Derek 2.0

Apples to oranges.........The Japanese were not killing other Japanese, nor were the Allies requested by the elected Government of Japan to aide in such actions......likewise, Japanese public opinion played little into the Japanese surrender, nor post-war "compliance" of the US occupation...... Far better comparisons can be drawn to other similar insurgencies. If one is to examine past successful counterinsurgency actions, like the British in Malaya or Northern Ireland, "Victory" was gained by the side that was able to produce the least amount of wanton civilian deaths, coupled with provisions for security established by namely the locals themselves. The MCP, PIRA and finally ISIS didn't/won't win because they could kill more of their fellow citizens in villages/tube stations/markets, they lost because they couldn't keep the hospitals, schools, waterworks and power on.......

If you have a passport, I'm sure MSF/Red Cross will allow you to aid them in combating Ebola in West Africa........off you go

Again, the first line in the chopped and quoted paragraph: Context Waldo, context.............The Admiral speaks to weaponry deployed by stealth platforms. With the shift in focus away from shorter range weapons be they bombs, short range missiles etc...........There is no dispute that an aircraft that can deliver a long range missile form 50-100+km away from it's target is more advantageous then an aircraft that requires delivering a smart bomb within ~5km of it's target.......Clearly longer range weapons garner the ability to avoid a whole host of potential threats to the platform deploying said weapon........ As is said, this is not the end of stealth (or the USN's plans for the F-35C and 6th gen Super Hornet replacement), but the inclusion of longer range weapons to be deployed by the USN's aircraft, ships and submarines.

Unlike the Canadian Forces, but like the United States, the RAMC maintains an active program in the study of both germ warfare and infectious disease: Porton Down The reality is, despite not only mine and Army Guy's input, to say nothing of the actual statement from the Government, it is you that is both wrong and ignorant on this mater...........The Government of Canada is providing support in terms of money, hospital supplies and civilian experts in this field, not the Canadian Forces. Also, the United States and United Kingdom, even with military experts in such studies, are providing forces in an extremely isolated fashion, limiting exposure to the local population, unlike your suggestion.

Medical personal that have been specially trained by both the RAMC and NHS, to provide support to professionals treating infected healthcare professionals in an isolated environment..........unlike the Canadian Forces, the Royal Army Medical Corps employs both biomedical scientists and environmental health specialists......

From the concerns highlighted in your blog, do you claim CTV, despite their initial report, suggested that their interviewed guests represented the views held by CTV? On the surface, it appears that CTV started with negative report of the story, then had guests with countering views.......where is the bias? As you mention, you received training from a CTV "root school" in broadcast news, and I assume you do not presently work for CTV (or another MSM outlet), and to be blunt, your claim of a bias at CTV from what you describe appears weak.......on the surface, one could construe, you might have a bias of your own against CTV and the "big media companies"........good luck with the blog though.

A proper hospital ship, that by it's very nature is isolated from the local populace, sent by a country with an extensive history in both germ warfare and tropical disease, to support trained healthcare workers already in the region.........by happenstance, unlike the Canadian Forces, RFA Argus has recent experience with contending with deadly outbreaks:

.......Yet all three of the major parties decry what they feel is bias in various media outlets.........If you're a right leaning voter you chide the CBC, Star and Globe & Mail.....a Liberal, both the National Post and Sun News........the NDP, all MSM is beholden to corporate interests, so one relies upon progressive independent sources....if you're a low information voter, the local Global news, free local papers and Jon Stewart.......A wing-nut, Alex Jones, Coast to Coast AM and Yahoo....etc Everyone sees bias in media that counters their own held beliefs..........

I did answer your question in relation to the supposed "race to the bottom"........I feel ads that rely upon (now) open media sources lend greater worth than ones of baseless attack conjured in ones own party headquarters.

It appears the passage: Is lost on you........As stated, the USN (and by extension the Marines) have a limited ability to deliver longer range weapons when contrasted with not only other nations, but also the USAF........such weapons negate any current or future detection abilities an enemy could leverage against both conventional and stealth forces, up to and including OGFT's reference to VHF/UHF radars........When one has the ability to poke the eyes out of an advisory, the level of stealth deployed pays little consequence.

So this is an argument against one party (the CPC) having the greater ability to generate donations from its party membership, which translates into more attack ads.......

The point is the actual intent of the passage, which address the decades long shortfall in development coupled to reliance on the part of the USN on standoff technology that traces its roots back to the 1970s and 1960s.......an area where the USN is falling behind not only European programs, but also Russian.

Nor was I being partisan..........I think allowance of actual sourced media clips could lend further credibility to such ads, be they from the CPC/LPC/NDP.....as it could also disallow claims of a biased media from both the left and right..

and from the piece: Hence, the USN will look towards weapons that enable a greater standoff capability from current and future sea-based, sub-surface and airborne platforms.......Lockheed's response

Could not both the LPC and NDP make use of their own attack ads to sway the "low information voter"?

What of him?

If you remember, in this very thread, we discussed said comments, and when quoted in their entirety, read quite different.

I still await your answer:

score: 2 subject change, 1 deferral

score: 1 subject change, 1 deferral

Yet the USN has been attempting to develop their own stealth aircraft since the 1980s........and are both committed to the F-35C and development of a 6th generation stealth aircraft to replace the Super Hornet..........of note, the F-35 will field low RCS stand-off weapons

And here again, you've been provided with USAF safety records for both single and twin engine combat aircraft.......the result, single engine aircraft have a better safety service record over the last three decades.........your subject change noted

What facts? You haven't provided any facts, but several opinion pieces.......and I'm far from testy, I think its both sad and funny when you attempt to discuss subjects that you don't understand, and when called on these various subjects, you obstinate, change subjects and level juvenile insults. So here is your chance to prove me wrong: I won't hold my breath though

I am a pilot, have shares in various defense stocks, and know you do not have a clue as to what it is you're trying to explain......but by all means, go forth and show me wrong!!!

Keep searching until you find one that demonstrates how the Russians/Chinese have defied natural physics, allowing a long wavelength radar beam the ability to provide the required resolution in terms of both angle and range to act as a fire control radar.........Also, if they do develop an AESA radar in the VHF/UHF bands, how such an active radar won't be vulnerable to not only conventional kinetic weapons, but electromagnetic attack from the much more flexible (in terms of frequency jumping) short-wavelength AESA radar found within the F-35.......this of course precludes the F-35's DRFM countermeasures, which allow the F-35 the ability to manipulate a threat radar signal, altering return values in terms of the targeted F-35's RCS, range, angle and speed. As pointed out in one of your links, the Americans have also been developing VHF/UHF band radars for decades, with the prime contractor and developer being Lockheed........a pioneer in all things stealth.............Ask yourself this, if the Americans feared developments in UHF/VHF radar, why will in a decade+ ~70% of their combat aircraft inventory be stealth aircraft........Why would all the various partner nations be on the stealth bus? And why would the Chinese and Russians be developing their own stealth aircraft if stealth can be defeated as easily as you suggest?