F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Wilber]

No argument here, we are far more like New Zealand (or Ireland) in that regard, sponging off the guys next door........as such, in my opinion, I don't totally disagree with Big Guy. As a nation, I don't think we should slash the military and become totally reliant upon someone else (see the United States), but if the majority of Canadians share this current Government's views on our place in the World, and are not willing to fight someone like ISIS, why spend billions on a military?

We could slash the budget by 2/3rds, retiring the combat capable portions of our military, retaining a small army for Peacekeeping and aide to civil power/disaster response, reduce the air force to supporting such a force and fisheries patrols, and transform the navy into a lightly armed coast guard.

Spending billions to retain a second or third rate combat force, that we're not going to use, is a huge waste of money.

OK but how can we remain part of the military alliance that helps guaranty our security if we have nothing to offer our allies in return? How can we have any credibility among other nations (let alone self respect) if we aren't willing to do what they do to ensure their security? If we want to call ourselves a first rate nation in this world, we have responsibilities and it's just too damn bad if we can't just take all the touchy feely responsibilities and leave the hard work (and expense) to others. Stop the world I want to get off isn't an option and never has been.

The purpose behind having a strong military is to discourage someone from messing with you. You don't want to use it and the stronger you are, the less likely you will be forced to. It's not a waste of money if you never have to use it and it's why the Cold War never became a hot war.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

OK but how can we remain part of the military alliance that helps guaranty our security if we have nothing to offer our allies in return? How can we have any credibility among other nations (let alone self respect) if we aren't willing to do what they do to ensure their security? If we want to call ourselves a first rate nation in this world, we have responsibilities and it's just too damn bad if we can't just take all the touchy feely responsibilities and leave the hard work (and expense) to others. Stop the world I want to get off isn't an option and never has been.

This has nothing to do with self-respect, that ship sailed when the Prime Minister told our Allies that we would be halting our combat mission against ISIS, as they are in talks to increase theirs......Playing devils advocate, look no further than Iceland, which doesn't have a military (they have a coast guard and paramilitary wing of their national police force), but yet is still a member of NATO, with their contribution being basing rights.........under this neutered Canada, we could still offer the use of our air bases, radar installations and SIGINT installations.

I'm sure New Zealand and Ireland consider themselves "respectable" with the smug realization that others contribute the majority of their defense needs.

The purpose behind having a strong military is to discourage someone from messing with you. You don't want to use it and the stronger you are, the less likely you will be forced to. It's not a waste of money if you never have to use it and it's why the Cold War never became a hot war.

You're preaching to the choir...........but as I said, if this Government isn't prepared to fight radical Islam, what is it prepared to fight? As such, if its not prepared to fight, why should it spend billions of dollars a year for a still substandard force?

That is going through the motions, and a waste of taxpayer's money.

[Smallc]

There's a reason that the Liberals are creating a defence white paper going forward. We've been without direction for too long (The Conservatives have us one and then neutered it). The Liberal course seems like they will be focused on home defence, naval projection, and multinational peace and security operations without much in the way of combat elements. Whether or not you agree with that, it's just as valid as the underfunded Conservative strategy.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Smallc

[Wilber]

There's a reason that the Liberals are creating a defence white paper going forward. We've been without direction for too long (The Conservatives have us one and then neutered it). The Liberal course seems like oth will be focused on home defence, naval projection, and multinational peace and security operations without much in the way of combat elements. Whether or not you agree with that, it's just as valid as the underfunded Conservative strategy.

How can you keep peace without combat elements? Why should anyone pay any attention to you? Can't Bat is on its way back.

[Derek 2.0]

There's a reason that the Liberals are creating a defence white paper going forward. We've been without direction for too long (The Conservatives have us one and then neutered it). The Liberal course seems like oth will be focused on home defence, naval projection, and multinational peace and security operations without much in the way of combat elements. Whether or not you agree with that, it's just as valid as the underfunded Conservative strategy.

Oh I don't agree with it, but based on their fiscal plan, and their own statements, I don't disagree that the direction of the forces will change.......If they cut the budget in half, as I outlined above, they could fund all their spending plans with a ~balanced budget.

