ZenOps

It should be however. An indy car drivers primary role, is to drive the car, not fix it. A parliamentary role is primarily to make laws, which means sitting and debating. Recess is just like schoolchild recess, meant as a 15 minute break to do other things (and perhaps catchup on a few personal things) its not meant as a 10 month holiday. These kids nowadays - giving themselves 10 month recesses... Bunch of spoiled brats.

Yes they are more busy - doing busy work. Y'know - filler jobs like touring the country and eating ham. Making laws? Whats that? Canada doesn't need laws.

This is a good point. Tomahawks are starting to go the way of horse and buggy as well. Really only useful in one or two instances, pre-emptive strikes on things like radar stations. Nukes were moved to SLBM's a long time ago because the chances of knocking down a SLBM (especially one with a radar scattering head that creates ghost radar images) is infinitesimally small and much quicker. Its so fast, that even a modern military nation will not have chance to blink - before a defense can be activated. Bombers, fighters and cruise missles are soon to hit the museum.

Of course. How do you think Britain and France managed to capture half of the world. How did the US become independant? Greed is good. I don't think it should be an argument about the morality of war. This is morality about spending way too much. Like buying a Rolls Royce, when you just need a guy on a bicycle to deliver something. Canada is a small population nation. Billions means a lot to a military. If you divvied up the money into wages for a standing ground army, I don't know - it would sure make a whole lot of privates happy. "Spending money on military is a self fulfilling prophecy for war"

Thats just it, these planes are designed to replace another plane from the '60s. If you said that you were replacing your buggy and whip from the 60's with another buggy and whip, I'd think it might be a concern. Or better yet, the military is upgrading their 9.6 kilobit modems, with 33.6 kilobit modems! Yay! Stealth is of course - only truely effective 'before' war starts. Tomahawks and B2 bombers are not designed for use 'during' war (because how can you be stealthy once the enemy knows you are firing on them?) unless you are testing them. And the Gulf is just a test war for the real deal - nuke equipped Tomahawks on pre-emptive strike. SLBM's actually have both technologies, the M51 specs include a radar scattering head (they determined that putting radar absorbing material did not work on an object that flys at Mach 15) Most fighter jets max out at around Mach 2.5

If you ask me, Obama is not so worried about civilian protestors as he is about our MP Rob Anders. And rightfully so. It would be foolish to not have a military presence between certain people. Harper is probably more worried about MP George Galloway (if he were allowed in Canada) if there were to be a summit in Britain. Sometimes, the terrorists *are* the national government officials. We've already made up our minds about Kim Jong Il and North Korea. And Canada most definitely does have some MP's that would be considered terrorist by the current US administration. Brits used to blame Irish elected officials of being terrorist all the time. Do I think Rob Anders is a US terrorist? Not until he brings out a bomb and "Does a Wiebo" which I'm not entirely sure is beyond his supremacist skewed mental state. As of today - Rob is just a jerk, probably worse than Jaffer and deserving of jailtime instead of a $500 fine.

That is the main reason, and a good one. Canada as a nation can never break away from the monarchy until it has a basic military presence. The Queen may well want Canada to be independant, but not if its going to be run over the second they let go of it. Symbolic MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is not totally necessary, but some abililty to take on aggressors without foreign aid is important. Its similar to the issue/problem with Tibet. If China left today, there would be a dozen other nations looking to subjugate it tomorrow (and don't say it wouldn't be a fascist Euro nation, because history tells everyone different). Calgary was not all that long ago, Fort Calgary - a military garrison/outpost. Fort McMurray is still aptly named.

Yeah, a Tomahawk wouldn't even be noticed nevermind be shot down. You can go two ways, sneaky or fast. Launched off a submarine or the deck of a warship. I hope that fighter can take off and reach the target in less than 90 seconds, because its going to take sonar/radar 2 minutes to determine a launch, and two minutes to go through the chain of command to agree to launch the interception. IE: An SLBM like the M51, will be travelling at mach 15. Offshore launch means less than five minutes. ICBM you have 18 minutes. And at interception, you will probably be going several mach directly into it, which is coming directly at you at several mach. In order to effectively shoot it down, you should be chasing the missle at its speed (from behind), which easily adds quite a few more minutes. Reagan had the right idea with Star Wars, but even so it would never hit 50% of any incoming missles (assuming a 10,000 or more along with chaff empty head missles as well) We would be lucky - to hit 10.

You never know. Activists are almost immune to the idea of being arrested, they will do what they need to do in order to get their point across. In many cases, the most militant criminal activists are the ones that have deemed their government too "large and oppressive", any nation that puts up a Billion dollars for protection from its own cities and citizens qualifies. What I'm hearing from Harper is "Let us eat cake, you cannot buy or sell bread in your market in our auspicious presence, begone peasants or I will sick my dogs upon you!" I think King Harper just upped himself to Emperor Harper, maybe even Mau Tse Harper. "My G8/20 trade is more important than your hot dog vending trade, begone you lowly Palestinia.... Ooops" Fictional quotes included.

