Derek 2.0

Goose Bay has extensive facilities (left over) for fighters (and bombers) and is a forward deployment location for our Hornets........Winnipeg could be served by Trenton and Moose Jaw......a SAR bird could be forward deployed to Winnipeg (if needed) without much in the way of support, unlike fighters.

Moose Jaw should be kept (and if needed, expanded), likewise Goose Bay, which though remote, does serve a purpose, both for NORAD and Arctic sovereignty patrols and doesn't cost that much to operate..........Borden, Shilo, Winnipeg and North Bay should be closed, with the current schools, lodger units and in the case of North Bay, NORAD functions, spread across other larger bases.

Or better yet, outside of procurement purchases, find further efficiencies from within the current budgetary framework before pouring more money on the fire.......base closures, amalgamation of various units and commands, trimming top heavy leadership and reducing civilian staff......and of course fixing the morass that is procurement........

Without speaking for the OP, I'm to assume his intent was a legalization of prostitution, combined with regulatory devices aimed at education in the potential pit-falls.

No, our "rhetoric" is very much proportional to our commitment......a commitment, that for a Middle Power, is substantive.

No, Op Nanook is but several weeks, the continual presence we have (NWS, the Rangers, Arctic SAR) is enhanced by the larger annual military exercise, in addition to investments in the continual presence, as mentioned above, likewise investments in upgrades to national assets and new additions brought forth by the current Government. Continual Arctic airbases (further North than Yellowknife) are not needed (nor economically desirable), likewise the realization that fighters, granted by the affordance of trigonometry and the NWS, need not be based in the Arctic, likewise are rarely deployed that far North.......with actual aerial patrols conducted by both the RCAF's CP-140s and various GoC surveillance aircraft. I'm in full agreement with both underwater mapping (as conducted by the RCN annually) and on land survey, conducted by military, various of GoC departments and civilian, commercial concerns....... Speaking in wide terms (as I have an aversion to Federal prison time), varying degrees of airborne encroachments, both accidental and purposeful, likewise varying degrees of maritime encroachments on our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines, further strengthened by the finalization of the Victoria class SSK becoming fully operational........ Those avenues you speak to (Coast Guard/SAR/Transport) are all areas we as a nation either due well currently or are in the near term process of improving, yet these are all roles that the majority of our other NATO allies already do well themselves. Likewise, by their very nature, are areas that are not seen as contributing any real skin to a game that is a potential military conflict........it is akin to the Waldo being out with his chums and a bar fight erupts of no fault of their own, and the Waldo is holding jackets and and calling for a taxi.......not a way to ingratiate ones self among ones now former friends...... Make no mistake, though to varying degrees throughout our history, the branches of the Canadian military have very much so demonstrated not only the ability to bark, but to bight........often despite the treatment of the Forces by the elected Government. In some degrees yes to your first point, as the very nature of the conflict sees ones enemy able to blend into the landscape without any real degree of difficulty.......

A statistic that offers contrast to the size of the military conducting the majority of the strikes...........the air wing of a single American aircraft carrier would equal the contribution of all Western Allies involved in Iraq/Syria.......

No, but then legalities of the war aside, International law didn't slow, let alone stop, the geo-political interests of the Americans. Annual presence in and of itself is a key component in any claim to ones own sovereignty........possession is nine-tenths of the law etc.... An annual demonstration of our ability to operate within our own Arctic, a region of the Earth as foreign to the majority on this planet as the Moons of Jupiter, is exactly that, a demonstration of sovereignty........by far, the most important part conducted annually by both our Navy and Coast Guard is the Hydrographic surveying of the Arctic seabed...a prerequisite to any sovereignty claim going forwards. ----------- As to our own ability to deal with an encroachment of our sovereignty that in itself is dependent on a whole host of variables, in some instances, yes we very much can with the current force structure, in other scenarios, not a chance.......but then, that is why we as a middle power, sought defense alliances with Superpowers........in exchange we offer a level of contribution to ones mutual and collective defense. A reflection of target availability in a fluid military environment.......

Exactly, one could look at any Western conflict from the last 100 years as a reactionary, geo-political response.........in defense of ones own interests.

