Army Guy

stoker: We already know that there is no group large enough to protect us....and there is not to many nations the US wants sitting on it's border.....that leaves the US...are you not scared of the US becoming even more dominating or in controling of Canada. The reason i say this is there is an alot of anti americanism in Canada Now wait until they run our security..... Newfie Canadian: What vested interest do they have in protecting all of Canada....recently in the world court Denmark has laid claim to parts of the north...what would stop them from just taking it....and why would the US care...they like Denmark... Are you willing to lose what little voice we have in the world affairs.

Does Canada really need a military force? Could we be one of the first nations to exist with one? And do we as Canadians know something the rest of the world does not in regards to self protection?

I don't get it...The Military, dozens of important individuals Such as the US ambassdor,many retired Gens, Pres Bush, dozens of lobby groups, other groups such as the UN, and NATO, Nations (List is very long) Have said "YOU as in CANADA" need to get your military affairs together... Like Newfie has said it is on the news nightly ... So everyone knows or ought to know the condition on our Military...and yet we do nothing ....well almost nothing ... 27 % of us thinks it's worth spending money on.... I'm sure that all the soldiers currently serving in our Armed Forces are overwhelmed at the amount of support that this poll suggests... Those that risk there lives on a daily basis...bringing peace around the world, helping those that are in need....i thought i was told that we soldiers we ambassdors to Canada reflecting Canada's morals and values...I guess i should have stuck with planting trees...my mistake i thought saving lives and making the world a better place was more important....

I Often wonder if the Public new just what shape our forces are in "would they change there minds, perhaps move spending on DND to a much higher priority... Is this poll correct "what are your spending Priorities" CTV Poll Gauges Spending Priorities Spending on the Canadian military is the seventh highest priority of the Canadian public, according to a poll conducted by IPOS/CTV/Globe and Mail. The poll found that 27% of Canadians consider increased military spending a priority, well behind environmental funding at 34%.

Grantler: Most of the personal within DND are from Ontario...then the martimes, then Western canada , then Quebec...it's broken down this way due to actual numbers of population....sorry.

BrainW. you are obviously twisted about alot of things.and you do have a right to vent...not to attack ...but to vent... Actually your twisting the intent of my words...I did said it was unfortunate...i also said that Canada has many programs to assit you "before "you get thrown out and after you get thrown out..... Not paying your taxes is again'st the law....not your law, not my law but the law of Canada....don't like it then do something to change it...Trashing me or the department of National Defense will get you no where.... we have a saying in DND "suck it up princess, life is a *itch and she waits for no one"

Most military members, already think that the Canadian public has given up on them and there is no relief coming.... Actions speak louder than words and the public has yet said "enough fix this".... The US has said it will assist Canada if attacked, and to most countries this is enough of a threat....that being said they don't patrol our waters,airspace,or land mass the Canadian Armed Forces does all that....be it on a very limited basis. Canada's Defense Dept has always spawn success in the field through out it's entire history... I not sure what exactly you meant by this but Peacekeeping is not a prime mission for the CF...Defending Canada and her interest here or abroad is our prime mission....to do that you must have an army capable of both defensive and offensive operations....

