Signals.Cpl

There should be consequences for their actions, if they see nothing wrong with their practice and there is nothing much that people can do about it other than put them in the same situation. I have a problem with someone throwing punches at random but the second you swing on me you are going to the hospital, same principle applies here, when you start publishing private information you lose your right to privacy as well. I should not expect any protection if I dont offer people the same protection.

And what if the situation does not fill one of those "lawful" or "unlawful" commands? What if it falls in uncharted territories? A pilot could make make a decision on the spot wether its right or wrong. Then what are you suggesting? Something goes wrong with a fighter, the pilot could think on the spot and try something new on the other hand if the event in question was not programmed with a solution the AI will most likely go in to an endless loop looking for an identical situation.

The cost of "making" a piece of equipment is irrelevant when you look at the process from saying we want a fighter better than an F35 to the time you are finally ready to build the fighter, and most costs of the project fall here rather than the actual building of the equipment. You really need to learn a little more about the whole process before you speak... What on earth are you talking about? What is negative equipment and unmoney? Pulling numbers out of thin air are we? Where is the proof that they had 1000 VP's paid millions? And I am sure you can manage it better? How exactly will that go? You seem to spread your grand experience all over the place but seems to me you never back any of it up... like here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=22066 Again lacking the knowledge does not stop you from speaking does it? What is your point? They were asked to provide a service and they gave that service... Once again you have provided no proof that most of the money is spend in such a manner. And they have the expertise that is so badly needed, that people are willing to pay for it? They provide the service the tax payer pays for the service... Reserve is the militia, the militia is the reserve... Give me one example where government funded but not government controlled militia's have proven useful? Who will train them? Youtube? The government will give them money for equipment but who will lead them? Who will train them during these "workshop" days? Who will supervise and control these militia's? What is to stop them from turning the weapons on the Canadian people? Gather intel? Safety checks? And then what accept payments for protection? Do you know what will happen with this idiocy? First it will be ethnic and based around national lines, soon enough organized religion will jump in and form militia's for protection. Soon enough you will have tens of thousands of militia men fighting for islam, thousands more fighting for christianity and and any other religion that decides to throw their lit in the mix... The rich form their militia's to protect their area while the poor once again are screwed to live under the boot of their local "warlord" because the police have long since withdrawn from most of the area's they protect because they are outgunned in every confrontation. The military has only 4500 Reg force infantry and maybe as much reserve infantry against what 10 or 20 times their number of militiamen equipped just as they are only fighting for a personal cause... you become dissatisfied with the result of an election and soon you form an insurgency until you are killed by a rival or get your way. And how do you calculate that? So they are loyal to whoever is providing the funds? Sure went well for Rwanda did it not? Who will guarantee that? Suddenly we have potentially millions of assault rifles and body armour in private homes and little to no training to go with them with even less loyalty to Canada... great idea right? I ask again, who will train them? And who will they be loyal to? Safety regs mean nothing if the government is outgunned and cannot enforce them... an oath will not do much when the militia is untrained and has more in common with a gang then a formed military unit? As for senior NCO's and officers, how would they become senior NCO and officers? Because in the CF they spend a great deal of time training and working to get to a position of leadership, who will train the militia officers? Or more likely they will fight each other absent a real threat from outside of Canada and we will end up with a war zone of a country and needing the US to come and get our behinds out of the fire because they are the only once with the means to help us, we sure wouldn't be able to do much with 100,000 soldiers spread throughout the country. No you are absolutely right, it has been tried in Rwanda, Sudan, Afghanistan as well as dozens of other nations that have experienced your militia model, none of them are better for it today, in fact most of them are substantially worse off. You mean sell the surplus tanks, vehicles, personal weapons and heavy weapons? couldn't join the military so you want someone to create a militia in order for you to play soldier? And who exactly will do the training? ITs one thing to learn to fire a rifle at a range, it is another to be drilled in the way to handle it in a war zone. Why does the CF need more manpower that will essentially be sitting on their arses and doing nothing but "protecting" weapons for the militia that does not need to exist in the first place? I doubt that rounds are that expensive... Sur they are, since the militia will most likely be incompetent and nothing better than a gang they will be going through the weapons pretty quickly. Actually it is quite expensive when you figure in to the equation that a willing person could spend thousands of dollars on all the top kit... If I was going to a war zone tomorrow I would take a few thousand from my savings and go shopping for everything starting from BEW's and gloves to comfort gear... You seem to lack any knowledge so I will not bother wasting more of my time trying to educate you on the subject as you are obviously a lost cause. I say again, sure worked well fro Rwanda doncha think?

No one wants the mess, some people benefit from Syria and are thus backing one side or the other but no one really wants own to the mess...

