No, it's not, and that's an underlying theme we come back to.
It's the industrial side of what we're talking about. Remember that we tried to expand our sales to other countries. We talked about selling the LAVs to Saudi Arabia. This, of course, created a huge political blowback in that context.
I'll also remind the committee of the fact that we tried to pivot towards the Europeans in terms of what we're doing. That was called the “third option” under Pierre Trudeau. Basically, we got the Leopard 1 tanks, but that was about the only real, major benefit. The geopolitics of the threats we face mean that we will inevitably be going back to work with the Americans.
To go back to your first question—which I think is of critical importance—one way of thinking beyond the linear way we do.... It goes back to Richard's point about the mid-term elections. What happens to the United States because of the destabilization Trump introduced? We know that our enemies will be mounting whatever campaigns they have, whether it's grey cyber or what have you, to further facilitate that divide. What happens if United States society comes almost to the point of violence within itself? How do we respond? Again, how does our industrial policy prepare us for that type of scenario? It's a low-probability one, but I think it's one we increasingly have to realize, in these new geopolitics we're talking about—