Wasting Canadian Blood and Treasure

[Moonlight Graham]

America is complaining that it is pouring $1 billion a year into Afghanistan and the other nations should help contribute. The USA broke it so it should fix it. Why should Canada pay for aggressive and faulty American foreign policy? Besides, what does NATO have to do with Afghanistan? Which member of the alliance was attacked and thereby forcing the others to come to their aid?

NATO had a lot to do with it: http://http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

[Moonlight Graham]

Funny, Trudeau didn't even know what a "Baltic state" was until 2015.

[Smallc]

Funny, Trudeau didn't even know what a "Baltic state" was until 2015.

I don't buy that. It asked what his favourite Baltic state was. He said that wasn't a thing. As in having a favourite.

[Smallc]

I was watching some analysts trying to explain Canada's role in the Baltic States. The general consensus was that if Russia did invade then they would be initially successful but lose in the long run. What they basically stated was that our troops would be the "cannon fodder" or the "suicide troops". Since this would be the first line of defense, the Russians would annihilate those troops in the initial attack before being beaten back as the conflict progressed.

This is not the first time Canadians would be used as "cannon fodder" by another nation.

The idea is that Russia will not attack troops from Significant NATO countries, as that would definitely draw significant NATO backlash.

[Wilber]

I was watching some analysts trying to explain Canada's role in the Baltic States. The general consensus was that if Russia did invade then they would be initially successful but lose in the long run. What they basically stated was that our troops would be the "cannon fodder" or the "suicide troops". Since this would be the first line of defense, the Russians would annihilate those troops in the initial attack before being beaten back as the conflict progressed.

This is not the first time Canadians would be used as "cannon fodder" by another nation.

Everyone will get their opportunity to be canon fodder if that happens. I remember watching a documentary about NATO forces in Germany during the Cold War. An interviewer was talking with a British tanker and mentioned to him that it was estimated the average life of a tank on the North German Plain if the Soviets launched a major attack would be about 40 minutes. The tanker replied "That Long".

[Derek 2.0]

I was watching some analysts trying to explain Canada's role in the Baltic States. The general consensus was that if Russia did invade then they would be initially successful but lose in the long run. What they basically stated was that our troops would be the "cannon fodder" or the "suicide troops". Since this would be the first line of defense, the Russians would annihilate those troops in the initial attack before being beaten back as the conflict progressed.

This is not the first time Canadians would be used as "cannon fodder" by another nation.

The more correct term in "tripwire" speed-bump, even then its not much of one........the 4000 person brigade couldn't even be expected to slow two Russian Tank Armies, comprised of the North side of 60-70k personal, thousands of tanks, thousands of IFVs and hundreds of attack aircraft and helicopters...............The Canadian army, on its own, has zero anti aircraft defense, zero anti tank missiles, no heavy machine guns or mortars and is sending lightly armored LAVs alongside small arms.........

I'm sure Putin is terrified.

The several hundred Canadians Trudeau is sending over wouldn't even be cannon fodder

[Derek 2.0]

The idea is that Russia will not attack troops from Significant NATO countries, as that would definitely draw significant NATO backlash.

And its a foolish idea........if the Russians attacked any NATO country, and NATO didn't respond, that would be the end of NATO........inversely, if Russia was intent on attacking NATO, a 4000 person brigade isn't going to deter them........hence this entire multinational brigade is a complete waste of time and energy.........

If NATO really wants to deter Russia, aside from a massive buildup of conventional forces along the lines of the Cold War, they would restart and expand missile defense in Eastern Europe (what Obama halted) and (the Americans) would deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Eastern European NATO members and expand the numbers already shared with the Germans, Dutch, Belgians and Italians.........

[Wilber]

What would you call "missile defence"? The ability to hit major Russian cities from eastern Europe would amount to the same thing the Americans freaked out about when the Soviets put missiles into Cuba and could well provoke a similar response.

[Smallc]

What would you call "missile defence"? The ability to hit major Russian cities from eastern Europe would amount to the same thing the Americans freaked out about when the Soviets put missiles into Cuba and could well provoke a similar response.

And rightly so. In some cases it's hard not to see us as the aggressors. We weren't even supposed to have countries like Latvia in NATO.

[eyeball]

The idea is that Russia will not attack troops from Significant NATO countries, as that would definitely draw significant NATO backlash.

What makes us so significant?

[Derek 2.0]

What would you call "missile defence"? The ability to hit major Russian cities from eastern Europe would amount to the same thing the Americans freaked out about when the Soviets put missiles into Cuba and could well provoke a similar response.

The ability to defend against Russian theater ballistic missiles, ergo defense against Russian missiles.

Tactical nuclear weapons are too small to target Russian cities (of course said cities could/would be targeted by American, British and French nukes), and of whats deployed already in Europe (B61), their intent is to be used against large armored formations and static targets like airfields, bridges and fuel/weapons depots.

The Russians already have their own tactical (and of course strategic) nukes, none the less, the reformation of the 1st Guards Tank Army is every much a provocation, as said formation was the very one the Russians used to take (and hold for decades) Eastern Europe.....

