Liberals party defence review

[Argus]

And we don't have a lot of need for them. I propose a fighting force that would allow us to deploy 1000 people at once, if needed. Equip them well.

That would put us behind Lithuania in military capabilities.

[Argus]

So, it's because of me, calling for a bigger air force that we have a small airforce?

It is because of liberals like you who disdain the military and whose short sighteness thinks that we'll have plenty of time to build up a military from nothing should the need arise.

And stop saying you want a bigger air force. You clearly do not. You're simply playing games.

[Argus]

Actually, that's not what - I - would like. I propose that we buy 40 Super Hornets and stand up a 3rd squadron of 24 combat aircraft. When the F-35 is combat ready, in ~2022, we can replace our 80 Hornets with 80 of them. If shrinking the army doesn't pay for all of that, I then would be okay with increasing the budget to cover the shortfall.

We can't afford to field two different kinds of aircraft, and certainly not to buy ones that are supposed to be thrown away in five years.

And the land forces are the cheapest to equip and field. The air force and navy are far and away more expensive, and pretty much useless for any national emergency.

[Argus]

Until you acknowledge that we spend the 16th most in the world, I won't acknowledge anything.

Would you like me to acknowledge that's it can get hot in summer here? That's as relevant as your continuous claims about how much we spend on salaries, pensions and hyper expensive military gear.

[Smallc]

That would put us behind Lithuania in military capabilities.

Defending Canada from external threats doesn't require a large army.

I would also move SAR out of both the CCG and the air force, and create a separate organization tasked with HUSAR, USAR, GSAR, air SAR and water SAR. It would be expensive, but I think it's important.

[Argus]

In terms of population density, we're one of the least populated countries on the planet. You expect a lot of people in the north. That isn't realistic.

And this is relevant to the discussion how?

[Smallc]

We can't afford to field two different kinds of aircraft, and certainly not to buy ones that are supposed to be thrown away in five years.

And the land forces are the cheapest to equip and field. The air force and navy are far and away more expensive, and pretty much useless for any national emergency.

The only threats to Canada's sovereignty are external.

Most of our budget is in personnel. Cutting 10,000 people and 5,000 HQ staff would save a lot of money. It would allow us to do for the air force what I'm talking about.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Smallc

[Argus]

Good luck to them in trying.

Yeah, they'd never find any angry, resentful natives or Muslims. How could they?

[Smallc]

And this is relevant to the discussion how?

We were talking about bases in the north. In Canada's context, that's not realistic.

[Smallc]

Yeah, they'd never find any angry, resentful natives or Muslims. How could they?

That were willing to work for them instead. Good luck.

[Argus]

Defending Canada from external threats doesn't require a large army

And you can't foresee internal threats or any other sort of national emergency like flooding that the military would be needed for.

Nor do you seem much interested in us fulfilling either our NATO requirements or engaging with the UN in any way.

[Smallc]

It is because of liberals like you who disdain the military and whose short sighteness thinks that we'll have plenty of time to build up a military from nothing should the need arise.

And stop saying you want a bigger air force. You clearly do not. You're simply playing games.

I used to call for 2% of GDP being spent. I now don't see the value in that. I think another ~$5B a year would allow us to keep a capable modern force. With a smaller army, our current budget would be enough.

[Argus]

That were willing to work for them instead. Good luck.

Because they would immediately identify themselves as Russian agents. Uh huh.

[Wilber]

We were talking about bases in the north. In Canada's context, that's not realistic.

Not bases, one base.

[Smallc]

And you can't foresee internal threats or any other sort of national emergency like flooding that the military would be needed for.

Nor do you seem much interested in us fulfilling either our NATO requirements or engaging with the UN in any way.

I don't see much need for external army usage, no. There's not much that 1000 people couldn't handle within Canada,

[Smallc]

I don't see much need for external army usage, no. There's not much that 1000 people couldn't handle within Canada,

And of course, in a national emergency, you'd be able to deploy about 2000 for a length of time, just as we can deploy more than 3000 in Canada now.

[Wilber]

I don't see much need for external army usage, no. There's not much that 1000 people couldn't handle within Canada,

Where would you base them and what kind of equipment would they have? You want an army with no engineering capacity? What use would they be in civil emergencies?

[Big Guy]

They are still considered threats to our national security are they not ? And your right they are not strictly handled by the military, but rather by a group of depts., all working together which form Canada's domestic anti terrorist team....they include DND, RCMP, CSIS, border services, and the list goes on.

You guys seem to have short memories, Russia poses more of a threat than to just our Artic sov, what about it's involvement in the Ukraine, or other Baltic states. threats to the EU, or NATO countries also involve Canada....lets not forget our NATO obligations and all those treaties that have our signature on them.....Their control of oil could and has been used as a wpn or means to hurt other countries as well.