[Smallc]

How can you keep peace without combat elements? Why should anyone pay any attention to you? Can't Bat is on its way back.

I didn't say that all combat elements will be removed. I thint Trudeau understands that there isn't really an endgame here from bombing other than putting further hours on stressed airframes. I think we should keep bombing personally. I think we should do more on all fronts. I'm simply explaining to you where Liberal thinking seems to be taking us.

[Derek 2.0]

How can you keep peace without combat elements? Why should anyone pay any attention to you? Can't Bat is on its way back.

Others will provide the combat element, as will be the case in the fight against ISIS..........and nobody really pays attention to us regardless, as such, why spend billions on a military we won't use?

[Wilber]

.Playing devils advocate, look no further than Iceland, which doesn't have a military (they have a coast guard and paramilitary wing of their national police force), but yet is still a member of NATO, with their contribution being basing rights....

Iceland has a population of 250,000, we have over 35 million. What exactly should we expect from them?

[Derek 2.0]

I didn't say that all combat elements will be removed. I thint Trudeau understands that there isn't really an endgame here from bombing other than putting further hours on stressed airframes. I think we should keep bombing personally. I think we should do more on all fronts. I'm simply explaining to you where Liberal thinking seems to be taking us.

And how do you know that? They have no new funding budgeted for the military, they have clearly stated they will seek a "leaner" force, focused on "peacekeeping" and domestic needs, so where do tanks, fighters, subs and modern frigates etc fit into that?

[Wilber]

Others will provide the combat element, as will be the case in the fight against ISIS..........and nobody really pays attention to us regardless, as such, why spend billions on a military we won't use?

The do pay attention to us. How do you think our troops in Bosnia go the name "Can't Bat" from our allies?

[Smallc]

And how do you know that? They have no new funding budgeted for the military, they have clearly stated they will seek a "leaner" force, focused on "peacekeeping" and domestic needs, so where do tanks, fighters, subs and modern frigates etc fit into that?

Where were the Conservarives going to fit them? I'm sure the Liberals will spend less money in some areas and more in others. Their starting from the same funding amount. They have no more or less resources in this than Harper did.

[Derek 2.0]

Iceland has a population of 250,000, we have over 35 million. What exactly should we expect from them?

During the Cold War, a big set of crosshairs that would have involved the Soviets flattening the nation (likely with nukes) from the onset of a third World War.

[Derek 2.0]

The do pay attention to us. How do you think our troops in Bosnia go the name "Can't Bat" from our allies?

Sure, but what does it really mater?

[Wilber]

Sure, but what does it really mater?

Nothing I guess. When Canadian troops got in a firefight with the Croatians to prevent it a massacre, the Liberal government of the time kept it a secret from Canadians because they didn't want them to know that their troops would actually fight to save refugees. Who would want to belong to such an army and have to depend on such a government?

[Derek 2.0]

Where were the Conservarives going to fit them? I'm sure the Liberals will spend less money in some areas and more in others. Their starting from the same funding amount. They have no more or less resources in this than Harper did.

It doesn't mater now what the previous Government did or didn't do, Trudeau is wearing the big-boy pants now, and has promised billions in new spending, with countless other groups that supported him (see First Nations and Province of Ontario) wanting billions more.........why would Trudeau maintain a modern military, when he doesn't want us involved in armed conflicts, nor see such a role for the forces?

[Derek 2.0]

Nothing I guess. When Canadian troops got in a firefight with the Croatians to prevent it a massacre, the Liberal government of the time kept it a secret from Canadians because they didn't want them to know that their troops would actually fight to save refugees. Who would want to belong to such an army and have to depend on such a government?

I know all to well, I'm sure Army Guy knows even better in regards to Medak.

[Wilber]

During the Cold War, a big set of crosshairs that would have involved the Soviets flattening the nation (likely with nukes) from the onset of a third World War.

So they had more at stake than us.

