F-35 Purchase

[Signals.Cpl]

We don't need jets. We need submarines.

Suicide bombers, car bombs are more likely than being bombed by jets

Canada is just too massive to take over

The best a country could do is take land that nobody lives on and would eventually have to give it back

Between 70% and 90% of the Canadian Population lives within 150km of the US border, so that kind of puts the rest of the country as the under/un populated region.

Also, Canada is not Russia so we should most likely avoid adopting their strategy for national defence.

[Smallc]

With all due respect WHO IN THE BLOODY HELL IS "WE". Nobody asked me...

We, as in Canada. You don't get to unilaterally decide, the government that we select does.

And theres a reason we DO use direct democracy when it comes to things that change the rights we have under our own political system.

I'll stop you right there, since no one is doing that.

[Smallc]

We don't need jets. We need submarines.

No we don't, at least, not as much as we need jets. Jets are probably them oct important defensive weapon we could have.

[Signals.Cpl]

rescue? Is there an avenue to... rescue against an intent to fly a "plane into a building"? Do we have any relatively recent reference analogies to project upon your "rescue"? It would seem the world's most vaunted air-force meant diddly squat to the intentions of 9-11 terrorists... or your pompous projections on "rescue"!

See the number of times that RCAF aircraft has escorted passenger jets. When a threat is received the RCAF is called out to escort the passenger aircraft just in case. It does not happen often but it happens.

There are a number of Passenger aircraft that were escorted by fighters to an airport as a precaution.

[waldo]

The UN is a joke, that organization is a lame duck and has been for a long time and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. And even if the UN were to rule in Canada's favour, what is stopping other nations from just occupying territory they claim as theirs wether legitimate or not?

And Russia may not be a threat, but when another nations flies in to your airspace with impunity that kind of weakens your case of being a sovereign nation.

your assessment of the UN is meaningless and has no bearing, particularly when you fail to recognize the prevailing treaty is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea... relative to sea surface passage from shoreline as well as the extent of resource control related to defined nautical distance from shore or possible continental shelf extensions. As I said, the Russians have been very busy in working to present a scientific founded analysis that presumes to extend their claim to portions of the Arctic... underwater portions they believe will show as extensions to their Eurasian landmass. As I stated, Russia has formally announced it's intention to bring this analysis forward to the UN... they intend to pursue possible "Arctic remapping" relative to the prevailing international treaty... the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

if you're so worried about fostering a false narrative over airspace encroachment and sovereignty, what about the decades of U.S. and Russian submarines traveling quite freely under the Arctic ice? But hey now... if you really have concerns about airspace, what kind of missile defense could we strike up as an alternative to F-35s? Cost???

[jacee]

With all due respect WHO IN THE BLOODY HELL IS "WE". Nobody asked me...

And theres a reason we DO use direct democracy when it comes to things that change the rights we have under our own political system.

You would have said the same thing about the euro project. We dont need referendums because people are too stupid to have a valid opinion. And look where that got them? You seem to have contempt for the very concept of democracy.

Referendums are a pretty poor form of direct democracy.

Discussion and consensus-building provide better quality decisions.

[WWWTT]

Oh God not another F-35 thread!?!?!

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

your assessment of the UN is meaningless and has no bearing, particularly when you fail to recognize the prevailing treaty is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea... relative to sea surface passage from shoreline as well as the extent of resource control related to defined nautical distance from shore or possible continental shelf extensions. As I said, the Russians have been very busy in working to present a scientific founded analysis that presumes to extend their claim to portions of the Arctic... underwater portions they believe will show as extensions to their Eurasian landmass. As I stated, Russia has formally announced it's intention to bring this analysis forward to the UN... they intend to pursue possible "Arctic remapping" relative to the prevailing international treaty... the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

if you're so worried about fostering a false narrative over airspace encroachment and sovereignty, what about the decades of U.S. and Russian submarines traveling quite freely under the Arctic ice? But hey now... if you really have concerns about airspace, what kind of missile defense could we strike up as an alternative to F-35s? Cost???

