Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Yes but just strapping SAR on a satellite doesn't detect subs. There's a lot more to it. Some of the technologies have nothing at all to do with SAR. They use other detection methods. The "basic concept" for just about everything has been around for decades. The basic concept of how to build a thermonuclear warhead, for example. Doesn't mean that the detailed operation of these warheads is in the public domain. So you’re suggesting the concept we’re discussing, isn’t in the public domain? I’d better watch it……I think I can hear the black choppers……. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 So you’re suggesting the concept we’re discussing, isn’t in the public domain? I’d better watch it……I think I can hear the black choppers……. Obviously, anything you or I have said on the matter is in the public domain. BC2004 implied that he was privy to classified information on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Actually, we regularly have crews at Tinker AFB via NORAD. cm attacks would overwhelm any defense...As BC said, through NORAD, we do. As for BMD, we even though PM PM told the Americans to pound sand, it's still there.....rrright... bmd for cruise missile defense, you'll need to explain that one...if it gets to ballistic missile attacks it's WW3, and that's not happening over some oil under the tundra...Not from Comox........ do the math, still out of range of ships carrying long range cruise misslies..and then there are those annoying cm launching subs...So you're saying there is a potential threat to Canada, but it’s not really there? So which is it? Are we threatened or not? Are you suggesting the CPC developed the PK-55 and not the Soviets? there is no threat, therefore buying f35s which can't defend us from cruise missile attacks or invasion is a supreme waste of money...if you want to make a claim that they are a superior offensive weapon for aggressive wars you have a case, to say we must have them because they'll protect our country from invasion or to assert or sovereignty is bogus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Obviously, anything you or I have said on the matter is in the public domain. BC2004 implied that he was privy to classified information on the matter. Uh-huh……I don’t doubt that he is……but he can, like you or I, openly talk about what’s in the public domain....kinda my point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Uh-huh……I don’t doubt that he is……but he can, like you or I, openly talk about what’s in the public domain....kinda my point Yes, well, when you know a ton of information on a certain subject, it is often hard to know precisely which bits are classified and which are not. Often it is just much easier to avoid the topic altogether. You won't see me chatting about the classified projects I work on, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 You keep getting further and further, don't you? you'll have to show me where I claimed otherwise ...In this fantasy world of yours, Canada would be operating as part of NORAD...of course, that's also how things happen in the real world. The CF can and will defend the northern half of North America. Attacking NA isn't going to be nearly as easy as you make out.here's where your lack of logic lets you down, the point of the entire debate and you answered it yourself ...there isNO chance ever of russian chinese aggression for our resources, NONE!...they are not going to risk global warfare for a resource that russia doesn't need and china is happy to buy from us...all of which makes any purchase of f35's or nuclear subs to protect us from your supposed imminent threats irrelevant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 cm attacks would overwhelm any defense... How many cruise missiles do they have? rrright... bmd for cruise missile defense, you'll need to explain that one...if it gets to ballistic missile attacks it's WW3, and that's not happening over some oil under the tundra... You obviously aren’t aware of all the “cogs” of BMD……See RIM-161 & RIM-174.….Or talk to your brother in law…. do the math, still out of range of ships carrying long range cruise misslies..and then there are those annoying cm launching subs... Oh, I understand the math, namely the addition that AAR brings to the table….Do you? there is no threat, therefore buying f35s which can't defend us from cruise missile attacks or invasion is a supreme waste of money... So you're saying there is no threat, and it's a waste to purchase the F-35 to defend against said threat (Cruise Missiles). Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Yes, well, when you know a ton of information on a certain subject, it is often hard to know precisely which bits are classified and which are not. Often it is just much easier to avoid the topic altogether. You won't see me chatting about the classified projects I work on, either. Well, there are venues for clarification on what is in the public domain and what isn’t……but, as you said, it’s easier to not risk prison time for the sake of winning an internet debate on Saturday night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 It's not "taboo". The most recent research in military technology is always classified, and those privy to information on that research can face harsh retaliation for leaking it. Correct...there is even "harsh retaliation" for confirming or denying information that is already compromised. Making the world's ocean depths transparent has been a holy military grail for many decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 How many cruise missiles do they have?more than our toy airforce can handleYou obviously aren’t aware of all the “cogs” of BMD……See RIM-161 & RIM-174.