Wasting Canadian Blood and Treasure

[Derek 2.0]

I can't control the sources (both of which are Post Media, btw). I can only tell you what is reported.

You can control sources that you cite

The video shows NATO training. It had nothing to do with what you state.

The video shows Canadian Forces members training with TOW 2 missiles purchased by the Harper government.....earlier this year, before this Government put them in storage.

[Smallc]

Exactly, and further to that, even with the newer wireless TOW missiles, the TOW system is a big expensive missile with a smallish warhead and optically guidance........most NATO forces were replacing/supplementing their TOW inventories in the 1980s.......

Right and most modern systems have a larger warhead, cheaper production, a far smaller launcher and are fire & forget.......with the American Javelin system they also have the option of a "top attack" flight profile

Ahhh, so does TOW 2B

The point remains, if the Trudeau government is going to send Canadians to Europe to defend our allies against the Russian hordes, he'd best equip said Canadians with what they would need to actually defend against said Russians

And yet nothing from you when we were on baltic air policing missions with aircraft outclassed by the Russians, or sending pre FELEX (obsolete) frigates into the black sea under the previous government.

.....an even if he did purchase modern anti-tank missiles, that is merely a drop in the bucket.....how about sel-propelled artillery including an MLRS? Air defense systems? Tracked IFVs? How about withdrawing from the land mine treaty? etc etc

Trudeau is "whipping out the Canadian army".....the problem, he's waving a two-inch-Grinch at Putin......

Like Harper was any different.

[Smallc]

You can control sources that you cite

Post Media is a trusted source. They were quoting the Department of National Defence in both cases.

The video shows Canadian Forces members training with TOW 2 missiles purchased by the Harper government.....earlier this year, before this Government put them in storage.

They weren't put in storage earlier this year. Show me when that happened. They were put into storage as a result of post 2009 cuts.

[Derek 2.0]

Post Media is a trusted source. They were quoting the Department of National Defence in both cases.

Perhaps to you.......one of your "sources" suggest Harper sold off the TOWs, another they are coming out of storage.....

They weren't put in storage earlier this year. Show me when that happened. They were put into storage as a result of post 2009 cuts.

I did, I provided evidence of the Canadian army using them earlier this year........the TOWs weren't stored in 2009, they were being used in Afghanistan to grape hole buildings.

[Derek 2.0]

Ahhh, so does TOW 2B

So? For some reason, there have been several generations of anti-tank missiles developed since TOW.

And yet nothing from you when we were on baltic air policing missions with aircraft outclassed by the Russians, or sending pre FELEX (obsolete) frigates into the black sea under the previous government.

Apples to oranges, outclassed aircraft and ships can be withdrawn within hours in the advent of hostilities......not so much for land forces in Eastern Europe.

Like Harper was any different.

He was, I don't remember Harper sending forces overseas under-equipped to do their jobs, in the case of Afghanistan, the Tories even purchased and deployed new equipment straight into the field to address operational needs.....no indication that the Trudeau government has such plans.

[Smallc]

So? For some reason, there have been several generations of anti-tank missiles developed since TOW.

And it's still regarded as one of the best in the world.

Apples to oranges, outclassed aircraft and ships can be withdrawn within hours in the advent of hostilities......not so much for land forces in Eastern Europe.

Apples to oranges, of course. He was Conservative, after all.

He was, I don't remember Harper sending forces overseas under-equipped to do their jobs, in the case of Afghanistan, the Tories even purchased and deployed new equipment straight into the field to address operational needs.....no indication that the Trudeau government has such plans.

Only when we knew we needed them. We aren't even there for another year.

[Smallc]

Perhaps to you.......one of your "sources" suggest Harper sold off the TOWs, another they are coming out of storage.....

Like I said - both reliable sources, both quoting DND.

I did, I provided evidence of the Canadian army using them earlier this year........the TOWs weren't stored in 2009, they were being used in Afghanistan to grape hole buildings.

Didn't say they went into storage in 2009 - I said they went into storage because of post 2009 cuts. They weren't put into storage this year.

[Big Guy]

The reality of all this is there is no existential threat to Canada. There's no pressing need for more money to be spent on war.

I agree. It is in the interests of the military to support the idea of an existing threat so that the government can be pressured to spend money in that direction rather than on foreign affairs. When foreign affairs and diplomacy fails that is when a military is required.

At this point in time, Canada is not threatened by any major power. We are involved in a civil war where our chosen adversary cannot shoot down an airplane and we are told to "fight them there or fight them here". The only battles we are having here is with the odd crazy who thinks a rifle is his response to the bombings that are taking place in Iraq and Syria.

