Derek 2.0

I doubt you could find sound evidence about members returning home from the World Wars and Korea to compare…First, said data would not have been readably available…….I would suggest our collective understanding of mental health wasn’t as advanced, coupled with the social stigma of divulging such information…… Unlike then, we have better techniques to diagnose and treat such conditions today, in addition to a now required practice of affording our personal time to “decompress” in a benign, yet clinical environment, before returning home. As such, I would suggest that instances then and now are probably similar, but we are better prepared today to carry out treatment of those in need……… The only detraction between the two periods, in my view, would be the erosion of the Royal Canadian Legion……..It’s past services provided tremendous help and acted as a support network for vets to share their experiences (and troubles) with likeminded people in a private environment.

Are you suggesting Russia and Canada do not have conflicting claims in the Arctic? And you speak of not being able to defeat a nuclear Russia…….On our own, that’s correct, but of course being a NATO member, we fall under the American nuclear shield. Canadian foreign investment is hardly charity……….Would you consider the benefits we receive from belonging to NATO and NORAD as charity?

That's all well and good, but the Kurds alone are not capable of defeating ISIS. Both are already asking for such help.......as I said a few days ago, I wouldn't be surprised if US special forces weren't already on the ground in a limited, covert capacity. The length of the embargo was measured in months until a resumption to normalcy, and in such a short period of time, the impact was felt in both the West and East……..of course the level of consumption then, was drastically less than it is today………A regional war, devoid of intervention by outside actors, would last generations.

The world powers, when faced with certain economic collapse of their own nations, with all the ensuing civil “discomfort”, will most certainly choose the default gamble that is instilled in man’s natural psyche….survival of the fittest. As to the United States (and the Western Hemisphere in general), I’ve little doubt that they are the best insulated from such a global calamity, as I doubt that they would instigate such a conflict, but it is a certainty that at some point, the United States, like in previous conflicts, would be dragged in. You discount this possibility, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would have you both ponder and answer this: In your view, why is China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea etc. not only replacing and modernizing their militaries, but also increasing their nation’s ability to conduct expeditionary warfare on a global scale? China alone has been orienteering their military, by both new equipment and basing agreements with other nations, a direct path to both the Middle East and East Africa…….A clear measure to both influence and protect what they see as a vital national interest.

I do not disagree that there are alternative sources of energy, but increased exploration, production and creating the infrastructure to deliver these alternative sources, even with a concerted effort to a degree sufficient to replace Middle Eastern oil, are decades away...If a regional war within the Gulf were to take place, large enough to interrupt both the production and delivery of oil, within ~6 months (based on the sizes of most countries National Reserves) the World economy would take a drastic hit. You speak of Europe; there is no doubt that Russia would raise the prices of petroleum and natural gas, and those European nations that could, would pay it. Those countries that could not would freeze and starve in the dark. Not to be forgotten though, an emboldened Russia, by an influx of capital, both financial and political, would most certainly implement its designs on reuniting ethnic Russians in other Eastern European nations…….outside of War, there is nothing Europe could do to stop them…. Then there is China, which relies heavily upon Middle Eastern oil…..there is no doubt that it would have to secure a safe alternative, a finite alternative that other Asian powers would also be vying for..........you couple this with nuclear India and Pakistan, countries that like China, are also in drastic need of securing fresh water and food......and you have the likely focal point of the next World War...........

The World’s energy infrastructure would take generations to change to alternative fuels……as to the importance of Middle Eastern oil on the World’s economy, if doing without was a plausible option, the World would have long since divorced itself from the region……

So you agree that American/Western forces are required on the ground to help the Kurds counter ISIS in Northern Iraq……..Now what of the Iraqi army? At this point, I doubt both the Kurds or the Iraqi Government would reject an American offer to deploy ground troops. ...and Europe, China, India, Pakistan etc............If a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran were to take place, restricting or stopping the flow of Middle Eastern oil to the rest of the World, rest assured, after the Global economy tanks, the varying factions will go to war over the remaining energy resources on the planet. "When the oil stops, everything stops"

Air strikes alone won't help the Kurds.......the Kurds can't hope to defeat ISIS with small arms.......They would need modern and more powerful weapons, but more importantly Western Forces to train them how to both use them and employ them correctly. I agree that it would likely accomplish little, not for lack of money, but lack of will. I agree on letting them sort out their own differences, but geopolitical realities won't allow it..........simply put, a regional war could start long before the World has found a new source of fuel for it's economic engine......such a sudden and drastic change will be the start of the Third World War.