But Russia is not the only boogie man out there China is becoming more aggressive, to the point most of NATO countires are placing more emphases on their Pacific regions, not to mention Cyber attacks, massive exported crime organizations, involved not only in drugs, but people trafficking, etc etc ....You can role your eyes but as I have said before our military supports these types of operations as well....along with a long list of other domestic taskings....

along with all the other global countries that are not listed here, That are Canada's threat list or watch list for various reason....but hey there are no threats to Canada or to its foreign interests.....none....nothing to worry about....

Please do not include the Baltic states with the Crimea. I fully understand and agree with the Russian involvement in the Crimea. That part of the Ukraine had voted about 90% for the pro-Russian candidate for president. He won but those in Kiev rebelled and threw him out, not voted him out but threw him out. How is that for democracy?

They did not want what those folks in the Crimea wanted. The folks in Crimea appealed to the Kremlin with whom they had closer financial, philosophical and language ties. The rest is history. How many folks in the Crimea are crying for "liberation" from Russia?

The Baltic States are a completely different package. The majority of the folks there do not want assimilation with Russia and I believe that Putin has no interest in them - except if the West decides to base nuclear missiles there. Then, there might be problems.

Those 1,000 Canadian soldiers we send to the Baltic states will have a good time taking advantage of the beaches and good will of the people there. NATO will be happy rattling swords that are not needed but only a political band aid to cover their (our) bungling in Europe.

Putin is only the "BOGGY MAN" and threat that the Americans want us to believe.

The results of the next NATO summit will be interesting.

[Army Guy]

I don't see much need for external army usage, no. There's not much that 1000 people couldn't handle within Canada,

Where do you get all this shit....

FLQ crises took almost the entire Army , back in the day when the armed forces was over 100K strong....

OKA seen most of 2 brigade deployed....

Winnipeg floods, remember them the most of the 1 st, 2 and brigades, portions of 5 th Brigade groups deployed along with 1000's from the Navy and Air force....not to mention how many reserves got deployed....And those numbers were not enough....

Ice Storm, Seen all of 2 Brigade,5 th Brigade and thousands of reserve troops deployed....At the time both brigades numberd around 6000 each....

[Peter F]

Really? During WW 2, when Canada had less than a third its present population, we had a million men under arms.

and do you think Canada could sustain for all time 1 million people under arms?

[Smallc]

Where do you get all this shit....

FLQ crises took almost the entire Army , back in the day when the armed forces was over 100K strong....

OKA seen most of 2 brigade deployed....

Winnipeg floods, remember them the most of the 1 st, 2 and brigades, portions of 5 th Brigade groups deployed along with 1000's from the Navy and Air force....not to mention how many reserves got deployed....And those numbers were not enough....

Ice Storm, Seen all of 2 Brigade,5 th Brigade and thousands of reserve troops deployed....At the time both brigades numberd around 6000 each....

And that's why I call for organizations to be developed that are better equipped for national emergencies. You wouldn't see the army at an Oka or FLQ situation anymore.

[Wilber]

and do you think Canada could sustain for all time 1 million people under arms?

Lot of room between a thousand and a million.

[Peter F]

Lot of room between a thousand and a million.

Thats true and is the core of this entire thread. Argus' point was we did at one time have 1M under arms. and my counter point was yes - in WW2 when we thought they were absolutely necessary and there was no way in hell any government would continue to keep 1M under arms during peacetime.

for the sole reason of Budgets.

[Big Guy]

After about 600 posts it appears to me that the idea of going to the public about what the future of the Canadian armed forces should be is a good idea.

[Derek 2.0]

We are speaking of asserting our arctic sovereignty which only we can do, not reenacting the Cold War. NORAD has nothing to do with it.

No, my response was to smallc's suggestion of additional aircraft to protect Winnipeg............NORAD did away with specific sector defense over central North America decades ago, moving to the division of North America into five regions, East and West United States and Canada and Alaska.

The defense of our Arctic is very much so reenacting the Cold War (NORAD never stopped, but expanded to include missile defense and now maritime approaches)..........basing permanent fighters within the Arctic circle is unrealistic, the Americans base them as far north as Fairbanks.....the terminus of the Alaskan railroad........for a reason: Logistics and money....

Not to mention, basing interceptors so close to Russian airspace ( further North then our search radars, unless you want to move those too) would allow the Russians to launch standoff missiles at our airbases from within their own territory....forget air launched, they could pop off a couple battlefield IRBMs like a warmed over Scud or Frog, with only a few minutes reaction time, and that would be all she wrote.....the same reason the RAF didn't base their fighters along the Channel coast, or NATO (and the Warsaw Pact) didn't base theirs along the East-West German border.