Derek 2.0

On the surface the figure seems quite large, in reality its a realization that China doesn't require keeping dozens of regular force infantry divisions of peasant soldiers armed with much the same equipment used during the Korean war.......doing so allows the Chinese to modernize the remainder of their military with more modern equipment, likewise putting 300000 Chinese males into more productive avenues of the economy......as for their older weapons and equipment, it will simply be covered in Cosmoline and put in storage until/if its needed.....

That is what? That's subjective, the actual process is even more streamlined than here False equivalence? You're the one that broached the subject of a given culture in relation to crimes in a given nation.

Wait a minute.........I thought you said crime rates were driven by access to guns? And gun laws? The legal sale and ownership of automatic weapons in the United States requires a tax stamp and going through the FBI's NICS check, through an FFL dealer.....versus in New Zealand a requirement for a safety course and obtaining a license....in both cases, an extensive background check is required..... And "gun culture"? I would say the gun culture in tiny New Zealand is quite strong if they have the "World's largest gun store", and legal access to even more types of firearms then even Americans....... The only "piss-poor logic" here is yours.

I didn't miss the point at all, likewise the link to the New Zealand store, a store that sells guns not available in most States and at prices far cheaper then in the States where they are........hence, guns are available in New Zealand, yet New Zealand doesn't have anywhere near the same rates of crime as the United States.......hence guns don't create crime.

Explain New Zealand..........How does "The World's largest gun store" create crime in New Zealand?

It might very well if both policies reduced crime rates via tackling some of the root causes of crime.........I doubt Molson and Labatt have arsenals of illegal guns to protect their market share, likewise, I doubt an allure to joining a gang if one can afford the high cost of living through a decent wage.

Do think there would be a lucrative black market of guns smuggled into Canada from the States if there were not potential buyers among gangs in Toronto or Greater Vancouver?

Explain Mexico, a country with far stricter gun control laws than the United States or Canada, yet nearly 5xs the rate of gun crime.......criminality begets gun crime.

You're cherry picking the study: Nor does said study address why various European nations still have similar homicide rates ( homicides of all types) despite varying rates of gun ownership and gun control laws....likewise the dynamic that stymies such studies, the contrast between Australia and New Zealand, one a nation that has very strict gun control laws, versus another that allows its citizens to purchase firearms that aren't even legal in many States in the US, yet both countries have like rates of violent crime........ Guns don't create criminality, fore if they did, the likes of New Zealand, the Czech Republic and Switzerland would be reminiscent of areas of Mexico or Chicago.........

Nonsense, availability of guns does not equate to a society's crime rates..........a gun does not transform someone into a criminally minded person.

No, its not.......there is a gun culture here too, just as enshrined in our history as the Americans. The difference, as said above, is crime rates between both nations, coupled with licensing here in Canada, which greatly reduces instances of criminals and the mentally ill being able to obtain firearms.

Its not, nor is it the types of guns, as the majority of firearms one is able to purchase legally in the United States, one can also purchase in Canada. The difference is who can purchase said firearms and the differing rates of violent crime between the two countries.

The legend of Zheng He aside, a first for the Chinese: As the article goes on to explain, there is nothing overtly threatening about this deployment, the Soviets did the like for decades, but it is a political demonstration by the Chinese that they too have Arctic interests......

I'll add one thing in the Green's favor, that separates them from other left leaning parties: Unlike the inane reactionary policies of the Liberals and NDP, the Greens, on the surface, appear to be attempting to implement a common sense firearms policy. Is it enough for me to consider voting for them? Not a chance, but several family members that were life long NDP supporters (BC and Federal) have switched to the Greens based on this reasonable approach (both are gun owners)......Like I said, on the surface it doesn't look bad (I'd want to see what they deem "safe and protected", as all licensed gun ranges are), and it gives firearms owners a choice other than Tory........

From an American perspective, yes I do. I feel that most countries embroiled within a conflict, ever more so if they were losing or in stalemate, would use any such means they felt would contribute to reversing such tide, despite being a past signatory of various International Convention. Firstly the Pentagon hasn’t changed such things retroactively, as in the majority of such examples, the United States isn’t a signatory nation to most of said international conventions. As to my feeling of this as a rant, based on actually reading (most of) the document, versus your points in the OP, it is clear that either you haven’t read the document and are just basing your opinions off of someone else’s interpretation……or that you have read it, and you choose to embellish the truth. No, as I actually cited the passages of said rules and provided said passages verbatim………you passages are either intentionally misleading or regurgitated from another incorrect source……for example, your citing of an international convention on the use of hollow points, with the only problem, hollow points had yet to be developed at the time, as such, there is no inclusion of them in said convention. I didn't really offer my opinion, but clarify and correct the opening post of errors, fostering the grounds for a factual and honest discussion. The better question, since many of those points brought forth aren’t new, is how many countries embroiled in armed conflict wouldn’t use any means necessary to win? War after all isn’t a game with rules and officials, and looking at it as such only ensures its continued use.

