Harper Sinks Navy

[jdobbin]

Even better in this case, if the Liberals go ape over the idea of not supporting the navy then when they DO get an acceptable tender the Liberals will be in no position to criticize.

There was no criticism from the Liberals about the ship announcement. I don't think any party said a thing because it was obvious the need was there.

[eyeball]

So we should blame Canada for the Treaty of Versailles?

We should just focus on the here and now I think.

[normanchateau]

Some people think the best way to defend ourselves is to make friends with dictators.

That approach would work with some dictators but probably not all of them. Lying prostate would work with some. Suicide would work with others. Different approaches for different dictators I suppose.

[normanchateau]

We should just focus on the here and now I think.

Yes, let's ban history. After all, it has nothing to teach us...

[eyeball]

Yes, let's ban history. After all, it has nothing to teach us...

It has lots to teach us if you're willing to learn from it.

I've been reading this months issue of Skeptic and came across this passage in an article on evolution.

Counterfactual questions and counterfactual (what if) history is a legitimate form of thought experiment that provides an opportunity for understanding cause and effect relationships in the past.

Interestingly the article is about the role of contingency and neccessity in evolution (of higher intelligence in the case of the article). In the case of the evolution of the geopolitical realities of the here and now you seem to be arguing from the position of neccessity and that Hitler's monstrous existance could not have been otherwise - he was preordained from the beginning and we had no choice.

I am arguing from the contingency side that says nothing is or was inevitable and that evolution could have evolved any which way. Our involvement in WW1 could have been the contingency that made evolution unfold the way it did. For all we know the EU could have been born 50 years before its time if Europeans had been left to sort out their own problems on their own. Hitler could just as easily have been a respectable name that we use today to equate with human rights.

I think the practice of always equating doubt about military spending to appeasment and capitulation to Hitler speaks to the same sort of fatalism that a belief in pre-ordained history does. We can't do anything else but prepare for war so we should. We may as well just launch an all out pre-emptive attack on our enemies if that's the case.

[Wild Bill]

In the meantime, what's to stop us from building a few big nukes and telling any super-power that gets a notion to invade us to back off or else?

We've been over this one before, I think.

Alright, you've got your nukes. So, some undercover terrorists nuke Toronto. Now, what do you do?

It's likely that we have no idea who they are or where they came from. Especially since we have a tendency to cheap out on foreign intel resources. Worse yet, maybe they frame a different country and we blow up the wrong one!

Or we find out that they're not actually a country. They may be sheltered by a sympathetic government, like the Taliban or the Saudis but they are not officially a country. Who do you nuke?

I'd assume you'd want to nuke governments instead of ordinary people. So the emirs all leave the capital and hide in the various hills. Should you nuke their capital anyway?

It's not nearly as simplistic an option as you make it out to be. It takes feet on the ground to defend against these kind of threats. It's not 1939, you know.

What's more, even if we do find ourselves at war with a specific country, modern wars are "come as you are" wars. They can be over in weeks, if not days. If you don't have the resources at the start you will never have the time to develop them. No time for recruitment and training. No time to build a plane or a tank. If you haven't got good ones or enough of them then you lose. Your nukes were almost certainly destroyed in their silos before you even had a clue what was going on.

Or maybe I missed something. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

[bush_cheney2004]

We've been over this one before, I think.

Alright, you've got your nukes. So, some undercover terrorists nuke Toronto. Now, what do you do?

Right....or else WHAT? Having a few "nukes" does not an effective deterrent make. USA has plenty of nukes.....didn't help New York or Washington at all. If he means an outright invasion by Russia, the practical military response won't even be Canada's decision.

[Wild Bill]

Right....or else WHAT? Having a few "nukes" does not an effective deterrent make. USA has plenty of nukes.....didn't help New York or Washington at all. If he means an outright invasion by Russia, the practical military response won't even be Canada's decision.

Actually, if the NORAD rotation held a Canadian general at that specific time, would it not be Canada's decision?

Maybe not Ottawa's. There's limited time, after all. Still, I would expect a Canadian officer would make the same response as his American counterpart. Soldiers of all countries tend to be more practical than many of their leaders.

[Wilber]

So we have nukes, big deal. How are we going to deliver them, by mail?

[Wild Bill]

So we have nukes, big deal. How are we going to deliver them, by mail?

I was referring as to how in Cheyenne Mountain, the HQ of NORAD, they alternate with an American and a Canadian in command. It would just be the luck of the draw as to who was the commanding officer if there was a foreign attack.

