Russia Approaching Canadian Airspace!

[wulf42]

Looks like Ivan is up to his old tricks again, the world economy goes bad the first thing that happens is that countries start looking for resources in places that don t belong to them. If one of these Tu-95's ("Bear") or Tu-160's enters our airspace we should bring down with a sidewinder....send a message to Russia they would do the same if we entered their airspace. These occurences is exactly why we need a majority Conservative government,somebody that will rearm this country against a threat that never really went away just subsided for awhile. Ivan will always be a threat....we just have to build an armed force to challenge it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/27/arctic-russia.html

Edited February 28, 2009 by wulf42

[Progressive Tory]

These occurences is exactly why we need a majority Conservative government,somebody that will rearm this country against a threat that never really went away just subsided for awhile. Ivan will always be a threat....we just have to build an armed force to challenge it.

Any remote thought of immediate aggression are exactly why I thank gawd we don't have a majority Conservative gov't. Your comments are outrageous. Do you honestly think anyone not on crack cocaine would suggest that Canada single handedly takes on the Russians?

First off, the Russian military exercise took place on the 16th and Obama arrived on the 19th. Now I know that in Stockwell Day's mathematical theory that probably is just 24 hours, but in the real world, I can assure you it's not.

I have no doubt that they probably were casing the joint, but what's interesting about the article is they suggest that we are battling the Russians for Sovereignty over the Arctic, but according to Harper's buddy George Bush, our beefs are with the U.S.

Bush asserts U.S. sea power over Arctic straits

"In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U.S. military "sea power" over the oil-rich Arctic on Monday, in another forceful rebuttal of Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage."

"Key elements of Bush's policy challenge the ambitious Arctic sovereignty agenda put forth by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that includes bolstering Canada's military presence and fostering economic and social development. The Bush directive reiterates that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway — a rebuttal of Canada's claim ...

"I think Canada has gotten a real wake-up call with this," said University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, one the country's leading experts on Arctic issues. He said he couldn't recall the U.S. ever articulating its disagreements with Canada "in such black and white terms. There was no effort here to sugar-coat anything."

Guess we should fight the U.S. too.

"Huebert noted that the bold assertion of American interests in the Arctic came only weeks after a similar statement by European officials also posed challenges to Canada's polar strategy.

But why stop there? We'll wage war against all of Europe.

[wulf42]

Any remote thought of immediate aggression are exactly why I thank gawd we don't have a majority Conservative gov't. Your comments are outrageous. Do you honestly think anyone not on crack cocaine would suggest that Canada single handedly takes on the Russians?

First off, the Russian military exercise took place on the 16th and Obama arrived on the 19th. Now I know that in Stockwell Day's mathematical theory that probably is just 24 hours, but in the real world, I can assure you it's not.

I have no doubt that they probably were casing the joint, but what's interesting about the article is they suggest that we are battling the Russians for Sovereignty over the Arctic, but according to Harper's buddy George Bush, our beefs are with the U.S.

Bush asserts U.S. sea power over Arctic straits

"In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U.S. military "sea power" over the oil-rich Arctic on Monday, in another forceful rebuttal of Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage."

"Key elements of Bush's policy challenge the ambitious Arctic sovereignty agenda put forth by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that includes bolstering Canada's military presence and fostering economic and social development. The Bush directive reiterates that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway — a rebuttal of Canada's claim ...

"I think Canada has gotten a real wake-up call with this," said University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, one the country's leading experts on Arctic issues. He said he couldn't recall the U.S. ever articulating its disagreements with Canada "in such black and white terms. There was no effort here to sugar-coat anything."

Guess we should fight the U.S. too.

"Huebert noted that the bold assertion of American interests in the Arctic came only weeks after a similar statement by European officials also posed challenges to Canada's polar strategy.

But why stop there? We'll wage war against all of Europe.

If they enter our airspace that is a direct threat! and i said IF they enter our airspace shoot them down....in case you didn't know we are a part of Nato which means the U.S. would come to our aid...and if you hadn't notice the U.S. scrambled

2 f-15's with our planes to fend them off, your right we can't take on the Russians which says something about the depletion of our military thanks to a sissy Liberal Government and is why i personally think Canada should rearm with a small but effective modern military as well as a small Nuclear deterent as well! If we want to live in a free country we should at least be able to defend it!

