The_Squid Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 How is that nonsense? They spend almost that much money, and they don't pay people the way that we do. I guess some people think aircraft carriers and the like grow on trees.... Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 How is that nonsense? They spend almost that much money, and they don't pay people the way that we do. Because you don't have to match them, you just have to make it not worth the cost. NATO never tried to match the Warsaw Pact on quantity, it relied on quality. You can kill a porcupine with your bare hands but it will be extremely painful. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 I guess some people think aircraft carriers and the like grow on trees.... Why would we want aircraft carriers? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) Because you don't have to match them, you just have to make it not worth the cost. NATO never tried to match the Warsaw Pact on quantity, it relied on quality. You can kill a porcupine with your bare hands but it will be extremely painful. Which is why I advocate having a stronger airforce, and a navy at least equivalent to what we do now. We can do that with current planned funding and maybe slight increases. Edited July 5, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Which is why I advocate having a stronger airforce, and a navy at least equivalent to what we do now. We can do that with current planned funding and maybe slight increases. We will also need bases in arctic for them to operate from and boots on the ground. You can't claim and defend territory by remote. The Russians have bases closer to our high arctic than we do. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 We will also need bases in arctic for them to operate from and boots on the ground. You can't claim and defend territory by remote. The Russians have bases closer to our high arctic than we do. We have two stations in the high arctic. We also have a few forward operating bases. It is my belief that we should have aircraft pairs permanently stationed at the FOBs. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 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. Don't conflate U.S. interests and policies with being on Canada's "side". Any nation that refuses to invest in an adequate defense because of what the U.S. may or may not do has already relinquished sovereignty from a practical point of view. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 We have two stations in the high arctic. We also have a few forward operating bases. It is my belief that we should have aircraft pairs permanently stationed at the FOBs. To what end? There is no reason, other then emergencies, to base (or even land) fighters in the high Arctic........once you go further North then year round rail or roads, the cost of transporting fuel (and glycol) is prohibitive for no added benefit...forget weather conditions, that will ground said fighters for weeks on end, Yellowknife to the Western High Arctic is all of ~45 minutes flight time.... Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 We have two stations in the high arctic. We also have a few forward operating bases. It is my belief that we should have aircraft pairs permanently stationed at the FOBs. We have around 50 people at Alert, maybe 100 during the summer, the rest are just research stations. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 To what end? There is no reason, other then emergencies, to base (or even land) fighters in the high Arctic The only halfway credible threat to Canada is Russian intrusions in our arctic, as has been said. Quote
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 We have around 50 people at Alert, maybe 100 during the summer, the rest are just research stations. We're a small country. Quote
?Impact Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 We have around 50 people at Alert, maybe 100 during the summer, the rest are just research stations. I thought Eureka was also maintained by the Canadian Forces. Yes, both stations also have Environment Canada staff as well. Quote
Peter F Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Wilbur: As Argus mentioned, the Finns managed to stop a Soviet invasion in 1939, not because they could have won, but because the Soviets were finding the cost of winning to be too great. Point of Order - Finns did indeed stop the Soviet invasion in 1939 however they surrendered in 1940 after having their armies crushed by said Soviets. They had to give up a lot more than what the Soviets demanded in 1939. And in 1944 a lot more again. As Marshal Mannerhiem advised the Finnish government in 1939 in regards to soviet demands: What the Soviets want is not crucial to us but very important to them. Agree to the conditions. The government of the day refused his advice and in four months it was all over ... 70 thousand casualties, over 23 thousand dead. Finland lost - but the lessons were not learned and the Continuation War resulted. The lesson was learned in 1944: Do not fuck with the major power next door. But it sure was glorious wasn't it? Unless you were a Russian soldier - or a Finnish one . For an excellent book on the subject with a fascinating focus on the Finnish diplomatic efforts see: Finland Survived by Max Jacobsen. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Finland-Survived-Max-Jakobson/dp/0951080601?tag=duckduckgo-osx-uk-21 So lets not pretend the Finns won. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) I thought Eureka was also maintained by the Canadian Forces. Yes, both stations also have Environment Canada staff as well. I flew over Eureka many times, it ain't no military base no matter who is maintaining it. The airforce was looking at expanding Resolute to use for its operations but I don't know if that is still in the plans. Hope so. Other than that, Iqaluit and Cambridge are possibilities but further south and not as central. Regardless, quite a bit will have to be spent on infrastructure to make them bases capable of operating year round. And of course, you have to have something to base there. Edited July 5, 2016 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 The only halfway credible threat to Canada is Russian intrusions in our arctic, as has been said. So? That has been the case for nearly 70 years, yet didn't necessitate (absent a brief period in the 50s when aerial refueling was in its infancy) basing interceptors, piecemeal, throughout the high arctic. I would consider terrorism, unrestricted naval warfare, cyber threats, nuclear war, and aggression against allied states overseas, interdiction of sea lanes etc all as credible threats........outside of nuclear war, all threats that we've already faced and could very well face once again. Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Wilbur: Point of Order - Finns did indeed stop the Soviet invasion in 1939 however they surrendered in 1940 after having their armies crushed by said Soviets. They had to give up a lot more than what the Soviets demanded in 1939. And in 1944 a lot more again. As Marshal Mannerhiem advised the Finnish government in 1939 in regards to soviet demands: What the Soviets want is not crucial to us but very important to them. Agree to the conditions. The government of the day refused his advice and in four months it was all over ... 