Canada and Russia

[Argus]

I'm sure everyone has been watching events unfold in Georgia, the little country with the misfortune to be right on Russia's border. The Russians have basically decided they can do whatever they feel like doing there because might makes right. The tiny Georgian military (their air force had all of 9 fighters) was easily overwhelmed and the Russians are now roaming the country, looting and burning as they choose. Numerous commentators think this will not be an isolated incident, as a newly invigorated Russia, swollen with oil profits - and the hold the oil and gas shipments have on the West - begins to exert its influence again wherever it feels like exerting it. That means those countries on its borders, like Ukraine, for example, are starting to get quite nervous.

Few Canadians really think about it much, but WE are one of those countries on Russia's borders. Two things have kept that from being any kind of real bother. One was the Americans' protection, and the other is all that snow and ice up north, which neither they nor we cared much about. Hard to have border disputes over snowballs.

Only that ice is melting, and there may be a ton of oil and gas and other resources underneath. The Russians are making noises that it's all theirs, while Canada and other nations press their own claims.

I think Georgia shows what the Russians can get up to when there is no credible military to overcome. Georgia's woefully under trained and equipped military folded in a day. Canada's, in all likelihood, wouldn't even be brought into a northern dispute since they probably would take a couple of months to get there in any significant numbers. If the Russians decide they're just going to take what they want, what exactly do we do? Yell to the Americans to come and help us? The Americans under Obama, who makes Jimmy Carter seem like a militarist by comparison? The Americans themselves haven't even recognized our sovereignty over large patches of the north. Are they likely to take on the Russians on our behalf? Under Obama?

I'm not arguing Canada can fight Russia - although anyone who remembers how little Finland humiliated the red army might consider the possibilities. What I'm saying is that if we don't have a credible military threat which is capable of rapidly deploying up north then the Russians won't have to even worry about an embarrassing fight which threatens to draw in the Americans. They'll be able to just walk in and take whatever they want, enduring a couple of weeks of world condemnation to add more oil wealth to their coffers.

What Harper has done to date in terms of ordering some new equipment, and taking a tiny toe-dip in the water into expanding the size of the infantry has to be, in my opinion, greatly expanded upon. This is not a newfound opinion, of course. I've long felt we needed a larger military, with considerably more people on the pointy end. Just to start, our three infantry regiments need to be fleshed out - none are at full strength - and then we need another three infantry regiments. We also might want to expedite the current replacement program for the F-18 - and expand it somewhat. We need more heavy lift, longer ranged helicopters like the US CH53, armed attack helicopters, more armored vehicles, and we need better training in the north for Canadian infantry groups. All this is easily within our economic abilities, and I think the majority of Canadians would support it.

If not, then we might one day find ourselves looking north to the Russian flag planted where we think the maple leaf ought to be flying, and Russia's mafia owned industries raping the north for every bit of natural gas, oil and resources they can steal.

[Fain]

Don't need more military just build stuff there, or let's be the first to set-up

[White Doors]

Agreed Argus. You seem to be concentrating on Army and Airforce though, I think we need a major investment in our Navy too. Nothing makes the papers like a sunken ship We also need nuclear powered subs in a bad way.

edit to add - Also greatly expand the Northern Rangers program both in numbers and ability.

Edited August 15, 2008 by White Doors

[Argus]

Agreed Argus. You seem to be concentrating on Army and Airforce though, I think we need a major investment in our Navy too. Nothing makes the papers like a sunken ship We also need nuclear powered subs in a bad way.

edit to add - Also greatly expand the Northern Rangers program both in numbers and ability.

I disagree. Sunken boats are invisible to the press, just look at the brief mention that a Georgian missile carrying ship was sunk by the Russians. The only reason Russia's naval blocade is even getting any mention is because Ukraine is threatening not to let them come back to port. Besides, nuke subs are too expensive to operate in any kind of numbers which wouldn't be overwhelmed by the Russians. Spending on them would detract from spending on more survivable elements, though I certainly agree to expanding the rangers.

The reason Switzerland made it through WW2 without the Nazis invading them wasn't because the Nazis couldn't have taken the place, but it would have been too much of a pain in the butt to do so. That is the kind of deterent we need to create.

[Argus]

Don't need more military just build stuff there, or let's be the first to set-up

And who's going to do that but the military?

