10 Billion for military equipment

Craig1 · July 9, 2009

Remember Harper wanting to invade Iraq his BS lies about WMD and all that other BS!

We all owe thanks to the Liberals from saving us from that one.

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2009

Remember Harper wanting to invade Iraq his BS lies about WMD and all that other BS!

Canada had nothing to invade with.....Chretien just sat on the fence.

We all owe thanks to the Liberals from saving us from that one.

....and giving you Afghanistan instead.

Remiel · July 9, 2009

Like you said in your point #7, this applies just as well to their non-nuclear arsenal as well.

Except that I was hinting that it is not true in the case on conventional forces but is true in the case of nuclear.

Nuclear weapons aren't only to respond against nuclear attack. They are to deter such attack in the first place, and also to deter conventional, non-nuclear attack. Furthermore, the focus seems to be on arctic sovereignty, and any use of weapons in that region, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, is likely to be far away enough from the US that it would in fact not constitute an attack on the US.

Because, of course, it would be really bright of an agressor to use a nuclear weapon in the Arctic and irradiate the very Northwest Passage they are presumble being aggressive about! That would be tantamount to launching a nuclear weapon at yourself.

And it would be incredibly stupid for Canada to ever use a nuclear weapon first in a fight. That would be a great way to make us politically expendable to our allies.

Do we accept being 100% dependent on the United States in such a scenario? If the United States was part of a nuclear exchange, they may very well be too busy at the moment to devote their full attention to our problems.

If the United States is part of a nuclear exchange, their problems are our problems. And yes, we do accept being reliant on the United States. Do not tell me that would hurt your pride too much? Is pride not just a "feeling"?

I'd rather pay for a weapon who's mere existence means it never has to be used than a weapon that has to be constantly employed. Never having to use them is precisely their intention, and why they are worth every penny. Mutual Assured Destruction kept the US and the USSR from direct confrontation with each over for over 40 years, potentially saving hundreds of millions of lives.

I would rather pay for the one being constantly employed becasue the evidence tells me that the countries that have both are not employing the nuclear weapons and still constantly employing the other ones.

The only forces that could realistically threaten us within the territory of Canada are forces that are themselves capable of deploying nuclear weapons. Furthermore, as time passes, the number of nations possessing nuclear weapons will only increase. As such it is pointless to equip ourselves to fight only non-nuclear forces. If our only goal is to be able to fight dudes in caves, then sure, we don't need nukes.

And here I thought the reason everyone thought Canada had no respect militarily was because we lacked in force projection! So why are you arguing that our military forces only need to protect us from invasion. War is not limited to invasion and nuclear bombardment.

But if we want to be able to independently guarantee the sovereignty and security of all of Canada's territory, we need a full array of the most modern armaments and equipment, which includes nuclear deterrent.

You might as well stop arguing now if you are going to say things like that, because it is an absolutely denial of reality to suggest that such a thing as guaranteed security is even possible. Why do you think there is such a thing as an alliance in the first place?

We should be contributing meaningfully to the alliance anyway, but still also have the capability to ensure our own security independently of the alliance.

See above. One does not join an alliance because one is secure. Precisely the opposite.

They also seem true with regards to conventional weapons. Either we decide that we want to be able to defend ourselves, which means getting modern equipment including nuclear weapons, or we decide that we will rely on the US and NATO to defend us, in which case we can keep going with our small and sub-optimally equipped military.

Your insistance that you put together nuclear and conventional security is misplaced. They are as seperate as food and oil security.

Bonam · July 9, 2009

I think you are being purposefully dense. A nuclear deterrent vastly reduces the likelihood that a country would have to defend itself in either a conventional or nuclear war. That's really all there is to it. Conventional military is of course important too, and we should invest in that as well. Force projection I certainly agree with also - where are our aircraft carriers? But nuclear is definitely part of the equation and to deny it is silly.

Remiel · July 9, 2009

I think you are being purposefully dense. A nuclear deterrent vastly reduces the likelihood that a country would have to defend itself in either a conventional or nuclear war. That's really all there is to it. Conventional military is of course important too, and we should invest in that as well. Force projection I certainly agree with also - where are our aircraft carriers? But nuclear is definitely part of the equation and to deny it is silly.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

If we were talking about some hypothetical country, I would agree that a modest nuclear deterrant would be desireable. But we are not talking about a hypothetical country with hypothetical enemies, allies, and geography. We are talking about a real country whose geography and relationship with its neighbour means that it would be a colossal waste of money to fund our own nuclear weapons. We would be FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR better off to spend all that money on counter-biological warfare or something that the United States is itself vulnerable to rather than trying to pretend we are ever going to have to fight a nuclear war by ourselves.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 9, 2009

Canada had nothing to invade with.....Chretien just sat on the fence.
....and giving you Afghanistan instead.