I am glad defeating ISIS is not the objective, since the operation at present certainly will not do that. As to containment, that too will not work. The containment of Saddam and the containment of ISIS are very dissimilar; the containment of Saddam was intent on preventing him from posing a threat to his neighbours, coupled with removing his ability to use air power against the insurgencies in his North and South. ISIS is not containable, fore it is not a despotic regime, but an ideology supported directly and indirectly by a growing segment of Sunnis within the region……airstrikes alone can’t contain a dogma that is intent on creating a Caliphate over most of the Middle East………..Airstrikes might slow it’s armies in a conventional sense, but then ISIS reverts back to its infantile roots and continues.. Once Iraq (or the majority of it) falls, the next target will be Jordan….Then Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Emirates….Then of course Israel and/or Iran……but somewhere along the line we will see a regional war ignite in the region between Sunnis and Shia Muslims…. The only possible way to dissuade this currently successful and growing ideology is to demonstrate through the use of force to the majority of the population that it’s leaders and the belief itself is an apostasy to Sunni Islam by defeating it in the areas from where it gains it's strength…..well also offering safety and security to foster an alternative among the populace….That of course would require a commitment that I don’t feel any Western Democracy is prepared to make…..

NATO didn't fight in Iraq...................But the Americans did, and if the Iraqi Government had of agreed to a SOFA with the Obama administration (allowing US forces to remain), Iraq wouldn't be in this mess.............Do you feel NATO should remain in Afghanistan, when the time comes, to prevent a similar outcome? As to providing "air cover" and "supplies", that alone will not defeat ISIS.........Kurdish forces equipped with small arms will not defeat ISIS armed with modern tanks, armoured personal carriers, rockets, mortars etc........Nor will the Iraqi army.........Already ISIS has control of the Mosul dam, which controls a large portion of Iraqi fresh water and electrical power (to say nothing of the threat of breaching it to cause widespread destruction downstream) and is circling the Iraqi army around Baghdad..........it's very probable that in a mater of days, ISIS will be able to lay siege to the capital.......once Baghdad falls, that's it. At this point, to prevent a further disaster, I don't see how the Obama administration can keep "boots on the ground" out of the equation.......the Americans have ~10k personal in Kuwait and ~2000 Marines in the Gulf........Of course said forces could be used to pull Americans and other Nationals out of the country before total collapse: Of course, the entire game changes if Iran enters the equation........but of course, that could start a regional war with the other Arab Gulf States....

Why? Do you think American forces should never have left Iraq? What about Afghanistan?

Which are the few "good reasons" why Canada should operate the Super Hornet out to the 2050s, decades after the type is retired by the USN and RAAF?

Then why the confusion? Care to offer up why you feel the Super Hornet would be suitable for the RCAF out to the 2050s time frame, when the current operators, the USN and RAAF, plan to retire their fleets decades earlier?

Though I largely agree that Canada doesn’t face a plausible threat of invasion today, decades ahead that assessment could change with the race to the Arctic’s resources……… Of course, today Canada does face the possibility of an asymmetric attack and threats to Canadian interests around the world.

Yet the three members involved in the conversation had no issue with the term.........Clearly you had/have no idea what we were talking about.....

Will providing these women and children with food, water and first aide prevent their slaughter by ISIS forces?

The post above clearly....

Just funded aircraft.......... So I'll ask again, why do you propose the RCAF operate the Super Hornet out to the 2050s timeframe?

Does its name start with an L and end with a ightning?

I trust you'll return once it has entered RCAF service

Super Hornets or Growlers?

All of the above........based upon already tested weapons, but more importantly, the F-35's DAS......... Of course, for accuracy, said blogger should be contrasting the F-35B with the Marines F/A-18 A/B Hornets, since they are being replaced prior to the Harrier II…………But hey, he’s got a blog…..doesn’t need to actually know anything.

Clearly to improve the survivability of the aircraft in a modern threat environment…….but one must ask, why is DoD not funding it? Clearly because allocating funds to a design that has it’s aerodynamic roots in the 1970s would akin to Sony improving upon VHS machines today.

I've already provided an answer.

Then you have read wrong......the conformal tanks and pods are the only proposed upgrades, funded by Boeing, that have been presented to the USN.........and of course, have not been funded. One must ask though, why does the lauded Super Hornet require improvements aimed at increasing it range and decreasing it's RCS going forward?