Below are from Janes...a fairly accuate military pubication. these reports are old but judging by them i'd say both Iran and N.Korea is capapble of putting a nuk down on target 800 km away...if not 4500km... SS-1d `Scud C' variant Reports from Iran indicate that there is a manufacturing capability for the North Korean `Scud' improvement (Scud-C variant), a missile with a 500 kg warhead and a range of 550 km. Reports indicate that 170 missile sets have been assembled, following the first trial launches in 1991. It is possible that Iran called this programme Shahab 2, and assistance may have been given by Iran to Syria to help that country develop an assembly and production capability for the 'Scud C'. Reports from the USA in 1997 suggested that Iran has built tunnel complexes at several locations along the Gulf Coast for 'Scud C' and larger ballistic missile facilities. It is believed that Iran has converted `Scud B' MAZ 543 TELs to carry the `Scud C' variant as well. A test of a 'Scud D variant' missile by Syria in September 2000, with a range increased to 650 km, suggests that a similar improvement may be developed by Iran. M-11 variant There are unconfirmed reports that Iran is developing a longer-range variant of the Chinese M-11 (DF-11/CSS-7) solid-propellant ballistic missile. This missile might have the Iranian designator Shahab 1 (although this name might refer to the 'Scud B' variant) or Tondar 68. Pakistan launched the Shaheen 1 in April 1999 and it is possible that Iran has a similar programme. There have been several reports from Israel that Iran and Syria are developing a solid propellant missile together, but no further details have been given. The Iranian version is believed to have a warhead weight of 500 kg and a range of 400 km. The warhead probably separates in flight and this missile would be considerably more accurate and easier to use than the 'Scud B variant'. The Chinese designed the M-11 to be launchable from the Russian MAZ 543 'Scud B' launch vehicle and it should not be difficult for Iran to use any of its 'Scud B' TELS for the M-11 variant. M-9 variant There are also unconfirmed reports that Iran is developing a second solid-propellant ballistic missile, based upon the Chinese M-9 (DF-15/CSS-6) design. This missile might have the Iranian designator Shahab 2 (although this name might refer to the 'Scud C' variant). The Iranian version is believed to have a warhead weight of 320 kg and a range of 800 km. The warhead probably separates in flight and this missile would be considerably more accurate and easier to use than the 'Scud C' variant. It is possible that the Chinese made a demonstration launch of this missile in Iran in 1991 and that the May 1996 launch was, in fact, the first Iranian test of this missile. Pakistan is believed to have a similar programme and to have conducted its first test flight in July 1997, although Pakistan's Shaheen 1 appears to be a scaled-up version of the Chinese M-11 rather than the M-9. The Iranian M-9 variant could be launched from standard 'Scud B' launch vehicles already in service in Iran, with only minor modifications. The status of this programme is not known. Shahab 5/6 Unconfirmed reports suggest that Iran is developing either a solid-propellant, three-stage, intermediate-range ballistic missile, or a liquid/solid-propellant satellite launch vehicle, with a programme that started in 1997. However, there is confusion between the Shahab 4 and these two programmes. It is possible that these reports refer to the Shahab 5 and 6 missiles respectively, believed to be IRBM and satellite-launch vehicles based upon a similar North Korean project known as Taep'o-dong 2. The IRBM version has been given a range of 4,500 km. Steal it...or buy it..."I know your laughing" security on these wpns inside Russia are a joke...US and including Canada have paid major dollars and even personal to track all of russia nuk arsenal... Canada most recent invest is 30 mil to help build a railway bridge so they can safetly move Nerve vapour fill arty rounds to the disposal site.......this cash of over 22,000 arty rounds is being stored in a barn in wine rack devices with only a simple pad lock on the door....It should be noted that 22,000 rds is enough chemical agent to kill everyone on the planet serveral times over.... The above type of sites are all over Russia and alot of the old warsaw pact countries. Russian black market items are sold world wide to include Jet fighters,helos,tanks Air defense wpns....it is actually pretty scary to what is avail to anyone with cash... Yes your right, but they where held back by sensiable peers.... And your right Sadam was told during Gulf war I by the british if you use chemical wpns against british troops they would use nuclear wpns....so thier power means everything to them....and they are not willing to loose it....but did that stop Sadam from taking Kuwait...that would not stop a group of the likes of Bin ladens from attacking.... Just like those guys how actually flew those jets into the trade towers....they know what is at stake but it means more to them to be dead...

Black dog : I think your basing most of your arguement with incomplete info....The amount of countries that are still developing nuk wpns is much longer than you may think... US,UK,Rus,France,China,India,Pak,Isreal,Iran,North Korea, south korea,Syria. these are countries that are still or have produce new wpns sys for nuc wpns....I can provide References but no links as it's out of Janes that is on the DWAN (DND LAN) it is a very lengthy doc so i will retrieve only what you ask for ... We have also forgot to include chem or Bio wpns...both are included in WMD, and can inflict mass cas in the thousands...by including those types of wpns your list grows to almost triple in length....with over half of those with missle capabilities of at least 600 km... Thinking that mutual destruction will keep nations in check is correct in 99 % of the cases...but one of the stated purposes of this wpn is to stop small numbers of incoming missiles launched from anywhere in the world by a groups or individual... who really don't have a nation to punish with a mass strike... Bin Laden comes to mind...do we nuc Afgan, Saudi or Pak.... I've spent a few years studing the Russian army and there is a big misconception that mutual destruction worked during the cold war....Not true...Russia has stated many times over ....that an unused wpn is a useless wpn...if the situation would have presented itself...they would have attacked,using chemical,and tactical nuc wpns in thier first of many strikes again'st Nato targets... They had calculated in there attack plans casualties from return Nuc exchange and firmly believed they could win an nuc exchange.... Life holds a different meaning to them...we have to stop thinking like most westerns do and start thinking like they do...not just Russia...but the middle east as well....when we do then BMD will seem like a good idea.

