Derek 2.0

Have you considered the possibility that most Canadians are content or even pleased overall with our society/governance? Is it possible that your social circle is constructed of those that share a similar view as yourself, so as to lend the appearance of Canadians being of a similar mind? I don’t discount the latter possibility has also afflicted my social circle, and I could be in the minority……but I doubt it……..I feel that if Canada was as bad as you describe, and the majority of Canadians felt this true, your prescribed change(s) would have come about long ago........despite our "governing system".

How many Canadians worked in armament and explosives plants across the country producing the munitions dropped by Americans aircraft during the war? After surplus second war stock, Canada was the largest supplier of HE used in Vietnam……….I fail to see the point of your morale equivalency in this regard…

No, that was simpatico with my intent…….

Agreed fully………..A bipartisan consensus between both the Liberals and Tories would have to be a prerequisite to planning any long-term roadmap for transformation……if it was desired to succeed…..Hopefully this is what we’ll have with the National Shipbuilding Program.

I never discounted that, I saw it firsthand, but reductions in the various headquarters and procurement portfolios (namely the ones directly related to the Dirt Box) could certainly not be addressed during wartime…………It would be like a pro sports team replacing the coaching staff during the playoffs….

Did you issue a request earlier? As to your fringe views, that’s simple, fore if they were mainstream, one of the mainstream parties would adopt it…..like raising taxes to increase defense spending or requiring abortions of the disabled unborn to reduce healthcare costs…..

The required transformation, if it was then defined, could not have been adopted well energies were focused in the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan……

Do you eat an apple in one bit? As I’ve already stated, your extremist dogma would never be adopted by any party that hoped to one day govern, you can’t legislate from the fringes……….

The institutional changes required at DND will require decades to implement…..it is clearly easier to destroy something, as was done during the middle to late 1960s, then it is to rebuild something.

The ethos spouted by the early days of the Reform party were not electable, and doubly so, those with shared views such as yourself, being a cancer to any mainstream political party……..Canadians, by and large, are centrists, and extremist vitriol spewed by people like you (or from the extreme left) will never be elected by a centrist populace……..as such, this is why your desired form of governance is only found in despotic regimes. This is why the lunatic fringe, is found on the fringes of society and not the mainstream.......

The report fails to put the horse before the cart…….It’s contention that DND is in disarray (and has been since the late 1960s) is very correct, but pouring money into a broken system, without a proper direction defined first, only ensures a more expensive disarray………. A new “White Paper” on defense is needed first, a roadmap that also shares a general consensus between both the Conservatives and Liberals, so as to ensure a multigenerational transformation can be seeded and allowed to grow through changes of Government to allow a semblance of stability. Only once this is achieved, should increases to funding be granted…. With that said, I do agree fully with its contention that DND is plagued by significant bureaucratic bloat, coupled with politically motivated largess, namely real estate and driven procurement……in these areas the report is bang on.

If you consider your unelectable political beliefs “intelligent”, I very much hope you and any other extremists do leave the party, so as to be further marginalized in the fringes where you belong…….thankfully, the vast majority of the electorate’s views don’t align with your perverse world views.

The form of “Conservatism” to which you apparently subscribe; drastic increase in defence funding, a xenophobic immigration system, eugenics/forced abortion of disabled fetuses, the banning of privately owned firearms etc. is fortunately not electable within Canada…..maybe the Wiemer Republic….but not Canada. None the less, reductions to Government spending and in this case, targeted spending with DND, coupled with the top-down review, ongoing, to redefine what role and direction the forces should take, is a conservative approach………pissing money away on a broken system is not.

I doubt it........none the less: ....The rockets red glare, the B61s bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that the American flag is now here.... I doubt you’d need many nukes, and its very possible, West of the Ottawa river, you’d be greeted as liberators by most......

Realistically, a wing of Minuteman and several squadrons of B-2s and B-52s (escorted by the Wisconsin ANG) for the targets closer to the 49th, and that would be all she wrote……the bombers would only have to tank once to be home for dinner.

And of course land and sea based BMD, which would require the use of decoys, resulting in a juggling act between warheads and ghosts.......then of course your Boomers being tailed by a 688I or Virginia, resulting in losses to your force prior to the dance.....and of course the changed SIOP allowing a "first strike"........so many factors, and the reason why only the Soviets at their peak posed a true threat.

Exactly, even if a second Boomer could be surged prior to hostilities (representing 50% of the deterrent), with only ~32 missiles (and say 96 MIRVs), you’d be hard pressed to effectively target 10-15 strategic locations, let alone wasting the limited warheads on cities……. -12 warheads for Washington DC area -12 warheads for Kings Bay naval base -12 warheads for Bremerton naval base -12 warheads for Barksdale AFB -12 warheads for Whiteman AFB -12 warheads for Minot AFB -12 warheads for Malmstrom AFB -12 warheads for FE Warren AFB….. They go so quick…….and assuming you had the throw weight, and could add two additional MIRVs to each missile, they would be gobbled up on doubling up on the holes in the ground in Minot/Malmstrom/Warren, then Cheyene Mountian/Peterson AFB, Offut AFB and finally Nellis AFB……..and the United States would still have a strong second strike, and a clean-sweep with Tac-Nukes…… And the Canadian language would only be spoken in hell

For such a minimalistic deterrent, with a small level of redundancy, you’d be looking at a force structure similar to both the United Kingdom or the French……Both countries estimate the replacements for their current (sub-based) deterrent in the neighbourhood of 50-60 billion in acquisition cost, and upwards of 100 billion in lifetime sustainment costs. Of course both the British and French have been nuclear powers for decades, with the British now relying upon the United States Navy maintaining their SLBM fleet and the French looking towards further cooperation with the British to reduce costs. Of course, these costs don’t reflect the costs of maintaining the rest of the required force structure needed to defend your nuclear deterrent, stalk the other guys deterrent and all the other required support systems (i.e. communications, surveillance, intelligence etc.) to make your deterrent viable…. ...And with all that, we still discount the synergies and savings the British and French receive from belonging to a mutual defense organization like NATO….which your hypothetical foe contributes to upwards of 70% in terms of financial outlay.

Canada has expertise in the construction of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles? Again, wherever you’re quoting your costs from (Wikipedia?), they obviously don’t include development costs (or the developments costs of prior technology), nor the cost of maintaining an arsenal, coupled with all the ancillary costs required to make it effective……..There is nothing cheap about a strategic nuclear deterrent………

I never questioned the moral right for self-determination, but we’re talking realities……….The unrest in the Ukraine forced the Russians to secure the strategic home (for over 200 years) of their Black Sea fleet.......Spetsnaz trumps your assertion of failed Western Diplomacy.

I think you misunderstand the costs associated with not only acquiring tactical nuclear weapons, but maintaining them…….. None the less, a cruise missile based deterrent, be it ship/sub/air/land based is by far the least effective and most vulnerable to both a first strike and counterstrike………hence why the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, India and Pakistan don’t rely upon cruise missiles for a strategic deterrent.

In fairness to the French, the MN and Legion took part in combat operations in Afghanistan…….with that said, with the fall of the Wall, many European countries looked at their militaries as a job creation program and their members became an extension of the civil service…..in fatigues.

Ahh, your narrative is incomplete with its failure to mention the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, which has been a strategically important asset to the Russians for over 200 years.....……In the Russians view, the instability in the Ukraine, gave the Russians no other choice then seize the Crimea…..this of course is not the “West’s fault”.

Indeed....

Exactly, and to follow that meme, our membership in alliances like NATO and NORAD, garners us a level of savings through a group plan………..