[Army Guy]

Perhaps in the submerged world sinkings go unnoticed, or rather covered up...But sink a surface ship and you have an international incident that will send to nations to war....once at war, thats another story...

Russia's taking our north by force are limited byland... thru Alaska, (just not going to happen) or by sea or air, directly onto Canadian soil with alot of her navy in rust out condition, it would be very difficult to mount an effective Amphip assualt and keep it supplied. leaving the Airbourne option...again weather would play a big part in resupply operations...making it extremily difficult....

I think white doors has a point on expanding our navy, (god i hope no one from the navy reads this) but having a few Ice Hardned destroyers, or frigates with both a littoral and air defense capibilities would allow us to further close that gap of possiabilities. That coupled with some subs, i do like the nuk power ones but i like the new German Dies powered one i think it's a Type 212, just because of affordability, it's not as complicated as a nuk , and could be maintianed here in Canada...But we should also be purchasing a small fleet of long range UAV,s , and updating our maritime patrol A/C and have these placed along with a Sqn of new jets, F-35 or F22's in one of those two new artic bases...of course a few Sats would round everything off nicely...lacing the waters with sensors would also be nice...

But that would keep them honest, but nor off our coast, for that you need boots on the ground...expansion of the Artic Rangers would be a good first step, but also placing an Artic Inf Bn in one of those artic bases would be perfect, along with some New Ch-47F helos, and a few of those New C-27J to allow for rapid transport and resupply....to allow for constant patroling, presence, and a steady flow of artic trained soldiers....

Another Mech brigade group would also be nice...expansion of CSOR into a full Regiment of 3 BN's, Attack helo's, more Trans helos, Completely overhauling our ARTY, Armoured corps....and giving Back to the Infantry it's own integral combat support, Mortars, Assualt PNR's, Anti armour defense, Armoured Recce.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Army Guy

[White Doors]

I disagree. Sunken boats are invisible to the press, just look at the brief mention that a Georgian missile carrying ship was sunk by the Russians. The only reason Russia's naval blocade is even getting any mention is because Ukraine is threatening not to let them come back to port. Besides, nuke subs are too expensive to operate in any kind of numbers which wouldn't be overwhelmed by the Russians. Spending on them would detract from spending on more survivable elements, though I certainly agree to expanding the rangers.

The reason Switzerland made it through WW2 without the Nazis invading them wasn't because the Nazis couldn't have taken the place, but it would have been too much of a pain in the butt to do so. That is the kind of deterent we need to create.

But without a submarine presence in the Arctic we can't even detect when our sovereignty is violated.

Makes it hard for us to be a pain in the butt if we can't even see the hemorrhoids.

[Argus]

Russia's taking our north by force are limited byland... thru Alaska, (just not going to happen) or by sea or air, directly onto Canadian soil with alot of her navy in rust out condition, it would be very difficult to mount an effective Amphip assualt and keep it supplied. leaving the Airbourne option...again weather would play a big part in resupply operations...making it extremily difficult....

I'm not thinking so much of Russia landing in Whitehore, but the current race for control of the north pole and surrounding territory.

Canada and Russia vie for North

I think white doors has a point on expanding our navy, (god i hope no one from the navy reads this) but having a few Ice Hardned destroyers, or frigates with both a littoral and air defense capibilities would allow us to further close that gap of possiabilities

.

I would think the new warships we're in talks to build would and should be capable of patrolling in the north.

patrol A/C and have these placed along with a Sqn of new jets, F-35 or F22's in one of those two new artic bases...of course a few Sats would round everything off nicely...lacing the waters with sensors would also be nice...

I haven't heard anything about the new northern bases since the announcement. Has any work actually been done? Any plans developed?

Another Mech brigade group would also be nice...expansion of CSOR into a full Regiment of 3 BN's, Attack helo's, more Trans helos, Completely overhauling our ARTY, Armoured corps....and giving Back to the Infantry it's own integral combat support, Mortars, Assualt PNR's, Anti armour defense, Armoured Recce.

Our nothern border has been protected by ice for the last century, with no real disputes. If it looks liek both of those are likely to change we really need to strength our military.

[Argus]

But without a submarine presence in the Arctic we can't even detect when our sovereignty is violated.

Makes it hard for us to be a pain in the butt if we can't even see the hemorrhoids.

Realistically, the Russians can drop as many flags as they want in waters we consider ours. But they'll need a lot more than submarines if they want to take away oil, gas and other resources.

