Liberals party defence review

[Army Guy]

The liberal is asking for the publics opinion on their new defence review.....thought it might create some interesting discussions. Have a look it is a survey, with plenty of room to voice any opinion. takes about 10 mins to fill out, plus there is a discussion forum , but still have not been able to see the forum or other comments. but that should be interesting.

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-policy-review/index.asp?utm_campaign=dnd-defencereview&utm_medium=vanity-url&utm_source=canada-ca_defence-consultations

be interested in what you think, and any questions you want to discuss here.

[Derek 2.0]

be interested in what you think............

That whoever's in Government in the 2030s and 2040s will be picking up whats left and attempting to sort it out.......funny that they will take the public's input in how to defend the nation, but can't be bothered with the uninformed masses opinions on how we elect our governments...........on top of that, funny that the MND is holding the jive sessions in namely large cities (Liberal ridings?) and forgoing some of the communities housing some of our largest bases.

Put me down in the pool for "we don't need much of a military" and that "funding can now be re-profiled to other areas".

The elder Trudeau cut the legs out from under our world class military in the later 60s, the idiot son will just finish the job.....you heard it here first

[Smallc]

Apparently, someone doesn't understand the difference between public consultation and a referendum.

[Derek 2.0]

Apparently, someone doesn't understand the difference between public consultation and a referendum.

I understand perfectly well........but by all means, tell me how the average Canadian would be equipped to answer such questions as:

-Are there any threats to Canada’s security that are not being addressed adequately?

-What roles should the Canadian Armed Forces play domestically, including in support of civilian authorities?

-How should Canada-United States cooperation on defence of North America evolve in the coming years?

-What form should the CAF contribution to peace support operations take? Is there a role for the CAF in helping to prevent conflict before it occurs?

-Should the size, structure, and composition for the Canadian Armed Forces change from what they are today?

-How can DND and the CAF improve the way they support the health and wellness of military members? In what areas should more be done?

-Should Canada strive to maintain military capability across the full spectrum of operations? Are there specific niche areas of capability in which Canada should specialize?

-What type of investments should Canada make in space, cyber, and unmanned systems? To what extent should Canada strive to keep pace and be interoperable with key allies in these domains?

-What additional measures could the DND undertake, along with partner departments, to improve defence procurement?

-What resources will the CAF require to meet Canada’s defence needs?

Despite the vagueness and simplistic nature of the open ended questions from the above survey, how are the uninformed* opinions of most Canadians a positive contribution to national defense? The above is not an example of leadership, nor an attempt to better educate the taxpaying public, but a crass attempt at political pandering via trial balloon.......

*By uninformed, I don't mean as a slight, but a realistic understanding that most Canadians couldn't answer the above questions in an informed manner, including a great many Canadians with both military and foreign policy experience.

[nerve]

I think that there will be a continuation of defence policy and not much will get done other than token initiatives to tow a global standard as a second world power.

I don't think there is any confusion that Canada's defence strategy is as part of a team so coordination with its allies is justly more vital than domestic considerations, since its power comes from strength in its many NATO allies.

I think Canada is not really prepared for major events anymore, it is only preparing for small scale conflicts with third world nations and run of the mill small scale emergencies.

You know I don't think they have a plan for something major like a massive H. EMP or something like Yellowstone going off. Much less for some type of war with Russia, not that we think that will happen, or some other form of nuclear event.

Civil defence was far more focused on public preperadness, something that just doesn't exist anymore.

I am not sure if there is any real survival for a real war. It is strange to think that the Canadian military really isn't planning for war anymore, only for use of force displays against weak untechnologically developed states.

Like most aspects of government, I think we need to claw back on governent exclusivity and authority over various private matters such as self defence and security. What we have seen in other NATO countries that recognize the real potential of real war with a major state is that we need to enable the public to the ability to survive and thrive in the face of foreign invasion, Canada is still in denile of that, and until it recognizes that should be a primary defence priority it will still be acting as a global policeman instead of exercising the right of self defence under the UN charter.

Edited April 7, 2016 by nerve

[overthere]

The liberal is asking for the publics opinion on their new defence review.....

be interested in what you think, and any questions you want to discuss here.