First my assessment of the UN is based on facts. United Nations resolutions are meaningless unless the US takes notice of them. The Department of Peacekeeping is nothing but a drain of resources. If China, Russia and the US don't agree the UN is powerless as the power is concentrated on 5 nations, 3 of which generally stand together and 2 of which are generally on the other side of all arguments.

Now, on decisions by the world court, the ICJ makes a ruling, and say Russia does not go along with it. What would happen in this case? Well Canada can appeal to the United Nations Security council about Russia's refusal to comply with the ICJ ruling, where a permanent member of the security council can Veto the appeal, oh wait I think Russia has veto power thus we can take it to world court, we win in world court, Russia does not comply with world court decisions, we appeal to the Security council, and guess what Russia can veto any resolution that will force them to comply.

The judgment of the ICJ is binding and (technically) cannot be appealed (arts. 59, 60) once the parties have consented to its jurisdiction and the court has rendered a decision. However, a state's failure to comply with the judgment violates the U.N. Charter, article 94(2). Noncompliance can be appealed to the U.N. Security Council, which may either make recommendations or authorize other measures by which the judgment shall be enforced. A decision by the Security Council to enforce compliance with a judgment rendered by the court is subject to the veto power of permanent members, and thus depends on the members' willingness not only to resort to enforcement measures but also to support the original judgment.

Direct source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/International_Court_of_Justice.aspx

Further Sources:

http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/en/ifaq.pdf

on pg. 39 of the document

http://www.icj-cij.org/information/en/ibleubook.pdf

on pg. 75 of the document

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter14.shtml

Article 27

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter5

You know what, it doesn't really look that well for Canada if Russia does not comply as well we can once again bring the issue to the security council and the decision would require 9 of the 15 votes, including ALL of the permanent member states( United Kingdom, France, China, United States and Russian Federation). The only chance for us is if Russia votes for us(unlikely), or Russia abstains from the vote, which means we have to pray they boycott the SC.

Just because we don't have the means to stop the submarines does not mean we should give up our ability to defend our airspace.

[Topaz]

Back to the purchase... when the price started to go up, the Tories should have put things on hold and gone for an open tender bid, just to see what is out there. By doing this, it could have ended the long draw out debates in the House. there has to be other jets out there because some of the countries that were going to buy the F-35 are buying them like the jet from France. So the Tories need to start this process and if one isn't found than the F-35 is the one , IF IT can pass all requirements and if it can't we go to the second best. BTW, one journalist on Tv said that why the military want this F-35 because they think down the road NA may be at war with China??? Really??

[Signals.Cpl]

Back to the purchase... when the price started to go up, the Tories should have put things on hold and gone for an open tender bid, just to see what is out there. By doing this, it could have ended the long draw out debates in the House. there has to be other jets out there because some of the countries that were going to buy the F-35 are buying them like the jet from France. So the Tories need to start this process and if one isn't found than the F-35 is the one , IF IT can pass all requirements and if it can't we go to the second best. BTW, one journalist on Tv said that why the military want this F-35 because they think down the road NA may be at war with China??? Really??

Is there a way to well force the government to move on to a tender bid?

But would a tender bid be just a waste of time and money if the decision is already made? By this I mean, if I want the planes to be purchased, I will look around and put the exact requirements that the F-35 meets thus making it an exercise in futility. Would it be a better Idea if the government gets together with all parties and decide what they want/need the fighters to be able to accomplish, meaning decide the mission that the government would expect the F-35 to undertake(Defend Airspace, can operate safely with our allies etc.) and ask the DND to amend the requirements to meet the governments needs? And can it be possible to purchase a small number of F-35's for say one Squadron and then have a different aircraft for the rest of the fighters.

Another question is, do we want to be able to function as an independent fighting force or would do we want to have the US clear the path for us in any major conflict?

[dre]

Referendums are a pretty poor form of direct democracy.

Discussion and consensus-building provide better quality decisions.

For most things I agree. But when a government wants to change the fundamental nature of politics itself then they are necessary.

[Signals.Cpl]

For most things I agree. But when a government wants to change the fundamental nature of politics itself then they are necessary.

What do you mean by that?

[dre]

Is there a way to well force the government to move on to a tender bid?

