Harper's Tough Talk on Defense and Russia is just empty words

[alexmac]

I take it you will not be voting for him?

Very good , no I will not be voting for the moron . Only one I have heard and seen that makes sense is Elizabeth May but I am not a Green Party supporter ..If everyone reads and not draw party lines I am sure you will find we as the common folk only have a government friend every 4 years then we get pee'd on until the next time they come to us . Seems that most who vote like to be bent over the kitchen table and actually defend the right to be screwed.

[Derek 2.0]

That is a direct shot at NATO allies like Germany, France, Spain, Italy and others who were physically present in Afghanistan but refused any significant combat roles the entire time, choosing instead to cower in their bases.

Canada had a combat role.

In fairness to the French, the MN and Legion took part in combat operations in Afghanistan…….with that said, with the fall of the Wall, many European countries looked at their militaries as a job creation program and their members became an extension of the civil service…..in fatigues.

[PIK]

I do not support any party as they are all crooks and Harper will go down in history as the biggest so far. Only thing I hear is "well look at what the Liberals did" . So because the liberals robbed the country that gives Harper the right to rape the rest of Canada. Harper is out of his league and is a liar and embarrassment to all here in our country. As far as how he has dealt with Russia is just one example....sanctions yup great except he forgot Putins right hand guys who have invested millions here and those companies have made contributions to the conservative party and before you reply check your data . Baird is an embarrassment Alexander is on the same level and the list goes on. This is not a hockey game and the only losers for incompetent people like Harper is us the people who pay for this moron. Check out his pay and what his pension will be , he is supposed to be working for us not the other way around and the way he is handling things Russia will be at our door step and I mean inside the 200 mile limit , then what more harsh and empty words.

Harper the biggest crook. LOL Please provide a link to that garbage.

[Keepitsimple]

Very good , no I will not be voting for the moron . Only one I have heard and seen that makes sense is Elizabeth May but I am not a Green Party supporter ..If everyone reads and not draw party lines I am sure you will find we as the common folk only have a government friend every 4 years then we get pee'd on until the next time they come to us . Seems that most who vote like to be bent over the kitchen table and actually defend the right to be screwed.

A couple of years ago I ran into the other person who thought Elizabeth May would make a good Prime Minister.....

[Moonbox]

I do not support any party as they are all crooks and Harper will go down in history as the biggest so far.

What a great post for you, as a new member, to show everyone how rational, well-spoken and intelligent you are.....

Edited September 3, 2014 by Moonbox

[Queenmandy85]

Defending Canada from what?

Defending us from what????

No one is going to invade Canada. Be realistic here. Canada's military is basically charity to other countries and its purpose is offensive not defensive.

Colonel Brown, as the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence, authored Defence Scheme Number One (See James Eayres In Defence of Canada for an abriged copy) . His determination of the potential threat of invasion by the United States Army was confirmed in 1972 with the revelation of the U.S. Army's Plan 1919.

In the mid 1960's, McGeorge Bundy reportedly considered intervention in Quebec in response to the FLQ bombing campaign.

It would be niave to believe the United States does not continue to have contingency plans for the invasion of Canada.

So, the short answer is the threat, no matter how remote, is the United States.

Defence policy must be based on what is possible, not what is probable. A nuclear missile force is the only practical means of deterring invasion. A cruise missile with a 200kt warhead costs half as much as a main battle tank.

On the other hand, there are far more serious issues the demand our resourses.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Queenmandy85

[Derek 2.0]

.

It would be niave to believe the United States does not continue to have contingency plans for the invasion of Canada.

So, the short answer is the threat, no matter how remote, is the United States.

Defence policy must be based on what is possible, not what is probable. A nuclear missile force is the only practical means of deterring invasion. A cruise missile with a 200kt warhead costs half as much as a main battle tank.

I think you misunderstand the costs associated with not only acquiring tactical nuclear weapons, but maintaining them……..

None the less, a cruise missile based deterrent, be it ship/sub/air/land based is by far the least effective and most vulnerable to both a first strike and counterstrike………hence why the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, India and Pakistan don’t rely upon cruise missiles for a strategic deterrent.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ahh, your narrative is incomplete with its failure to mention the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, which has been a strategically important asset to the Russians for over 200 years.....……In the Russians view, the instability in the Ukraine, gave the Russians no other choice then seize the Crimea…..this of course is not the “West’s fault”.

If you want to go that far back then it is probably important to mention that Crimea wasn't part of Ukraine until it was transferred in 1954 for administrative purposes. The people on the peninsula are primarily ethnic Russians and the vast majority of communication is done in Russian.