I think Trudeau is stalling on any defence acquisitions , he has promised so much money to so many groups that it is easier to pretend to study it than to buy. He can buy 5 years wanking and waffling about with 'consultations', easily.

He'll have to deal with some new factors soon which will make deferment of decisions much worse. Pretty much all 4 Presidential contenders are intent on pulling back on Americas role, and that means we won't have Big Daddy paying for our defence much longer.

[Derek 2.0]

Civil defence was far more focused on public preperadness, something that just doesn't exist anymore.

Civil defense withered with the realization that in the advent of a nuclear war, or even a limited exchange, it was a waste of time.........going off memory, the US DoD and Department of Energy modeled a single 5 megaton warhead strike on the center of late 1970s Detroit (when it was still an industrial heavyweight) at lunchtime......

Now I forget the number of expected dead, dying and injured, but it was surmised, with the expected fallout, there wouldn't be enough emergency room hospital beds for the injured in the entire MidWestern United States, more so though, there wouldn't be enough burn units and oncologists to treat the injured across the entire United States....

...Further to that, regardless of the number rescue/fire personal, with the aide of nearly the entire Army Corps of Engineers, it would take weeks to clear roads to reach the epicenter and start removing wreckage to search for survivors (and the dead)......outlying counties/communities, not damaged by the bomb itself, would take years to return to a semblance of normalcy....etc etc...Reader Digest, a single thermonuclear device exploded in a major US city would tax the resources of the Americans........hundreds, if not thousands of warheads from a Soviet strike? There's no real point trying to respond, one just attempts to keep buggering on with whats left.......

-----------------------

........For Canada, there is no point to include in the review the response to the aftermath of a nuclear strike from a nation state, a dirty bomb or stolen tactical nuke detonated by terrorists in a Montreal/Toronto/Vancouver would bankrupt us as a nation, make us reliant on relief/aide from the World (see United States) for years and could very well fragment the country......We will be hard pressed to contend with a major Earthquake in BC's Lower Mainland, forget a nuclear device in a major Canadian city......

Far better to husband our resources with the Americans (and NATO) and make sure such an attack doesn't happen in the first place.......

I am not sure if there is any real survival for a real war. It is strange to think that the Canadian military really isn't planning for war anymore, only for use of force displays against weak untechnologically developed states.

You don't know what you're talking about.......right now, as we speak, a Canadian is the second in command of NORAD, and RCAF Hornets are tasked to respond to NORAD alerts.......NORAD isn't moving back into Cheyenne Mountain because they aren't "planning for war".

[waldo]

Despite the vagueness and simplistic nature of the open ended questions from the above survey, how are the uninformed* opinions of most Canadians a positive contribution to national defense? The above is not an example of leadership, nor an attempt to better educate the taxpaying public, but a crass attempt at political pandering via trial balloon.......

say what! If a survey reply holds no weight/substantive value, it's 'tossed'... if there's insight and meaningful input within a reply, it's kept. Easy-peasy! Why would you be so worried about the opinions of the "great uninformed/unwashed" - wouldn't they favour the shiny toy aspects associated with your typical bravado and jingoistic military musings on procurement and deployment?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

I hope Her Majesty gets to complete the survey, or at least see the results, seeing how she is the CAF commander-in-chief (Constitution Act Section 15).

[Derek 2.0]

say what! If a survey reply holds no weight/substantive value, it's 'tossed'... if there's insight and meaningful input within a reply, it's kept. Easy-peasy!

So the survey is fluff? How would the average Canadian, including many of the members of the Forces itself, be able to answer this for example:

-Are there any threats to Canada’s security that are not being addressed adequately?

If those that truly knew opined in a public forum such as this review, they would be charged under the National Defense Act........hence those from the public that do reply will offer largely baseless opinions.......

Why would you be so worried about the opinions of the "great uninformed/unwashed" - wouldn't they favour the shiny toy aspects associated with your typical bravado and jingoistic military musings on procurement and deployment?