That's the way NORAD was set up, from the beginning. It is a joint Canada-USA deal, even if the Americans kicked in most of the money for all the hardware.

[Smallc]

So we have nukes, big deal. How are we going to deliver them, by mail?

I have a delivery for a Mr. Putin. Sing here please....

Seriously though, to eyeball, these ships are needed so that Canada can be independent at sea. This has to do with many more things than war. Canada's navy is involved in all kinds of operations such as policing and humanitarian work. Sometimes replenishment ships are needed for that. Ours are old.

Keep in mind that these ships also house medical centers and haul relief supplies. They are not just instruments of war.

[Argus]

There was no criticism from the Liberals about the ship announcement. I don't think any party said a thing because it was obvious the need was there.

The need has been there for over a decade. Why didn't the Liberals take care of it?

[eyeball]

We've been over this one before, I think.

Alright, you've got your nukes. So, some undercover terrorists nuke Toronto. Now, what do you do?

Wonder how the police missed the terrorists. How on Earth would a conventional army be able to protect Toronto? Put a soldier on every street corner perhaps?

It's likely that we have no idea who they are or where they came from. Especially since we have a tendency to cheap out on foreign intel resources. Worse yet, maybe they frame a different country and we blow up the wrong one!

Or we find out that they're not actually a country. They may be sheltered by a sympathetic government, like the Taliban or the Saudis but they are not officially a country. Who do you nuke?

I'd assume you'd want to nuke governments instead of ordinary people. So the emirs all leave the capital and hide in the various hills. Should you nuke their capital anyway?

It's not nearly as simplistic an option as you make it out to be. It takes feet on the ground to defend against these kind of threats. It's not 1939, you know.

Yes I've also made it quite clear its not 1939. The only way you could possibly defend against these types of attack is to pre-emptively attack them first. That sounds like a 1939 approach to me. I can't think of anything more simplistic than the notion that 'feet on the ground' will make any sort of difference at all in the type of attacks you've posed.

What's more, even if we do find ourselves at war with a specific country, modern wars are "come as you are" wars. They can be over in weeks, if not days. If you don't have the resources at the start you will never have the time to develop them. No time for recruitment and training. No time to build a plane or a tank. If you haven't got good ones or enough of them then you lose. Your nukes were almost certainly destroyed in their silos before you even had a clue what was going on.

Or maybe I missed something. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

You've described two types of attack; the first from a group of terrorists and the second sounds like the sort of attack that only a super-rogue could mount. In neither case would the sort of conventional armed forces you want Canada to possess be able to do a single thing. All we could do is retaliate after the fact or pre-emptively attack before the possibility.

[eyeball]

So we have nukes, big deal. How are we going to deliver them, by mail?

Why not? We're often reminded that this is probably the manner by which we'll be attacked. As for defending our country from a conventional invasion I see no reason why we couldn't do what other countries do, which is mire the invaders down in a long intractable resistance. You don't think Canadians are just as capable of driving out invaders as Afghan's are?

Again, the only countries ever likely to invade us conventionally are the super-powers. One was of which was brought down after it attempted to invade Afghanistan and another is in the process of falling down due to its conventional retaliation against a terrorist attack.

[eyeball]

I have a delivery for a Mr. Putin. Sing here please....

Seriously though, to eyeball, these ships are needed so that Canada can be independent at sea. This has to do with many more things than war. Canada's navy is involved in all kinds of operations such as policing and humanitarian work. Sometimes replenishment ships are needed for that. Ours are old.

Keep in mind that these ships also house medical centers and haul relief supplies. They are not just instruments of war.

I've lived and worked on waters of the BC coast all my life and it looks to me like we have plenty of resources policing and patrolling our coast. As for Arctic sovereignty issues, we'd be far better off taking a multilateral diplomatic approach. Harper has clearly linked his military spending plans on his desire to make Canada a "player" on the global stage. His spending plans and many of the hopes voiced for more spending around this forum are clearly for instruments of war.

[Smallc]

I've lived and worked on waters of the BC coast all my life and it looks to me like we have plenty of resources policing and patrolling our coast. As for Arctic sovereignty issues, we'd be far better off taking a multilateral diplomatic approach. Harper has clearly linked his military spending plans on his desire to make Canada a "player" on the global stage. His spending plans and many of the hopes voiced for more spending around this forum are clearly for instruments of war.

That's not the only thing the the armed forces is used for and that's not the only things that can make you a global player you a global player. The military needs to be ready not only for war, but for peacekeeping, domestic emergencies and natural disasters. On top of that, words can't always fix everything and its quite naive to think so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, if the NORAD rotation held a Canadian general at that specific time, would it not be Canada's decision?

