Wilber Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 There are no credible threats to Canada. Show me some. When you do see one, what would you do about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 I already said that I can't ensure this old house and ever hope to get paid. Show me a credible threat. I have life insurance, and insurance on my business (even though I believe insurance is a scam in general. So your life and company are worth insuring but your country isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 When you do see one, what would you do about it? Show it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 So your life and company are worth insuring but your country isn't. Our country is ensured commiserate to the level of risk - almost none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 Our country is ensured commiserate to the level of risk - almost none. There's that crystal ball again. Nothing in this country that anyone would covet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 There's that crystal ball again. Nothing in this country that anyone would covet. You're the one that compared it to insurance. Insurance is all about risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) The purpose of an armed force is to defend the realm against any threat. Using the Swiss model, pre 1989, Canada could field five million members. Canada also has the technical ability to build and deploy ERD's (enhanced radiation devices aka 'neutron bombs'). The problem is not whether we can defend Canada, but whether Canadians want to. The answer is clearly no. Even the Canadian Alliance Party had no stomach to propose a defence of Canada because Canadian voters do not want conscription nor do they want to pay for our defence. The naval assets alone are enormous. The airforce upgrade is even greater. If we are not willing to pay for our own defence, why are we wasting billions of dollars for a token. Edited July 4, 2016 by Queenmandy85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) So your life and company are worth insuring but your country isn't. If you add up the many billions we spend on the Canadian Forces, RCMP, CSIS, Coast Guard, Border Security, and countless other organizations involved in defending Canada, that is a sizable insurance premium we are already paying. I have seen little call for it to be reduced, just a great loud shouting to increase it. Edited July 4, 2016 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 You're the one that compared it to insurance. Insurance is all about risk. And you are the expert on risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 Even those who know and care nothing about the military or world realities, and only want more money spent on welfare. WTF are you talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) If you add up the many billions we spend on the Canadian Forces, RCMP, CSIS, Coast Guard, Border Security, and countless other organizations involved in defending Canada, that is a sizable insurance premium we are already paying. I have seen little call for it to be reduced, just a great loud shouting to increase it. Only the Canadian forces could deal with a military threat. Our Coast Guard ships aren't even armed and is a part of Fisheries and Oceans. Unlike armed coast guards of some other nations, the CCG is a government marine organization with no naval or law enforcement responsibilities. Naval operations in Canada's maritime environment are exclusively the responsibility of the Royal Canadian Navy. Enforcement of Canada's maritime-related federal statutes may be carried out by peace officers serving with various federal, provincial or even municipal law enforcement agencies. Edited July 4, 2016 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 And you are the expert on risk. No one has yet shown me a credible threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 No one has yet shown me a credible threat. When one arises, it will be too late. You will be screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Show it to me.Our sovereignty in the Arctic is being challenged by Russia. Do you consider that a threat? I believe it's a particularly troubling one since the United States will not back us on it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) .thanks for the answer; however, I'll ask for a re-do... one in which you shelve your dreams/wants/aspirations for Canada's "force projection" upon..... upon... who/what? Drop that "force projection" nonsense ("influential blue-water navy", oh my!), get a grasp on fiscal realities... and try again! Focus on domestic, sure you can! . My proposal, with regards to funding (as I stated, but you did not quote) could be achieved ~within our current annual funding, +/- procurement dollars and costs of any future deployments. Currently, ~60-70% of DND's annual funding goes towards costs associated with personal, ergo, you reduce the number of regular force personal in the army there would a substantial savings within the department.......which would be offset by increased funding for the army reserve (along the lines of the US National Guard systems) and with increased operational costs to both the RCN and RCAF. A "Blue Water navy" is what we've had since the Second World War, diminished with recent forced retirements presently, and is doable within our current framework as outlined above. "Power/Force projection" is a political question, with regards to our navy, and has been used by the GoC since St Laurent and all Governments since.....renewing what we currently have and a modest expansion of capability is not out of line of what we've done historically and is fully within the bounds of realism, especially as we move forward into the 21st century. With regards to "domestic", the very nature of our three coastlines and ocean approaches necessitates a "blue water" ocean going force......likewise, with the above capability increase as mentioned above, the GoC would not only be better able to address future conflicts, but short term humanitarian/disaster response (including domestic disaster), evacuating Canadians overseas and contending with overseas hostage situations involving Canadian citizens. Going forward, reducing the size and capability of our regular force (mechanized) army (with keeping a smaller dedicated regular force, expanded if required with the use of reserves), in favor of a smaller (lighter) army, well expanding the navy and air force, is also a better reflection of the forces used by the GoC on international missions that are supported by the majority of the public. Edited July 5, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Are you willing to spend $100B per year? Don't be absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Our sovereignty in the Arctic is being challenged by Russia. Do you consider that a threat? I believe it's a particularly troubling one since the United States will not back us on it either. As climate change makes the NWP a viable alternative to the Panama and Suez Canals for traffic between Asia and Eastern North America and Europe there will be all sorts of challenges in the arctic. The Chinese navy is now the second largest in the world and is increasingly flexing its muscles in the Eastern Pacific and South China Sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 There are no credible threats to Canada. Show me some. Okay Mr. Chamberlain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) As climate change makes the NWP a viable alternative to the Panama and Suez Canals for traffic between Asia and Eastern North America and Europe there will be all sorts of challenges in the arctic. The Chinese navy is now the second largest in the world and is increasingly flexing its muscles in the Eastern Pacific and South China Sea. They don't want to address that. Let me suggest that ten years from now, Russia decides to move on a huge oil field they find in waters we claim as ours. Why shouldn't they? We have no military up there. We go screaming like little bitches to the Americans. The Americans negotiate with the Russians and split the field between them. Then they turn to us and say "What? You want us to risk our soldiers lives, to spend billions and get people dead when you weren't willing to even pay enough to have a credible military deterrent? Sorry, not happening. We don't recognize your sovereignty over most of that territory anyway. If you give up the protection of your territory to someone else then you give up sovereignty. Period. Edited July 5, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 We just dropped out of the top 15 three years ago. We're somewhere in the top 20, I'd think. Because we pay our soldiers more than most countries in the world. I've already explained this to you and you've chosen to ignore it. We also pay two to three times what we need to for military equipment because it's more of an industrial incentive program and pork barrel political show than a military purchase. But high pay for soldiers and overpriced gear does not translate into military capability. We might be up there in terms of spending but we're definitely not up there in terms of military capability. To field the thousand men Trudeau has grandly offered the army is going to have to strip every other unit of equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Our sovereignty in the Arctic is being challenged by Russia. Do you consider that a threat? I believe it's a particularly troubling one since the United States will not back us on it either. It depends what we're talking about. If we're talking about the Northwest Passage, the US won't back us up, and to be honest, I think that we're wrong anyway. If we're talking about the landmass, the Us is definitely on our side there. I actually advocate for having a stronger self defense air fore, for this purpose. There should be Canadian jets permanently forward deployed to the North. I also think the AOPS will go a long way towards helping this. It's not about its ability to flight, but the ability to show the flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Don't be absurd. To properly defend against Russia we'd have to spend something in that range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Okay Mr. Chamberlain. Show me one then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 To properly defend against Russia we'd have to spend something in that range. Nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Nonsense. How is that nonsense? They spend almost that much money, and they don't pay people the way that we do. 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.