But would a tender bid be just a waste of time and money if the decision is already made? By this I mean, if I want the planes to be purchased, I will look around and put the exact requirements that the F-35 meets thus making it an exercise in futility. Would it be a better Idea if the government gets together with all parties and decide what they want/need the fighters to be able to accomplish, meaning decide the mission that the government would expect the F-35 to undertake(Defend Airspace, can operate safely with our allies etc.) and ask the DND to amend the requirements to meet the governments needs? And can it be possible to purchase a small number of F-35's for say one Squadron and then have a different aircraft for the rest of the fighters.

Another question is, do we want to be able to function as an independent fighting force or would do we want to have the US clear the path for us in any major conflict?

That question has already answered itself. We have no need to be an "independant fighting force" against a foreign power. This has never happened in history and wont happen soon.

[dre]

What do you mean by that?

Im talking about cases where policy can reduce the role of the electorate. A good example is the european union. Countries that joined the EU, surrendered a lot of policy decisions to the european parliament. This eroded the ability of citizens in european states to decide things for themselves, and they are now subject to 1000's of new laws made by people they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Individual policies should not be voted on but decisions that change the "deal" between citizens and government should definately put to a vote.

[Signals.Cpl]

That question has already answered itself. We have no need to be an "independant fighting force" against a foreign power. This has never happened in history and wont happen soon.

So you are under the opinion we should turn over defence to the US then? I mean if we build our Military to be able to meet our needs we can be truly independent, go wherever the government needs us to go, protect our sovereignty conduct exercises and operations with our allies and be able to conduct operations with or without the United States. While on the flip side, we can maintain the bare minimum and expect that whenever we need the US they will come, in essence we become a puppet as we won't be able to do anything by ourselves. Every Nation has national interests, ours a generally aligned with those of the US but there are times where our national interest are different and being severely dependant on the US is not a way to be able to conduct business.

During World War 1, we fought with Britain, France and Russia as our major allies, but we were an independent fighting force, and did not require anybody to clear the path for us.World War 2 we were once again an independent fighting force as we were able to hold our own in any battle. The reality is that the Canadian Military ended World War 2 with the 3rd Largest navy and the 4th Largest Airforce in the world, we could definitely stand on our own.

[dre]

So you are under the opinion we should turn over defence to the US then? I mean if we build our Military to be able to meet our needs we can be truly independent, go wherever the government needs us to go, protect our sovereignty conduct exercises and operations with our allies and be able to conduct operations with or without the United States. While on the flip side, we can maintain the bare minimum and expect that whenever we need the US they will come, in essence we become a puppet as we won't be able to do anything by ourselves. Every Nation has national interests, ours a generally aligned with those of the US but there are times where our national interest are different and being severely dependant on the US is not a way to be able to conduct business.

During World War 1, we fought with Britain, France and Russia as our major allies, but we were an independent fighting force, and did not require anybody to clear the path for us.World War 2 we were once again an independent fighting force as we were able to hold our own in any battle. The reality is that the Canadian Military ended World War 2 with the 3rd Largest navy and the 4th Largest Airforce in the world, we could definitely stand on our own.

Fighting other peoples fights is a luxury. We should only do it if we can afford to. What we NEED is the ability to patrol our own airspace and provide for our own DEFENSE. Anything we do beyond that will cause more problems than it solves.

The age of limitless spending is going to be OVER soon. Canada needs to start operating like a business... it needs to only spend money it has, and it needs to spend money in areas that provide a return on investment. No matter how much you might wish for it the west cannot afford to keep policing the world. This era is drawing to an end, and almost every western nation is flat broke including us.

Canada should sell war bonds to finance its military. If you want to spend your money on policing the world then you can buy some. But you shouldnt steal my money to spend on this.

Edited April 7, 2012 by dre

[Signals.Cpl]

Im talking about cases where policy can reduce the role of the electorate. A good example is the european union. Countries that joined the EU, surrendered a lot of policy decisions to the european parliament. This eroded the ability of citizens in european states to decide things for themselves, and they are now subject to 1000's of new laws made by people they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Individual policies should not be voted on but decisions that change the "deal" between citizens and government should definately put to a vote.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the majority of countries that joined the EU later on after the initial group of countries had to meet criteria to join, which in many cases took them through an election, Party #1 wants to join the EU, Party #2 does not. It is not feasible for a nation to have direct democracy.How many people are informed about say the F-35 enough to be able to make a decision other then, Im a liberal the Conservatives are buying it so I don't like it, or we are peacekeepers we don't need planes for that. If you don't like the government, next election vote for someone else, if you don't like any of the choices, run for office.

