Wasting Canadian Blood and Treasure

[Smallc]

Argus, take a look at page 8:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

Do you still think Canada spends more than other NATO countries on personnel?

Edited July 22, 2016 by Smallc

[?Impact]

Do you still think Canada spends more than other NATO countries on personnel?

We spend 10% more than the US according to that table. Are you saying we spend too much on fancy equipment instead of personnel? Should we have a large infantry instead?

[Smallc]

We spend 10% more than the US according to that table. Are you saying we spend too much on fancy equipment instead of personnel? Should we have a large infantry instead?

I've been told over and over again that Canada's $21B CAD per year doesn't count, because we spend more than any other NATO country on people. I think the NATO chart puts that idea to rest.

[Derek 2.0]

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

There are plenty of them, and as I said, basing additional nukes in Eastern Europe would negate any "Russian threat"......like it did during the Cold War.

[Smallc]

There are plenty of them, and as I said, basing additional nukes in Eastern Europe would negate any "Russian threat"......like it did during the Cold War.

None of the NATO countries with nukes need them to be anywhere close to Russia to strike Russia. Besides, there are already nukes in our great pal Turkey.

[eyeball]

There are plenty of them, and as I said, basing additional nukes in Eastern Europe would negate any "Russian threat"......like it did during the Cold War.

What we have in place also negates any need to even think about spending any more treasure on this nonsense. Edited July 22, 2016 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

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

Your link doesn't confirm what you stated?

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.

Poor example? You understand during both Gulf Wars there were more than the Americans involved?

As to better equipped, off the top of my head, Turkey, Greece, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Dutch.......maybe the Danes, Norwegians.....the Bulgarians and Romanians.......essentially any country that can field a combined arms mechanized force.....in some cases, though obsolete in some areas, the above forces (plus the Americans, British, Germans, French, Italy, Spain etc) can do things that Canadians, absent the required equipment, can't do.

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.

And you know said nations will cover Trudeau's shortcomings on defense how? As a nation we should be embarrassed if countries like Croatia or Poland are providing such things as self-propelled artillery, heavy machine guns or anti-aircraft defense for us......

[Derek 2.0]

What we have in place also negates any need to even think about spending any more treasure on this nonsense.

I agree, outside of standalone line items (Trucks/ships/aircraft/fuel/munitions etc), I don't feel Canada currently needs to spend more on the military....certainly not until the other members in NATO drastically increase their spending then we could talk......but not so Trudeau can "whip out his short comings to Putin"...

[Derek 2.0]

None of the NATO countries with nukes need them to be anywhere close to Russia to strike Russia. Besides, there are already nukes in our great pal Turkey.

Tactical (battlefield) nukes they sure do......RAND last year simulated a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, they figure with the diminished logistics (contrasted with the Soviets in the 80s) the Russians would require 2-3 days to take over the entire region.

[Smallc]

Your link doesn't confirm what you stated?

It doesn't contradict it, and seems to point that way. You haven't yet provided a link.

Poor example? You understand during both Gulf Wars there were more than the Americans involved?

Yes, it's a poor example, as the US did almost all of the lifting.

As to better equipped, off the top of my head, Turkey, Greece, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Dutch.......maybe the Danes, Norwegians.....the Bulgarians and Romanians.......essentially any country that can field a combined arms mechanized force.....in some cases, though obsolete in some areas, the above forces (plus the Americans, British, Germans, French, Italy, Spain etc) can do things that Canadians, absent the required equipment, can't do.

That seems very doubtful. Canada has an army that is battle hardened and equipped in a way that many of those countries haven't had experience with. A few pieces of artillery and air defence don't make them more capable in a combat sense or for leading the operation that we've been asked to lead. They don't have the capability to get their people there on their own, nor do they have the experience, training, or command and control capabilities. Canada can bring heavy armour, light armour, anti armour, logistics support, and a small amount of powerful offensive weaponry. With CF-18s in theatre, we can even provide air defence if needed. The few holes we have can be filled by our allies.

And you know said nations will cover Trudeau's shortcomings on defense how? As a nation we should be embarrassed if countries like Croatia or Poland are providing such things as self-propelled artillery, heavy machine guns or anti-aircraft defense for us......

These were designed as multinational operations from the start. There's nothing embarrassing about being a top teir NATO nation in a lead role. Canada doesn't face the same threats at close hand that those places do.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Tactical (battlefield) nukes they sure do......RAND last year simulated a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, they figure with the diminished logistics (contrasted with the Soviets in the 80s) the Russians would require 2-3 days to take over the entire region.

That makes no sense in response to what I said.

[Derek 2.0]

That makes no sense in response to what I said.

It makes perfect sense........an F-15E armed with several B61s based in central Holland will take longer to responds to Russian battlefield movements then the same aircraft with the same munitions based in Poland........

[Smallc]

It makes perfect sense........an F-15E armed with several B61s based in central Holland will take longer to responds to Russian battlefield movements then the same aircraft with the same munitions based in Poland........

No one is going to nuke Russia.

[Derek 2.0]

It doesn't contradict it, and seems to point that way. You haven't yet provided a link.

No it doesn't......you stated Canada was the second choice after France.

Yes, it's a poor example, as the US did almost all of the lifting.

Except for the deployment of a British and French armored division in '91 or a British Corps during the second war.......you claimed Canada was "battle hardened and well equipped" to fight a mechanized war against the Russians in Europe........I called Bullshit based on reality and historic fact.