Edited July 11, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Wilber]

What would be the US reaction if Trump became president and pissed the Mexicans off enough that they felt threatened enough to ask the Russians to put tactical nukes along their border? US nukes in Poland is not the same as Polish nukes in Poland.

[Smallc]

What makes us so significant?

Charter member status and total spending, as well as our constant contribution.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

What would be the US reaction if Trump became president and pissed the Mexicans off enough that they felt threatened enough to ask the Russians to put tactical nukes along their border? US nukes in Poland is not the same as Polish nukes in Poland.

The Americans (British, French, West Germans, Canadians, Dutch etc) deployed tactical nukes in West Germany for decades....as did the Russians in Warsaw Pact Nations including East Germany................Your example (Russian nukes in Mexico) is fantasy land......the Mexican economy lives and dies with the largess of the Americans.

US tactical nukes in Poland would negate the Russian army, and of course (like an integer) US/UK/French strategic nukes negate and are negated by Russian strategic nukes............the deployment of both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in Central Europe, by both sides, is what prevented a Third World War throughout the Cold War.......leaving Pandora's Box ajar for a conventional war in Europe is a fool's errand, as once one side starts losing it, the nuclear genie will be let out of its bottle and everyone looses.

[Wilber]

The Americans (British, French, West Germans, Canadians, Dutch etc) deployed tactical nukes in West Germany for decades....as did the Russians in Warsaw Pact Nations including East Germany................Your example (Russian nukes in Mexico) is fantasy land......the Mexican economy lives and dies with the largess of the Americans.

US tactical nukes in Poland would negate the Russian army, and of course (like an integer) US/UK/French strategic nukes negate and are negated by Russian strategic nukes............the deployment of both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in Central Europe, by both sides, is what prevented a Third World War throughout the Cold War.......leaving Pandora's Box ajar for a conventional war in Europe is a fool's errand, as once one side starts losing it, the nuclear genie will be let out of its bottle and everyone looses.

Would the US stand for tactical nukes on its border?

[Derek 2.0]

Would the US stand for tactical nukes on its border?

It would never have to.

[Wilber]

It would never have to.

Simple question Derek. That's not an answer.

[Derek 2.0]

Simple question Derek. That's not an answer.

I gave you an answer, it would never happen.............The US and Russians, unlike the later 50s and early 60s, don't require forward bases for strategic/theater/tactical nuclear weapons to threaten each other.

[Wilber]

I gave you an answer, it would never happen.............The US and Russians, unlike the later 50s and early 60s, don't require forward bases for strategic/theater/tactical nuclear weapons to threaten each other.

Then why are you advocating them in eastern Europe?

[Derek 2.0]

Then why are you advocating them in eastern Europe?

I explained that above, yet again though, to negate the recent formation of two Russian mechanized armies based along their Western border with Europe.......the very same reason NATO employed them throughout the Cold War, to act as a counter stroke to the massive Russian hordes.

[Wilber]

I explained that above, yet again though, to negate the recent formation of two Russian mechanized armies based along their Western border with Europe.......the very same reason NATO employed them throughout the Cold War, to act as a counter stroke to the massive Russian hordes.

So they need them but they don't need them? Clear as mud.

[Derek 2.0]

So they need them but they don't need them? Clear as mud.

Too nuanced? The Russians or Americans can threaten each other (or other nations) around the globe, as is, with their nuclear arms........yet the Russians have elected to exert themselves in Central/Eastern Europe by deploying massive mechanized armies (as they did through the Cold War)....as a response (like was done during the Cold War) the US/NATO should redeploy tactical nuclear weapons that would negate the massive Russian armies..

...ergo......

The Russians invade a NATO country with their army, NATO responds by nuking the Russian invasion force, which would then result in exchanges by both sides of theater weapons (and with that the end of most European cultures) and finally an exchange of strategic weapons between the US and Russia, and with that, the end of a good chunk of the World's population.......it might sound MAD, but it worked for decades.

[?Impact]

.it might sound MAD

Well even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Hey, can we teach kids to duck under their desks again?

[Wilber]

Too nuanced? The Russians or Americans can threaten each other (or other nations) around the globe, as is, with their nuclear arms........yet the Russians have elected to exert themselves in Central/Eastern Europe by deploying massive mechanized armies (as they did through the Cold War)....as a response (like was done during the Cold War) the US/NATO should redeploy tactical nuclear weapons that would negate the massive Russian armies..

...ergo......

The Russians invade a NATO country with their army, NATO responds by nuking the Russian invasion force, which would then result in exchanges by both sides of theater weapons (and with that the end of most European cultures) and finally an exchange of strategic weapons between the US and Russia, and with that, the end of a good chunk of the World's population.......it might sound MAD, but it worked for decades.

Now we get back to looking at maps again, during the Cold war, the Russian and US tactical nukes based in Europe weren't on each others borders. Too nuanced?

[Argus]

I agree. Well said. According to many observers from around the world agree that America has become the terrorist nation for the rest of the world to have to put up and deal with.

Many observers who are generally vicious, murdering tyrants, Muslim religious fanatics, or brainless ultra left morons.