Now you could go even further back and claim that Crimea should belong to nether the Russians nor the Ukrainians, but in fact the Crimean Tartars (who were mostly deported by Stalin).

Or maybe you want to go even further back, and claim that Crimea shouldn't belong to the Crimean Tartars either, since the Mongols invaded Crimea in the 13th century. Instead, Crimea should belong to the Byzantines (who no longer exist since the turks took over most of their lands. So in this case, which country should be considered the successor of the Byzantine Empire? Greece or Turkey?).

Or perhaps, you should go even further back, to the 2nd century, when the Romans controlled Crimea.

Or perhaps this isn't far back enough, since the Romans stole the territory from Ancient Greece. So we should go back to the 2nd century BC and claim that Crimea belongs to the Greeks.

Or perhaps, this isn't nearly far back enough. Maybe we need to go back 30,000 years, when the land was inhabited by Neanderthals instead of Humans. So maybe Crimea should belong to the Neanderthals and Humans should not be allowed to inhabit Crimea at all.

So depending on the point in history you pick, you can make a case that Crimea should belong to Ukraine, Russia, the Crimean Tartars, Mongolia, Turkey, Greece, Italy and the Neanderthals. Sort of puts things in perspective and shows how absurd this approach is.

Or, you can simply support the right to self determination of the Crimean people, and let them decide.

The "referendum" wasn't biased. It was a totally foregone conclusion. A complete waste of paper was all it was. Putin is doing what he always planned to do. This referendum he must sip vodka and joke about to this day with his oligarch buddies.

You are creating a red herring here. I agree that the referendum is biased and not a fair referendum. Yet you keep trying to bring this up and imply that anyone who supports the right to self determination of the Crimean people somehow thinks the referendum is fair.

Why don't you just admit that you don't support the right to self determination of the Crimean people?

[-1=e^ipi]

Colonel Brown, as the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence, authored Defence Scheme Number One (See James Eayres In Defence of Canada for an abriged copy) . His determination of the potential threat of invasion by the United States Army was confirmed in 1972 with the revelation of the U.S. Army's Plan 1919.

So long before I was born, some guy wrote a book. And a century ago the US had plans to invade Canada... and this is somehow your evidence that the US is a threat to Canada...

Yeah, sorry if I don't buy this ridiculous nonsense.

In the mid 1960's, McGeorge Bundy reportedly considered intervention in Quebec in response to the FLQ bombing campaign.

That was half a century ago...

It would be niave to believe the United States does not continue to have contingency plans for the invasion of Canada.

And they probably have contingency plans in case of a zombie apocalypse or alien invasion. Oh actually, they do:

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/us-military-has-official-plan-in-place-for-zombie-apocalypse/28017/

So, the short answer is the threat, no matter how remote, is the United States.

And maybe a zombie apocalypse is also a possible threat. Should Canada spent 2% of its GDP as zombie apocalypse insurance?

[Queenmandy85]

I was merely using the cruise missile as an example of cost comparison. A fleet of 100 IRBM's with all the support units would be less than $4 billion. Since we already have the expertise and infrastructure, start up costs would be less than for a country like Iran. Isreal managed it for just over a billion.

Or we could give the defence budget to support education and convert our primary source of energy from fossil fuels to nuclear power.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Queenmandy85

[Derek 2.0]

Or, you can simply support the right to self determination of the Crimean people, and let them decide.

I never questioned the moral right for self-determination, but we’re talking realities……….The unrest in the Ukraine forced the Russians to secure the strategic home (for over 200 years) of their Black Sea fleet.......Spetsnaz trumps your assertion of failed Western Diplomacy.

[Derek 2.0]

I was merely using the cruise missile as an example of cost comparison. A fleet of 100 IRBM's with all the support units would be less than $4 billion. Since we already have the expertise and infrastructure, start up costs would be less than for a country like Iran. Isreal managed it for just over a billion.

Or we could give the defence budget to support education and convert our primary source of energy from fossil fuels to nuclear power.

Canada has expertise in the construction of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

Again, wherever you’re quoting your costs from (Wikipedia?), they obviously don’t include development costs (or the developments costs of prior technology), nor the cost of maintaining an arsenal, coupled with all the ancillary costs required to make it effective……..There is nothing cheap about a strategic nuclear deterrent………

[Queenmandy85]

Canada has expertise in the construction of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

Again, wherever you’re quoting your costs from (Wikipedia?), they obviously don’t include development costs (or the developments costs of prior technology), nor the cost of maintaining an arsenal, coupled with all the ancillary costs required to make it effective……..There is nothing cheap about a strategic nuclear deterrent………

Just out of curiosity, what would your estimate of the costs to deliver approximately 10 nuclear warheads to the largest cities in the United States compared to the cost of building and maintaining a standing army to repel an invader conventionally, hypothetically speaking .

