Dougie93

Oh, no, I embrace it, the Cultural Marxists will bring themselves down under the weight of their own excesses, that's baked into the Marxist cake, so better to encourage them to go for broke, and besides, protesting is just pointless virtue signalling, doesn't achieve a thing. Do revolution, or revolution do not, but don't waste our mutherfuckin time with protests.

Bottom line; we cant actually defend Canada by military force, never could, almost 10 million square kilometers of territory, the vast majority of it complex and remote terrain with extreme weather conditions and limited logistical lines of communications. It would be a fools errand to even try, 10 million square kilometers of Canadian mostly wilderness, even the People's Liberation Army of China couldn't cover off on that.

You don't got the troops, 20,000 or so Canadian troops would be overwhelmed in any sort of widespread confrontation, would only take a small number of Indians fucking with us from coast to coast to grind things rapidly to a halt, the Canadian Army would be flailing in the face of it, too much territory to cover, too much complex terrain for them to operate from, not enough boots to put on the ground, the Indians could Taliban the governments shit with ease.

And for people who have some delusions about enforced accountability here, bear in mind, there's no pushing the Indians around, the government is afraid of the Indians not the other way round, as ultimately, the indians are de facto armed paramilitaries who cannot be intimidated. If you're gonna go in and try to force them to do something, that could very likely require the army, and even then, the Indians ain't scared of the army, so basically they're just holding the government for ransom. The Indians basically called the government's bluff at Oka in 1990, and the politicians have been afraid to confront them ever since.

The problem is this; because the "First Nations" are technically sovereign, the government cannot control the money once they hand it over, they can give it to the Indian "governments", or not, but the Indians will not tolerate the wypipo telling them how to run their affairs on their land, so the Indian "governments" basically just pocket the money and it never actually trickles down to the rest. Wash, rinse, repeat for 150 years, and we continue to spin our wheels with this game.

It's not like infrastructure spending is a crime against humanity or whatever, it's just a classically flawed socialist centrally planned make work project, tactically expedient yet strategically countrerproductive, I tend to file it under the Anti Work Movement heading; "work is bullshit, jobs are jails", as it's just the liberal elites trying to keep people occupied in order to stave off a revolution against the established order, but moreover, Canadians are totally naive as to how much of this money is going to end up in the pockets of organized crime which runs all construction in Canada, we're talking billions being skimmed off the top when you go big with centrally planned make work. Then Canadians complain when the criminals start lighting people up on the streets with firearms, many of those firearms bought with "infrastructure" money. Basically just feathering the nests of the mafia, who will also be buying off police and politicians with it as well. Flood the system with money by central planning; only a tiny fraction of it will end up where it was supposed to go. We'd actually be better off if the socialists just stopped pretending to uphold the Protestant Work Ethnic and just handed the money to people for doing nothing, that would at least direct more of the money into the consumer economy rather than some mafia chieftains wall safe.

Agreed, but the socialists cant print fiat gold, so it limits the money supply inherently, real and tangible, whereas the other direction lies Venezuela at some point, since the socialists will keep printing until they go flying off a cliff, even the American socialists will eventually blow themselves up.

Well, I am a Right Wing Nutjob, that's true, mea culpa, but that's no crime where I come from, or at least not as of yet. Wouldn't shock me if the Cultural Marxists who have seized control of Canada by way of the media and academia would try to criminalize me for my political views.

Basically, there's only three strategic threats to Canada, one is an American invasion, which, you're not going to be able to stop that with conventional force, and in the event of, the lick spittle cronies in Ottawa would probably just "invite" the Americans in to "secure us". Then there's terrorism and nuclear war. There is no defense against nuclear weapons, so that basically leaves terrorism and internal security threats, for which the appropriate defence would be; armed constabulary.

The realpolitik is that Canadians are simply not prepared to give up their spending on social welfare programs to properly equip the military, so anyway you slice it, our troops will be going in without the equipment they need, wish otherwise all you like, that is what is going to happen. This is why, as there is no realistic conventional military threat to Canada, I actually favour disbanding the Canadian military and going to a formal armed constabulary which cannot deploy, that way the Canadian government wont be able to deploy our troops as cannon fodder for the Americans even if they are getting pressured to do so by Washington. The Canadian military is basically in a state of slow motion collapse anyways, they're not equipped to fight in a war now, so the only thing you would missing, is Canadians coming home in caskets.

In terms of ADS for armoured vehicles, you don't actually have to buy new, the ADS systems can be added to the vehicles we have now, for example there is a system called AMAP-ADS by Rheinmetall, which Rheinmetall Canada in St. Jean Quebec could integrate on to the existing fleets, although it would be expensive by the terms of what Canadians think is expensive, not F-35 expensive, but more than the government is going to want to spend. Could be a case where, as per usual, they send the troops in without the kit, then when the troops start getting slaughtered, they are forced to reluctantly acquire the upgrades after the fact in the face of prohibitive attrition, see; Canada in Afghanistan.