Afgan was first and UN sanctioned. Iraq was Bush going off the reservation and acting within a different coalition than the UN. Where were those WMD's finally found anyway?

Bonam · July 9, 2009

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
If we were talking about some hypothetical country, I would agree that a modest nuclear deterrant would be desireable. But we are not talking about a hypothetical country with hypothetical enemies, allies, and geography. We are talking about a real country whose geography and relationship with its neighbour means that it would be a colossal waste of money to fund our own nuclear weapons. We would be FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR better off to spend all that money on counter-biological warfare or something that the United States is itself vulnerable to rather than trying to pretend we are ever going to have to fight a nuclear war by ourselves.

So you assume that our relationships with other nations and the current structure of our alliances are utterly immutable and will forever protect us? We should be prepared for a variety of possible eventualities, rather than working on the assumption that the world will remain largely static.

Besides, just how expensive do you think a nuclear weapons program would be? There are a variety of nations with much smaller and poorer economies than Canada that possess or are developing nuclear weapons. We also already possess mastery of the most prohibitive step - uranium enrichment. It's not like it would break the bank. Furthermore, it would provide a HUGE stimulus to our homegrown expertise in the field of nuclear physics and related universities and research programs and it would keep some of our finest minds here at home rather than watching as they migrate to the US.

Incidentally, the development of ballistic missile technologies would also greatly improve our stature as a space-faring nation, since we could launch our own payloads to orbit rather than relying on US, European, or Russian launchers. This, too, would be a huge boon to our high tech industry.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Bonam

Craig1 · July 9, 2009

Canada had nothing to invade with.....Chretien just sat on the fence.
....and giving you Afghanistan instead.

Under the UN we are forced to deploy troops to Afghanistan for peacekeeping wich is what we WERE doing till Harper, upped the offencive...he can't back out in 2011 now he picked a fight and people are going to want revenge.... you kill my family i kill yours. you attack me I attack you. We just built a whole new sub culture that hates Canadians and will wish nothing more than you dead.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Craig1

Remiel · July 9, 2009

So you assume that our relationships with other nations and the current structure of our alliances are utterly immutable and will forever protect us? We should be prepared for a variety of possible eventualities, rather than working on the assumption that the world will remain largely static.

Hardly, but I am no interested in expensively preparing for eventualities that exist within the realm of the 1% doctrine either.

Besides, just how expensive do you think a nuclear weapons program would be?

Billions. Tens of billions to do it "right". Or more.

There are a variety of nations with much smaller and poorer economies than Canada that possess or are developing nuclear weapons. We also already possess mastery of the most prohibitive step - uranium enrichment. It's not like it would break the bank.

Do the words "return on investment" have any meaning for you? There are a lot of things in this world that would not break the bank and yet would be a bad idea because there is a better use for the money.

Furthermore, it would provide a HUGE stimulus to our homegrown expertise in the field of nuclear physics and related universities and research programs and it would keep some of our finest minds here at home rather than watching as they migrate to the US.

Or... we could invest the money in research and development directly.

Incidentally, the development of ballistic missile technologies would also greatly improve our stature as a space-faring nation, since we could launch our own payloads to orbit rather than relying on US, European, or Russian launchers. This, too, would be a huge boon to our high tech industry.

I would prefer we invest directly in the aerospace industry. I fail to see what benefit to space exploration we will realize from spending on ballistic missiles that we will not realize from spending on space ships and launch sites themselves.

You know, when you are looking around for indirect excuses for building nuclear weapons it should probably be taken as a sign that your argument is on the rocks.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 9, 2009

Hardly, but I am no interested in expensively preparing for eventualities that exist within the realm of the 1% doctrine either.
Billions. Tens of billions to do it "right". Or more.

Do the words "return on investment" have any meaning for you? There are a lot of things in this world that would not break the bank and yet would be a bad idea because there is a better use for the money.

Or... we could invest the money in research and development directly.

I would prefer we invest directly in the aerospace industry. I fail to see what benefit to space exploration we will realize from spending on ballistic missiles that we will not realize from spending on space ships and launch sites themselves.

You know, when you are looking around for indirect excuses for building nuclear weapons it should probably be taken as a sign that your argument is on the rocks.

Can you spell A.V.ROE?

Sir (Edwin) Alliott Verdon Verdon-Roe

Moonlight Graham · July 9, 2009

Canada had nothing to invade with.....Chretien just sat on the fence.
....and giving you Afghanistan instead.

heh heh true on both. Chretien did sit on the fence. He gave no opinion on Iraq other than Canada will do what the U.N. decides.

Moonlight Graham · July 10, 2009

I think not. Some of our equipment may be old, but the Canadian Forces aren't nearly a joke.

