Smallc Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 International instability is unlikely? Especially in the event of a Trump victory down south? No, a Russian invasion of Europe is unlikely. International instability is not an existential threat to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 No, a Russian invasion of Europe is unlikely. International instability is not an existential threat to Canada. Really ? Then why is Canada a charter NATO member and NORAD partner ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Really ? Then why is Canada a charter NATO member and NORAD partner ? Because the only existential threat to Canada is Russia. I keep saying there's no threat because the chance of anything happening on that front is remote. Still, I'd like to see us focus resurces on defending against that remote possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Because the only existential threat to Canada is Russia. I keep saying there's no threat because the chance of anything happening on that front is remote. Still, I'd like to see us focus resurces on defending against that remote possibility. But that does not explain Canada's enthusiastic role in NATO interventions having nothing to do with Russia. Also, "instability" for the United States could be an existential threat to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 But that does not explain Canada's enthusiastic role in NATO interventions having nothing to do with Russia. Also, "instability" for the United States could be an existential threat to Canada. Instability within the United States is another threat, yes. NATO is the reason a Russian attack is unlikely. It's what makes the possibility remote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Instability within the United States is another threat, yes. NATO is the reason a Russian attack is unlikely. It's what makes the possibility remote. Do "Defense Policy Reviews" and DND budgets include provisions for the absence of United States alliance and military resources ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Do "Defense Policy Reviews" and DND budgets include provisions for the absence of United States alliance and military resources ? Why would they? That's also not a large possibility, no matter what Donald Trump says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Why would they? That's also not a large possibility, no matter what Donald Trump says. Because even unlikely, it is a scenario that requires consideration and contingency planning. Example: when Canada rejected partnership in missile defense, the United States already had Plan B (and Plan C) on the shelf. Reliance and dependence on American military resources is both a risk and opportunity that policy wonks should be considering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 That's one way of looking at it. The other is to realize that the chance of something happening is infinitesimally small, and to plan for things that might actually happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 That's one way of looking at it. The other is to realize that the chance of something happening is infinitesimally small, and to plan for things that might actually happen. What might actually happen is a President Donald Trump, by your own estimation in another thread. Now it turns out that presidents don't ratify treaties, but they do control military policy. And Trump has specifically put Canada on notice (as has President Obama). So what use to be easy peasy hitchhiking with U.S. forces and resources becomes more difficult. So what is Plan B ? The rest of the script writes itself and is repeated often in Canada...."seat at the table"...."soft power"...."honest broker"....yada yada yada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 There doesn't need to be a plan B. Trump will win, little will change. If something changes drastically, a doubling of Canada's defence budget will make little difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 There doesn't need to be a plan B. Trump will win, little will change. If something changes drastically, a doubling of Canada's defence budget will make little difference. Logically then, and as others have proposed, why not cut the budget in half ? Is this minimalist approach actually written policy/doctrine, or is it just reflected in the reality of underfunded budgets and unspent allocations ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 The Americans should be compensating Canada and other nations for all the wars they started or escalated and the burden that has placed on our economies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Logically then, and as others have proposed, why not cut the budget in half ? Is this minimalist approach actually written policy/doctrine, or is it just reflected in the reality of underfunded budgets and unspent allocations ? The current budget is a result of the current plan (though it was cut to below the current plan levels - to afford the current plan we need to spend $3B more per year). A new plan might mean a new budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 The Americans should be compensating Canada and other nations for all the wars they started or escalated and the burden that has placed on our economies. Sure...just as soon as Canada and other Commonwealth states compensate the United States and Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 The current budget is a result of the current plan (though it was cut to below the current plan levels - to afford the current plan we need to spend $3B more per year). A new plan might mean a new budget. So this is because of a change in government ? Plans just