[Bonam]

We could double our defence spending and it wouldn't defend us from Russia.

It would if the extra spending was used to develop and deploy a credible nuclear deterrent, which is the only defense that really matters. Nuclear weapons are the only defensive weapons, because they deter aggression. All other weapons are tools to meddle in other parts of the world as part of the "global war on terror".

[Argus]

We could double our defence spending and it wouldn't defend us from Russia.

The idea isn't to have sufficient military strength to defeat Russia. The idea is to have sufficient military strength to deter Russia. The two are not synonymous. Russia instigated that mess in Ukraine because it knew the Ukrainian military was under equipped, under trained, and under sized, and that it face no real opposition. The same goes for Georgia. Why shouldn't they just walk in and take what they want if nobody even bothers to put a lock on the door?

[Wilber]

It would if the extra spending was used to develop and deploy a credible nuclear deterrent, which is the only defense that really matters. Nuclear weapons are the only defensive weapons, because they deter aggression. All other weapons are tools to meddle in other parts of the world as part of the "global war on terror".

That's like saying you will defend yourself by committing suicide. You have no other options. There aren't any countries with nukes that don't also have a substantial conventional capability. Threatening someone else with nukes invites a response in kind.

[Argus]

It would if the extra spending was used to develop and deploy a credible nuclear deterrent, which is the only defense that really matters. Nuclear weapons are the only defensive weapons, because they deter aggression. All other weapons are tools to meddle in other parts of the world as part of the "global war on terror".

I disagree. The Russians know that even if you have a few nukes you're not about to use them on them because, say, they decide to simply occupy some group of northern islands like the Chinese have done off the coast of the Philippines. Nobody is going to escalate to that extent over some northern territory. You need credible non-nuclear forces, not to stop them, but to make the taking inconvenient, expensive, and harder to justify to their population and the world.

[Wilber]

I disagree. The Russians know that even if you have a few nukes you're not about to use them on them because, say, they decide to simply occupy some group of northern islands like the Chinese have done off the coast of the Philippines. Nobody is going to escalate to that extent over some northern territory. You need credible non-nuclear forces, not to stop them, but to make the taking inconvenient, expensive, and harder to justify to their population and the world.

Exactly.

[Smallc]

And that's why we need to focus more resources on the air force and navy and shrink the army. The army will not deter Russia from violating Canada's territorial sovereignty.

[Derek 2.0]

And it's still regarded as one of the best in the world.

Is that why several generations of missiles have superceded it in its primary role?

Apples to oranges, of course. He was Conservative, after all.

No, because Harper didn't return conventional forces back to Europe in a role they are poorly equipped to do.

Only when we knew we needed them. We aren't even there for another year.

Let me know when Trudeau has properly outfitted the army for modern mechanized warfare..........

[Smallc]

No, because Harper didn't return conventional forces back to Europe in a role they are poorly equipped to do.

That's why we were the next choice after France - our poorly equipped forces.

The reality is, there isn't a force more battle hardened or more well equipped that could do this job that isn't already doing it, save for possibly Italy. Anything we're lacking will be brought by the other allies that will make up our battalion.

Let me know when Trudeau has properly outfitted the army for modern mechanized warfare..........

NATO isn't going in to a mechanized war. We've already been over this.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Like I said - both reliable sources, both quoting DND.

Sources that contradict each other.........how does one take out of storage what they already sold off?

Didn't say they went into storage in 2009 - I said they went into storage because of post 2009 cuts. They weren't put into storage this year.

Wait a minute.......I thought your other "source" stated Harper sold them..........

I cited a (visual) source from early this year, before the Liberals dicked around with the defense budget, in which our army is conducting training with the newest versions of the TOW (that Harper purchased).......you cited a source, quoting the army, that said missiles were put in storage.....so missiles not in storage, but being fired by Canadians in an exercise earlier this year, were sold off by Harper several years ago and the Trudeau Liberals just had the same missiles, sold by Harper, taken out of storage.......you don't see a problem with your chain if events?

[Smallc]

Sources that contradict each other.........how does one take out of storage what they already sold off?

Ask DND, not me.

Wait a minute.......I thought your other "source" stated Harper sold them..........

If you read the original Ottawa Citizen source, it says they were placed in storage 3 years after being bought, and later were sold. Apparently, there was some kind of miscommunication, as they weren't all sold.

I cited a (visual) source from early this year, before the Liberals dicked around with the defense budget, in which our army is conducting training with the newest versions of the TOW (that Harper purchased).......you cited a source, quoting the army, that said missiles were put in storage.....so missiles not in storage, but being fired by Canadians in an exercise earlier this year, were sold off by Harper several years ago and the Trudeau Liberals just had the same missiles, sold by Harper, taken out of storage.......you don't see a problem with your chain if events?