That seems very doubtful. Canada has an army that is battle hardened and equipped in a way that many of those countries haven't had experience with. A few pieces of artillery and air defence don't make them more capable in a combat sense or for leading the operation that we've been asked to lead. They don't have the capability to get their people there on their own, nor do they have the experience, training, or command and control capabilities. Canada can bring heavy armour, light armour, anti armour, and a small amount of powerful offensive weaponry. With CF-18s in theatre, we can even provide air defence if needed. The few holes we have can be filled by our allies.

Doubtful to you perhaps, but its reality......The Canadian army, unlike those I mentioned, couldn't contend with a lone Russian armored regiment.......let alone an entire Guards Tank Army......30 year old artillery and air defense is better then what Canada has.......it should be telling that 30 years ago backwards Afghan peasants were better equipped to deal with Russian tactical air power then Canada is today. (CF-18s, like most other non-stealth aircraft wouldn't survive very long in an environment with countless batteries of S400s)

Trudeau wants to "whip out the army", its his responsibility to equip it so in the advent they do go to war they have a chance to at least retreat and regroup with other NATO elements.

[Derek 2.0]

No one is going to nuke Russia.

That depends.......if the Russians are in Germany in a couple of weeks NATO would have but two choices.........

NATO was very much so prepared to "nuke the Russians" throughout the Cold War.

[Smallc]

That depends.......if the Russians are in Germany in a couple of weeks NATO would have but two choices.........

Because it would be helpful to have nukes in Poland to protect Germany.

[eyeball]

Well, if we have no intention to use the weapons we have I fail to see why we need more.

[Smallc]

No it doesn't......you stated Canada was the second choice after France.

And you stated that they weren't. I'm waiting for you to prove it.

Except for the deployment of a British and French armored division in '91 or a British Corps during the second war.......you claimed Canada was "battle hardened and well equipped" to fight a mechanized war against the Russians in Europe........I called Bullshit based on reality and historic fact.

A lot of people and useful equipment from 1991 in London and Paris? What happened to 2003?

Doubtful to you perhaps, but its reality......The Canadian army, unlike those I mentioned, couldn't contend with a lone Russian armored regiment.......let alone an entire Guards Tank Army......30 year old artillery and air defense is better then what Canada has.......it should be telling that 30 years ago backwards Afghan peasants were better equipped to deal with Russian tactical air power then Canada is today. (CF-18s, like most other non-stealth aircraft wouldn't survive very long in an environment with countless batteries of S400s)

You live in a fantasy world where training means nothing, and Canada suddenly is missing Leopard 2 tanks, M777s, TOW 2, M2, and quite a few other things. Air defence is our main weakness, but it can't be laid on the Liberals. Paul Martin's government planned to retain and upgrade the ADATS, though they would have left us without tanks. Of course, under the Conservatives, the military also cancelled the CCV, which would have been useful here.

Trudeau wants to "whip out the army", its his responsibility to equip it so in the advent they do go to war they have a chance to at least retreat and regroup with other NATO elements.

A full scale Russian invasion won't allow 1000 troops to do that, no matter who they belong to. Whatever we're missing will be brought by the partner nations

[Derek 2.0]

Because it would be helpful to have nukes in Poland to protect Germany.

No, it would be helpful to have nukes in Poland to protect Poland and the Baltic States........just as was done for decades with NATO nukes in West Germany.

[Smallc]

No, it would be helpful to have nukes in Poland to protect Poland and the Baltic States........just as was done for decades with NATO nukes in West Germany.

No one is going to nuke Moscow over Poland. That would never happen.

[Smallc]

BTW, we also know from the link I provided that it's actually the CDS that wanted this mission. He seems to think that his forces are more than capable of it.

[Derek 2.0]

And you stated that they weren't. I'm waiting for you to prove it.

I did in the earlier discussion, you know, when the topic first came up last year........You're the one that claims, unfounded, that Canada, over all other NATO allies was selected after the French.

A lot of people and useful equipment from 1991 in London and Paris? What happened to 2003?

Ahh no, in 1991 French and British armored divisions killed Iraqis in the Kuwaiti and Iraqi deserts.........2003? The Mechanized invasion of Iraq, including the use of the 1st British armored division

You live in a fantasy world where training means nothing, and Canada suddenly is missing Leopard 2 tanks, M777s, TOW 2, M2, and quite a few other things. Air defence is our main weakness, but it can't be laid on the Liberals. Paul Martin's government planned to retain and upgrade the ADATS, though they would have left us without tanks. Of course, under the Conservatives, the military also cancelled the CCV, which would have been useful here.

Ahh no, I live in the real world........A handful of Leopards aren't going to halt a tank regiment.........your M777s, TOWs and dam near everything else would be combat ineffective once a Russian Armored Corps opened up its first couple of salvos form its numerous self propelled and rocket batteries.......and you think air defense is the missing link? What you don't think "Canadian training" could defend against dozens upon dozens of Hinds and Frogfoots?

Ahhh Fantasy land..........

A full scale Russian invasion won't allow 1000 troops to do that, no matter who they belong to. Whatever we're missing will be brought by the partner nations

I know that, I said as much, like the Cold War, we'd (as in NATO) need at least 1/3 the size of forces in Eastern Europe to fight the Russians in a conventional was...........as it stands, you have zero evidence to confirm that what we're missing someone else will bring......

[Derek 2.0]

No one is going to nuke Moscow over Poland. That would never happen.

You know that how? If that's not the case, NATO is redundant and should be disbanded.

[Derek 2.0]

BTW, we also know from the link I provided that it's actually the CDS that wanted this mission. He seems to think that his forces are more than capable of it.

When did the CDS set political policy in Canada? That's new.......

[Smallc]

You know that how? If that's not the case, NATO is redundant and should be disbanded.

No one would nuke Moscow over Canada either. I can say it with certainty.