….Or talk to your brother in law….which we don't have which would not be in position to defend us for an attack that could come from one of three directions...ya you should be be intimidated by my bro-in-law an expert in his field...Oh, I understand the math, namely the addition that AAR brings to the table….Do you? apparently even the simplest math is a stretch...here I'll explain it to you...range of jf35 is 1100km, target lies 2k-3000km off shore, see the problem?...you appear to be totally out of touch with reality, imagining equipment we don't have in place for an attack we aren't expecting.... So you're saying there is no threat, and it's a waste to purchase the F-35 to defend against said threat (Cruise Missiles). Gotcha. ya I can't imagine how we weren't invaded years ago, the those nice ruskies and chinese are giving us break waiting for us to acquire f35's wow what delusion debates you must have with yourself to rationalize your paranoia... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 more than our toy airforce can handle Hence NORAD…….It’s been that way for 50+ years…….Do you suggest we ignore our commitments? which we don't have which would not be in position to defend us for an attack that could come from one of three directions...ya you should be be intimidated by my bro-in-law an expert in his field... Hence NATO....and now NORAD......I feel embarrassed for your brother in-law. apparently even the simplest math is a stretch...here I'll explain it to you...range of jf35 is 1100km, target lies 2k-3000km off shore, see the problem?...you appear to be totally out of touch with reality, imagining equipment we don't have in place for an attack we aren't expecting.... ya I can't imagine how we weren't invaded years ago, the those nice ruskies and chinese are giving us break waiting for us to acquire f35's wow what delusion debates you must have with yourself to rationalize your paranoia... Say, nice dodge……so one more time, are the Chinese/Russian a threat to Canada and our interests or not……..You’re arguing yes and no……..Isn’t that kinda bi-polar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Warfare is so passe. Lawfare is where it's at these days. I still say we've entered an age where the sheer economic cost itself of invading us is the best deterrence. I mean if the super-powers of the world can't even knock the Afghanistans of the world off, what more evidence does one need? Lawfare 'warriors'...lawiors in other words, should build on and strengthen the international institutions that make conventional wars even more ridiculous and remote over time. We should be mothballing our entire military-industrial complex. It's as useless as tits on a bull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Warfare is so passe. Lawfare is where it's at these days. I still say we've entered an age where the sheer economic cost itself of invading us is the best deterrence. I mean if the super-powers of the world can't even knock the Afghanistans of the world off, what more evidence does one need? Lawfare 'warriors'...lawiors in other words, should build on and strengthen the international institutions that make conventional wars even more ridiculous and remote over time. We should be mothballing our entire military-industrial complex. It's as useless as tits on a bull. "He Who Beats His Sword into a Plowshare, ends up plowing for those who kept their swords." When your lawyer fails at securing such a vital resource as oil or water, would you just do without? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 "He Who Beats His Sword into a Plowshare, ends up plowing for those who kept their swords." When your lawyer fails at securing such a vital resource as oil or water, would you just do without? No, I'd just go find myself a pithy quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 No, I'd just go find myself a pithy quote. I don’t see why not, it would be about as effective as your legal desires…….Wars have been fought for thousands of years, it’s only human nature and you suggest “the cost of war” will end future ones…….Though you and I can’t truly predict the future, based on precedent, I’d say your notion is naive at best… Why what are you and I doing right now? Having a conflicting discussion…….We have the option to go to bed with nothing lost…and nothing really gained……Of course, you and I are not responsible for millions of people and we’re not vying for a limited amount of food, water and energy………..To borrow from our discussion on private ownership of firearms, if your family and mine represented two rival nations competing for a limited amount of resources, so limited that there would only be a sufficient amount for one of our two families to sustain itself on, I can tell you with all certainty, that my family wouldn’t be leaving this conflict hungry, thirsty and in the dark. To add one more pithy quote for illustration: “You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.” - Al Capone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) To borrow from our discussion on private ownership of firearms, if your family and mine represented two rival nations competing for a