Love your rebuttal's keep 'em coming... And what do the resources have to do with anything? Are the oil sands going to man an infantry regiment? Will salmon supplement the RCN in battle? We need a military that can be supported by our economy but at the same time one that will capable of providing the most security for the money we have. Your command of reality is lacking... The US spend 10's of billions of dollars if not more on research of the F35 so far and all the while they have 70 years of experience win designing and building jet fighters and another 25-30 years of research and development before that in fighters with various other propulsion and yet you think that Canada can design a better, cheaper fighter and in a shorter amount of time? We need to send out SAR because your common sense is missing. Yes. Reserves AKA the militia... But my resources are not equal to yours, the government can give me $1,000 tax cut for military kit but since my behind is on the line I will spend as much as I can to buy the best kit I can buy. So the government gives tax cut to the 13+ million Canadians fit for military service and then spends the next 20 years training the 13,000,000+ strong militia and being unable to field a soldier on operation let alone spare a battalion because every soldier in the Reg Force and the reserves is tasked with training the new recruits in the ways of the military to what purpose? So we have the largest army in the world? Every western nation is moving away from conscription and you want us to go in the opposite direction? Exactly, the guy with a wife and 3 kids making minimum wage can only afford up to the "tax credit" Which means only essentially a uniform, helmet, tac vest and the cheapest boots you can find, while the guy making half a million a year and being forced in to the militia can afford to dish out $20,000 on best kit available to him. So now here we are in the 21st century fielding a military with the same basic composition as those fielded by Ancient Greece and Early Roman Republic, they relied mainly on militia and the militia was divided in the 3 basic groups, the rich bought the best armour and weapons money could buy, then what would have passed for the middle class at the time would field cheaper and lower quality weapons and armour and less of it while the third group (the poor) went in to the field with a weapon and little to no armour simply because they could not afford any. The rich will get the gucci kit, the middle class gets the rest and the poor get nothing...

Well simple, they invaded a lot of people's privacy and put them in danger so they should face the same problem(s). If they find nothing wrong with their actions then they cannot complain about the same actions levelled agains them. If you put my family in danger right along with the thousands of of legal owners in the state as well as countless of innocent people who might one day face the stolen weapons then by all means you and your families could take your share in the problem, since they think that they can get their political point across by attempting to ostracize gun owners then they need to be put in their place and they need to understand that breaching people's privacy and destroying their sense of security will not be tolerated.

And they should be held responsible for the consequences.

And luckily for us the F35 meets all those requirements... What does the size of the country have to do with having or not having a military complex? Because purchasing weapons is much cheaper than designing and fielding your own weapon systems unless you have a guaranteed market of considerable size. Canada has no domestic market of our own to speak of and risking billions or hundreds of billions on the off chance that we might get some demand is not worth it. We have a militia. Back to ancient Greece and Rome we go right? The more affluent citizen can buy all the gucci kit while the less well off are stuck with the garbage... so much for progress, while the rest of the world looks forward you look back. So you want to force people to buy the kit and conscript them in a militia that will never be used for what reason exactly? So we have our own market?

I would rather know I have nothing than falsely believe that I have something. I have suffered with enough of these idiotic decisions to know I am better off knowing I have nothing and making my plans based on that than rather than assume I have something to do the job which when all is considered is useless case in point LSVW....

By using vehicles and equipment in tasks they are ill suited for?

The Avro Arrow was designed and build in someone's home garage? Where was the R and D? Someone's bathroom? You really have no idea what yo are talking about do you? Nice argument...I would expect nothing less of you than random comments about Jello that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Good Job...

Sorry, I was under the impression that is how democracy works... just because you don't like it and you are in the minority doesn't mean the rights are limitless. And instead of working on fixing the problem what is your solution? An interactive map to point to where every assault rifle is? They exercised their freedom but if someone uses to its full potential the information they made available they will not be sharing in the blame in the next shooting by someone using stolen weapons thanks to the interactive map. And the thousands of people who have a pistol at home what about them? They don't want nor do they support assault rifles in private hands but now they are put in danger for something they neither support nor want. And this exercise of rights by the newspaper in question did not think of the greater good of society, if they had done so they would have realized that telling criminals where the weapons are means that those criminals now have a nice source of weapons for some time to come.

That theory would work only if they did not know exactly where the weapons are. With this list criminals are informed that there likely is one or more weapons and ammunition in the dwelling in question and thus they need to go about their business with more caution and planning, a gun may deter criminals but a gun cannot do anything if you are not there to fire it. If they know exactly who has the weapons they cant inure out when no one is home and for how long, in most cases you will need a couple of days to check the residence out and you can know that the parents leave at 8am, the kids leave at 8:30am and no one is back home until at least 4pm and then you are free to rob them wether they have one pistol or an arsenal for an entire army. Because if the criminal is smart there is not that much risk of death and arrest, the problem is not the idiots who are unable to use their brains, we are talking about those individuals who see a piece of intelligence they could use. If we follow through with your chain of thought, why do people risk jail time when they could go in to any store and buy a TV or jewellery? There are people who rob houses every day, if they go blindly hoping for something worth the effort why on earth would they avoid using the given intel? And who would you suggest keep this information?

