Queenmandy85

NATO will no longer have the US as a reliable partner after President Trump moves back into the Oval Office. Russia will be be sorely tempted to recover the former Warsaw Pact slave states. Ukraine has been a valuable lesson for the Russian military. They ignored the doctrine established by the Soviets of opening an offensive with an overwhelming artillery barrage because they miscalculated and failed to use sufficient force. On the unlikely scenario where the Russian army does not include nuclear artillery, they will hit NATO with everything they have in their conventional arsenal. They will have replenished their tanks lost in Ukraine. Scenario 1. If they break through, how do you imagine France will react when the Russians are advancing on the Rhine in force? French and British forces will nuke the bejeezus out of the Russians. Scenario 2. If the Russians get bogged down in the German killing zones and suffer heavy losses, they will not have the conventional forces left to stop a counter attack and subsequent invasion of Russia. What do you think they will do? Nuke the bejeezus out of NATO (including the US.) There are other scenarios but they all result in the same conclusion. Which ever scenario you choose, it will result in an all out strategic nuclear exchange. The Canadian Forces will have no impact on the result.

During the onslaught of the Covid pandemic, it was essential to,in the words of Conservative Premier Higgs, "Stay the blazes home." The stringent measures enacted by the provincial and federal governments cost a lot of money, but they saved tens of thousands of lives. Time was critical. The close co-ordination of provinces and the federal governments resulted in better outcomes than nations who failed to take it seriously. Housing is a more important issue for many Canadians than defence. The dental plan is an issue that the NDP required in exchange for their support. For the government to toss that support would be suicide. It has bought time for the government. It is easy for us to say tell them to step over the cliff, but would you or I just throw away all our time and effort so easily? Personally, if I were PM facing annihilation in the next election, I would rather put it off for as long as possible. In the long run, there are a lot of people who need the dental plan and if it provides more access to dental care, it will save money for healthcare. By the environment, we face a situation where most Canadians do not understand what the greenhouse effect is going to have on our future generations. That is a criminal indictment on the education system. When you hear otherwise intelligent people more worried about today's economy than the devestation coming down on our future generations, it makes you weep at how ignorant and greedy we are. Homo Sapiens are a rare species of animal that is able to see far into the future and has the ability to adjust our behaviour to prevent our actions from causing catastrophe. Yet, we are too selfish to do anything about it. Compared to the coming tsunami of disaster presented by global warming, our economy and defence issues are totally insignificant. We are asking the taxpayers to spend their money on a defence force that is unlikely to make any difference. If the Americans invade us, is the Canadian Armed Forces going to be able to repell them? If the Russians attack a NATO country, are we going to have the nuclear weapons to Destory them? Same question with China? Anyone who believes a war between NATO and Russia will not go nuclear with in days of the first engagement is niave.

That has always worked for me, but I sometimes get a sense that the Conservative prime directive of God, King and Country is no longer resonant. Perhaps, you and I are the only Conservatives left. We live in a world of liberals, republicans and bolsheviks.

As I asked above, where are my numbers wrong? Mr. Poilievre has not committed to 2% of GDP. While any increase is welcomed, even he cannot work miracles. Governments can only do what the electorate will allow.

How do you propose to attract that many recruits? It is possible theoretically, but how do you achieve that without conscription. Anyone who has read Canadian history knows consription is a non-starter. While Trudeau was not keen on the armed forces (this was the middle of the Viet Nam War), the credit for wrecking the Canadian Forces goes to Paul Heller and Mike Pearson. No government since then has made any move to correct the downward trajectory of the CAF. Even those on this forum who want to reverse this trend still want to depend on clinging to the Americans for protection. The last Canadian Prime Minister to refuse to take orders from the Americans was John Diefenbaker. This is not a criticism of the US, but we need to have the capacity to be independent of the US when our interests diverge from theirs.

Perhaps I am mathematically challenged. We have about 28 million taxpayers. We spend $20 billion on defence now. To get to 2%, we need another $18 Billion, but friction being what it is, I rounded it up to $20 billion over and above what we pay now. $20 billion divided by 28 million taxpayers equals $714. If we presume nothing changes and the $18 billion remains the same, (like prices never go up in government procurements) it comes out to $642.86 per taxpayer. So, I am relying on your superior math skills to show me my error.

