Collect insurance on all destroyed bases and embassies. No rebuilding. After total insurance claims the pentagon gets ½ trillion and the rest goes to taxpayer coffers. Regime can not touch it. If they can’t rebuild that cuts down on colonialism
big numbers, limited transparency, and a lot of moving parts will make anyone suspicious.
There is money flowing through contractors, no question.
That’s how large-scale military repair and rebuilding gets done...
private companies get the work.
But I try to separate two things...
Real structural spending (repairs, replacements, logistics... all very expensive and very real)
vs
Potential inefficiency or waste (which absolutely deserves scrutiny)
Jumping straight to “people lining their pockets” skips over the part we can actually challenge effectively... the lack of clear reporting and accountability.
If the numbers are legit, show them.
If they’re not, that’s where the problem gets exposed.
Right now, the issue isn’t just the money…
it’s that the details behind the money aren’t being shared.
You are right Fred. It was an article about Planet Labs that I was referring to. I made it too broad. But I think the implied “coverup” is telling. I will try and be more specific in my comments. Thank you for calling me out on it. Sometimes I need to be talked off the ledge, so to speak.
When I read that the US government placed a ban on satellite imagery to news outlets I figured something was wrong. I assume that is why Canada is eager to be able to launch our own satellites. We have depended on the US for far too long for defence and I am assuming that also includes imagery.
You’re thinking in the right direction, Shelagh — control the information, control the narrative.
But just to keep it clean and factual…
There’s no clear evidence of a blanket U.S. government “ban” on all satellite imagery to news outlets. What does happen is more subtle — access gets restricted, delayed, or filtered depending on the situation and who owns the satellites.
And that’s the key point Shelagh... that most people miss.
A lot of high-resolution imagery comes from private companies, but many of them...
are U.S.-based
operate under U.S. regulations
and can be limited during sensitive military situations
So it’s not always a loud “ban”…
it’s more like turning the tap down when things get uncomfortable.
Now tie that back to Canada.
You’re absolutely right...
this is exactly why countries are starting to take sovereignty over their own data more seriously.
Not just satellites, but...
intelligence
supply chains
communications
Relying entirely on someone else’s lens means you only see what they’re willing to show you.
And in a world like this… that’s not a great place to be.
What isn’t being said is how many service people and civilians have been killed or injured? That is the more important truth that no one is talking about.
You’re absolutely right to focus on that, Penny...
that’s the part that actually matters.
From what’s been reported so far, there were confirmed U.S. casualties in at least one strike...
6 service members killed and 60+ injured...
but beyond that, the details get very thin very fast.
And that’s the problem.
When infrastructure damage is vague, it raises questions.
When human cost is vague, it raises red flags.
Civilian impact is even harder to pin down because it’s spread across multiple countries, and reporting tends to lag or get filtered through political messaging on all sides.
So yes... the real story isn’t just what got hit…
it’s who paid the price.
And right now, that part of the story is still mostly in the dark.
Great informative offer, except, we don't know what trumpet knows& we never will! He may have done all the damage himself, through other goonies. Thanks Fred!
Collect insurance on all destroyed bases and embassies. No rebuilding. After total insurance claims the pentagon gets ½ trillion and the rest goes to taxpayer coffers. Regime can not touch it. If they can’t rebuild that cuts down on colonialism
I get where you’re coming from, Jeanie...
the instinct is “stop the cycle and stop pouring money back into the same system.”
But military bases and embassies don’t work like insured storefronts.
Most of that infrastructure is self-funded by government budgets, not private insurance policies that pay out big cheques.
Even when insurance exists, it’s limited and nowhere near enough to cover large-scale military losses.
So there isn’t a giant payout sitting there waiting to be split.
The bigger issue isn’t insurance...
it’s how decisions get made about where money goes next...
rebuild
relocate
scale back
or rethink the whole footprint
That’s where the real debate should be.
Because you’re right about one thing...
if nobody questions the rebuild-by-default mindset, the cycle just keeps rolling.
At the end of the line, it is individuals lining their pockets under the pretext of covering the losses.
I get why it feels that way, Ron...
big numbers, limited transparency, and a lot of moving parts will make anyone suspicious.
There is money flowing through contractors, no question.
That’s how large-scale military repair and rebuilding gets done...
private companies get the work.
But I try to separate two things...
Real structural spending (repairs, replacements, logistics... all very expensive and very real)
vs
Potential inefficiency or waste (which absolutely deserves scrutiny)
Jumping straight to “people lining their pockets” skips over the part we can actually challenge effectively... the lack of clear reporting and accountability.
If the numbers are legit, show them.
If they’re not, that’s where the problem gets exposed.
Right now, the issue isn’t just the money…
it’s that the details behind the money aren’t being shared.
You are right Fred. It was an article about Planet Labs that I was referring to. I made it too broad. But I think the implied “coverup” is telling. I will try and be more specific in my comments. Thank you for calling me out on it. Sometimes I need to be talked off the ledge, so to speak.
When I read that the US government placed a ban on satellite imagery to news outlets I figured something was wrong. I assume that is why Canada is eager to be able to launch our own satellites. We have depended on the US for far too long for defence and I am assuming that also includes imagery.
You’re thinking in the right direction, Shelagh — control the information, control the narrative.
But just to keep it clean and factual…
There’s no clear evidence of a blanket U.S. government “ban” on all satellite imagery to news outlets. What does happen is more subtle — access gets restricted, delayed, or filtered depending on the situation and who owns the satellites.
And that’s the key point Shelagh... that most people miss.
A lot of high-resolution imagery comes from private companies, but many of them...
are U.S.-based
operate under U.S. regulations
and can be limited during sensitive military situations
So it’s not always a loud “ban”…
it’s more like turning the tap down when things get uncomfortable.
Now tie that back to Canada.
You’re absolutely right...
this is exactly why countries are starting to take sovereignty over their own data more seriously.
Not just satellites, but...
intelligence
supply chains
communications
Relying entirely on someone else’s lens means you only see what they’re willing to show you.
And in a world like this… that’s not a great place to be.
What isn’t being said is how many service people and civilians have been killed or injured? That is the more important truth that no one is talking about.
You’re absolutely right to focus on that, Penny...
that’s the part that actually matters.
From what’s been reported so far, there were confirmed U.S. casualties in at least one strike...
6 service members killed and 60+ injured...
but beyond that, the details get very thin very fast.
And that’s the problem.
When infrastructure damage is vague, it raises questions.
When human cost is vague, it raises red flags.
Civilian impact is even harder to pin down because it’s spread across multiple countries, and reporting tends to lag or get filtered through political messaging on all sides.
So yes... the real story isn’t just what got hit…
it’s who paid the price.
And right now, that part of the story is still mostly in the dark.
Great informative offer, except, we don't know what trumpet knows& we never will! He may have done all the damage himself, through other goonies. Thanks Fred!
I get the frustration, Patsy...
there’s a lot that doesn’t get said out loud, and people fill in the blanks.
But I try to stay anchored to what we can actually verify.
There’s already enough on the table...
confirmed strikes
real damage
real casualties
and a whole lot of missing detail
We don’t need to invent extra villains to make the story serious... it already is.
What is fair to question is the lack of transparency.
When governments hold back information, it creates exactly this kind of uncertainty… and people start guessing.
Better questions usually get us further than bigger theories.