Do hospitals or utility companies seek the public's opinion on how to run their day-to-day operations? What does the Waldo know of the safe operation of a commercial nuclear reactor or hydro dam? I would hedge as much as I know about running a surgical theater or CT machine in a hospital........Would the Waldo consider himself to be the best equipped to procure specific items needed in the operation of a power plant? I wouldn't know where to start on deciding items for a hospital...........

........I would think a more apt approach to be telling those that do know how to run hospitals and utility companies to keep the lights on and the public healthy, well negotiating the exchange of budgeted funds for an acceptable level of service between both parties.

[Big Guy]

I think the future is for drones and robotic warfare.

I believe the asset/cost ratio of any water based armaments is a waste (especially submarines).

We are talking about planning for the future - plan for a space platform as a delivery system and robotics that can be programmed and left to function, make decisions and kill on their own. Development of sound and laser as weapons - especially weapons that kill or neutralize populations while leaving infrastructure intact.

The DND can reach me through this site for more advice.

[PIK]

Just wasting time ,till they can figure out how to gut it .If I remember trudeau said money saved form not buying the F-45 will go to the navy. It sounded like all the money for the jets will go to the navy. No new jets?? Trudeau is a dedicated pacifist.

[Army Guy]

That whoever's in Government in the 2030s and 2040s will be picking up whats left and attempting to sort it out.......funny that they will take the public's input in how to defend the nation, but can't be bothered with the uninformed masses opinions on how we elect our governments...........on top of that, funny that the MND is holding the jive sessions in namely large cities (Liberal ridings?) and forgoing some of the communities housing some of our largest bases.

Put me down in the pool for "we don't need much of a military" and that "funding can now be re-profiled to other areas".

The elder Trudeau cut the legs out from under our world class military in the later 60s, the idiot son will just finish the job.....you heard it here first

I'll have to admit I was very disappointed when I found that such a survey even existed, and as I attempted to completed the survey , I found that many of these questions where way above my pay grade or understanding, and that is after 34 years of being an Infantry soldier. These questions are meant to be answered by our nations top soldiers, and top members within the MND. To which left me wondering why has our government gone to the public for these answers and not to the men and women who hold the expertise on the subject. The more I thought about it the clearer the answer became , Major changes where on the way for DND, and this survey will some how play into the hands of this government decision to drastically reduce the dept.

Because when they did ask those in charge of DND and the MND they did not like the answers, DND is a shell of it's former self, it's capabilities are so eroded that we would have problems mounting a small mission within our own borders.... and just to restore it and keep the same capabilities would cost more than this currents government is willing to mandate...Even the conservatives knew that down sizing was the only answer. Now the Liberal government does not want to be seen as the axe man, so it will use this survey to throw back it our faces......This is what the majority wanted....

Instead of being transparent and actually showing the country the true status of our military, and acting on a problem that has gone critical 10 or more years ago , it will be passed on for future generations to fix. Right now DND is laying on a table and some one has put the paddles to its chest and is yelling clear....down sizing will be the final nail in coffin of this once great institution....I know there are many out there rolling their eyes and saying stop being so dramatic, I've seen it all the man power shortages, the equipment shortages so severe the army can not move itself without massive coordination and mass gathering of resources from out of province....In my 34 years I have never seen it as bad as it is today, and that includes the dark years.....

[Smallc]

Just wasting time ,till they can figure out how to gut it .If I remember trudeau said money saved form not buying the F-45 will go to the navy. It sounded like all the money for the jets will go to the navy. No new jets??

If that's the case, he's only continuing what the Conservatives started. They punted the file by further life extending the CF-18.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Smallc

[Big Guy]

I was under the impression that the civilian government decides if, where, why, when and how to order their military to act. Once a decision is made, military commanders may be consulted as to the process and tactics to be used.

The DND is notorious for classifying wants as needs, and the more "toys" the better.

There is no need for consultation with the armed forces for the creation of foreign policy. That is left to the people we have elected. I would not trust the leaders of our military to provide objective opinions as to foreign policy. That is the basis of our society.

[dre]

So the survey is fluff? How would the average Canadian, including many of the members of the Forces itself, be able to answer this for example:

People can answer it just fine. Its an insurance adjustment question... we know we cant insure against all the possible threats out there so its really just a matter of how risk adverse people want to be. If Canadians want to under-insure or over-insure, then that's their choice. It might not be smart but its still their choice.