Even then, NORAD does not have the predelegations that existed during the Cold War...Canadian general or not. There are some specific circumstances that may result in the release of nuclear weapons, but it won't be Canada making that call under the current arrangement and reality of force structure. Canada is even less prepared than the UK was during the Falklands War (i.e. detection, assessment, response). Also, Canada does not have the same arrangement for the USA's NORTHCOM, which was created in 2002 and has some of the responsibilities formerly held by NORAD.

Maybe not Ottawa's. There's limited time, after all. Still, I would expect a Canadian officer would make the same response as his American counterpart. Soldiers of all countries tend to be more practical than many of their leaders.

Agreed, but no "soldier" is tasked with making the decision to engage without following the ROE's and standing operations orders. Sure, they can fire when fired upon, but the larger, coordinated defensive response involves civilian leadership, as it should. I need only remind of the intercept response on 9/11.....we are not sitting at alert on the runways waiting for the commies to attack from over the horizon like in the old days.

I am confident that any conventional "attack" would result in the usual order of escalation through diplomatic and military channels, and Canada would not be unilateral about the process or resulting decision(s).

Edited August 24, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

....we are not sitting at alert on the runways waiting for the commies to attack from over the horizon like in the old days.

Well, I'm not sure if that's true post 9/11

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I'm not sure if that's true post 9/11

Yes it is.....mere weeks after 9/11 a suicidal teen flew a single engine aircraft into a builing near Tampa-St Pete, Florida. Just minutes from Holmstead AFB.

Even at the height of the Cold War, an intercept would have been unlikely.

[Wilber]

Why not? We're often reminded that this is probably the manner by which we'll be attacked. As for defending our country from a conventional invasion I see no reason why we couldn't do what other countries do, which is mire the invaders down in a long intractable resistance. You don't think Canadians are just as capable of driving out invaders as Afghan's are?

Attacked by terrorists, not other nations. Do you really think that would be a deterrent to anyone who wants to attack us because that's what nukes are, deterrents. They'll be shaking in their boots. As for the other, sure let them occupy us then we will bog them down in a guerrilla war in our own neigbourhoods. Just think of the billions we will save. I doubt you could get the 20 million dead Russians from WW2 to agree with you.

[normanchateau]

It has lots to teach us if you're willing to learn from it.

I've been reading this months issue of Skeptic and came across this passage in an article on evolution.

Counterfactual questions and counterfactual (what if) history is a legitimate form of thought experiment that provides an opportunity for understanding cause and effect relationships in the past.

Interestingly the article is about the role of contingency and neccessity in evolution (of higher intelligence in the case of the article). In the case of the evolution of the geopolitical realities of the here and now you seem to be arguing from the position of neccessity and that Hitler's monstrous existance could not have been otherwise - he was preordained from the beginning and we had no choice.

I am arguing from the contingency side that says nothing is or was inevitable and that evolution could have evolved any which way. Our involvement in WW1 could have been the contingency that made evolution unfold the way it did. For all we know the EU could have been born 50 years before its time if Europeans had been left to sort out their own problems on their own. Hitler could just as easily have been a respectable name that we use today to equate with human rights.

I think the practice of always equating doubt about military spending to appeasment and capitulation to Hitler speaks to the same sort of fatalism that a belief in pre-ordained history does. We can't do anything else but prepare for war so we should. We may as well just launch an all out pre-emptive attack on our enemies if that's the case.

So are you advocating Canada's complete disarmament? If you view any reduction in military spending as "good", I assume you'd want to reduce it to zero.

[Topaz]

When Canada declared war on Germany in 1939, Germany was not threatening Canada. Should we have left it to others to fight fascism and not declare war on Germany?

Canadians were British subjects remember and we didn't become Canadians until 1947.

[Topaz]

Didn't Harper say a short time ago about our northern part, that if we didn't patrol it, we"ll lose it? I don't think he's helping matters. Who does he want to have it, the US or Russia?

[normanchateau]

Canadians were British subjects remember and we didn't become Canadians until 1947.

In 1939, Canada also declared war on Germany independently of Britain:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_tourism/47472

[bush_cheney2004]

Didn't Harper say a short time ago about our northern part, that if we didn't patrol it, we"ll lose it? I don't think he's helping matters. Who does he want to have it, the US or Russia?

The US.....besides, Canada doesen't own the North Pole...it belongs to Santa (and Santa is American).