Liberals party defence review

[Wilber]

The odd time, when we've had to intercept an airliner of the west coast, I believe we've used it as a forward operating location (even though it isn't officially one). We've done the same with Goose Bay. Officially, we have 4 in the arctic - Inuvik, Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit.

Comox isn't relevant when it comes to the arctic, Goose Bay could be and is a NATO training base. Yellowknife and Iqaluit could be but you would have to put the facilities there. The are all a long way south. Resolute is the most central to cover the whole area.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Iqaluit is the most northerly of our suitable airports but it is on the eastern edge of our arctic.

[Smallc]

Comox isn't relevant when it comes to the arctic, Goose Bay could be and is a NATO training base. Yellowknife and Iqaluit could be but you would have to put the facilities there.

I was talking about a perimeter. As for Yellowknife and Iqaluit, there are already forward operating facilities there. Those forward operating bases are behind the radar line, which would mean they have warning of anything incoming.

The are all a long way south. Resolute is the most central to cover the whole area.

But it's not a very defensible position, due to a lack of radar coverage.

[Wilber]

But it's not a very defensible position, due to a lack of radar coverage.

I didn't suggest Resolute, our military did. Tell that to them.

I don't care but if we want other countries to take our arctic claims seriously, we better start doing so ourselves.

[Derek 2.0]

The Americans are. It's 500 miles from Eielson to Deadhorse. It's 2000 from Cold Lake to Alert.

Eielson is at a railhead and in central Alaska, granting an allowance of raid warning........and this is why the Americans withdrew and closed Marks AFB in Nome and stopped basing interceptors in Galena........

[Derek 2.0]

And we have F-18s. I wasn't talking about air assets.

You brought up, incorrectly, torpedo armed helicopters........clearly if the Russians are intent on sinking a Canadian vessels in the North they can do so at their choosing.

[Derek 2.0]

I was actually talking about using our current FOBs - Inuvik, Iqaluit, Goose Bay, Comox, etc, and having air assets there all the time.

Why, there is no need? If the Russians started building Blackjacks by the hundreds, maybe, but even still, there was no requirement during the later stages of the Cold War when they actually had regiments of bombers............trigonometry and algebra are on NORAD's side.

[Wilber]

Eielson is at a railhead and in central Alaska, granting an allowance of raid warning........and this is why the Americans withdrew and closed Marks AFB in Nome and stopped basing interceptors in Galena........

Eielson is still 1500 miles closer to their territorial limit than Cold Lake is to ours. It's also a hell of a lot closer to Russian airspace.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Wilber

[Wilber]

With Eielson Wainwright and Elmendorf Richardson it's just nuts to say the US doesn't have major assets within striking distance of Russian air power.

[Derek 2.0]

Eielson is still 1500 miles closer to their territorial limit than Cold Lake is to ours. It's also a hell of a lot closer to Russian airspace.

You're all over the place......remember, you're comparing Eielson to Resolute....get your goal posts sorted out.

And again, forget what I'm saying, pretend I know nothing........if your rush of crap to the brain was such a wonderful idea.......why isn't anyone doing it, nor have done it in the past? You know something the collective minds in NORAD have been overlooking since the 50s?

[Derek 2.0]

With Eielson Wainwright and Elmendorf Richardson it's just nuts to say the US doesn't have major assets within striking distance of Russian air power.

They don't, and withdrew to Eielson and Elmendorf (and closed bases closer to Russia)because they both offer raid warning to fighters based there, and are connected to highways and rail............unlike Resolute.

[Wilber]

You're all over the place......remember, you're comparing Eielson to Resolute....get your goal posts sorted out.

And again, forget what I'm saying, pretend I know nothing........if your rush of crap to the brain was such a wonderful idea.......why isn't anyone doing it, nor have done it in the past? You know something the collective minds in NORAD have been overlooking since the 50s?

You are the one saying Resolute is too close to Russia. It is at least twice as far as Eielson. I'm not the one who is all over the place. Anyway, it was our own defence department that suggested Resolute so tell them they are full of crap.

[Derek 2.0]

You are the one saying Resolute is too close to Russia. It is at least twice as far as Eielson. I'm not the one who is all over the place. Anyway, it was our own defence department that suggested Resolute so tell them they are full of crap.