[CANADIEN]

Yeah right... They're lauching a full scale attack with two bombers...

That little game has been played for decades... They test our (Canada and U.S.) defense, get inside our airspace just long enough for our fighters to show up, then turn back. And we do the same.

[Progressive Tory]

your right we can't take on the Russians which says something about the depletion of our military thanks to a sissy Liberal Government and is why i personally think Canada should rearm with a small but effective modern military as well as a small Nuclear deterent as well! If we want to live in a free country we should at least be able to defend it!

In case you hadn't noticed, our population will not warrant a larger military unless we start drafting six years olds. As of July 2008, the population of Russia was 140,702,096. Canada's was 33,212,696 for the same period.

If you are suggesting that we should start a nuclear war, I don't even want to imagine where your head is at. Invading airspace is one thing. Shooting down planes on a whim is another and has nothing to do with the size or strength of the Canadian military, but the amount of stupidity our gov't would have to have to even consider such a thing.

You do know that a nuclear attack on Russia would affect us and the question would be how long it would take to wipe us off the face of the earth from it's fallout and backlash?

[Progressive Tory]

Yeah right... They're lauching a full scale attack with two bombers...

That little game has been played for decades... They test our (Canada and U.S.) defense, get inside our airspace just long enough for our fighters to show up, then turn back. And we do the same.

Exactly. This is not threat to our national security. It's only posturing and if the suggestion is that a Conservative majority would mean shooting down the plane, than again...thank gawd that intelligence trumps ideology.

[wulf42]

In case you hadn't noticed, our population will not warrant a larger military unless we start drafting six years olds. As of July 2008, the population of Russia was 140,702,096. Canada's was 33,212,696 for the same period.

If you are suggesting that we should start a nuclear war, I don't even want to imagine where your head is at. Invading airspace is one thing. Shooting down planes on a whim is another and has nothing to do with the size or strength of the Canadian military, but the amount of stupidity our gov't would have to have to even consider such a thing.

You do know that a nuclear attack on Russia would affect us and the question would be how long it would take to wipe us off the face of the earth from it's fallout and backlash?

Where did i say we should start a nuclear war.......??? stop putting words out there that were not said!!

and where did i say LARGER military???? i said SMALL modern effective military

i said we should have a small nuclear DETERRENT!! not start a nuclear war!!

those Russians pilots are likely laughing all the way back to Russia thinking we are pushovers and they would be right!

and i said IF they enter our airspace military action would be warranted.....learn to read before you speak!

[Progressive Tory]

Where did i say we should start a nuclear war.......??? stop putting words out there that were not said!!.....learn to read before you speak!

So we need nuclear weapons why, when we're right in the middle of the U.S and Russia? The last thing we need is another red button poised to destroy the universe.

We do have a small well trained military, which will never be much of a threat to anyone. That's never been our goal. Other powers tap into our resources and we in turn operate missions and unfortunately engage in battle.

I have always been against war in every way shape and form, but recognize the contributions that the Canadian military has made not only in theatres of war, but in humanitarian aid. They are a source of pride.

However, diplomacy should always be the first option and Canada is not in a position to start a war with anyone on the off chance that the U.S. will fight our battles for us. It would have been absolute stupidity for us to shoot down that plane, and to give the Conservatives some credit, I don't think they're that stupid.

[Visionseeker]

Looks like Ivan is up to his old tricks again, the world economy goes bad the first thing that happens is that countries start looking for resources in places that don t belong to them. If one of these Tu-95's ("Bear") or Tu-160's enters our airspace we should bring down with a sidewinder....send a message to Russia they would do the same if we entered their airspace. These occurences is exactly why we need a majority Conservative government,somebody that will rearm this country against a threat that never really went away just subsided for awhile. Ivan will always be a threat....we just have to build an armed force to challenge it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/27/arctic-russia.html

Isn't Sarah Palin supposed to handle this kind of thing?

[Smallc]

I said SMALL modern effective military

Well what is your definition of that. I would say that between Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, we already have one or are very close to getting one. The navy needs a few new ships and the army needs more combat troops (according to the government itself), but other than that, the things we need are either in our inventory or on order.

Oh, but they better soon do something about the supply ships or we're going to end up without the current high capability that we have when it comes to the sea.