Black dog Once you have a device getting the means to launch it is easy....if you have the money... Mutual destruction...here is the but ...if your sitting in the middle of the ocean or say 500 km of the Canadian coast no one can tell who launched it....that being said A russian or chinese attack would be on a massive scale...to ensure massive damage was down to the states so as to limit thier amount of defense missles fired...... So what do you tell the people of vancover would just had thier city turned into a smoking hole....It's a wpn system purely design to be a defensive wpn...a safety net that will cost us nothing at this time... Whats the odds of getting hit in the gonads during a hockey game...yet what is one of the first pieces of gear we put on.... What is a life worth? you pay taxes what is your life worth.... The threat is low...but there is still a threat..or possiability...our gov't is responsiable for our protection to do everything in it's power to ensure our safety.... The cost to us at this time is 0.... Fortunata: That is what the liberals have said ...to sell this whole thing but what would make more sense to have it up north ...they will sell that once we swallow having it in the first place....

Yes, only because the US is going ahead with the program one way or the other(they have already spent the money) ....with us or without us....with missles based on US territory it works fine, but you get better coverage from missles based in Canadian territory plus from the US piont of view... interception is further away from the US of A.... Yes... we will end up paying something but again it comes down to do diligence... as for the whinners let them whin...in a couple years time they forget all about it.... And your right there are better uses for the money...but not any one of the wpns DND has could save the lives of an entire city....after all this is why we buy wpn's is it not....

Yes, but thats not going to happen ...It gives our gov't to many brownie points when sitting at the grown -up's table in Nato or the UN.... If the people of Canada rise up and say no ...then maybe... but thats not going to happen We are doing 2 battle groups now today....with another battle group getting ready to go into AFGAN....with out dropping one operation we will burn everything out in a short period of time ....

Perhaps you should be looking at Countries who have a nuclear program.( as for the means to deliver Russia or China will sell you what ever you want for a price........and you should be looking at the list for those that are truily allied with the US...Russia / Pakistan and China.....they play nice for US dollars...thats it... Why BMD...do diligence...so our Gov't can tell the people of Canada that we have done everything we could to prevent a individual, group, or gov't from launching a surprise attack from an airbourne device on the US or Canada. it would be hard to look the survivors of such an attack in the eyes....and say sorry if the Gov't had not done everything possiable to prevent it from happening to start with... What is the cost to Canada ?....Nothing except some construction materials and people to help run it.... An attack on any major city within Canada would be devastating to the point of placing Canada on her death bed....so why risk that ? is my question......

Stoker Having a 4 th brigade would be a short term solution...a welcome solution for the troops , but short term...only because it would give the Gov't more troops to deploy on more deployments.... I think a 4 th Brigade should be a Quick reaction force,able to deploy by air,sea, and land....similar to the CAR or SSF Brigade (with the same skill set)but on a larger scale....which could deploy on very short notice and have all brigade assets in any given location within the world 10 to 14 days.....This type of force would fit in line with the current CDS Gen Hiller direction , and be simlar to what Retired Gen Mackenize had proposed. But to round everything off i would add a 4 th Mech Inf brigade or even a Hvy Armour Brigade. Our gov'ts promise for an additional 5000 troops is a hollow one. His intent was to create a peacekeeping brigade...until he found out how much it would cost....and decided that flushing out 3 undermanned brigades would be better and cost nothing but wages....