70 thousand casualties, over 23 thousand dead. Finland lost - but the lessons were not learned and the Continuation War resulted. The lesson was learned in 1944: Do not fuck with the major power next door. But it sure was glorious wasn't it? Unless you were a Russian soldier - or a Finnish one . For an excellent book on the subject with a fascinating focus on the Finnish diplomatic efforts see: Finland Survived by Max Jacobsen. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Finland-Survived-Max-Jakobson/dp/0951080601?tag=duckduckgo-osx-uk-21 So lets not pretend the Finns won. Never said Finland won but they were the only country bordering Russia that never became part of the Eastern Bloc. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 So? That has been the case for nearly 70 years, yet didn't necessitate (absent a brief period in the 50s when aerial refueling was in its infancy) basing interceptors, piecemeal, throughout the high arctic. In those days, the Arctic was never considered a target of its own, but buffer between the Soviet Union and southern Canada and the US. That is changing. Harder to defend your territory if your enemies have bases closer to it than you do. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 We have around 50 people at Alert, maybe 100 during the summer, the rest are just research stations. Not quite, there are still full time members in the Arctic, both military and civilian employees, maintaining the North Warning System in several locations........and of course the Rangers throughout each tiny hamlet. Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Not quite, there are still full time members in the Arctic, both military and civilian employees, maintaining the North Warning System in several locations........and of course the Rangers throughout each tiny hamlet. I know there are but they aren't any kind of combat presence and the facilities aren't there to operate one. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Peter F Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Who claims Stalin wanted them as part of the Eastern Bloc? Nobody - not even Stalin. But inevitably they gave up a sizeable portion of their sovereignty. It even got a word invented: Finlandization. No words invented to cover Canada's relationship with the USofA - no need to because Finlandization already is used to describe the exact same thing. Point being - Cowtow to the powers next door or say goodbye to your sovereignty. Finland Kowtowed as does Canada and those major powers allow us to exist. Point being in relation to this thread. There is only one power we need be worried about and that is the Super-power to our south. Just like Finland we can have ourselves a glorious Batoche or actually three or four Batoches scattered around southern Canada and if we are really lucky we might even embarrass an invader for a day or two but there is no way in hell we can successfully stop an invader of the first rank. We can certainly die trying though. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Derek 2.0 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 I flew over Eureka many times, it ain't no military base no matter who is maintaining it. The airforce was looking at expanding Resolute to use for its operations but I don't know if that is still in the plans. Hope so. Other than that, Iqaluit and Cambridge are possibilities but further south and not as central. Regardless, quite a bit will have to be spent on infrastructure to make them bases capable of operating year round. And of course, you have to have something to base there. Cambridge Bay has full time staff that maintain the Western Canadian Arctic radar sites, and they operate year round.........but you're right, everything is a fortune up there, like $8 for a can of Coke fortune.......in the Western Arctic, North of Yellowknife everything is VFR and gravel........there is no reason to base interceptors next to their search radars...... Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) Who claims Stalin wanted them as part of the Eastern Bloc? Nobody - not even Stalin. But inevitably they gave up a sizeable portion of their sovereignty. It even got a word invented: Finlandization. No words invented to cover Canada's relationship with the USofA - no need to because Finlandization already is used to describe the exact same thing. Point being - Cowtow to the powers next door or say goodbye to your sovereignty. Finland Kowtowed as does Canada and those major powers allow us to exist. Point being in relation to this thread. There is only one power we need be worried about and that is the Super-power to our south. Just like Finland we can have ourselves a glorious Batoche or actually three or four Batoches scattered around southern Canada and if we are really lucky we might even embarrass an invader for a day or two but there is no way in hell we can successfully stop an invader of the first rank. We can certainly die trying though. Then everyone should give up their military except the US, Russia and China. Edited July 5, 2016 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 I know there are but they aren't any kind of combat presence and the facilities aren't there to operate one. Cambridge Bay has a surplus of facilities left over from DEW, probably could fit an infantry company without the staff there knowing, what is lacking is a reason to. Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Cambridge Bay has full time staff that maintain the Western Canadian Arctic radar sites, and they operate year round.........but you're right, everything is a fortune up there, like $8 for a can of Coke fortune.......in the Western Arctic, North of Yellowknife everything is VFR and gravel........there is no reason to base interceptors next to their search radars...... No, but there is a need to intercept incoming aircraft before they are five hundred miles into your airspace. Our fighters are based way to far south to provide a timely presence in the arctic, they are based in places intended to defend southern Canada, not northern Canada. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Peter F Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Then everyone should give up their military except the US, Russia and China. Not at all. Vietnam borders on Cambodia; France borders on Germany and Spain and Italy; Germany borders on Poland and Austria; Agentina borders on Chile. South Africa borders on Zimbabwe; Iraq borders on Iran etc etc. But Canada does not border on Mexico or anybody else except for good ol USofA. We aren't going to go to war over Russian oil fields in an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean. We could not possibly succeed! UNLESS the USofA commits its forces. That is a reality. Even in Granatstiens wildest CAF fantasies we could field a mere pittance in the Arctic compared to what the Ruski's are conceivably capable of. A Pittance. Our only hope of staving off the seizure of our vast north - or even a part of it for that matter - is not to rely on our tiny military but on diplomacy Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
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.