Everyone can design and build a functioning fighter in their garage right? Yes, it is quite a deal more complicated now than it would have been in the 1960's. So we know you can do basic math without adding any substance to your argument... And that did not happen in the 1960's? And what is the trust factor?

I am not arguing against gun control nor am I suggesting we go about destroying/removing a list of gun owners and/or permit holder, I am arguing against idiots placing everyone at risk by announcing to the world exactly where the weapons are thereby giving industrious criminals a guide as to where they can get firearms and ammunition. No need to buy a gun for sometime to come, you have a list of people who could be relieved of their firearms without too much fuss. There is a list of people who are gun owners then by all means keep it but this has a limited audience meaning need to know as opposed to telling everyone where every legal firearm in the state is.

Then don't go blaming gun owners when their legal weapons end up on the street because of the freedom exercised by this "newspaper", because if some legal gun owner is robbed of their weapon and that weapon is used in a mass shooting gun owners will get the blame even though some journalist decided to publish a comprehensive list of gun owners. Gun owners are within the bounds of the law and instead of going after the law in question and changing it one way or another this journalist decided to endanger the entire state by printing a map detailing exactly where every legal firearm in private hands is located. The gun owners exercised their rights within the limits of the law while this "journalist" put millions of people at risk simply because of his/her idiocy. One side has freedoms with limits while the other side has freedoms without limits and they use those freedoms to endanger thousands of people who are living within the law of the land.

Not likely, I suspect that at some point they will "realize their error" if this becomes a big enough deal and sponsors start ducking out.

Red Baron was World War One ace, and what threat does a current generation operational well armed drone present to any combat aircraft? Cutting our fighting strength in order to increase our surveillance seems kind of redundant, why should we see what is coming if we will eventually end up unable to do a damn thing about it?

And can it face off with a MiG 15 let alone an F35?

No this is from a position of common sense, you stated we should buy around 20 F35s which I told you was a bad idea and I am sure Derek L can enlighten you as to why it is a bad idea more than I can. We started with 138 CF18's and we are now down to less then 80 fighters, unless you know something we don't I can foresee at some point over the next 30 years our numbers shrinking through attrition and if we buy too few aircraft we run the risk of leaving large parts of our country exposed. And then what? Anyone who has even the smallest glint of knowledge about this project can realize that the actual cost of the aircraft will not very greatly from aircraft to aircraft while the abilities might very greatly. Purchasing substandard aircraft(Drones) that meet only one of our needs serves no purpose at all because we will be fielding the same costs or slightly less but will have much diminished abilities. Buying more than one design of fighter aircraft will increase the cost and be overall detrimental to the abilities of the military. You stated buying 20 F35 and the rest drones, if you meant 20 F35 and then the rest another design I would support that idea if it were not for the little problem of increase cost and demand on the existing system, increase the cost and all the while decrease our cohesion as a force.

And what if it becomes apparent that some bright criminal is using the interactive map as a guide? What happens when hundreds of gun owners end up being relieved of their weapons by the likes of William Spengler? The newspaper just gave them a comprehensive list of gun owners to choose from, why waste time and money to buy weapons and ammunition when I can just go in to someone's home and just take it?

That may be silliness to you, but if I knew where I can get firearms and ammunition with little effort on my part and without worry as to who and for what the weapon was used before I got my hands on it. And where exactly do you think the illegally purchased weapons come from? The Fields of Iowa?

Yeah and in this case we are preparing for the worst by purchasing 65 aircraft, having 20 aircraft means that at one point or another we would have 12-14 aircraft available due to refit and machine losses, of the remaining 12 you can find yourself with 3-4 more in maintenance being repaired which means that we would have 8 fighters defending the entire country. How do you propose we deal with the Russian airforce which periodically visits us up north and show them the way out while also providing aircraft for coverage of the rest of Canada? Is it worth saving 5 billion over 30 years only to leave a significant gap in our defences and pray that we don't find out how bad we screwed ourselves. We either invest enough to defend ourselves properly or don't bother at all. And we won't be able to do the same job while only cutting a small % of the spending.

It does constitute as punishment, it was printed for the world to see so that now intelligent criminals have a go to guide as to the likely location of weapons. This is dangerous to people of all political beliefs and affiliations, think about it, someone wants a gun they can pick one of thousands of random houses do a recce of the house and I can go in and arm myself at my leisure. One scenario you have a criminal walking down the street and wondering which house to hit to get a firearm, on the other hand you have a criminal walking down the street with the address as to which house likely has a weapon in it. The internet is a powerful tool, using that tool with the information provided you can discover a lot of interesting things about people some of them very relaxed as far as data security is concerned.

we need something capable of doing the routine but also being able to perform in exceptional and adverse circumstances. What happens when the drones have to do the other 1% and they can't perform up to par? And as far as the pilot is concerned, they can make a decision not he spot with all the information available while the guy who controls the drone even if its instantaneous cannot hope to have the same degree of control and immediate intelligence as a pair of eyes attached to a brain. We need to hope for the best but prepare for the worst rather than hope for the best and prepare for the routine.