Liberals party defence review

[Wilber]

You are being absurdist again. No one is calling for a million men in uniform. I simply pointed out that his suggestion Canada was incapable of anything more than a 'pittance' was wrong.

We put nearly 10% of our population in uniform during WW1.

[Smallc]

Radical right wing lone wolf attacks are a threat, as well as lone wolf radical Islamist attacks. Another threat to our national security is a concentrated indigenous uprising. There's all kinds of threats but what type of military force we need to address them is debatable. Consider that individual radical attacks ought to appropriately be addressed by police and intelligence services. It's disingenuous to consider those military threats. The only military on the planet that threatens us today is the Russian military over arctic sovereignty. Even that is a potential threat with very little activity at the moment.

That's what I meant - military threats. As you rightly say, the things you bring up are not really military threats, but threats for our security establishment to deal with.

[cybercoma]

That's what I meant - military threats. As you rightly say, the things you bring up are not really military threats, but threats for our security establishment to deal with.

Right. What I was driving at is that I think that's the distinction you're making but people are glossing over it.

[Argus]

I suggest that we drastically shrink the army, and focus more of our resources on the navy and airforce.

The army is already smaller than the Toronto Police Service in terms of actual infantrymen.

[Argus]

Well, for starters, we don't have air assets to protect Winnipeg or Quebec City, the 7th and 8th largest cities in the country, if continuous air patrols are required.

We don't have air assets because of liberals like you. If it were up to me we'd have those assets.

[Argus]

That's why I'm saying we should have another squadron of fighters - because I'm not.

You want us to buy the cheapo F18. I want us to buy the best aircraft around, and I want the same numbers as we purchased of F18s - about 125.

[Argus]

I'd rather submarines if we're going to spend a lot of money.

We have none of them either, at least none capable of going up to the arctic. We'd need nuclear subs for that, and they aren't cheap.

[Argus]

37th in what? Canada spends the 16th most in the world.

In size of population. You said we were a little country. I replied that we are the 37th largest out of about 175 nations.

[Argus]

Not a lot of ethnic Russians in Canada. That's where the problems have generally come from.

Do you think they care which ethnic group they fund if they want to make trouble?

[Argus]

Yes, they're going to throw out the country that spends one of the highest totals in their organization.

Just stop, okay. You clearly outright refuse to address the point I have made several times now about where all that money goes, so just concede that we've been cheaping our for years, with lousy, rusting out equipment and a tiny field force. We can field maybe 3500 men, though half of them wouldn't have equipment, and you want to cut that in half. Stop even pretending you give a damn about defense or the military.

[Smallc]

The army is already smaller than the Toronto Police Service in terms of actual infantrymen.

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.

[Smallc]

We don't have air assets because of liberals like you. If it were up to me we'd have those assets.

So, it's because of me, calling for a bigger air force that we have a small airforce? The Conservatives left us with no air to ground defense, and got rid of the TOW missiles that they bought only three years ago, leaving us without a tank defense (besides our tanks). Apparently we maybe have TOW missiles again. No one is sure.

[Wilber]

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.

So would you expect them to stay in the field indefinitely with no replacements?

[Smallc]

You want us to buy the cheapo F18. I want us to buy the best aircraft around, and I want the same numbers as we purchased of F18s - about 125.

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.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

So would you expect them to stay in the field indefinitely with no replacements?

Right now, we can deploy a continuous force of about 3000 people, as we saw in Afghanistan. I'm proposing that we have the ability to deploy 1000 people continuously, and equip them with what they need.

[Smallc]

Just stop, okay. You clearly outright refuse to address the point I have made several times now about where all that money goes, so just concede that we've been cheaping our for years, with lousy, rusting out equipment and a tiny field force. We can field maybe 3500 men, though half of them wouldn't have equipment, and you want to cut that in half. Stop even pretending you give a damn about defense or the military.

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

[Smallc]

In size of population. You said we were a little country. I replied that we are the 37th largest out of about 175 nations.

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.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Do you think they care which ethnic group they fund if they want to make trouble?

Good luck to them in trying.

[Smallc]

We have none of them either, at least none capable of going up to the arctic. We'd need nuclear subs for that, and they aren't cheap.

That's what I said - if we're going to spend a bunch of money, which you would like, I'd rather see 3 - 5 under ice capable subs.

[Wilber]

That's what I said - if we're going to spend a bunch of money, which you would like, I'd rather see 3 - 5 under ice capable subs.

That could be part of it but you would be looking at around 2 billion a copy. Leasing might be an option. Also you can't expect territorial claims to be taken seriously without physically occupying it.

[Smallc]

That could be part of it but you would be looking at around 2 billion a copy. Leasing might be an option. Also you can't expect territorial claims to be taken seriously without physically occupying it.

And I think that the CCG icebreaker fleet should be replaced in whole. That coupled with the AOPS and udner ice capable subs would be a great use of $20B. More fighter jets for more frequent forward basing on the coast and the north would also do a lot of good.

[dre]

If we are worried about keeping the arctic money would be better spent on developing it. Encourage mining and resource communities, etc.

[Smallc]

If we are worried about keeping the arctic money would be better spent on developing it. Encourage mining and resource communities, etc.

We still need to be able to offer a credible defense of it. We should stop spending money on foreign adventures and focus on Canada.

[Army Guy]

Radical right wing lone wolf attacks are a threat, as well as lone wolf radical Islamist attacks. Another threat to our national security is a concentrated indigenous uprising. There's all kinds of threats but what type of military force we need to address them is debatable. Consider that individual radical attacks ought to appropriately be addressed by police and intelligence services. It's disingenuous to consider those military threats. The only military on the planet that threatens us today is the Russian military over arctic sovereignty. Even that is a potential threat with very little activity at the moment.

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....

[Argus]

d

Edited July 5, 2016 by Argus