[Smallc]

It doesn't mater now what the previous Government did or didn't do, Trudeau is wearing the big-boy pants now, and has promised billions in new spending, with countless other groups that supported him (see First Nations and Province of Ontario) wanting billions more.........why would Trudeau maintain a modern military, when he doesn't want us involved in armed conflicts, nor see such a role for the forces?

I've already answered that. The Liberals seem to have 5 goals:

Home defence - that will be the major role of the airforce and elements of the navy.

Naval projection - The Liberals committed to a true blue water navy, something we have lost. there are rumours that the Liberals intend to ensure that all ships promises are built along with taking up the option for a third AOR.

Peacekeeping and Humanitarian relief - that speaks for itself.

Specialization - things that Canada does well - logistics, maritime patrol, training, mentoring, command.

This may mean, for example, buying only 50 fighter jets. It may mean many things or both the airforce and land force. It means though that Canada still requires a modern military force. It's simply a different one than the Conservatives envisioned and largely failed to deliver.

[Wilber]

A blue water navy to do what? It's sounds to me that the Liberals are intent of building a military that is not capable of a combat roll.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Wilber

[Smallc]

A blue water navy to do what? It's sounds to me that the Liberals are intent of building a military that is not capable of a combat roll.

A blue water navy to do the same things that we've always done - anti piracy, anti terrorism, anti smuggling, etc. At the same time, these ships require advanced weaponry to be ready to defend Canada and its interests from hostile aggressors at all levels.

By the way, building a military for home defence means that the military must be combat capable.

[Derek 2.0]

So they had more at stake than us.

Not really, Iceland played a far more strategic role in the Cold War (and the Second World War) as a geographic location, than Canada.........and is why the British, then the Americans invaded the nation and only left recently........No Iceland, no North Atlantic convoys from Canada (in a Second or Third World War)........

In the advent of a war between NATO and the Soviets, the US/NATO forces in Iceland would have played a far more pivotal role than Canadian forces in Canada, including our fighter contribution to NORAD.

[Derek 2.0]

Naval projection - The Liberals committed to a true blue water navy, something we have lost. there are rumours that the Liberals intend to ensure that all ships promises are built along with taking up the option for a third AOR.

Odd, since the Liberals never once promised "naval projection" in any of their speeches or online documents......and if we're going to speak to rumors, I'll put more faith into the ones that I've heard, that will see the Queenston class "postponed" for good.

[Derek 2.0]

A blue water navy to do the same things that we've always done - anti piracy, anti terrorism, anti smuggling, etc. At the same time, these ships require advanced weaponry to be ready to defend Canada and its interests from hostile aggressors at all levels.

By the way, building a military for home defence means that the military must be combat capable.

One doesn't need a blue-water navy to do any of that, its called a coast guard..........and Coast Guards have no need for "advanced weaponry" to defend Canada, and our overseas "interests" will be defended by others........

And outside a lightly armed Coast Guard, why does Canada need a combat capable military to defend Canada?

[Wilber]

Not really, Iceland played a far more strategic role in the Cold War (and the Second World War) as a geographic location, than Canada.........and is why the British, then the Americans invaded the nation and only left recently........No Iceland, no North Atlantic convoys from Canada (in a Second or Third World War)........

In the advent of a war between NATO and the Soviets, the US/NATO forces in Iceland would have played a far more pivotal role than Canadian forces in Canada, including our fighter contribution to NORAD.

What I meant was, even in a nuclear war, all of Canada wouldn't be turned into a cinder. Iceland would have. I was in Iceland this summer. One of our guides had an invader for a father. He was a British sailor who came back and stayed after the war. The Brits built Reykjavik's domestic airport and the Americans built the international. They didn't do too badly out of WW2. But then, neither did Newfoundland.

[Wilber]

One doesn't need a blue-water navy to do any of that, its called a coast guard..........and Coast Guards have no need for "advanced weaponry" to defend Canada, and our overseas "interests" will be defended by others........

And outside a lightly armed Coast Guard, why does Canada need a combat capable military to defend Canada?

And why do we need a combat capable navy but not a combat capable army or airforce?