Signals.Cpl

You compared your self to the Taliban? Lovely...

Kind of like you. Right?

I really hope you guys know I'm kidding.

Nah, we need to give them a false sense of security before we go and burn the white house again.

We will borrow the go to Russian strategy, Let the enemy in, and wait for winter. Lets hope the Americans are unprepared.

If we are feuding with the US neither Canada(if we had nukes) or the US would consider using nukes on the other. Seeing as the fallout would most definitely affect their own people.

What would you say about Rwanda? How far they have come since 1994 is astonishing at least to me. They are functioning as a democracy, and dealing with the trials of many of those animals who participated in the Genocide.

What would you rather call the cold war?

Yeah, which party do you foresee bringing that topic up for discussion?

I think cadets still get to fire C-7's.

In that case, we are never getting those SAR aircraft... such a shame

I wouldn't mind that idea.

I would say if we ever go ahead to create this it would have to be more along the lines of the State Guard, a non combat unit that is specifically organized for disaster assistance and can be made available to the Federal government for use in another province or territory.

I wasn't trying to be an ass, I made the assumption you were talking in general. Sorry

What I'm saying is that keeping the military as a strategic reserve when nature or manmade disaster strikes is the safest path for Canadians. At least in my mind, defence of Canada includes war, terrorism, Natural and man made disaster. Last year when Winnipeg was in danger, they requested help and I believe 300-400 PPCLI soldiers moved from Shilo to Winnipeg to assist. And with the current state, creating a major national organization to deal with disasters is likely not going to happen

I am all for the federal government having an agency to be able to deal with a major disaster. During World War 2 the RAF had civilian staff to repair the damaged airfields, when the Germans bombed them during the Battle of Britain, many of those civilians refused to do the job because it was too dangerous. That is the main difference between the CF and a civvie agency, soldier cannot say too dangerous I'm not doing that civvie can. And the other major point is when the CF send a unit to a disaster are, they send a self sufficient unit, one that does not become a burden on the local economy that in many cases would already be fragile. I am not suggesting using soldiers for long term assistance, my point is CF goes in stabilizes the situation and gets out. Another example would be Haiti, where the USAF went in to Port-au-Prince airport and in 48h turned increase its capacity from 30 flights a day to 180 flights a day. Within a week most military personnel should have been removed. Stabilize the situation let the civilian authorities wether in country or internally sort it out and hand over the situation within a few days,

Why you kick my dog?

I understand your point, but what I mean is when there is no one else the military steps in. If an earthquake hits BC we can't wait for other agencies to organize themselves the CF will go, if Winnipeg is about to be flooded you call the CF to protect the City. I don't mean using the CF as a cheap source of labour, my view is that if there is no one else use the military. No point in have 100,000 Reg Force, Reserves and Rangers if Canadians are dying while waiting for a civilian agency to assist.

How many countries besides Russia, America and China have that capability?

I saw john Steward talking about this. Funny and sad at the same time.

Is that comment directed only for Africa or does it include the world?

Best defence is a good offence.

Does a nuke counteract a nuke? I dare say that the US navy has as much power as probably most other navies combined. That power comes from the super carriers the US Navy has which give it tremendous power all around the globe. Can you imagine the budget that will be freed up if the US gave up nukes? They would probably have the ability to easily double the carriers. And I know I sound naive, I don't think that we will have a nuclear free world unless something really horrible happens that changes the way people see WMD.

No the military is meant to defend the nation, fight in wars and when needed help in disaster management. The military is the all purpose last resort force, when all else fails you call the military to fix things. Last few years LFCA stood up a number of formations for deployment to assist in disaster management in Canada, few were needed but they were there if needed.

I agree 100%, a nuke will not fill sandbags in Winnipeg, nor would it supply people in isolated communities when a storm their only way in.