limited amount of resources, so limited that there would only be a sufficient amount for one of our two families to sustain itself on, I can tell you with all certainty, that my family wouldn’t be leaving this conflict hungry, thirsty and in the dark. I've got no problem with Canada arming itself with a handful of really Brobdingnagian nukes (stored under adequate control of course) to deter invasion if that's really the issue. Then I could tell you with all certainty that your family wouldn't live to enjoy any ill gotten gains that came at mine's expense. Edited November 1, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 I've got no problem with Canada arming itself with a handful of really Brobdingnagian nukes (stored under adequate control of course) to deter invasion if that's really the issue. Then I could tell you with all certainty that your family wouldn't live to enjoy any ill gotten gains that came at mine's expense. So you advocate MAD then?……….Or as the Israelis call it, the Samson option………..And you baulk at the price of conventional weapons……….If you want to talk about a passé defence strategy, mutually assured destruction is it……….It begets the unholy grail of first strike, EMP and space based weapons……..and only the Americans can (kind of) afford that…… That’s likening to being willing to kill your own family to spite the other………A policy based around that was proven to be ineffective in the 1960s, in that the all or nothing approach doesn’t allow for a measured response…………..ie one of your family members, get’s into a dust-up with one of mine………..Do we kill both our families? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) So you advocate MAD then?……….Or as the Israelis call it, the Samson option………..And you baulk at the price of conventional weapons……….If you want to talk about a passé defence strategy, mutually assured destruction is it……….It begets the unholy grail of first strike, EMP and space based weapons……..and only the Americans can (kind of) afford that…… That’s likening to being willing to kill your own family to spite the other………A policy based around that was proven to be ineffective in the 1960s, in that the all or nothing approach doesn’t allow for a measured response…………..ie one of your family members, get’s into a dust-up with one of mine………..Do we kill both our families? You started it when you expressed your belief that wiping out my family was your only option. If mine goes down so does yours. It's just that simple. Edited November 1, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 You started it when you expressed your belief that wiping out my family was your only option. If mine goes down so does yours. It's just that simple. Is it? Thankfully, the Korean War, invasion of Hungry, Suez crisis, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Laos, the numerous Arab/Israeli wars, the invasion of Afghanistan, Grenada, the various Latin American conflicts, and the Iraq/Iran war weren’t all or nothing conflicts of the scenario you propose……. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 which we don't have which would not be in position to defend us for an attack that could come from one of three directions...ya you should be be intimidated by my bro-in-law an expert in his field... Yeah we've heard a ton about this bro-in law of yours. Unfortunately, you've never been able to reconcile his expert opinions with the fact that most of the world's biggest militaries are doing the exact opposite of what his (and your) expert conclusions would dictate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Yeah we've heard a ton about this bro-in law of yours. Unfortunately, you've never been able to reconcile his expert opinions with the fact that most of the world's biggest militaries are doing the exact opposite of what his (and your) expert conclusions would dictate. militaries are no different than anyone else, they'll say anything to justify preserve their jobs,they'll invent alien enemies if they run out of ruskies and chinese to scare us with... and like everyone they all want the newest and best toys, they'll ask for individual nuclear powered tanks and phaser side arms if they thought we buy it for them...keeping us afraid of shadows is in their own best interest... my bro-in-law's knowledge is without equal on this forum, 35yrs as an electrical engineer with the forces an expert in weapons systems and high ranking NATO advisor(retired)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 militaries are no different than anyone else, they'll say anything to justify preserve their jobs,they'll invent alien enemies if they run out of ruskies and chinese to scare us with... Is that your opinion or your brother in laws, As i'm curious as i find it hard to believe that your brother in law would say that, I find it hard to believe anyone in the forces conjuring up stories to keep the Canadian peace knicks scared and shakin in some corner of BC...Just a look at DND's current equipment, it's date of manufacture, and comparing it to what is out there today would or should be enough to convince anyone it is time for an update or new equipment....we don't need ruskies or little yellow guys to do that.... and like everyone they all want the newest and best toys, they'll ask for individual nuclear powered tanks and phaser side arms if they thought we buy it for them...keeping us afraid of shadows is in their own best interest... Im sure any average canadian joe