My god man, look at a friggen globe of the World!!!!!!

[Wilber]

They don't, and withdrew to Eielson and Elmendorf (and closed bases closer to Russia)because they both offer raid warning to fighters based there, and are connected to highways and rail............unlike Resolute.

They don't, and withdrew to Eielson and Elmendorf (and closed bases closer to Russia)because they both offer raid warning to fighters based there, and are connected to highways and rail............unlike Resolute.

Highways and rail through Canada. It takes about a week to drive from Seattle to Anchorage.

[Wilber]

My god man, look at a friggen globe of the World!!!!!!

For fucks sake I have flown right over the pole twice.

[Derek 2.0]

Highways and rail through Canada. It takes about a week to drive from Seattle to Anchorage.

Not to the Arctic

[Derek 2.0]

For fucks sake I have flown right over the pole twice.

As a passenger?

The Russian Bomber force is based here......draw a line to Resolute and Fairbanks over the pole.

[Wilber]

As a passenger?

No, and I've had enough of your crap.

[?Impact]

The Russian Bomber force is based here......draw a line to Resolute and Fairbanks over the pole.

Alert - 2,900 miles (great circle route) across northern Greenland

Resolute - 3,500 miles (great circle route) across northern Greenland

Gander - 4,100 miles (great circle route) south of Iceland

Fairbanks - 4,300 miles (great circle route) over the pole

Eielson - 4,400 miles (great circle route) over the pole

Elemdorf - 4,600 miles (great circle route) over the pole

Edited July 6, 2016 by ?Impact

[Derek 2.0]

No, and I've had enough of your crap.

There is no crap, but an understanding of the globe, where the Russians base and forward base what and how NORAD has operated since its inception.......like I said, assume my posts are pure conjectured filled crap..........why does historic and present day factual evidence align with what I'm saying and not with what you're saying?

Do you really think the RCAF and USAF (via NORAD) overlooked your suggestions on how best to defend North America? I'm mean, during the peak of the Cold War, which also included the period of when the Russians deployed their first supersonic strategic bombers and nuclear tipped cruise missiles, for some reason NORAD no longer saw fit to base assets along the peripheral of North America........and now they've got even faster bombers and missiles, with even longer ranges, and you now think its prudent to base aircraft in the high Arctic?

If you want Canadian Arctic sovereignty develop and invest in it for civilian pursuits..........not piss away a fortune on ineffective and unneeded defense measures.

[Wilber]

Alert - 2,900 miles (great circle route) across northern Greenland

Resolute - 3,500 miles (great circle route) across northern Greenland

Gander - 4,100 miles (great circle route) south of Iceland

Fairbanks - 4,300 miles (great circle route) over the pole

Eielson - 4,400 miles (great circle route) over the pole

Elemdorf - 4,600 miles (great circle route) over the pole

Combined civil and military airport. Anadyr. Eastern Siberia. 11,500 ft long runway.

873 NM from Fairbanks. Someone else needs to look at a map. Flown over that a few times as well. Not as a passenger.

[Argus]

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

And your expertise in this area is derived from your extensive training and military experience?

Edited July 6, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

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

If it needed to. It sustained it then with one third the population.

I'm not saying it needs to. But to suggest that we can't provide a robust defense of Canada within our means is wrong.

[Argus]

It's not really fair to say we do nothing. We have a ship under construction (the first of at least five) to show our flag.

As long as there's nice weather, you mean.

[Argus]

Their training changed directly as a result of those incidents.

Police are neither trained nor equipped to engage in large scale armed confrontations. They have some nifty swat teams but when you start talking about hundreds of armed people using the cops is likely to lead to a wild, bloody shootout. In all likelihood Oka was resolved peacefully once the army got there because the natives knew they'd be slaughtered if they went up against them. That would not have been the case with the police. The natives were armed with automatic weapons, including heavy machineguns, grenades and rocket launchers.

Because that organization (the military) shouldn't try to be all things to all people. If we strip away some of their other duties, and leave them with their current budget, whilst spending new money on the new organizations, I think it would be far more politically palatable.

So instead of using the military, which is already trained and available, to do things like this, we should have them sit on their asses doing nothing during a crisis, and instead pay for other organizations to respond to it?

Edited July 6, 2016 by Argus