And your assessment of the ability of Canadians to provide useful feedback is not all that relevant. They are the ones expected to pay the bills, and they can remove civilian leadership if they feel like it. It makes good sense to get feedback from key stakeholders.

[Wilber]

I was under the impression that the civilian government decides if, where, why, when and how to order their military to act. Once a decision is made, military commanders may be consulted as to the process and tactics to be used.

The DND is notorious for classifying wants as needs, and the more "toys" the better.

There is no need for consultation with the armed forces for the creation of foreign policy. That is left to the people we have elected. I would not trust the leaders of our military to provide objective opinions as to foreign policy. That is the basis of our society.

Whatever decisions the civilian government may make are academic if it doesn't have a military capable of carrying out those decisions.

If a government doesn't know what it wants, how can the military know?

This survey is just intended to procrastinate and deflect responsibility for not making the decisions they were elected to make. I thought about responding to this survey but quickly realized I am not qualified to answer those questions.

[Army Guy]

I was under the impression that the civilian government decides if, where, why, when and how to order their military to act. Once a decision is made, military commanders may be consulted as to the process and tactics to be used.

The DND is notorious for classifying wants as needs, and the more "toys" the better.

There is no need for consultation with the armed forces for the creation of foreign policy. That is left to the people we have elected. I would not trust the leaders of our military to provide objective opinions as to foreign policy. That is the basis of our society.

DND is long past asking for toys, it is begging for equipment it needs to run simple task, such as trucks to move men and equipment around, most of the fleet lays rusting in vast storage compounds due to lack of funding to repair, and lack of funding to purchase more, the problem gets worse as you climb the scale such as our LAV fleet, units have never had enough IFV to equip entire BN's, in fact some BNs are down to one Company out of 4 which are equipped, once again a lot of the newly rebuilt LAVS are sitting parked because of lack of funds to operate them.....does that sound like a want or a need....and the Army is the rich kid on the block, things go down hill quickly when we talk about the other elements...

DND is consulted on foreign policies matters, no point in having them if they are beyond our nations ability to protect them or our interests is there. The final say has always rested on the PM shoulders.....

[Big Guy]

DND is long past asking for toys, it is begging for equipment it needs to run simple task, such as trucks to move men and equipment around, most of the fleet lays rusting in vast storage compounds due to lack of funding to repair, and lack of funding to purchase more, the problem gets worse as you climb the scale such as our LAV fleet, units have never had enough IFV to equip entire BN's, in fact some BNs are down to one Company out of 4 which are equipped, once again a lot of the newly rebuilt LAVS are sitting parked because of lack of funds to operate them.....does that sound like a want or a need....and the Army is the rich kid on the block, things go down hill quickly when we talk about the other elements...

DND is consulted on foreign policies matters, no point in having them if they are beyond our nations ability to protect them or our interests is there. The final say has always rested on the PM shoulders.....

Of course the military is "consulted" when a decision is made to get it involved in battle but the recent advice has not proven to be very accurate. Hillier guaranteed that the military could handle our involvement in Afghanistan so the government moved on that evaluation - and the rest is history.

My own personal view is that we do not need an expensive and well equipped military. If Harper had not poured all kinds of money into the military then we would not have stayed in Afghanistan and got involved in those civil wars in the Middle East - two major mistakes because our government was assured that our military could handle the mission.

I figure no armaments then no mission.

[Army Guy]

People can answer it just fine. Its an insurance adjustment question... we know we cant insure against all the possible threats out there so its really just a matter of how risk adverse people want to be. If Canadians want to under-insure or over-insure, then that's their choice. It might not be smart but its still their choice.

And your assessment of the ability of Canadians to provide useful feedback is not all that relevant. They are the ones expected to pay the bills, and they can remove civilian leadership if they feel like it. It makes good sense to get feedback from key stakeholders.