Canada has already tried to deploy 2 battle groups(1200 to 1500 troops ea ) at the same time, Bosina and Afgan. and it nearly burn't everything out ... soldiers, equipment, and resources.....this year we will be at that number again ....we will have 2 battlegroups in Afgan.... It takes everything we have right now to sustain what little deploments we have.... 1 Brigade group is on operations (deployed) (x6 months) 1 Brigade group is training for (x6 months while the above are on ops) and our last Brigade group is resting (x 6 months...) That means that every fit army guy in the forces will start an operation once every year....

Black dog anyways got to go...enjoyed the debate...hope to continue it tommorrow. Stoker: As in Navy stoker. are you currently serving or retired.east or west coast. got some family in halifax dock yard something to do with the sub program. Thanks for the help with that Brain dude.

So we will forget about foriegn policy, and the world stage and we will concentrate on domestic defense. you are still going to need some of those shinny toys...as they are the ones that provide the best protection, offensive and defensive suits, overall best chances our soldiers will survive an engagement. All to often gov't purchases equipment because the price was right... not because it gives our soldiers the best chances of survival. it has become cheaper to pay off the widower... than to spend our tax dollars...

NDP have never been military friendly most of thier platform is a peacekeeping one...The primary miliatry mission is defense of Canada and all her interest at home and abroad....to do that you must have an army capable of high intensity warfare....as it is this skill that makes soldiers able to peacekeep...the biggest kid on the block keeps the peace....NDP will not support this..

Let me ask you this...would you say a country with well over 30 mil people, a mid power, a wealthy country should be able to deploy a armed force of over 2500 persons...do you still think we are doing enough....

Sorry NDP and military do not mix....Oil and water... Boosting domestic capabilities is good it is great ...still going to cost more than we can afford...but i hope you still do not want a voice on the world stage...for that the country needs to be able to project military power....

The military has done this exericise a billion times...the put in a huge list the gov't gives them a few items back and says choose.... Unless the people of Canada are serious about rebuilding thier military what would be the piont. I'm not talking about a few bil more over 5 years...i'm talking 100's of bils over 20 years... Sorry I'm a grunt and my typing is not as fast as your's

You talk as if you know this for certain...and yet i as a military member with access to low level intel can not make that statement with 100 % certainity. What about the armies contribution to afgan, or the Navy's contribution to the war on terror....you are right it is all about intel and old fassion research and investagation by CSIS...then given to the military for action... There are many levels of threats to Canada's security....only a few deal with military matters. Me as a military member i'm getting into that grey area in regards to things that are classified on that question and would like to pass. I would like it for Canada just to be on stage, next to the other mid world powers. ...But like i said before Canadian soldiers do make a difference and if given the resources can find the practical solutions...

Perhaps this is just the threat we need to get the liberal minded Canadians to spend money on thier own defense... I mean realistically the US is already giving us a free ride now...which is not very popular with americans right now...who might just demand we spend more on defense... I'd be interested in hearing how you are going to sell this to Canadians....because i'm not sure if i'm ready to give up everything that is Canadain.

Black dog. Even Switzerland knows and values it's defense department.....they also know that staying neutral has it's cost... I agree it is a subject all in it self. I agree , to a piont if it fits in with Canada's moral and values why not....is it not our responsabilty as a mid world power to be the grown up... At the time the majority of Canadians would not agree with you....I think it was the birth of Canada as a indepnedant nation (again a separate topic of discussion) US dominance does not garentee Canada with 100 % certainity that Canada as a nation will not be attack by any nation with those capabilities....Hence why we still are part of NATO...because without Nato what is going to keep the rest of the world in check....

Black dog. This is my opinion only...I think Canada is supposed to be a mid world power....is it not time we start acting like it... BMD is a land based wpn sys designed as a defensive wpn...what is wrong with defending ourselfs...would it not be great if this wpn sys made launching any type of missile obsolete....as for sending troops into Iraq...The US may have entered Iraq for the wrong reasons....but it did send a message to other countries that slaughter there own by the millions....US forces are making a difference....time will prove that... WW I, WWII, are two examples of stopping them in there backyard.....power and greed are hard to stop once they gather momentum.... Any country with Amphibous /and or Hvy airlift...would it be sucessful is another question....Is it a concern ,Yes, NATO thinks so....