come and go in a willy nilly political fashion ? What significance would a new "plan" have if this is the case ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 But we don't have a strong enough military to do that, and don't wish to pay for one. Therefore, we have to seek safety and security with military alliances. Who or what country should Canada have to fear from attack anyway? I don't see any country wanting to attack Canada. We should be safe and secure if we just mind our own business and stay out of other countries fights. The only country that Canada should probably fear is America because America can't stop shoving it's nose in other countries faces. I love America, but it is their politics that I question. Just the same, God bless America + Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 Who or what country should Canada have to fear from attack anyway? Hell, even the Spanish wouldn't respect our jurisdictions until the navy started arresting their boats. But the most likely need of the military is with Russia or with one of our many 'first nations'. I don't see any country wanting to attack Canada. We should be safe and secure if we just mind our own business and stay out of other countries fights. You are channeling the Belgium leaders before WW2. Didn't work out so well for them. Didn't work out so well for a lot of countries back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 Not as much as I have about what will rise from the ashes of ISIS...which arose from the ashes of the last conflagration - now much thought do you give to that? Rinse and repeat as they say. attaboy: when it gets a little warm, just abandon the last failed argument and move the goalposts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 attaboy: when it gets a little warm, just abandon the last failed argument and move the goalposts. What argument and goalposts are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 Hell, even the Spanish wouldn't respect our jurisdictions until the navy started arresting their boats. But the most likely need of the military is with Russia or with one of our many 'first nations'. You are channeling the Belgium leaders before WW2. Didn't work out so well for them. Didn't work out so well for a lot of countries back then. Having a Coast Guard with authority can do the job of respecting our borders. We don't need a military to do that. We don't need jets, tanks and warships to protect our borders. You see everybody has the mindset that every nation needs a military. They don't. A Coast Guard department can do the job and then the so-called United Nations can settle the dispute. Russia is no threat to anyone. That is the lame duck media trying to tell us that we have to watch out for Russia. Russia is not a warmongering country like one country that I know of. I won't mention any names. WW2 was just another war racket. It was started when Hitler basically told the elite globalists to go take a hike. The elite didn't want to take a hike so the war was on. And for some countries today, war has not worked so well for them also. When a country tells the elite globalists to go take a hike, well then you are asking for a lot of trouble to come your way, baby. They say, let the war games begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 Nice play, taxme the coast guard, a dept that is in worse shape than DND, and when we do get rid of our military....the coast guard will be filling up the media and the forums stating the same thing expected to to much with a shoe string budget...... Below is an article of the turbot wars, inside the art they have misidentified the Canadian navy ship, by calling it an armed coast guard cutter....our coast guard ships are not armed....only the navy ones are...Kind of hard to counter a NAVAL ves with an unarmed coast guard ship.... As for the UN yes, the protectors of the free world....we should as those nations because there is so many ....that seen the UN in action maybe the former Yugoslavia ask it's people how much power and control the UN has to solve issues around the world....it could not even stop the ongoing ethnic cleansing.... If that is your take on WWII then I would suggest maybe re reading the topic.... http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/07/19/the-turbot-war-a-look-back-at-how-canada-stood-up-to-foreign-overfishing-book-excerpt/#.V5fkyspTGUk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2016 Report Share Posted July 27, 2016 Below is an article of the turbot wars, inside the art they have misidentified the Canadian navy ship, by calling it an armed coast guard cutter....our coast guard ships are not armed When the Turbot War happened, the now CCGS Cape Roger was an armed vessel under DFO control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 27, 2016 Report Share Posted July 27, 2016 When the Turbot War happened, the now CCGS Cape Roger was an armed vessel under DFO control. The fact remains that the Spanish sent armed vessels, and considered sending a task force with destroyers and frigates. They didn't do it because they didn't want a face off against the Canadian navy. If all we had were coast guard ships they could have bullied their way through them easily enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2016 Report Share Posted July 27, 2016 The fact remains that the Spanish sent armed vessels, and considered sending a task force with destroyers and frigates. They didn't do it because they didn't want a face off against the Canadian navy. If all we had were coast guard ships they could have bullied their way through them easily enough. Sure but that's never been a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.