwit former PM reneged on the deal to create AUKUS and buy American nuclear subs.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I'll take both reasons as canon, thank you very much

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I’ll take both reasons as cannon, thank you very much

FTFY

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] evasive_chimpanzee 7 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

Weird that they specify "conventionally powered" in the Canadian article since this is a nuclear powered sub.

[–] finitebanjo 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know if that's a mistake. It might not be a nuclear sub, just a sub which has nuclear weapons capabilities ( though obviously not this particular sub because it's still in the hands of a defence contractor ( I hope ) ).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Could have imagined this happening as little as 3 years ago.

An ally sending a nuclear deterrent into our waters as a message/warning to the US. This normally happens to countries like Iran or North Korea

[–] [email protected] 13 points 18 hours ago

Still hasn’t happened. This was a sales pitch for a Canadian defence contract.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Hey. Guess what? At the moment, we're the bad guys...

[–] [email protected] 30 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

At the moment? When was there ever a time the US weren't the bad guys?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Briefly the us was the good guys when we killed a bunch of slavers and then when we killed a bunch of fascists. Those were exceptions to the rule though.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Looks at founding fathers... Yeah killed the slavers. Puts blanket over Native Indians. Hides Chinese rail workers under rug. Renames Irish "Indentured workers"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 18 hours ago

They also killed the Nazis, except for the ones that were useful, of course.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 23 hours ago
[–] DaddleDew 19 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

To be accurate, this is a nuclear propelled attack submarine. It does not carry nuclear warheads and is not what we normally call a "nuclear deterrent".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (4 children)

I believe you, but do you have a source? That's a pretty big distinction when *they're calling it a "nuclear attack submarine"!

EDIT: Clarification

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong 41 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Would a french submarine wear its hat like this:

or like this:

[–] gibmiser 18 points 23 hours ago

Asking the real questions

[–] WrenFeathers 3 points 18 hours ago

Holy shit I laughed out loud…

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Let's go! France is here to protect Canada!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago

Na, they’re just finishing the 7years war-round 2

[–] Lemminary 9 points 21 hours ago

Idk about that. Other commenters have better explanations that aren't sensational.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

The scale of these things is always fascinating. They're always much larger than I think they are.

For reference, I think that's a Suffren class, making it just shy of 100m, or a tad longer than a football field for my fellow Americans.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The previously-mentioned French article says it's a Barracuda, but I don't know if that's a model or a class.

And unsurprisingly, he also decided to offer the Royal Canadian Navy its "premium" model, the Barracuda, rather than the Scorpène.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

The Barracuda is (apparently) an export variant of the Suffren and is indeed a little shorter but still over 300 ft long.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

perchance, banana for scale?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

It's a football field, Micheal. How big could it be, a banana?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 23 hours ago

It's there, but hard to see.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ceedoestrees 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Finally. Letting the French keep a little bit of Canada pays off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DaddleDew 14 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Important note: The "Nuclear" in "Nuclear attack submarine" means that it is powered by a nuclear reactor. It does not refer to its armament. An "attack" submarine means it is designed to attack ships and other submarines and these are typically not capable of carrying and launching ICBMs. Nuclear-armed deterrent submarines are called Ballistic Missile Submarines.

[–] perviouslyiner 1 points 10 hours ago

Don't forget all the cruise missiles - it's not just for attacking things at sea.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Don’t tease me!

NOBODY backs an American Revolution like the French!

πŸ‡«πŸ‡·πŸ¦…πŸŽ†

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

β€œBring it” - France probably

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 23 hours ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 22 hours ago

Here's a French article about it. It's not a show of force, it's a naval defense company showing off their submarine in the hopes of being granted a 60 billion dollar contract for 12 submarines that the Canadian government announced last summer.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 23 hours ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί