Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 ya and that they were surrounded by German and Italian forces and of no threat to axis powers or of any use to the allied powers... Actually they were of use to both the axis and allies as were Sweden, Spain and Portugal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 you have no idea what you are talking about and I am getting tired of arguing with you since you seem unable to grasp simple concepts that a 5 year old would have understood 4 hours ago. Removing all regulation, privatizing police and the military as well as medical and firefighting services will lead to people grabbing power and fighting to become the next dictator. You hold a belief that if we were to eliminate government people will suddenly start being charitable to each other all the while ignoring thousands of years of history and facts proving otherwise... I have way too much to do to waste my time with some child who has no concept of the real world and is probably in mommies basement advocating anarchy under a different name... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Yes, but the Swiss can mobilize within 24h, it was unlike Germany can overcome the entire nation in 24h. And they did not invade Sweden because they needed Swedish Iron and Sweden informed them that if they were invaded they would have destroyed the mines rather than letting them fall in to German Hands. In Sweden the Germans needed something. You just made my argument for me in terms of not throwing away billions on military hardware. So you agree then that we can defend ourselves via diplomacy, trade, economics, and through the kind of tactics Sweden was able to employ? Looks like you're starting to get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 they're useless for defense we don't enough, we could never afford to have enough to defend the country, the country is too big to defend, a super hornet will as just as useful)zero) and much much less expensive... Then why buy anything, just bend over with our asses in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 There is no example of a mass market 100% solar fueled car. There is no example of a cure for cancer. There is no example - yet - of a myriad of things that should be pursued. What's your point other than to state the obvious. There is short examples of relatively free markets, the problem is that inevitably authorities emerge so this will always just be a temporary condition. We have seen various scenarios where these authorities were privately ran... dictatorships, autocracies, land ownership councils etc. People like elected governments more because of the partly true illusion that they control them, and can fire them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Riiiight...diplomacy, money, and trade had nothing to do with it. France was Germanys biggest trading partner before the war started and they sure as hell tried diplomacy. Soviet Union was sending resources to Germany, in fact the trains with resources were going to Germany when the German Army was moving in to the Soviet Union.... trade, diplomacy and such sure helped them am I right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Neutrals like Switzerland are needed during wars. Often, they provide the only means of exchange and comunication between the waring parties. Aside from the obvious strategic advantages of posessing Canada, geographic and resources, are you maintaining that Canada has that sort of value in large enough importance to offset its strategic value? Absolutely. Canada ought to make friends, take control of banking, and accounting for nations wanting the service. Store gold, sell resources. Anyone threatens violence, we've got 'em by the balls. That's when diplomacy and negotiation come in handy. This is all a lot more cost effective than putting up walls and buying endless amounts of military hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Friendship = good. Alliances = bad. Nations don't have friends... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Since you’re big on google, figure out how long it takes a subsonic cruise missile to fly from our Pacific Coast to eastern Alberta………..Or the Gulf of St Lawrence to Saguenay……….. The reason there are no hardened shelters at either base is because there was never a requirement during the entire Cold War…….If the Soviets attacked with ICBMs, any aircraft able to scramble within 30 minutes would have done so, as to bombers or cruise missiles, due to geography, all aircraft flyable would have met said attack, been sent to other fields or removed off the apron or out of the hangers……….. But under your scenario, who is going to be attacking Canada? Who indeed? That's why buying billions worth in military gear is a waste of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 You just made my argument for me in terms of not throwing away billions on military hardware. So you agree then that we can defend ourselves via diplomacy, trade, economics, and through the kind of tactics Sweden was able to employ? Looks like you're starting to get it. What exactly are we going to blow up? Buy a nuke and threaten to destroy Canada if they come? They had something the Germans needed and they used it against them, the Germans needed iron ore right then and there so losing that source for six months, a year or 2 was out of the question... How would you suggest we pull of the same thing? Nuke the oil fields? Nuke the Arctic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Sweden was not invaded Because the germans would have lost them as a source of iron when they needed it most. Switzerland was not invaded because the Germans realized they will lose plenty of troops for no gain. Iceland would have been taken had the Germans possess the ability to take it and take advantage. You are talking as if you know anything about history since you seem to ignore the main point, Germany invaded plenty of countries that were really happy to sell them their resources. it wasn't resources they were after, it was "lebensraum"..first you state they didn't invade Sweden because they'd lose Swedish iron...then you say they invaded others to take their resources ..which they did so were the swedes going to prevent it how ...sweden was of no strategic importance to germany, the resources were available whether they invaded or not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Developing the components for an aerospace industry is an investment. Also our needs are very simple... the