Thats assuming that if Canada puts up defenses, the guns will be pointing outward and not inward. I've said it before, Wiebo Ludwig and Timothy McVeigh are the most damaging types of individuals to the country. Civil disruptances like "Bloody Sunday" and Tiananmen are the ones you "call in the military" for when talking about true defensive defense spending (Saving the cities from LA type riot implosion.) If Wiebo had the means, I'd be willing to bet he would bomb Hibernia too, and make just as much a mess as the BP spill. In which case, you can't really use a fighter or bomber plane on your own citizens. And of course a fighter can't shoot down a Tomahawk cruise, SLBM or ICBM. If a nation is hellbent enough to send an easy target slow bomber to shoot down - they will definitely be sending the rest of it too.

You just have to know this is just going to spur criminals on. Its like hanging a $100 million Picasso on the wall, it tends to spur the ultra criminals who would ordinarily pass it by - into action, just for the sake of action. People are strange that way, build a $300 billion dollar airplane fighter, and see if you can bring it down.

It will be interesting to see how Canadians with deal with a possible internal conflict. If Duceppe or a future seperatist gets his wish, and Quebec breaks apart from Canada you can almost be assured he will nullify the British land treaties with the natives. That could easily cause a three way conflict within the nation. Who gets to use those F-35s in that situation (other thread)? I'm thinking British english speaking Canada will. I am a much stronger supporter of the Crown under Elizabeth II, not so much under Charles III. The French seem to not have as strong a tie with their monarchy "Let them eat Cake!" but they do seem to have a fairer system than the British (some would say more socialist - if you speak French that is.) Brits already have crown divvied land under British Dominion, the rest of us (including many French) do not. "French" Quebec, much like "British" Columbia could very well be in Canadas future if we cannot agree to some closer semblance of nation of unification. In a physical war between East and West Canada over ideals (like the bloody North South US civil war) I'm pretty sure I would not shoot a Frenchman at distance, even if the government mandated it. I'm not sure how WWII vets felt about shooting men of other nationalities (Italians, Germans, etc.) at distance.

Don't be so sure the US isn't just as paranoid of Canada... Obama had to give up his Blackberry for a long time because it had too much Canadian technology. The US was concerned it was a possible security issue (which it is). Eventually many months later - they made him a special one inhouse built knowing what every transistor was doing.

There is also another factor to consider. We cannot use these fighters as we see fit. About 15 years ago, "unfriendly" militant forces used to buy up US arms (specifically anti-tank launchers) to try and use against US friendly tanks. Surprise - in that they would not acquire or fire upon the tanks because of a special radio signature that all the tanks emitted (to avoid friendly fire as much as avoid fire from stolen weaponry) Which means - we can *never* use these planes against the US or anyone the US deems friendly enough to share the technology with. Now, history tells us that the US almost completely destroyed York (Now Toronto) way back in the war of 1812. If the US were to all of a sudden have a president who called the Taliban a friend (unlikely, but stick with me) we would also be required to make them our friends. We do not have a choice, if the US makes Britain an enemy, well you get the picture... Its something to keep in mind. I don't think there would be a "kill switch" where the planes simply fall out of the sky useless - in case Canada would ever go to war against the US, but you just never know... "All is fair and bombs bursting in air"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmNSEbgt1Dg 'nuff said about post secondary. Good, bad or otherwise.

Yeah, its important to know if the populace will actually defend a threat to the territory. With people like Rob Anders in government - Am I going to actively defend the local government? I'd have to say even though I've had family in the country for a century and in all honesty. No, probably not. Would I help the US or Britian to take over the Canadian government if they paid me? If they give me an island in the Caicos or Virgin Islands, I'd have to say I'd do it (But its not like the British governance generals don't already have more power anyways) Will I defend my immediate neighbor, yes. Will I defend the English West or a French Seperated Quebec - thats a tossup. Will I defend the Arctic natives? If they want it sure. Will I defend my own place in Canada... Maybe. I don't have 160 acres to fight for, in fact there is little reason for me to be patriotic to Canada from a capitalist standpoint (Canada has not allowed me to own a piece of Canada) If push comes to shove, I honestly think I might just ditch and go to the Bahamas. The biggest threats are internal terrorist threats nowadays. Terrorist bombers like Wiebo Ludwig that will destroy pipelines without a second thought - it is this mentality that also puts things like offshore oilrigs like Hibernia at risk. If Wiebo had a name like Muhammed and he bombed a pipeline and killed a white boy, you know that hed be in jail for several life sentences right now. Canada should just be lucky that I'm not actively militant on the opposing side of people like Rob Anders. Neutrality and level headedness still rule the day for now, words can still be used instead of arms.

They should convert them into unmanned radar/internet relay stations. Nice high points over water... Perfect vantage points for naval protection.