We used to, and we should, but we won't. The voters don't see that as a priority.

In order to get to 2%, the average taxpayer will have to pay an extra $700 in taxes. Spending on defence is easy. Getting the revenue to pay for it is the problem. Why do you think governments have let the Forces decline so much? If the voters wanted a credible Canadian military, the governments would do it. The fact that governments don't make defence a priority is because it isn't a priority for the voters. Beyond the increase in the Defence budget is the re-building in our armaments industry. That is a big price tag in its self.

But how much of a deterrent will NATO be when President Trump is back in the Whitehouse as Putin's Manchurian candidate.

Except that not enough Canadians are willing to serve and even fewer are willing to pay for it. We have immediate problems with under funded education system, healthcare and housing. It is hard enough to get people to pay taxes to fix those immediate problems without also having to get them to pay for defence, which most people have no interest in. We need to train and hire math, chemistry, physics and geography teachers, family doctors and trades people more than infantry soldiers. People need to get a decent education in the sciences now, access to a family physician now, and a roof over their heads now. They don't see war as imminent and even if it were, the Canadian Armed Forces are not percieved by most taxpayers as sufficient to make the investment of another $20 billion over what we spend now as worth it. I have argued for an effective military for over a half a century and never changed anyone's mind except for my own. I look at what is happening in Gaza. I understand the reaction of Israel, but all they have accomplished is to strengthen their enemies and kill tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with Hamas. The Israeli response has achieved nothing. They have taught their enemies how to stick it to Israel.

As you say, it all depends on who is POTUS. If Russia believes the west's nuclear deterrent is a paper tiger, then a third world war becomes more likely. If Canada had its own independent nuclear deterrence, we would be in a position to prevent Russia from such folly. But, that is not going to happen. So, it all comes down to the question, Would I rather live as a slave, or die a free man. That was an easy question when I was young and stupid. Now I am old and I have a tremendous desire to live longer than my great uncle Jack who lived to be 104 and was fit both mentally and physically when he died. When we talk about war, we forget about the majority of people (millions) who will suffer or die in a conflict they have nothing to do with.

That capability depends on the Americans. It is a valid system for the next nine months and six days. Beyond that, our alliance with our neighbour depends on who is taking the oath at the inauguration. The likely result is that it will be President Trump. At that point, the US will no longer be a reliable ally and the potential for an American invasion, while still remote, becomes much higher on the scale of probability. I recall the reaction of the Trump Administration after a meeting when a remark made by the Canadian Government was taken out of context and caused a response that was way out of proportion. I am sure President Trump still has that video of a half dozen leaders discussing the President's behaviour and laughing. We can be certain each of them has their photo red circled. On Jan. 21, 2025, all bets are off...except my bet that Donald J. Trump will be elected President.

A year ago, I would have agreed with you. Deep down, I am still inclined that way, but reality paints a different picture. The only nations that are equipped to face Russia are France, Britain and the United States. Tanks and infantry were critical in previous wars. What deters Russia is the absolute certainty that any conflict against a NATO member will result in a nuclear holocaust. By the same token, if Russia were to invade Europe, they would open their offensive with a tactical nuclear barrage. That has been Russian military doctrine since the days of Khrushchev. Ukraine avoided that scenario because Russia and the United States both guaranteed Ukrainian independence and security in exchange for them to give up their nuclear weapons. We see now, that was a mistake for the Ukraine. When considering how to spend Canadian money on defence, the reality is, the most cost effective weapon systems are tipped with nuclear weapons. They are cheaper than tanks and high performance combat aircraft and done require the level of personnel to operate.