Interesting idea, what’s old is new again……I’m just not so sure that central planning is the way to go, we’re then just feeding the Monster of the Rideau. I’m not necessary opposed to central purchasing to leverage greater economies of scale, but for some items and needs, some level of local autonomy is needed. I hear you, for example, if DND has a Forces wide surplus at the end of the fiscal year, its then divided among the elements……I think, all that would create is another level of service infighting, resulting in further bureaucracy, and in turn, morass. What I think would have to be done is for each element to create its own list of preapproved needs, needs that have already gone through the process and are just awaiting funding. You would then have the Army, RCAF and RCN break it down even further into type: Infrastructure, equipment procurement and consumables…….have each element then prioritize their lists, with an already attached costing report to/from Public Works………… When the fiscal year is near over, and its determined (for example) that DND has a surplus of $ 1 billion, Public Works and DND can go to the cabinet with costed options…….The Army gets the Hospital extension, the RCAF a couple of more Hercs and the additional munitions for a SINKEX at RIMPAC etc. I agree, but I think the Forces should start offering up bases and amalgamation of various units and Commands. One thing is for certain, there is tremendous amounts of waste in DND, not only in terms of money and resources, but also manpower. I’m very much so opposed to increasing the budget until this is addressed.

A few clarifications to the OP: From section 6.18.1 of the policy manual: The United States has developed national policy on the use of nuclear weapons. For example, the United States has stated that it would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.413 In addition, the United States has stated that it will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons States that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. This portion of the manual has likely been updated from the Cold War era in which the United States considered nuclear weapons as likely response to an aggressor that used chemical or biological weapons against US forces, allies, or populations. Next up: From section 6.5.7: The U.S. armed forces have fielded and used depleted uranium munitions. Extensive efforts have been made to study whether there are harmful health effects from exposure to depleted uranium from weapons that use it, but no such effects have been found. Not surprised, but then if your vehicle has been attacked by an A-10 performing a gun-run with DU munitions, long term cancer risk is the least of your worries….. From section 6.12.4: Prohibited Classes of Mines, Booby-Traps, and Other Devices. Certain types of mines, booby-traps, and other devices are prohibited. These types include: • mines, booby-traps, and other devices calculated to cause superfluous injury;252 • mines, booby-traps, and other devices specifically designed to detonate during detection operations;253 • self-deactivating mines with anti-handling devices designed to function after the mine’s operation; 254 • non-detectable anti-personnel mines;255 • remotely delivered mines without compliant self-destruction and self-deactivation mechanisms;2 So the mines still used by the United States are those that either self-deactivate (a battery dies and the munition no longer functions), are command detonated (exploded by an operator), self-destruct, are not remotely delivered, allowing for the fields to be mapped and marked or are in use along the Korean DMZ Section 6.13.3: DoD has developed policies to minimize the negative humanitarian consequences that can sometimes be associated with cluster munitions.346 Under a 2008 policy, the U.S. armed forces will, after 2018, only employ cluster munitions containing submunitions that, after arming, do not result in more than 1% unexploded ordnance Section 6.14.3: As with other weapons, it is prohibited to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians, or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.369 In addition, it is specifically prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons, except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal, or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.370 Napalm wasn't banned, its use against civilians was....... First, there wasn't hollow-point cased ammo in 1868.........That said, hollow points are used by military police (like civilian police forces) and special forces around the world.....There use by regular troops is ineffective (outside perhaps a sidearm) as they have less penetrating power than full metal jacketed, steel core, ammo. Furthermore repeated use of hollow points in most modern firearms will result in both excessive barrel fouling and failures to feed..........there is a reason for the mantra, for over hundred years, that ".45 ball stops them all"....... Section 6.17: The United States has renounced, as a matter of national policy, first use of herbicides in war except use, under regulations applicable to their domestic use, for control of vegetation within U.S. bases and installations or around their immediate defensive perimeters. Section 4.24.4 Reporting on military operations can be very similar to collecting intelligence or even spying.481 A journalist who acts as a spy may be subject to security measures and punished if captured.482 To avoid being mistaken for spies, journalists should act openly and with the permission of relevant authorities. Presenting identification documents, such as the identification card issued to authorized war correspondents or other appropriate identification, may help journalists avoid being mistaken as spies.4 Anderson Cooper need not worry as long as he's got his wallet....... Section 4.8 Like combatants, members of the civilian population also have certain rights, duties, and liabilities under the law of war. Civilians may not be made the object of attack. If detained, civilians are entitled to humane treatment and a variety of additional protections. Civilians lack the combatant’s privilege, and may be punished, after a fair trial, by an enemy State for engaging in hostilities against it. ------------------ I'm forced to ask, Big Guy, did you read the Law of war manual? Or was the intent of this topic just another thread of baseless anti-American rants?