I would put down our troops. They are well-trained and respected. But yes, our equipment is a problem. Even with finely trained troops our military is still a joke if we can barely transport them anywhere.

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

Afgan was first and UN sanctioned. Iraq was Bush going off the reservation and acting within a different coalition than the UN. Where were those WMD's finally found anyway?

Well then...I guess they were in Afghanistan! :lol:

How is the "peacekeeping" going?

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

....You know, when you are looking around for indirect excuses for building nuclear weapons it should probably be taken as a sign that your argument is on the rocks.

Maybe...but either way it sure is cute reading Canadians wrangle over American nuclear weapons. I wonder if PM Trudeau had such an experience before he decided to have his yellowcake and eat it too.

Wild Bill · July 10, 2009

Under the UN we are forced to deploy troops to Afghanistan for peacekeeping wich is what we WERE doing till Harper, upped the offencive...he can't back out in 2011 now he picked a fight and people are going to want revenge.... you kill my family i kill yours. you attack me I attack you. We just built a whole new sub culture that hates Canadians and will wish nothing more than you dead.

I don't follow your logic. Afghanistan had a fundamentalist Taliban government which gave aid and shelter to Osama and his suicide airplane pilots who brought down the Twin Towers in New York.

Seems to me there was already a culture that hated the West, including Canada! Do you think that to those types of personalities we Canadians looked like "good old guys" with whom they'd like to share a beer? We may not have been a target as attractive as the Americans but they themselves have said that they hated Canada as well! They just found us a convenient and relatively safe country to base some operations.

This assumption that the Taliban only responds to those who dare to fight back seems unsupported, at least to me.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

Even with finely trained troops our military is still a joke if we can barely transport them anywhere.

WE have better air transport capability than most nations. I think you simply want to say that we suck and be done with it.

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

WE have better air transport capability than most nations. I think you simply want to say that we suck and be done with it.

Now you do....back then...not so much...at least for heavy airlift. Just ask the DART unit.

PM Harper put an end to any such "suckage". Salute!

Smallc · July 10, 2009

You're right, he did do that. Good on him.

DogOnPorch · July 10, 2009

WE have better air transport capability than most nations. I think you simply want to say that we suck and be done with it.

Our C-17 needs a few friends but yes, it is a fine aircraft by any standard.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

We don't have many....but what country (besides the US, France, and maybe Russia) has any more actual heavy lift capacity? Australia has the same number of C 17s and the UK has one more. Almost every other country has next to nothing.

DogOnPorch · July 10, 2009

Well...it is rather new. Now if we can just keep those Leopard IIs we leased/rented.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

As far as I know, we are keeping them. We're going to give some of the ones that we bought (once their upgraded) to the Germans as a replacement. That's what I read...somewhere.

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

We don't have many....but what country (besides the US, France, and maybe Russia) has any more actual heavy lift capacity? Australia has the same number of C 17s and the UK has one more. Almost every other country has next to nothing.

Shared airlift capability is becoming a reality.

http://usafelive.dodlive.mil/index.php/200...coming-reality/

The Brits balked at the price for their C-17's, but the RAF just loves 'em to death and could kick themselves for waiting to buy them. I think they have six now. About 190 have been delivered to date.

Craig1 · July 10, 2009

I don't follow your logic. Afghanistan had a fundamentalist Taliban government which gave aid and shelter to Osama and his suicide airplane pilots who brought down the Twin Towers in New York.
Seems to me there was already a culture that hated the West, including Canada! Do you think that to those types of personalities we Canadians looked like "good old guys" with whom they'd like to share a beer? We may not have been a target as attractive as the Americans but they themselves have said that they hated Canada as well! They just found us a convenient and relatively safe country to base some operations.

This assumption that the Taliban only responds to those who dare to fight back seems unsupported, at least to me.

Show some proof they hated Canadians before 911, you can't because it is not there. It was the US involvement with the mujahedeen by supplying them weapons for the soviet war in afghanistan.With mujahedeen leaders unable to agree on a structure for governance, chaos ensued, with constantly reorganizing alliances fighting for control of ill-defined territories, leaving the country devastated.

You need understand the root of the war and Canada had nothing to do with it until Harper chose to INVADE not peacekeeping but full blown war, a war that will never end. Harpers a Bush wannabe Tyrant,

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

...You need understand the root of the war and Canada had nothing to do with it until Harper chose to INVADE not peacekeeping but full blown war, a war that will never end. Harpers a Bush wannabe Tyrant,

Bullpuckey.....the current world record sniper shot (for distance) was set by a Canadian in 2002.....Mr. Harper was not the PM. Operation Anaconda was not "peacekeeping"...it was "peacekilling" !

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/713521/posts

Edited July 10, 2009 by bush_cheney2004