military expenditures

[Smallc]

Tsk tsk....a little over sensitive are we?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15920&view=findpost&p=512623

Sorry, misinterpreted what you said.

[Smallc]

Sorry, That wasn't directed at you. I mean less bullshit, like refitting the Cf 18....think Seaking...yes there isn't an original part on them...they were once great, but now?

I agree on the Sea King. That isn't completely the government's fault in recent time though. As for the CF-18, that's debatable. Given the lower budget that existed in the past, there were (and still are) far more pressing needs.

[DogOnPorch]

The subs are also a deterrence measure.

That's more like it. But, again...you have to be willing. Surfacing and wagging one's finger at the evil-doers is not recommended.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes they have, and they'll continue to, but we have always used them for a variety of stealth applications, including fisheries patrol.

So you mean intel gathering for fisheries violations? Because Canada's subs are not going to sink Spanish trawlers over too many harvested turbot!

[Smallc]

So you mean intel gathering for fisheries violations? Because Canada's subs are not going to sink Spanish trawlers over too many harvested turbot!

The subs are used as a platform for DFO fisheries enforcement officers in that case.

[DogOnPorch]

The subs are used as a platform for DFO fisheries enforcement officers in that case.

So the plan is to surface and wag our fingers then...underwater cops.

[Smallc]

So the plan is to surface and wag our fingers then...underwater cops.

That's not just the plan, but what is and has been done. A navy isn't just about shooting.

[bush_cheney2004]

The subs are used as a platform for DFO fisheries enforcement officers in that case.

Great...who gets to paddle over to the perp in the inflatable raft?

[bush_cheney2004]

So the plan is to surface and wag our fingers then...underwater cops.

.....tangled in nets.

[DogOnPorch]

A navy isn't just about shooting.

I beg to differ. Yet I know what you're saying. Perhaps a more accurate wording would be...

The Canadian Navy isn't just about shooting.

.....tangled in nets.

I bet that's a huge problem just cruising around let alone shadowing fishing boats.

[Smallc]

I beg to differ. Yet I know what you're saying. Perhaps a more accurate wording would be...

The Canadian Navy isn't just about shooting.

I would disagree here. I would say that most navies in the world spend their time doing things that aren't combat related. The Canadian Navy don't forget, also has the job of coastal protection.

[DogOnPorch]

I would disagree here. I would say that most navies in the world spend their time doing things that aren't combat related.

I assure you while navies might be placed in roles other than for what they were intended, the purpose of building a guided missile crusier isn't to pick up refugees.

The Canadian Navy don't forget, also has the job of coastal protection.

In America's case, they have a seperate branch for this (Coast Guard)...so that the Navy is free to do its actual duty.

Edited February 23, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

I would disagree here. I would say that most navies in the world spend their time doing things that aren't combat related. The Canadian Navy don't forget, also has the job of coastal protection.

This is a common myth....the day to day operations on a naval vessel (especially a submarine) are very much the same except that general quarters isn't set as often. That's what readiness is all about.

[Smallc]

This is a common myth....the day to day operations on a naval vessel (especially a submarine) are very much the same except that general quarters isn't set as often. That's what readiness is all about.

That doesn't go against anything that I said. A navy is always supposed to be ready for combat. They don't actually go into combat all that often though.

[bush_cheney2004]

That doesn't go against anything that I said. A navy is always supposed to be ready for combat. They don't actually go into combat all that often though.

A meaningful distinction only within an established "war zone"....HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879) had her hands full without combat.

[justme]

The decommissioned them because the cold war was over. It's the same reason we stood so much down. They were having some difficulty with them though...that shouldn't be a problem when we're done with them.

Actually, from what I've read, they decommissioned them because they went with nuclear subs.

As for the objective, the Canadian government has repeatedly stated that defending sovereignty in the north is a priority. If that's the case, nuclear subs would make more sense for Canada as well.

[justme]

And are approaching (CF18) obsolesence...Leopards get daily workouts in the battlefield...

And let's not forget that if the Liberals had their way, Canada wouldn't have any tanks at all.

[justme]

So how much should we be spending? Honestly, I'm not sure what some people expect.

Bringing the equipment up to date and maintaining a military budget of 2% GDP (NATO standard) is reasonable and less than half of what the Americans spend. If the bill seems large, that's what you get for kicking the can down the road.

[M.Dancer]

And let's not forget that if the Liberals had their way, Canada wouldn't have any tanks at all.

That is true...there was discussion abot eliminating heavy MBT and replacing them with something that was more peacekeeping appropriate

[Smallc]

Bringing the equipment up to date and maintaining a military budget of 2% GDP (NATO standard)

That's an extra $8B, and I don't know where you expect to find that in the middle of a massive deficit.

[M.Dancer]

That's an extra $8B, and I don't know where you expect to find that in the middle of a massive deficit.

We could sell the podium for starters....

[Smallc]

We could sell the podium for starters....

That wouldn't come up to that total.

[M.Dancer]

That wouldn't come up to that total.

That's why it's for starters....lets not kid, we both know that in every budget, there's plenty of fat that could be trimmed...if we only added 500 million to the pot, that would be enormous.

[Smallc]

That's why it's for starters....lets not kid, we both know that in every budget, there's plenty of fat that could be trimmed...if we only added 500 million to the pot, that would be enormous.

Well, we've added $10B to the pot over the last 10 years, and most of you don't seem to think that matters much. There may be budget programs that you or I don't like, but that doesn't mean they're wasteful or that people want to get rid of them. I don't think most Canadians would agree with you that the Olympics were a waste. I certainly wouldn't. The country is alive with excitement. It was worth every penny.

[M.Dancer]

Well, we've added $10B to the pot over the last 10 years, and most of you don't seem to think that matters much. There may be budget programs that you or I don't like, but that doesn't mean they're wasteful or that people want to get rid of them. I don't think most Canadians would agree with you that the Olympics were a waste. I certainly wouldn't. The country is alive with excitement. It was worth every penny.

I hate to sound like my wife but as she would say, just because you started to pick up your socks doesn't mean you are doing your fair share of housework.

I don't think the Olympics are a waste, (actually I do...) I just don't think with so much corporate funding it needs to be a taxpayer sinkhole...and while there will always be someone who thinks that taxpayers should fund their plays and concerts, I think we can look at those again once we have our ducks in order...