[dre]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the majority of countries that joined the EU later on after the initial group of countries had to meet criteria to join, which in many cases took them through an election, Party #1 wants to join the EU, Party #2 does not. It is not feasible for a nation to have direct democracy.How many people are informed about say the F-35 enough to be able to make a decision other then, Im a liberal the Conservatives are buying it so I don't like it, or we are peacekeepers we don't need planes for that. If you don't like the government, next election vote for someone else, if you don't like any of the choices, run for office.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the majority of countries that joined the EU later on after the initial group of countries had to meet criteria to join, which in many cases took them through an election, Party #1 wants to join the EU, Party #2 does not. It is not feasible for a nation to have direct democracy.

Yes it IS feasible. Some countries had refendums and they voted no. Other countries had referendums that were ignored. Governments that joined without putting the question to the people have no legitimacy, and hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets as a result.

And we have the EU/ECB/IMF now telling counties they arent "allowed" to have elections unless they pass EU budgets first. You are kidding yourself if you think this is going to work. Democracy depends on the electorates ability to hire and fire. They have no such right in the EU. Not one single citizen of europe voted for Herman Von Rom Poy, nor any of the central bankers, nor executives of the IMF... Yet those are the people increasingly who make the decisions.

[Signals.Cpl]

Fighting other peoples fights is a luxury. We should only do it if we can afford to. What we NEED is the ability to patrol our own airspace and provide for our own DEFENSE. Anything we do beyond that will cause more problems than it solves.

The age of limitless spending is going to be OVER soon. Canada needs to start operating like a business... it needs to only spend money it has, and it needs to spend money in areas that provide a return on investment. No matter how much you might wish for it the west cannot afford to keep policing the world. This era is drawing to an end, and almost every western nation is flat broke including us.

Canada should sell war bonds to finance its military. If you want to spend your money on policing the world then you can buy some. But you shouldnt steal my money to spend on this.

Unfortunately, on paper that makes sense, in reality it does not. The problem with the west is that people don't want the west to police the world, and when people in other parts of the world start slaughtering each other, then westerners ask why the government isn't doing anything. And when the government acts, the people ask why we are policing other countries. And to be fair, the military has not experienced this age of limitless spending that you speak of, as it is always on the chopping block. For example during the 90's the Liberal government kept cutting the budget, while increasing the Peacekeeping commitments up to the point where the military as an organization was ready to collapse.

[August1991]

Sure it is... if they arente necessary for Canadian DEFENSE it absolutely IS an option. Nato will take what we give them, because they are a lameduck organization whos members often dont even show up.

Having said that... I DO think we need a small airforce because we have lots of air space. But its utterly unthinkable that we would spent 20-40 billion dollars on NATO support. These people already owe us big time, and we owe THEM precisely jack shit.

I disagree strongly.

In military affairs, solidarity matters. We western, civilized countries must stand together. NATO is possibly the first step in a future genuine "United Nations", a convention of civilized societies.

-----

As to the OP, I reckon that we should choose to spend taxpayer money on military hardware according to three criteria: 1) regional economic development, 2) Canadian territory protection, 3) international military agreements.

From what I can gather, the F-35 is a bad buy. But what do I know...

[dre]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the majority of countries that joined the EU later on after the initial group of countries had to meet criteria to join, which in many cases took them through an election, Party #1 wants to join the EU, Party #2 does not. It is not feasible for a nation to have direct democracy.How many people are informed about say the F-35 enough to be able to make a decision other then, Im a liberal the Conservatives are buying it so I don't like it, or we are peacekeepers we don't need planes for that. If you don't like the government, next election vote for someone else, if you don't like any of the choices, run for office.

If you don't like the government, next election vote for someone else, if you don't like any of the choices, run for office.