[M.Dancer]

The reason Switzerland made it through WW2 without the Nazis invading them wasn't because the Nazis couldn't have taken the place, but it would have been too much of a pain in the butt to do so. That is the kind of deterent we need to create.

You mean by becoming an international banking empire with tall mountains and narrow easily defended passes?

I think the first is possible but the second will take millions of years.

[Army Guy]

This site may be able to answer some of your questions.

CASR

[Argus]

You mean by becoming an international banking empire with tall mountains and narrow easily defended passes?

I think the first is possible but the second will take millions of years.

The point remains the same. If it's easy to do something, brushing aside a token resistance and simply ignoring a few international protests, then the Russians are far more likely to go for something than if it will involve actual fighting in an area which, while hardly consisting of narrow mountain passes, is still going to be very difficult to operate in.

[Moonbox]

I don't think we need to worry too much about the Arctic North.

While we may be slow out the gates, North American Capitalism will have us catching up in no time.

The Americans will support any claims we make against Russia, and Russia wouldn't dare move in on recognized Canadian territory for the same reason the US won't support Georgia meaningfully. They both respect each other's boundaries.

Canada, as far as the Russians are concerned, is an independant protectorate of the US. Moving in on Canadian territory would have the Americans in arms almost immediately.

We don't need enormous military investment. Talking about upgrading our airforce to F-22's is ludicrous considering they cost 250 million each and the prospect of full-fledged military action between Russia and Canada is about as remote as Switzerland vs Thailand.

I agree we need to upgrade our military to the point where we're even capable of independant action, but not to go toe-to-toe with the Russians in the Arctic.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Moonbox

[William Ashley]

I always thought that US nuclear weapons and the US military was a substancial deterent to invasion of Canada by anyone but the US. The British would likely get upset if the US just took Canada, and the UK is in the EU, which would likely cause long term repercussions for the US.

I think that a volunteer force is the way to go, and that the key to a strong military nation is to include cadet training in the education process, but many people would object. So video games have to do.

That is it right there though - technology. Now that we can make robots and drones commanded from remote locations or even utilizing AI, the need for "people" is not as high, but instead it is the quality and capacities of those people. Canada would do well by making a very professional army - with computer scientists, researchers and engineers. While employing reservists in combat arms factories to supply our own equipment and work and be prepared to repare or defend military installations - but also support the economy in other ways.

So while a larger military is feasable, it is only doable if the military is employed in occupational trades in peacetime, otherwise it is cost prohibitive.

In some ways this is how the reserve works, however the private sector keeps the reservests in non combat and training times.

What is the threat to Canada? If Canada sought to exert it's authority it would have just blew the Russian flag planting ship out of the water with some aircraft, fact is.. no matter what Canada does without it's defensive allies, it really is a small nation of 30 some million people who are largely multicultural from a variety of backgrounds.

Canada is a small industrially powerful-economically well positioned place - but it doesn't have the people to be a superpower - unless technology is tapped, and with that educated people to develope and maintain the technology.

[jbg]

Reminds me of Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia. Appeasement with Sudenland didn't prevent WWII; going along on Georgia won't stop more conflict.

[jbg]

I always thought that US nuclear weapons and the US military was a substancial deterent to invasion of Canada by anyone but the US. The British would likely get upset if the US just took Canada, and the UK is in the EU, which would likely cause long term repercussions for the US.

Has anyone suggested that the US was interested in "taking Canada"?

[DogOnPorch]

Canada needs but will the taxpayers like it?

We could use many helicopters. If Viet-nam showed us one thing, it was that helicopters are very effective at dealing with partisan warfare in the countryside. Especially when backed up with proper air and air-capable artillery support. Beats walking.

More APCs...with stress on the "A" part...especially the belly of the machine. Maybe we can pick up some used Russian ones cheap in Afghanistan.

More long range ASW/Anti-shipping/Recon type aircraft like the Lockheed Orion. Sort of a modern day CL-28 Argus. Perhaps the US would sell us some of their soon-to-come P-8 Poseidons for the real hi-tech eye in the sky.

More cargo type aircraft. C-17s and C-130s

As mentioned by someone, being there physically helps with claims (Alert for example).

--------------------------------------

Veni, vidi, vici.

---Julius Caesar

[Wild Bill]

Has anyone suggested that the US was interested in "taking Canada"?