[wulf42]

Well what is your definition of that. I would say that between Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, we already have one or are very close to getting one. The navy needs a few new ships and the army needs more combat troops (according to the government itself), but other than that, the things we need are either in our inventory or on order.

Oh, but they better soon do something about the supply ships or we're going to end up without the current high capability that we have when it comes to the sea.

Yes we need new ships and the CF-18 are coming to the end of their service life so we will soon new updated fighter aircraft....even if we bought F-16's which are cheaper but very effective air combat aircraft we could buy more for less! but i do believe a small nuclear deterrent is necessary you are taken more seriously... sad but true!

[capricorn]

Meanwhile, Denis Coderre, Liberal Defence critic, doesn't appear to know that Russia is not a member of NATO.

Selon le critique libéral en matière de défense nationale, Denis Coderre, il s'agit d'une démonstration de force de la Russie, qui teste les réflexes de défense du Canada. «Quand tu es un pays ami, un pays allié, tu avertis. L'ambassadeur russe aurait dû prévenir le gouvernement canadien du geste. Il ne l'a pas fait. Ça veut dire qu'il y a un certain froid entre certains pays de l'OTAN», s'est inquiété M. Coderre.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/dossiers/obama-a...site-dobama.php

"When you are a friendly country, an allied country, you give notice. The Russian Ambassador should have warned the Canadian government of its action. He did not. This reflects that there is a certain coldness between some NATO countries." (my rough translation)

Lucky for the Liberal Party he doesn't write their press releases.

[bluegreen]

Yes we need new ships and the CF-18 are coming to the end of their service life so we will soon new updated fighter aircraft....even if we bought F-16's which are cheaper but very effective air combat aircraft we could buy more for less! but i do believe a small nuclear deterrent is necessary you are taken more seriously... sad but true!

I thought you said we needed small but more effective forces? Swap F-18's for F-16's?

Bear bombers have been buzzing our northern borders since the late 50's. The fact that they have taken it up again is indicative of Russia's changed posture over the past three years. It's not a threat to Canada, it's a challenge to NATO. The threat has never gone away, they're just rubbing our noses in it. "Don't forget" they're saying, "We can fry your' asses anytime, so don't go thinking we don't matter"

In case you didn't notice, Canada is a part of NATO, and that means that we can deploy NATO nuclear weapons. (OK maybe no city busting nukes, just tactical warheads.)

Are you seriously suggesting that we scrap our NATO alliance, and go it alone? One of the foundations of our collective security pact is that a proliferation of nuclear armed states decreases, not improves security. If we so arm ourselves, you can take it as a given that a dozen resource rich, but militarily weak states will immediately follow suit.

You may not be worried if Brazil, Iran, Australia, Norway, South Africa (again), and sundry other states take up nuclear arms, but I would be. As it is, it is the probability of an eventual nuclear exchange approaches 100%, but the risks can be juggled a little more readily with fewer players. The possibility of a ten sided nuclear exchange is pretty scary.

[wulf42]

I thought you said we needed small but more effective forces? Swap F-18's for F-16's?

Bear bombers have been buzzing our northern borders since the late 50's. The fact that they have taken it up again is indicative of Russia's changed posture over the past three years. It's not a threat to Canada, it's a challenge to NATO. The threat has never gone away, they're just rubbing our noses in it. "Don't forget" they're saying, "We can fry your' asses anytime, so don't go thinking we don't matter"

In case you didn't notice, Canada is a part of NATO, and that means that we can deploy NATO nuclear weapons. (OK maybe no city busting nukes, just tactical warheads.)

Are you seriously suggesting that we scrap our NATO alliance, and go it alone? One of the foundations of our collective security pact is that a proliferation of nuclear armed states decreases, not improves security. If we so arm ourselves, you can take it as a given that a dozen resource rich, but militarily weak states will immediately follow suit.

You may not be worried if Brazil, Iran, Australia, Norway, South Africa (again), and sundry other states take up nuclear arms, but I would be. As it is, it is the probability of an eventual nuclear exchange approaches 100%, but the risks can be juggled a little more readily with fewer players. The possibility of a ten sided nuclear exchange is pretty scary.