Nope. I wouldnt vote for any of the parties on the ballot. Ill throw my tiny voice behind reform and rejecting the status quo.

It is not feasible for a nation to have direct democracy.How many people are informed about say the F-35 enough to be able to make a decision

But as we now know elected beaurocrats down know anything about it either. Whats not "feasible" is the status quo. Not only doesnt the government not have money to spend 30 billion on the airforce it doesnt even have enough money to pay its own employees without borrowing from foreigners.

We need a limited government that does not spend money it doesnt have on policing the world.

[Signals.Cpl]

Yes it IS feasible. Some countries had refendums and they voted no. Other countries had referendums that were ignored. Governments that joined without putting the question to the people have no legitimacy, and hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets as a result.

And we have the EU/ECB/IMF now telling counties they arent "allowed" to have elections unless they pass EU budgets first. You are kidding yourself if you think this is going to work. Democracy depends on the electorates ability to hire and fire. They have no such right in the EU. Not one single citizen of europe voted for Herman Von Rom Poy, nor any of the central bankers, nor executives of the IMF... Yet those are the people increasingly who make the decisions.

We don't vote for the UN representatives either, nor do we vote for the ICJ judges so whats your point?

And what exactly is the European Parliament?

And we have the EU/ECB/IMF now telling counties they arent "allowed" to have elections unless they pass EU budgets first.

Any proof that the IMF Is telling government they are not allowed to have elections until they pass the EU budget?

You are kidding yourself if you think this is going to work

What exactly am I kidding myself about?

[Signals.Cpl]

Nope. I wouldnt vote for any of the parties on the ballot. Ill throw my tiny voice behind reform and rejecting the status quo.

But as we now know elected beaurocrats down know anything about it either. Whats not "feasible" is the status quo. Not only doesnt the government not have money to spend 30 billion on the airforce it doesnt even have enough money to pay its own employees without borrowing from foreigners.

We need a limited government that does not spend money it doesnt have on policing the world.

Ok, please describe where you got the 30 billion figure from, and what it includes? Does it include only the Fighters themselves or does it include money that would be in the annual budget of the military(Fuel, salaries etc) It is a little misleading to say that the F-35's would cost 30 billion dollars if the actual cost is 9 billion and the rest comes from the militaries budget no matter what plane is decided.

[dre]

I disagree strongly.

In military affairs, solidarity matters. We western, civilized countries must stand together. NATO is possibly the first step in a future genuine "United Nations", a convention of civilized societies.

-----

As to the OP, I reckon that we should choose to spend taxpayer money on military hardware according to three criteria: 1) regional economic development, 2) Canadian territory protection, 3) international military agreements.

From what I can gather, the F-35 is a bad buy. But what do I know...

I dont buy any of that. A strong and soveriegn Canada can make its own decisions. We can work with other nations, and decide what works for us on a case by case basis. We dont need to make promises to global alliances that we might not be able to keep. We dont need to police the world with money borrowed from China.

We western, civilized countries must stand together.

Fair enough. Im not an isolationist and I think we should be willing to work with our allies to solve global problems and we should contribute what we can afford. But we should not be spending 10s of billions of dollars that we dont have to support global intiatives. LIke I keep saying we have already given WAY more than we have ever gotten back.

At the end of the day this is all charity. Its nice to help other people and its a worth goal. But you give them what you have to give... You dont take out a mortgage and borrow money to give to other people unless you want to end up shit poor.

[dre]

Ok, please describe where you got the 30 billion figure from, and what it includes? Does it include only the Fighters themselves or does it include money that would be in the annual budget of the military(Fuel, salaries etc) It is a little misleading to say that the F-35's would cost 30 billion dollars if the actual cost is 9 billion and the rest comes from the militaries budget no matter what plane is decided.

That number was an entirely rhetorical estimate. NObody knows what it will really cost because we are going to buy a plane that has never flown a single combat mission. We also have no idea how much money we are really going to have on hand.

But to be fair... I made up the number. I have no idea what it will cost. Heres one thing I DO know though. The government has NO MONEY AT ALL. They cant even pay their own employees without borrowing.

Edited April 7, 2012 by dre