It's not my chain of events.

[Derek 2.0]

That's why we were the next choice after France - our poorly equipped forces.

We weren't the next choice after France.......that would be the Dutch and then the Danes......then Canada.

The reality is, there isn't a force more battle hardened or more well equipped that could do this job that isn't already doing it, save for possibly Italy. Anything we're lacking will be brought by the other allies that will make up our battalion.

When was the last time Canada fought in a mechanized war of mobility? I'll go with Holland and Italy in 1944-45.......

More well equipped? There are plenty of armies in NATO "more well equipped" then Canada, already in Europe.......And how do you know our other "partners" have the countless pieces of equipment that we lack and/or are bringing it with them?

NATO isn't going in to a mechanized war. We've already been over this.

It is if the Russian elect to we are...might not last long, but there you go.....several Russian tank armies (and countless reserve division) tend to counter your laughable claim

[Smallc]

We weren't the next choice after France.......that would be the Dutch and then the Danes......then Canada.

Citation?

When was the last time Canada fought in a mechanized war of mobility? I'll go with Holland and Italy in 1944-45.......

When was the last time...any NATO country did?

More well equipped? There are plenty of armies in NATO "more well equipped" then Canada, already in Europe.......And how do you know our other "partners" have the countless pieces of equipment that we lack and/or are bringing it with them?

Either they're more well equipped as you say, and have the equipment, or they're no better equipped than we are. You can't have that both ways. There are some capabilities that Canada lacks. Many of the smaller allies have some of them, like air defense and self propelled artillery. Other than the 5 countries that spend more than us, (I already mentioned them all) overall, there isn't a NATO country better prepared or equipped for war in a global force sense.

It is if the Russian elect to we are...might not last long, but there you go.....several Russian tank armies (and countless reserve division) tend to counter your laughable claim

We wouldn't be discussing low defence budgets and looking for just 4000 soldiers if it were a real concern. It isn't.

[Derek 2.0]

Ask DND, not me.

Yet you cited said claims........that make zero sense.

If you read the original Ottawa Citizen source, it says they were placed in storage 3 years after being bought, and later were sold. Apparently, there was some kind of miscommunication, as they weren't all sold.

Or your source was incorrect and in the real world, we sold surplus (to us) equipment to the Americans after having used it in Afghanistan and then stored it in Canada for several years.

It's not my chain of events.

Did you not cite a recent source that stated Canada is taking its inventory of TOW missile out of storage?

-THEN-

Did you not cite a dated source claiming Harper sold years ago all of said missiles?

[Derek 2.0]

Citation?

I already provided it in this thread.......you have a cite that Canada was the next choice after France?

When was the last time...any NATO country did?

2003......and 1991 before that.......in both cases, with plenty of NATO members better equipped for armored warfare then Canada.

Either they're more well equipped as you say, and have the equipment, or they're no better equipped than we are. You can't have that both ways. There are some capabilities that Canada lacks. Many of the smaller allies have some of them, like air defense and self propelled artillery. Other than the 5 countries that spend more than us, (I already mentioned them all) overall, there isn't a NATO country better prepared or equipped for war in a global force sense.

Ahh but I can "have it both ways".......who are our partners in our Command and what is their ORBAT?

[eyeball]

No, because Harper didn't return conventional forces back to Europe in a role they are poorly equipped to do.

Let me know when Trudeau has properly outfitted the army for modern mechanized warfare..........

What happened to all the nukes our side has? Who cares how many gazillion tanks Russia can throw into battle?

[?Impact]

What happened to all the nukes our side has?

With Theresa May, and the remote possibility of Donald Trump, we may yet see a nuclear war.

[Smallc]

I already provided it in this thread.......you have a cite that Canada was the next choice after France?

So you don't have a citation that they were in line before us? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-nato-latvia-france-1.3683945

2003......and 1991 before that.......in both cases, with plenty of NATO members better equipped for armored warfare then Canada.

So the United States is your only (poor) example? Name the better equipped members that are not included in the 5 I already listed. I'll give you Spain, as I forgot that they now spend less than us.

Ahh but I can "have it both ways".......who are our partners in our Command and what is their ORBAT?

We don't know that yet, however, from my like above:

Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, Poland, and a combined Portuguese and Spanish contingent, are among the potential troop contributors, according to the sources.

---

Whatever we don't have, Italy, Spain, or Poland can bring.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Smallc