Again we have a poster who is stating things that were not said or implied but that is very common on this board to simply make up false statements as you go to support your argument .......where did i say scrap our alliance with Nato........?????...lol

and the only reason you are not speaking Russian is because of Nuclear weapons! Having Nuclear weapons absolutely has and still is keeping us secure, Russia would have invaded decades ago if not for a huge Nuclear arsenal in the USA just the way it is, the world is not a friendly place and never will be... get used to it !! and for your info F-16's are easier to maintain and are a cheaper aircraft but are good for defensive purposes because they are great air combat platform's....sad as it is if you are Nuclear armed your taken seriously....why do you think the Arab world doesn't seriously try to attack Israel? Canada would certainly be within it's rights to have a small Nuclear deterrent and a small but capable conventional military for defence! Although the F-16's are a good aircraft Canada is or appears to be buying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter which is top of the line!

http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/318...an-thought.html

Edited February 28, 2009 by wulf42

[bluegreen]

Again we have a poster who is stating things that were not said or implied but that is very common on this board to simply make up false statements as you go to support your argument .......where did i say scrap our alliance with Nato........?????...lol

and the only reason you are not speaking Russian is because of Nuclear weapons! Having Nuclear weapons absolutely has and still is keeping us secure, Russia would have invaded decades ago if not for a huge Nuclear arsenal in the USA just the way it is, the world is not a friendly place and never will be... get used to it !! and for your info F-16's are easier to maintain and are a cheaper aircraft but are good for defensive purposes because they are great air combat platform's....sad as it is if you are Nuclear armed your taken seriously....why do you think the Arab world doesn't seriously try to attack Israel? Canada would certainly be within it's rights to have a small Nuclear deterrent and a small but capable conventional military for defence! Although the F-16's are a good aircraft Canada is or appears to be buying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter which is top of the line!

http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/318...an-thought.html

You didn't explicitly state that we should scrap our NATO alliance, you advocate a policy that would at a minimum undermine NATO, and more likely get us thrown out. That's why I commented on the fact that one of the founding principles of NATO was collective security, and one very big reason that so many small powers joined was because they recognised the threat to our collective security of nuclear proliferation. What I am saying is that there are two options on the table. Collective security, and a non-proliferation treaty, or a dangerous and insecure proliferation of National nuclear deterrents.

We do have exactly the best of both worlds right now. A small but capable conventional force, which in my opinion is not very important given the collective security pact backed by a huge WMD arsenal. In my humble opinion, we are best served by maintaining the smallest possible force that upholds our commitments IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC, and simply forget about projecting power. That's an expensive game, and doesn't serve our interests very well.

The F-18 is a superior platform, and if we are to be credible in northern air defence, a small but sufficient number of the scariest mothers in the air seems about right to me. Honestly, the presence of Bear bombers is pretty meaningless. Does anybody seriously think that strategic bombers are a relevant part of either great nuclear powers strategic deterrence? Not since 1965 or so anyways.

[bluegreen]

Any remote thought of immediate aggression are exactly why I thank gawd we don't have a majority Conservative gov't. Your comments are outrageous. Do you honestly think anyone not on crack cocaine would suggest that Canada single handedly takes on the Russians?

First off, the Russian military exercise took place on the 16th and Obama arrived on the 19th. Now I know that in Stockwell Day's mathematical theory that probably is just 24 hours, but in the real world, I can assure you it's not.

I have no doubt that they probably were casing the joint, but what's interesting about the article is they suggest that we are battling the Russians for Sovereignty over the Arctic, but according to Harper's buddy George Bush, our beefs are with the U.S.

Bush asserts U.S. sea power over Arctic straits

"In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U.S. military "sea power" over the oil-rich Arctic on Monday, in another forceful rebuttal of Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage."

"Key elements of Bush's policy challenge the ambitious Arctic sovereignty agenda put forth by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that includes bolstering Canada's military presence and fostering economic and social development. The Bush directive reiterates that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway — a rebuttal of Canada's claim ...

"I think Canada has gotten a real wake-up call with this," said University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, one the country's leading experts on Arctic issues. He said he couldn't recall the U.S. ever articulating its disagreements with Canada "in such black and white terms. There was no effort here to sugar-coat anything."

Guess we should fight the U.S. too.

"Huebert noted that the bold assertion of American interests in the Arctic came only weeks after a similar statement by European officials also posed challenges to Canada's polar strategy.

But why stop there? We'll wage war against all of Europe.