A fighter may be tactically dangerous, but the relative small number of fighters which Canada could afford is not dangerous at the strategic level, at the strategic level the most dangerous weapon in the Canadian inventory is by far and away the Victoria class subs. Old as they may be, any submarine is an exponential strategic force multiplier, if it can launch torpedoes and lay mines, it can fuck anybody up no matter how big they are, when you start sinking ships, you're doing damage at the strategic level, whereas dropping a few laser guided bombs is going to have little to no strategic effects.

Canada is not going to be taken seriously as a full spectrum high intensity warfighting military, because that's not what it is, and the Canadian public is not prepared to spend anywhere close to what it would cost to make them into one, so it's a question of what is realistic in the real world in terms of what the DND budget is actually going to be. None the less, the reality is, even World War Three is discretionary for Canada, as even in the event of World War Three, nobody is going to be invading Canada. The only country on earth capable of invading Canada in a logistical sense, is the Americans, and if it comes to that, F-35's aint gonna save you, the Americans have actually embedded software in the plane which allows to disable the aircraft, in case any of the customers ever went rogue and tried to turn them back on the Americans.

The thing to consider is what are Canada's actual military imperatives? They're not the same as the United States, for example it is not a Canadian military imperative to bomb Iran on behalf of Israel or whatever, Canadian military imperatives are much more modest and domestic, air policing, search and rescue, securing the maritime approaches, aid to the civil power etc The Canadian Armed Forces are basically an armed constabulary on steroids more than they are a full spectrum high intensity warfighting outfit. For me, the bigger concern is armoured vehicles with active defence systems, because its more likely Canada will deploy troops on some misguided overseas military adventure than we are to be in a major air war, and the vehicles we have now (Leo 2, LAV 6, TAPV) do not have ADS, and if you look at what the Saudis encountered in Yemen and the Turks encountered in northern Syria, to wit, insurgents with anti-tank guided weapons, anything without an ADS is getting slaughtered, so the vehicles we have now are death traps if the troops are ever dropped into something like that.

The other issue is that with the Super Hornet they have a very precise metric as to how much they would cost to operate and maintain long term, whereas with F-35 nobody knows, so it could end up the F-35 is so expensive to operate and maintain that it ends up consuming too much of the RCAF budget and then they will have to cut other things to pay for it, other things which they are likely to use far more often than fighter bombers.

See this is why the Liberals favour the Super Hornet, because with Boeing they know what they're going to get up front, 100% IRB offset, for every dollar Canada spends on the Super Hornet Boeing will be contractually bound to spend a dollar on some sort of Boeing work in Canada.

The real problem with F-35 vis a vis the Canadian government is that the government wants 100% Industrial benefit offset for any expensive military hardware they purchase, but under the F-35 program they would only have the right to bid on up to $12 billion dollars worth of industrial work, but the F-35s are going to cost more than that, and even then Canada has no guarantee they will get $12 billion worth, could end up getting much less. If the Americans were to guarantee Canada 100% offset industrial benefit for the F-35, then I think it would have been a done deal a long time ago.

Oh, I think they could get away with flying Super Hornets, we're talking about Canada here, we flew the CF-101 Voodoos right into the 1980's, and they were totally obslete when we bought them in the 60's. Bear in mind, I like the F-35, I understand the feature benefit of VLO and sensor fusion, but does Canada, which doesn't fly first night of war scenarios anyways, and is really just going to be sending token forces to fly flag, actually require it? The only non discretionary mission is NORAD, and as that is air policing/QRA against Russian strategic bombers, there's no requirement for stealth.

The huge number of Indians in jail would seem to indicate otherwise, the Mounties seem to be getting it done. In terms of RCMP costs, roughly $100 million per year is actually quite an austere budget, the Canadian military could blow that kind of dough in an afternoon.

Sorry, but I don't find fiat currency to be based on anything real and tangible.

That being said, I would submit, Canada plausibly has more leeway to buy its own bonds than Venezuela does, in the event of major financial crisis, and I think they would do that in the event of.

Fair enough, but as you say, the largest economy country on earth is doing pretty much whatever it pleases vis a vis its money supply, as I said, entirely political, based on nothing more than the vague assertion "Full Faith and Credit of the United States", although I didn't say Canada couldn't Venezuela itself by Quantitative Easing run amok.

Well, I'm certainly prepared to accept the United States governments assertion that AQ and associated splinter groups are a legitimate national security threat subject to application of military force, but when it comes to counterterrorism, you have to be precise, under international law and laws of armed conflict, the legal definition is called Direct Participant in Hostilities (DPH) and in the case of Kadr specifically, they've failed to convince me that Kadr was in fact a DPH prior to him being swept up in a raid, and of course it doesn't lend them credibility when they have extracted confessions by torture, at that point I was pretty much forced to throw their case out of my court, prima facie.

According to whom? The United States government? Please.

Oh, and as for the genocidal war, you invoked that not I, that being said, I was an infantryman by trade, and as such state sanctioned mass murder on behalf of the British Crown was technically my job description, but as I say, I don't foresee genocidal war, as that is prohibited by national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, but, if they do decide to go Oka all over again, that's a dangerous game which I would caution them against. Go to that well too many times, some people gonna get shot eventually. It is what it is, but that's how it is, realpolitik.