No, its quite accurate, as Western military intervention is reactionary, likewise it being in the defense of our own interests.

Funny enough, well the West has begun the Pacific pivot for the 21st century, Putin's Russia has recently begun its own military pivot.......to the resource rich Arctic.

How did the teeth of international law work out for Saddam? Saddam, at one point, had the third of fourth biggest military in the World. Prior to the current Government's annual Operation Nanook, Canada's military (and Government as a whole) hasn't had a fraction of the ability to influence events in our own Arctic since the St Laurent Government of the 50s and its role in the creation of the DEW line.

There is no direct threat, Canada will always have a military within its borders, our own or the Americans......currently we have input in the defense of North America and our interests around the globe (often shared with the Americans), if our posture towards defense changed as you suggest, we no longer would. At such a point, the Americans out of their own defense interests, will defend their own country through Canada, but then, Canada will have forgone its own sovereignty as a nation, in effect, making itself a vassal of the United States......why not then make it official?

Interesting idea, in effect "normalizing" prostitution, well still not completely forgoing some measure of moral due-diligence for both providers and clients........In effect saying go here if you must, but these are potential consequences fyi.

My crystal ball is broken.........realistically, a nation such as Canada with global interests since Confederation can't "get away with abolishing our military" unless we're willing to forgo our own sovereignty to the whims of others........The Americans 60 years ago, like today, are quite serious when they make it known that their own National Security includes defending its Northern approaches with or without Canadian consent. Both and no. Canada is resource rich and in the centuries ahead (to borrow from member Eyeball), "the animals will begin circling the watering hole".

No, for what little we as a nation contribute, the benefits in terms of our own National Security out weigh going without or going it alone..........to replace the loss of shared intelligence and communications alone would require Canada to spend billions more on national defense......... Case in point Sweden, which spends a goodly sum on defense itself, but likewise subsidies on its own domestic defense industries that don't show up as direct defense expenditures, and even then, the Swedes have become increasingly reliant on selling their own domestically produced arms (for decades, if not centuries) to anyone with cash in hand (for example, versions of Swedish Bofors guns served on not only Allied naval vessels during WW II, but also Axis vessels) Canada in NATO is akin to the guy in the carpool that buys coffee a couple of times a month and throws in the odd coupon for gas.......

I see Trudeau has finally been backed into a corner to answer who is favorite super hero is: http://www.cbc.ca/news/justin-trudeau-s-favourite-avenger-1.3195000........... Trudeau SMASHed that one

That is a very good point......but then, the Federal NDP has also made the same mistake that the previous Reform/Canadian Alliance made, namely allowing your political opponents and the media to vet your own candidates......... Per CBC's poll tracker, NDP support in Alberta has nosedived from ~29%, down to 21% in the span of roughly a week after Linda McQuaig's comments on the oil sands........I fully expect the NDP's numbers to continue to plummet in not only Alberta, but the rest of the West, including BC, as their natural resources/energy policy is further examined......... The BC NDP, who had a huge lead over the BC Liberals (and could expect vote splitting with the BC Conservatives) gave the BC Liberals another majority with their energy/pipeline policies during the campaign........The NDP seem to forget that the O&G industry runs on the backs of union labour, comprising the middle class........going after gun owners, a very large voting bloc in Alberta and BC doesn't help either.

Why doesn't Trudeau just say what he means then? I mean, he just walks into Tory and NDP attack adds.......

I thought growing the economy from the heart was up there........

Though I think your assessment of the validity of the F125 class for Canada is spot on, the ships designers/builders have offered a more robust design to both us and the Australians to replace our GP frigates, based off of the F125 class hull and sharing the same propulsion systems.....Since the same German company has won the design contract for the Queenston class support vessels, I wouldn't discount TKMS totally for the replacement of the RCN's Destroyers and Frigates. Edit to add, the Reader's Digest industry pdf file submitted to the RAN for the MEKO A-400 RAN, and likely similar, as to what TKMS will submit to the DND, for the RCN's CSC, the MEKO A-400 CAN.