We don't know her name, but a significant part of Genesis is believed to have been written by a woman. On the topic of the military, we are advised by one of our friends on this forum that if the 24 million people who regularly listen to the CBC, they should be the ones who pay for it. Perhaps, following the same logic, that should be applied to defence. If we increase defence spending to 2% of GDP, we will have a defence budget of $40 billion. Support for military spending is much lower than support for the CBC. The defence budget is largely a waste of money because it is directed at conflicts which are unlikely to occur and which are unachieveable with the resourses at Canada's disposal. As I was recently told on this forum, if the US were to invade Canada, the Canadian Forces cannot stop them. If there is a war with Russia or China, the conflict will be nuclear and we will not survive in any case. If people want to spend money on defence, using CdnFox' reasoning, let them pay for it out of their own pockets. I spent decades trying to convince people we need a viable military that can defend Canada, independent of foreign support. In the last year, I have been struggling with the personal revelation that war causes more problems than it solves and the cost is way off the scale. I am reminded of Gwynne Dyer's comment on his series on war, presented on CBC's Ideas in (about) 1979. IIRC, his opening statement was, "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a defence budget."

I'm not arguing against conscription. I just don't believe Canadian voters would support it. I see three alternatives. The first is a conventional force large enough to defeat any enemy. That is my trillion dollar solution. It requires conscription and we remember Conscripption Crisis of 1944. The second is enough nuclear weapons to turn any enemy into ashes and a glass plate, thus being an effective deterrent. The problem with that is convincing the world that we would use it without hesitation. The third solution is based on a proposal by a Swedish political party to disarm and have a telephone answering machine that can give the message in 102 languages that "We surrender." The third option may actually have merit. No major war has ever accomplished anything that could not be achieved at the conference table. The 100 years War, the 7 Years War, the American Revolution, and the Great War achieved nothing. The Second World War was a result of the Great War and it was necessary. It was an exception, but it only occurred because of the Great War. Had the Great Powers met at the conference table in 1914, Hitler may have become a set designer at the Vienna Opera House. A number of friends of mine served in Viet Nam. Now, Viet Nam is a vacation destination resort for American tourists. War is folly. That being said, I cannot completely let go of options 1 & 2. It would be very expensive, but it dramatically increases the probability we will not be involved in war for a long time. Too bad many Canadians disagree with me.

In order to defend this country, we need a viable military. That requires conscription and an annual trillion dollar budget. Try selling that to Canadian voters / taxpayers.

A Guaranteed Annual Income was a central plank in the Conservative platform under Bob Stanfield and Jim Gillies.

We have less than 2 centuries of accessable oil and less than five hundred years of accessible coal at the current rate of consumption. Without petroleum and coal, we have nothing to lubricate machinery such as wheeled transport or electrical generators. We will return to a pre-industrial world. If we switch to nuclear power, we can extend the life of our petroleum and coal reserves.

People took the train. Rebuild and electrify the rail system with nuclear power generated electricity and you can go anywhere on the train. On a dedicated high speed line, you could probably travel from Montreal to Calgary in less than 10 hours.

What do you suggest we do to ensure future generations have sufficient petroleum and coal reserves for the thousands of products, especially lubrication, to survive? We don't need coal and oil to generate energy. We have uranium and thorium (and God willing, fusion some day) to provide the heat, but it is useless if you can't lubricate the turbines. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium.

You are misinformed. The greenhouse effect is accepted by every credible scientist in the world. Unless we made substantial changes now, within three centuries, your decendents will be feeling the impact of a climate catastrophe. We know what is coming. It only demands a minor sacrifice on our part to change that prognosis.

Good points. When you put yourself in the shoes of our future generations, it is a tiny sacrifice.

I gased up my car yesterday. The carbon tax raised the price from $1.549 to $1.589 per litre. To think, a few months ago, it was only $1.769. Oh, the humanity. How will we ever survive?

There it is. Abraham Lincoln, an enemy of Canada's ally and a republican. We do have some republicans in Canada. John Manly, a Liberal, and Lorne Nystrom of the NDP come to mind. But republicanism is the antithesis of Conservatism. Fortunately,as I said previously, Pierre shows signs of actual conservatism and loyalty. He is no Preston Manning and that is a credit to him. Manning was a loser and Poilievre is a winner. I am not sure why you feel so threatened that you have to resort to lies and slander. Mr. Poilievre is going to be appointed Prime Minister very soon, so don't get your knickers in a knot.

This should jog your memory. When asked by Simpson who his hero was, Preston Manning said President Lincoln. Faultlines: Struggling for a Canadian Vision Hardcover – Jan. 1 1993 by Jeffrey Simpson (Author), Harpercollins.