I find this American position quite curious and startling. I wonder if they have thought it all the way through? If the Northwest passage is truly the issue, then would they not be better served by a right of passage agreement through sovereign Canadian waters? If it is International, they can expect foreign warships operating freely on their doorstep in Alaska.

I suspect it is much more about the straits of Malacca, Hormuz, and sundry other chokepoints, potentially in unfriendly hands. Perhaps they should be thinking 50 years forward when they are no longer the dominant military force, and potential foes will be seeking to project power onto our doorstep?

[DrGreenthumb]

This is just more conservative stupidity. If a majority conservative government would fire at the russians for such a small infraction then thank God the conservative's chances of a majority approach that of a snowball's chance in hell.

I suspect that conservatives making a big deal out of this are just employing some slight of hand techniques on a grand scale. Don't look what your government is doing, look over there at the scary russian threat!! The conservative government does nothing but increase our chances of being attacked by a hostile country with their bush like policies. After just a few years of conservative government I'd be kinda worried to wear a canadian flag on my jacket when travelling abroad. Canadians used to be respected and admired throughout the world, now we are being equated with and despised as much as America is.

[bluegreen]

This is just more conservative stupidity. If a majority conservative government would fire at the russians for such a small infraction then thank God the conservative's chances of a majority approach that of a snowball's chance in hell.

I suspect that conservatives making a big deal out of this are just employing some slight of hand techniques on a grand scale. Don't look what your government is doing, look over there at the scary russian threat!! The conservative government does nothing but increase our chances of being attacked by a hostile country with their bush like policies. After just a few years of conservative government I'd be kinda worried to wear a canadian flag on my jacket when travelling abroad. Canadians used to be respected and admired throughout the world, now we are being equated with and despised as much as America is.

Actually, there was no infraction. Yes, the Conservatives are trying to change the channel. For some reason, the electorate seems to think they own military matters, so bluster about the barbarian threat helps them. But it is also true that the Russkies have reverted somewhat, and an appropriate response to their mild provocation is a mild rebuke. Had they crossed into Canadian Airspace, which would have been a major provocation, the appropriate response might well have been to pop a sidewinder into them. That is how that silly game is played.

I have traveled the world, and Canada is not despised as much as America is. In fact, we're still pretty much cuddly teddy bears as far as the average Joe or Jane in the Rest of the World is concerned.

[scorpio]

Canadians used to be respected and admired throughout the world, now we are being equated with and despised as much as America is.

And in Kandahar the other day they were chanting "Death to Canada" on account of some kids that were blown up by leftover munitions.

[wulf42]

You didn't explicitly state that we should scrap our NATO alliance, you advocate a policy that would at a minimum undermine NATO, and more likely get us thrown out. That's why I commented on the fact that one of the founding principles of NATO was collective security, and one very big reason that so many small powers joined was because they recognised the threat to our collective security of nuclear proliferation. What I am saying is that there are two options on the table. Collective security, and a non-proliferation treaty, or a dangerous and insecure proliferation of National nuclear deterrents.

We do have exactly the best of both worlds right now. A small but capable conventional force, which in my opinion is not very important given the collective security pact backed by a huge WMD arsenal. In my humble opinion, we are best served by maintaining the smallest possible force that upholds our commitments IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC, and simply forget about projecting power. That's an expensive game, and doesn't serve our interests very well.

The F-18 is a superior platform, and if we are to be credible in northern air defence, a small but sufficient number of the scariest mothers in the air seems about right to me. Honestly, the presence of Bear bombers is pretty meaningless. Does anybody seriously think that strategic bombers are a relevant part of either great nuclear powers strategic deterrence? Not since 1965 or so anyways.

The F-18 are very good aircraft but the ones we have now are getting near the end of their service life so we need to update and it looks as though the F-35 Lighting 2 is going to be the choice...........but for a country that loves to bash the hell out of the USA we sure count of them to protect us....i think that is pretty pathetic

if we are a sovereign nation we should act like it and arm ourselves which should include a small Nuclear arsenal even if its only Tactical warheads and not let our big brother do it for us! Canada would have a hard time taking on a Russian tug boat fleet as the situation stands now....this silly passive "oh well" Canadian attitude is why nobody really takes us serious! As far as attacking Russian aircraft... i said IF they actually enter our airspace we are well within our rights to down a Bear....The Russians are becoming much more aggressive and with world economy going down the crapper no better way to get your people to forget about their economic situation and to stop them from turning on their Governments than to start an international crisis and get them to focus their attention on something else!