can provide you a list of old Canadian equipment, Shit the MLVW is almost 30 years old all of which cost more to keep operational than twice as much new stuff...but your right the Average Canadian soldier does sit back and dream of new stuff, not because we have a yearning to spend yours and ours tax dollars, but because we have families as well that we would like to come home to...after all not many jobs in Canada have signed on for unlimited liability ...we would atleast think before Canadian tax payers sent us out they would give us a fighting chance.... And from the equipment that we have requested i'm pretty sure theres no nuclear powered tanks, or any phasors, in fact most of the list is very resonable....to most people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) After what we have spent on them now, I say finish the job. They can be good boats once fixed. Nuclear would be to much for us to operate, but it would be nice.To bad chretien left them sit in sea water for 3 years before delivery. That is where all the problems started, you can't leave anything boat or car sitting that long. Edited November 4, 2011 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Is that your opinion or your brother in laws, As i'm curious as i find it hard to believe that your brother in law would say that, I find it hard to believe anyone in the forces conjuring up stories to keep the Canadian peace knicks scared and shakin in some corner of BC...Just a look at DND's current equipment, it's date of manufacture, and comparing it to what is out there today would or should be enough to convince anyone it is time for an update or new equipment....we don't need ruskies or little yellow guys to do that.... Im sure any average canadian joe can provide you a list of old Canadian equipment, Shit the MLVW is almost 30 years old all of which cost more to keep operational than twice as much new stuff...but your right the Average Canadian soldier does sit back and dream of new stuff, not because we have a yearning to spend yours and ours tax dollars, but because we have families as well that we would like to come home to...after all not many jobs in Canada have signed on for unlimited liability ...we would atleast think before Canadian tax payers sent us out they would give us a fighting chance.... And from the equipment that we have requested i'm pretty sure theres no nuclear powered tanks, or any phasors, in fact most of the list is very resonable....to most people... it's human nature not just the military, I want the best and latest tools and toys too with all the bells and whistles...but most of the time I restrain myself and buy only what I really need...and yes he agrees we don't need every new toy that comes along but we're not talking about not replacing old equipment but the right equipment...buying nuclear subs is on every admirals wish list for xmas, could they use them sure, could we pay for them? probably, but do we honestly need them? no we don't we've done just fine without non working d/e subs since the last purchase, the money could be better spent elsewhere...buying f35's for sovereignty in the arctic? really? what an incredible waste of money, far better spent on CG ships or a military presence on the ground in the arctic if you want a show of sovereignty but if you ask the big guys DND that's a waste of money as well they don't ever expect a threat to our territory... as for you having good equipment in the army I'm okay with that( no you can't have a phaser ) because it's practical for the job you do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) it's human nature not just the military, I want the best and latest tools and toys too with all the bells and whistles...but most of the time I restrain myself and buy only what I really need...and yes he agrees we don't need every new toy that comes along but we're not talking about not replacing old equipment but the right equipment... buying nuclear subs is on every admirals wish list for xmas, could they use them sure, could we pay for them? probably, but do we honestly need them? no we don't we've done just fine without non working d/e subs since the last purchase, the money could be better spent elsewhere...buying f35's for sovereignty in the arctic? really? what an incredible waste of money, far better spent on CG ships or a military presence on the ground in the arctic if you want a show of sovereignty but if you ask the big guys DND that's a waste of money as well they don't ever expect a threat to our territory... as for you having good equipment in the army I'm okay with that( no you can't have a phaser ) because it's practical for the job you do... And we all know that Canada doesn't need a submarine that can stay under the ice that covers about 1/4 of our country. buying nuclear subs is on every admirals wish list for xmas, could they use them sure, could we pay for them? probably, but do we honestly need them? Well---- yes. We are going to have to demonstrate that the Northern part of Canada is actually the northern part of Canada & we don't need all the countries of the world trespassing on those lands whether it be on the surface or under the ice. Nuclear subs are necessary to have the sustainability and the ability to patrol those waters. We are preparing to do so on the surface with our new Icebreakers and need the Nuke Subs to compliment them. Edited November 6, 2011 by Tilter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.