I use the U.S. as an example because geography dictates they are the only nation able to mount an invasion. Russia could be a second threat but coming over the pole would be a daunting prospect.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Queenmandy85

[alexmac]

Harper the biggest crook. LOL Please provide a link to that garbage.

If you need a link to figure that out there is no hope for you but then again as you support him I would suspect no less so I am guessing you are already bent over the kitchen table ?

[alexmac]

What a great post for you, as a new member, to show everyone how rational, well-spoken and intelligent you are.....

Especially when taken out of context by a supposed "older member"

[alexmac]

Now that all the Harper trolls are here I would like to ask what has he done , other than talk a lot , against Russia that is real not perceived ?

Please answer in your own words not some post someone else wrote.

[WestCoastRunner]

What a great post for you, as a new member, to show everyone how rational, well-spoken and intelligent you are.....

What a wonderful way to treat new members. Some things don't change.

[WestCoastRunner]

If you need a link to figure that out there is no hope for you but then again as you support him I would suspect no less so I am guessing you are already bent over the kitchen table ?

Even if you provided a link, it wouldn't be read.

[alexmac]

Even if you provided a link, it wouldn't be read.

I will concede "sigh" you are right

[Derek 2.0]

Just out of curiosity, what would your estimate of the costs to deliver approximately 10 nuclear warheads to the largest cities in the United States compared to the cost of building and maintaining a standing army to repel an invader conventionally, hypothetically speaking .

For such a minimalistic deterrent, with a small level of redundancy, you’d be looking at a force structure similar to both the United Kingdom or the French……Both countries estimate the replacements for their current (sub-based) deterrent in the neighbourhood of 50-60 billion in acquisition cost, and upwards of 100 billion in lifetime sustainment costs. Of course both the British and French have been nuclear powers for decades, with the British now relying upon the United States Navy maintaining their SLBM fleet and the French looking towards further cooperation with the British to reduce costs.

Of course, these costs don’t reflect the costs of maintaining the rest of the required force structure needed to defend your nuclear deterrent, stalk the other guys deterrent and all the other required support systems (i.e. communications, surveillance, intelligence etc.) to make your deterrent viable….

...And with all that, we still discount the synergies and savings the British and French receive from belonging to a mutual defense organization like NATO….which your hypothetical foe contributes to upwards of 70% in terms of financial outlay.

[On Guard for Thee]

Multiply by 10 or so if you plan to use F 35's in any way. And keep in mind all arsenal must be within 3 hours range so we can inspect the engine.

[bush_cheney2004]

For such a minimalistic deterrent, with a small level of redundancy, you’d be looking at a force structure similar to both the United Kingdom or the French…

Agreed....a deterrent provisioned at only 10 nuclear warheads would be woefully inadequate against the U.S. Hell, it would be inadequate even against Canada.

[On Guard for Thee]

Agreed....a deterrent provisioned at only 10 nuclear warheads would be woefully inadequate against the U.S. Hell, it would be inadequate even against Canada.

Agreed. Warheads are woefully inadequate.

[Derek 2.0]

Agreed....a deterrent provisioned at only 10 nuclear warheads would be woefully inadequate against the U.S. Hell, it would be inadequate even against Canada.

Exactly, even if a second Boomer could be surged prior to hostilities (representing 50% of the deterrent), with only ~32 missiles (and say 96 MIRVs), you’d be hard pressed to effectively target 10-15 strategic locations, let alone wasting the limited warheads on cities…….

-12 warheads for Washington DC area

-12 warheads for Kings Bay naval base

-12 warheads for Bremerton naval base

-12 warheads for Barksdale AFB

-12 warheads for Whiteman AFB

-12 warheads for Minot AFB

-12 warheads for Malmstrom AFB

-12 warheads for FE Warren AFB…..

They go so quick…….and assuming you had the throw weight, and could add two additional MIRVs to each missile, they would be gobbled up on doubling up on the holes in the ground in Minot/Malmstrom/Warren, then Cheyene Mountian/Peterson AFB, Offut AFB and finally Nellis AFB……..and the United States would still have a strong second strike, and a clean-sweep with Tac-Nukes……

And the Canadian language would only be spoken in hell

[bush_cheney2004]

They go so quick……

Most people don't understand the math involved....survivability....reliability....accuracy....fratricide...etc. Ten nuclear warheads would only get you an advanced terrorism rating, not serious consideration at the nuclear poker table.