F35 program was about developing a fighter than can do everything... We just need a rangey interceptor/patrol craft. How about a rangy diplomat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Absolutely. Canada ought to make friends, take control of banking, and accounting for nations wanting the service. Store gold, sell resources. Anyone threatens violence, we've got 'em by the balls. That's when diplomacy and negotiation come in handy. This is all a lot more cost effective than putting up walls and buying endless amounts of military hardware. How do you have them by the balls if they can just come and take your gold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Absolutely. Canada ought to make friends, take control of banking, and accounting for nations wanting the service. Store gold, sell resources. Anyone threatens violence, we've got 'em by the balls. That's when diplomacy and negotiation come in handy. This is all a lot more cost effective than putting up walls and buying endless amounts of military hardware. do you advocate we do the same for al-quida? We let them keep their funds in Canada as long as they don't attack us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 How about a rangy diplomat? You mean the rangy diplomat they just told to get his ass home because they are done talking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 thats limiting our options, in 15 years we might be forced in a conflict that needs all of these options at which point we either run to the US and get them fast, expect them to cover us or go without. It is easy to plan for one thing but we are Canada, we need a jack of all trades rather than a specialized aircraft that does one thing really good but can't be trusted to do much more. No we need an economical interceptor/patrol craft with good range. You can dream up scenarios where we might need a lot of other things, but you could also dream up scenarios where we need 1000 f-35's. The reality is we need to build our military around plausible threat management scenarios with the money we can afford to spend. The other reality is, that if you have a look at the western world, our own governments spending is a bigger threat to us than India, Russia, or Iran or China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Actually they were of use to both the axis and allies as were Sweden, Spain and Portugal. invading or not invading neutral countries is a strategic decision....not invading is as important as invading depending on circumstance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I never asked for 200, I asked for 100. Derek says to do what I want, we'd need about 130, so I revise to that. For now, right? Until we need more. And then more after that. And then more after that. Where is the line? And how do we wait until we cross it? And how much private sector wealth are you willing to steal in order to keep playing this game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 invading or not invading neutral countries is a strategic decision....not invading is as important as invading depending on circumstance... True, but it is not the invadee who determines the circumstance if it has no way of defending itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 True, but it is not the invadee who determines the circumstance if it has no way of defending itself. we cannot defend ourselves against super powers....those we can defend ourselves against don't have the capability to invade us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 it wasn't resources they were after, it was "lebensraum".. They needed the source of iron ore they lose that they lose the war in 1940 rather than 1945. first you state they didn't invade Sweden because they'd lose Swedish iron...then you say they invaded others to take their resources Well if you had any understanding I wouldn't have to waste my time explaining it but here it goes, the German war machine was build around fast and ig victories, they would take a country and strip it of industry and any resources they could to fund another campaign, now Sweden had resources they needed here and now rather than resources they could develop in 5 or 10 years. Sweden sells resources to Germany=Good, Germany invade Sweden and lose source of iron=bad. Germany invade France which is no longer supplying needed resources=good, Germany let France develop those resources and build a stronger army=bad... ..which they did so were the swedes going to prevent it how Hitler wanted control of all the resources, letting another nation control your vital resources was not a good idea and thats why they wanted to attack Sweden, but they realized Sweden would make sure those resources were out of their reach for the forceable future. ...sweden was of no strategic importance to germany, A vital resource for your war is not strategically important? Gee I think Napoleon here is losing his touch. the resources were available whether they invaded or not... No the resource was available if they did NOT invade, if they invaded they lose the vital resource whereas in other regions the resource was not their to exploit unless they took it by force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 we've totally derailed the thread with WW2 scenario's...I'm done with those now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 No we need an economical interceptor/patrol craft with good range. You can dream up scenarios where we might need a lot of other things, but you could also dream up scenarios where we need 1000 f-35's. The reality is we need to build our military around plausible threat management scenarios with the money we can afford to spend. The other reality is, that if you have a look at the western world, our own governments spending is a bigger threat to us than India, Russia, or Iran or China. And 10 years ago the government wanted to eliminate the tanks because we wouldn't need them. Twenty years ago we sold our heavy transport helicopters to the Netherlands only to have to get transport from them in the helicopters we sold them while in Afghanistan. Then during afghanistan we bought/leased both in a short time frame and at a higher expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 we've totally derailed the thread with WW2 scenario's...I'm done with those now... somebody got schooled and is walking away, cheer up at least you received some free education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 So, about that F-35 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.