What's in it for Uncle Sam?

He gains some natural resources but gets stuck with a huge welfare bill!

[Argus]

What's in it for Uncle Sam?

He gains some natural resources but gets stuck with a huge welfare bill!

Only the conservatives would be interested in that sort of thing (annexation) and they'd immediately shrink from the prospect of adding another 20 million Democrats to their electoral mix.

[Army Guy]

We don't need enormous military investment. Talking about upgrading our airforce to F-22's is ludicrous considering they cost 250 million each and the prospect of full-fledged military action between Russia and Canada is about as remote as Switzerland vs Thailand.

I agree we need to upgrade our military to the point where we're even capable of independant action, but not to go toe-to-toe with the Russians in the Arctic.

Here is two statements that contradict each other "we don't need enormous military investment" and up grading our military to allow for indenpendant action....You have of course seen the reports on what it will cost our nation, to upgrade and replace our existing military forces...no one is talking about expansion of our 56,000 pers, just up grading and replacing our existing equipment and infra struture to the piont we are at today....that being able to support independant action of 2500 soldiers on the ground and approx 600 sailors and airmen...that cost is well over 100 bil , the look on the tax payers face priceless....

Given our governments history on purchasing new equipment the F-22 is worth considering, (and certainly not at the 250 mil price per aircraft) it is expensive, fly away costs is est at 97 mil per unit, of course that does not include spares, training, wpns pkgs, etc....even with all that added up the Israelis almost had an agreement to purchase 60 with all the bells and whistles including spares , training, wpns pkgs for 200 mil a piece..

And while the price tag may shock you, lets consider a few things first, Our military forces "must" be able to inter operate with American forces as our foreign policies are linked, not totally but they are linked...The defense of North America is a joint effort, and if our forces are not inter operable then it would be counter productive to our defense would it not....

We must show the US that we are atleast somewhat serious about our own defense, if we want a say on how that defense is to be run, put under US rule until the crises is over is exactly the direction we are in now, and will remain until we take our defense seriously....and if that is the case becoming the 51 st state is not all that unthinkable.

We as a nation have always purchased the lowest bidder when talking about our military equipment....and yet we don't practice that in our personal and daily lives, but when it is our nations soldiers life on the line, sorry, you'll have to look in the "used" section....which is fine until your son or daugter signs up.....

Purchasing military equipment should be about our nation giving our soldiers the edge over our enemies...not by shopping at thrift shops...

Nobody was taking about going toe to toe with the Russians, but let me ask you this, had the Georgian thing gone south and Mr Bush decided to make a stand, do you really think our military would not be involved.....everyone would be drawn in....but we would be at a disadvantage would we not...considering we buy at the thrift market...yes many Canadians would pay the price because we love money....

Nobody is advocating a massive Army, a Massive build -up, for our made in Canada ambition of world dominance but atleast one that can support 6 to 9000 soldiers on the battle field at one time.... A goal that even most 3 rd world countries have achieved, one that is well within our grasp....

[Smallc]

Given our governments history on purchasing new equipment the F-22 is worth considering,

Canada will most likely purchase the F35 when our newly upgrades F18s reach the end of their service life near 2020.

[blueblood]

Canada will most likely purchase the F35 when our newly upgrades F18s reach the end of their service life near 2020.

Considering the F-22 can take on a dozen F-15's at once and win, it doesn't sound like a bad investment.

[White Doors]

I think the F-22 is the air superiority fighter and i don't think any other country will be able to have these for a few years after the USA get's them. The F-35 is the all around version and some say just as good but has multi-role capabilities. And it is much cheaper. (not the first design savings). That will be most likely what Canada gets, not the F-22.

[Smallc]

Considering the F-22 can take on a dozen F-15's at once and win, it doesn't sound like a bad investment.

It doesn't, but the F18, with the super hornet upgrades is no slouch either. It has the look at target and pull trigger function that means you no longer have to line up in any way. The F15, 16, 18, and 22 are all quite far ahead of most 'enemy' aircraft to start with. Our F18 fleet could very much hold its own in a fight.

It would be nice to have a shiny new fleet of F22s, but it would be nice to have a great many other things too. Always a balancing act.

[M.Dancer]

I don't think we need an air superiority fighter. On the otherhand, an aircraft that can provide accurate and deadly close in support for our boots on the ground is needed.