The Canadian shipbuilding industry, though a fraction of what one would find in say Japan or South Korea, is a viable industry in its own niche market. I don't blame the shipbuilders for skill fade in the area of producing modern warships, when the last warship ordered by the Government of Canada was over twenty years ago, and then commissioned nearly twenty years ago............. What other nations? The Americans, British, French, Germans, Dutch, Italians, Danes, Australians, South Koreans, Japanese, Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, Spanish etc all heavily subsidize their own shipbuilding industries, and in turn, build their own warships. I will grant you, with the some of the European nations, they will fan-out the labor intensive portions to other cheaper yards in Europe (namely Polish), likewise, some will purchase from overseas yards when they don't have the required domestic capacity, but they all still maintain a domestic industry. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major Navy that purchases solely overseas....... As I said, comparing reported purchase contracts in in other nations is a fools errand........as I said, such other prices very rarely include investment into the shipyard itself, likewise operational cost......... I'd have no issue with a Canadian produced DDG-51, since the majority of the design and development has already been done, likewise the majority of the production would be performed by Canadian subsidiaries of larger American companies. Though purely on cost grounds, the actual build would be cheaper in the United States through economy of scales alone, its highly unlikely the actual savings would be that great when compared to building the ships in Canada....... How would you explain to Canadians that we will spend several billion per ship built by Americans, versus several billion+ spent in Canadians yards? We wouldn't likely get that many more ships for the same budgeted total, well also sacrificing Canadian requirements by purchasing a solely off the shelf design from the Americans......and of course, once what remains of the domestic industry folds, we'll require American yards to repair our ships........Hence why we pick and choose technologies often developed by others and incorporate them into Canadian designed hulls...... It is, steel bashing is cheap when compared to what you put into the vessels........in effect, we purchase (and produce through subsidiaries) the more expensive portion of the warship, the combat systems (Radars, computers/electronics, weapons etc) , from pre-existing designs (or partner with other nations to co-develop in some cases). Then we utilize Canadian industry, aided by international partners and defense giants, to integrate said systems into a suitable size hull, a hull developed and produced (with working relationships with international shipbuilders) in Canada. What you purpose, fanning out the cheapest portion (the warship build), doesn't save that much money. Likewise, with gutting the actual domestic industry, selecting overseas yards, leaves little reason for defense companies to maintain subsidiaries within Canada (Why would a Lockheed or a BAE keep facilities in Canada when any additional work would be performed in another country?) I'm not convinced that would save any money in the long run (probably cost more), well sacrificing a Canadian industry, and spending taxpayers dollars on another nations subsidized industry........a more viable option, well offering a level of strategic protection in the advent of another large-scale war or period of serious international tension, is maintaining an important industry domestically. There is nothing wrong with international partnerships, but to maintain a viable industry, we need a continual drumbeat of production and retrofits in said yards at home. This of course requires a political consensus, and a purposeful strategy on the part of the RCN to seek designs that will only have a 20-25 year lifespan, as opposed to 30-40+ years until rust-out. The National Shipbuilding Strategy, to some degree, seeks to mimic this approach.

With all due respect, that approach makes zero sense.......you want to forgo costly subsidies to industry, an industry that when its not building or repairing GoC vessels, bids on commercial vessels to keep busy, and replace subsidies with greater expenditures within the Government to support a workforce that will only support the repair of GoC vessels, that are built overseas...... That is akin to having your house built by contractors, then years later wanting a bathroom reno, and instead of hiring contractors again, you and your family going to trade school to learn plumbing, electrical, carpentry and tile setting to avoid hiring those with the skills already. The Royal Navy stopped building its own ships in the 1960s, after doing so to varying degrees for hundreds of years, because it no longer made economic sense to support the dockyards and keep employed the various specific trades.....this was with a navy then that had a fleet measured in the triple digits.........No modern Western navy builds or maintains its own fleet to the extent in which you suggest for good reason.........Off the top of my head, the last major players to do so were the Soviet Union and China, in which everything was/is owned by the State comrade

I know, but have this aversion to Federal prison time.......with that, one could speculate based on already announced contracts and past working relationships with the Canadian Forces, in particular, with the RCN.........

How? It wasn't conceived yet, nor determined to be the most cost effective and strategic way forward.