Exactly - but why bother building a space elevator in a non-optimal area. By even attempting to build it in Canada - you would be risking much greater chances of failure. If it *must* be within the physical boundaries of Canada to be considered Canadian, thats opinion I guess. But that defeats the purpose of science to determine the best options. Is Ego more important than Science? Keneddy is where it is because its closer to the equator, and its launchable over the ocean, which is important because of the horrendous track record of failed launches, which is right around the chances of getting 3 out of 6 numbers in lotto 6/49. Latitude is nothing if one puts up two polar satellite(s). Which is also on the table, but not for Canada. We are spending money on fighter craft instead I guess. It has been said that a near geostationary north and south pole satellite is more important and worth infinitely more than any equatorial satellite just because it can see what the others have difficulty seeing - and they would also be able to link all and any equatorial satellites together in a single "hop". The Uber-satellite, is the one that is at the pole. As of current, there are only 18+ hour polar satellites. The ultimate goal is of course stationary with slight rotation and compensation for earth wobble. I guess we are going to leave it to China... Its not like the US could afford it anymore either. BTW: The Caicos is "British" Caicos, many islands of which are unihabited, but owned by the Crown. It would not be much of a stretch to spend a few dollars to "buy" it from the Queen. I believe some islands are already slated for sale to other buyers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dellis_Cay

Maybe. But I'd be more worried about the "real" G-20 summit in South Korea in November. If Kim Jong hasn't nuked it by then.

Assuming that modern warfare will be entirely based on speed that is. Last I looked - Both World Wars took more than one day... If its just about winning, and all about speed. Then the Nuke supercedes all. 18 minutes is about the time it takes, and no figther can intercept a SLBM. Air superiority becomes very expensive to maintain into a second year, assuming attack runs every week. Air superiority is also extremely fragile. A lucky shellacking from a battleship can take out an entire airstrip or carrier full of fighters in the exact same period of time. Navies on the other hand, can actually make money in peacetime as you can (depending on will) use them as glorified cargo ships.

Canadas main limitation is the jet stream air current. Its dangerous and very unpredictable to pass an object through an area of 5km of 100 to 400 km/h winds. If you launch something not from the equator, not only do you waste more energy (the whole point of having an elevator is to save energy, not waste it) there is a good chance that it will not be in the spot you want it, simply due to wind (much like a shuttle launch on a windy day, which they will not do) No, a space elevator should and must be near the equator for maximum effectiveness. A sea elevator is also not a good idea, it costs far too much for ship infrastructure or oilrig type of platform. A real island is the best answer by far. Geostationary spy satellites can give very accurate results down to .09 meters. Maybe I should have said three satellites. Plane surveillance systems are actually less accurate, as although they are closer, they are moving and have things like engine shudder and turbulence to compensate for. Geostationary do not move in relation to the earth, much like a fixed in box communication satellite like what your TV dish is pointed at. Very very clear reconnaisance, as long as there is no high cloud cover. Plane systems usually are not able to detect ICBMs, satellites can (Infrared detection high atmosphere along the horizon) The era of the fighter and recon plane is over, its in many ways already obsolete. The govt is focusing on proper priorities like farmers who buy 2 tonnes of aluminum nitrate, and moving directly to space dominance (if we want to)

Can't build a space elevator in Canada, it must be at the equator and away from any jet stream. If we bought out the British Caicos first, then a space elevator would be viable. But before that can happen Canada needs more naval capacity to actually build up the island. To build up the island with just airplanes/ports would take 10x longer than the mass transport a good and effective navy can provide. Naval capacity first, Caicos second, Space elevator third. Things must be done in order or its just a waste of money - like getting airplane fighters. One spy satellite is easily worth 100 reconnasiance aircraft.

Complete waste of money. Lets put it to a democratic poll. I'd be willing to bet 98+% of Canadians would vote it down. Not that I'm opposed to military stockpiling. Canada could definitely use an increased naval capacity, but fighter planes are expensive to maintain, and useless in any international mission. If they are meant to defend locally against Russian (bombers), I'd think Harper should be more concerned about Ignatieff (strong Russian background), lol.

If it was a military test - where better to test it than Newfieland. If the French tested their SLBM anywhere near Europe, everyone and their dog would see it. How many Newfies happen to be looking at the sky at that exact point in time? The only place on earth it could probably be dismissed as a UFO is at the poles, or maybe Austrailia or Canada. They can also test the radar avoidance in those areas - by simply seeing if there is a quote about it in the newspapers in the morning. Norad missed them, the French have a nuke that can slip past detection... Not surprising really. The last French test of a SLBM was June 1/2004 over French Guyana. South America being of course a decent place to test SLBM's as well. China has quite a few satellites that are infrared upper atmosphere scanners - which will tend to pick them up a lot easier and quicker.

Well, Canada is doing the prudent thing then and letting California pave the path. If they don't implode (although I'd have to think if they do implode it has more to do with their F2 state bond rating) then there it would be a hard argument to continue its criminalization here. You thinking mixing pot and driving is bad? Try mixing pot with 70 million gun owners in the US... Honestly if they haven't completely blown each other away with illegal pot by now - I'd think they aren't going to blow themselves away with legalization either. North Korea has no marijuana to speak of, lets see what happens there, lol.