I don't see how it would be possible without a systemic change namely to the civilian bureaucracy and existing, stringent rules, furthermore political consensus. In a perfect world, but I doubt you'd ever see a unit commander given such latitude without Public Works running interference..........I think as a whole, it would have to be a top down approach.......To work with Public Works, I think the most politically palatable solution would be investing in base infrastructure, with the follow on benefit of investment in local economies..... I disagree, ~$1 billion a year is a fair bit of money.......out here, 443 squadron got a new hanger/offices (for the new Cyclones), improvements to the apron and taxiway, modern refueling and wash pad and added security "features" for less than $160 million........good for 443 squadron (replacing WW II era hangers) and good for the local economy...win-win. I agree to an extent, but in some cases there is no alternative (Chinooks or C-17) bidders or in others, there are no other bidder producing a product the forces need to feel its requirements (F-35 or most small arms ammo/munitions)..........but for additional smaller purchases to existing fleets, it such items fit within an existing supply chain and budget framework, like small orders of MRAPS, trucks, small arms etc, these items shouldn't require much oversight........likewise, non-perishable (or not so perishable) consumables, like motor oil, lubricants, toilet paper, cleaning supplies etc, things that will be used, but some savings could be found by buying in even larger bulk....and if they stay in a store room for 5 years, who cares. I doubt that would ever happen........conjures, right or wrong, images of this:

The annual returning of funds isn't just a military issue, but one also of public policy and procurement rules. If at the end of a fiscal year, for example, DND has 1 billion in unused funds, its not as simple as saying "lets buy a couple more planes, a few dozen more of these trucks, build a new hanger on this base and redo the roof and heating system in these barracks". By law (Unless in a dire emergency, with only one potential provider) DND has to collect various bids and run an exhaustive process, not only receiving estimates of the purchase price and cost of spares, but upkeep of the item throughout its expected service life........so to start said process, DND needs to know the total end of year surplus, then do the above process (that can take months, if not years), hope losing bidders don't launch a legal challenge, then ensure that the DND will be able to afford the upkeep of these new items going forward...... Now the process has been improved to a certain degree with the current Government, as made evident with last years end of year purchase of an additional C-17. The RCAF already had completed much of the process with the previous purchase (that came in slightly under budget), knew the expected through life costs and felt the price of an additional aircraft could be absorbed from within their current budget framework....all that was needed was the cash in the couch cushions to pay Boeing....... Inversely, look at the ongoing FWSAR saga......in a perfect world, the RCAF would be able to obtain a percentage of said surplus funds each year and purchase additional CC-130J Hercs, maybe only 2 or 3 a year (The flyaway price is around $75 million per), replacing our existing FWSAR fleet (comprised mostly of older CC-130s) with the newer Hercs over a 5-10 year period, expanding the already existing infrastructure and support network for our existing CC-130J transport fleet......well replacing the FWSAR fleet, under budget, from already existing funds.......everyone wins.

Ask Stephane Dion how popular carbon taxes are during an election campaign.

There it is: If we included the Alaskan border, a wall along the US-Canada border would be about the size of the Great Wall of China.......

And there you go, both the Liberals and Conservatives are calling the NDP on Mulcair's magic spending promises: Mulcair's response: Mulcair either has a magic money tree or he'll have to do a combination of further cuts and/or tax increases........I fully expect this is where Mulcair's national carbon tax will be made known.......

Why? The lack of a boom tanker hasn't impacted RCAF operations one iota.........funny enough, the RAF, which operates the C-17 and the A330 also doesn't have boom tankers.......so your point?

That's just it, since 2008, DND has handed back over 8 billion dollars, or better put, on average, DND doesn't spend ~5-7% of its budget each year........and the vast majority of said funds are earmarked for procurement. Hard to cry poverty when you're returning unspent money, that's not to say I'd rather DND piss it away on new office furniture or drinks on the mess at the end of the year.......

2 x A310s + 5 x C-130H versus 5 A330s..........How well do you think the far larger A330s work up North or from smaller airfields across Canada?