That's a crock and you know it, why do we elect and form governments if not to make those choices that require informed well thought out decisions, decisions based on what is best for the nation to eliminate those good idea fairy decisions that sound good but really would only hurt the nation and all it's citizens.....It is a cop out for the government not to stand up and make those choices, be it popular or not instead of conducting polls finding out what pleases the citizens then acting right or wrong....

why not hold a referendum on everything then.....let the people decided what is best for the nation.....When it's citizens do not have the time to be fully informed on all matters....we all have opinions, does not make them right does it...

And your assessment of the ability of Canadians to provide useful feedback is not all that relevant. They are the ones expected to pay the bills, and they can remove civilian leadership if they feel like it. It makes good sense to get feedback from key stakeholders.

So your saying everyone and everything that contributes to paying the bills should have a say in all matters in government. You must send your wife down to purchase your tools, or your new truck, or if you have a business the tools you need for that.....after all she assists in paying the bills, yet she might not know a hammer from a screw driver....it makes good sense.... How does it make sense, when I have a plumbing issue with my home I don't phone the paving company to come over and fix it...

[Army Guy]

Your remark about Hillier is wrong.....Hillier told the government that DND could not handle the mission and was not ready for Afghanistan.....

We've discussed this already.....and your quote has been debunked......

The Harper government did not pour all kinds of money into the military....he poured enough for the Afghan mission, but that hardly counts for all kinds.....

[waldo]

If those that truly knew opined in a public forum such as this review, they would be charged under the National Defense Act........hence those from the public that do reply will offer largely baseless opinions.......

Do hospitals or utility companies seek the public's opinion on how to run their day-to-day operations? What does the Waldo know of the safe operation of a commercial nuclear reactor or hydro dam? I would hedge as much as I know about running a surgical theater or CT machine in a hospital........Would the Waldo consider himself to be the best equipped to procure specific items needed in the operation of a power plant? I wouldn't know where to start on deciding items for a hospital...........

get a grip! Clearly this is an attempt at inclusiveness - you know, something foreign to the 'party of Harper'... which is what it still is at this point! If nothing else, legitimate layperson responses will provide a certain perspective on general Canadian's views towards the military, the role Canada's military should play in the world community of nations vis-a-vis recognized/perceived threats, prioritization of procurement based on recognized/perceived threats, etc.. What else would you expect from a general layperson public response to that survey?

.

.

[Wilber]

People can answer it just fine. Its an insurance adjustment question... we know we cant insure against all the possible threats out there so its really just a matter of how risk adverse people want to be. If Canadians want to under-insure or over-insure, then that's their choice. It might not be smart but its still their choice.

And your assessment of the ability of Canadians to provide useful feedback is not all that relevant. They are the ones expected to pay the bills, and they can remove civilian leadership if they feel like it. It makes good sense to get feedback from key stakeholders.

What does paying for something have to do with providing useful feedback? I pay people to do things I am not qualified, skilled enough or otherwise capable of doing myself.

[waldo]

waldo clarifies expectations (bold emphasis added):

There will be opportunities in this process for all stakeholders, including academic experts, non-governmental organizations, Parliamentarians, and engaged citizens to contribute. We will also consult with allies and partners, and with other federal departments and agencies, whose input will be essential to ensuring a coherent, coordinated approach. A credible, realistic, and evidence-based review of defence policy will ensure that the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces are able to deliver results for Canadians in the years to come.

.

[Army Guy]

Clearly this is an attempt to do what is popular instead of what is best for the nation.....it shows the lack of leadership on the current Government , one that is faced with some tough choices it does not want to make, and is delegating those choices to the public so they do not have to look bad.....

all this survey will show is the lack of understanding and knowledge by the common laypersons of our current military and everything it is asked to accomplish. if they really wanted to get a transparent picture it would describe in detail what those missions are, what the current state of the military is and what costs will be to fix it....

One could hardly expect anything good to come from this survey, as there are to many other more serious issues according to most Canadians such as health care and education, I guess we will be seeing a survey on those topics soon.....but I doubt it....

Making decisions on important matters through public opinion is just bat shit crazy.....and if that is the new direction then why even have elected officials we could replace them all by one IT guy and a creative writer, and run the country that way.....that would be interesting would it not.....