Edited February 28, 2009 by wulf42

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Canadians used to be respected and admired throughout the world, now we are being equated with and despised as much as America is.

Not the entire world...for obvious reasons. You aren't anybody until somebody burns your flag.

[bluegreen]

The F-18 are very good aircraft but the ones we have now are getting near the end of their service life so we need to update and it looks as though the F-35 Lighting 2 is going to be the choice...........but for a country that loves to bash the hell out of the USA we sure count of them to protect us....i think that is pretty pathetic

if we are a sovereign nation we should act like it and arm ourselves which should include a small Nuclear arsenal even if its only Tactical warheads and not let our big brother do it for us! Canada would have a hard time taking on a Russian tug boat fleet as the situation stands now....this silly passive "oh well" Canadian attitude is why nobody really takes us serious!

We have every right to criticise the failings of our neighbours to the south. They have more than their fair share of them, as do we of course. I don't think it's pathetic at all. I think that quivering in our boots, and slavishly following their lead due to fear of the big bad wolf would be truly pathetic.

Our security is another thing altogether. If Canada decides to go it alone, and abandons our international commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation pact, then the NATO pact will simply collapse, as will the NNP. A lot of countries will arm themselves in the same way. The chances then of a 'local' war sparking a nuclear exchange will be greatly magnified. Who knows how nasty such an exchange might be for us?

These are entirely predictable consequences of following your desire to show the rest of the world what big strong men we are.

I don't give a toss if anybody in the world is afraid of us or not. It is enough for me that the whole world knows that to attack Canada directly will mean being ground up into mincemeat by the most powerful military alliance ever. When it comes to international muscle, we are a wealthy, growing, resource rich country. That gives us all the power we need.

[wulf42]

I don't give a toss if anybody in the world is afraid of us or not. It is enough for me that the whole world knows that to attack Canada directly will mean being ground up into mincemeat by the most powerful military alliance ever. When it comes to international muscle, we are a wealthy, growing, resource rich country. That gives us all the power we need.

Yes they will back us up but they also should know that we have something to bring to the table as well...........Canada expects other countries to fight our battles for us and i am sorry i don't agree with that,if we are to be in Nato we should be able to pull our own weight militarily otherwise why be in Nato at all?

this website shows where we rank in the world.....i mean seriously Mexico has us beat!

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

[bluegreen]

Yes they will back us up but they also should know that we have something to bring to the table as well...........Canada expects other countries to fight our battles for us and i am sorry i don't agree with that,if we are to be in Nato we should be able to pull our own weight militarily otherwise why be in Nato at all?

this website shows where we rank in the world.....i mean seriously Mexico has us beat!

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Mexico hardly has us beat. They cannot reach us, and we cannot reach them. There are very very few nations with the ability to project power in any significant way. Those which pose a credible threat to Canada currently number one. Russia. Hardly a credible threat in the face of NATO, and they have proven that they are not stupid enough to fry the whole planet in their imperial quest.

Why do we need more military? So we can project power? It is useless to have a little bit of power of this sort. Either you have enough to thump someone big time, or you don't. It takes air, sea, land, amphibious, Intelligence, and logistical muscle to project power. For Canada to acquire this mix would cost us a vast sum of treasure. And for what end? So we could seize stuff that we already have plenty of? So we could assist another would be Imperial power to seize stuff?

So, for the forseeable future our conventional physical security is threatened by no-one other than a foe that we have trained to fight, against whom we have an enormous military alliance beside us. So long as we constrain the spread of strategic weapons, like nuclear tipped ICBM's, (Part of the reason we aren't a nuclear power) then there is little strategic threat, because of our membership in NATO.

Are we children that we should waste treasure on having a bigger dick than Mexico, or Japan? If it means nothing in practical terms, then that's what we should spend on it, nothing. Posturing, and grandstanding is what it would amount to.

What we should do, is fulfill our basic role within NATO, which is to share the Air defense in the North, and East, (NORAD), and help maintain coalition naval superiority off all three coasts. No more, no less.

[Smallc]

the CF-18 are coming to the end of their service life

Ummm....no....they just went through a modernization that puts their best before date at around 2020.