Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: Again, amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics, the reason being that professionals understand that what is not supported by logistics is only on paper. On paper we have 9 battalions in 3 Brigade groups, in reality we only have the logistics and equipment to deploy one of those battalions and none of the brigades at any given time. There's 37 million Canadians, by your definition you might as well say we have 37 million infantryman, the issue is, how many can you train, equip and deploy to actually fight a modern war? Answer; 1 battalion group. Yes if we’re lining up with bayonets. War is becoming more of a remote automated affair. There are countries with large armies that don’t stand a chance against small high tech forces. It’s not just a numbers game. And what about after the invasion/occupation? You have to win hearts and minds. Belligerence instills hate.
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 And in terms of discretionary NATO overseas deployments, Canada did scale up for Afghanistan, that one ill equipped battalion in the field is what Canada scaling up looks like now
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: Yes if we’re lining up with bayonets. War is becoming more of a remote automated affair. There are countries with large armies that don’t stand a chance against small high tech forces. It’s not just a numbers game. And what about after the invasion/occupation? You have to win hearts and minds. Belligerence instills hate. And Canada doesn't have any automated warfighting capability neither, so what's your point?
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 And no, in the event of a non discretionary multilateral war, other countries are not going to be able to equip Canada with any "automated warfighting" capability, because they would need to equip there own forces for that, never mind that "automated warfare" is just fallacious civilian fanboi nonsense, but whatever.
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 26 minutes ago, Argus said: So far nothing that has been done in Afghanistan after pushing the Taliban out of power has had any real significance. And if the Americans ever leave the Taliban will be in full control of the country within six months to a year. The Taliban were never America's enemy anyways, they never attacked America, they don't care, they're not Jihadists, they just want the foreigners out, so they can kill local drug dealers and child rapists which is how the Taliban came about in the first place, the Americans should just turn the place over to them again, it's a vast empty dust bowl of no particular strategic importance, it's not worth defending a position there.
Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: And in terms of discretionary NATO overseas deployments, Canada did scale up for Afghanistan, that one ill equipped battalion in the field is what Canada scaling up looks like now Your claims are exaggerated. I’d like to see see comparisons of the impacts of the major fighting forces in their respective parts of Afghanistan. Therein lies the truth. We can blow shit up too, but it’s not just about that. We already all know Canada can’t go it alone against a superpower. Why would we attempt that? We have important alliances and NATO, including France and the UK (not just the US). If our biggest ally and trading partner ever turned on us, despite family members on each side of the border, you’re damn right we’d look to China. Maybe that’s why Trudeau is keeping it cool with China. He’s not stupid. That’s last resort stuff and not the preferred option. I think Canada must be wary of all superpowers and scale up its military to make strong contributions to NATO and protect its values, but we’re a peaceful country. We’re not war mongers. That’s also why we’re more left leaning.
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) Canada couldn't even go it alone against the Mohawks, that's why the Government doesn't mess with them anymore. Edited January 8, 2019 by Dougie93
Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Canada couldn't even go it alone against the Mohawks, that's why the Government doesn't mess with them anymore. You would have us just run roughshod over the Mohawks. No thanks.
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 15 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: You would have us just run roughshod over the Mohawks. No thanks. Not at all, I respect the Mohawks and understand why they don't want the Feds messing with them, but part of the reason that they would be able to bring the Windsor-Quebec corridor to a grinding halt with a relatively tiny number of warriors is the political reality that the public would not tolerate rolling over them with the army unrestrained.
Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dougie93 said: Not at all, I respect the Mohawks and understand why they don't want the Feds messing with them, but part of the reason that they would be able to bring the Windsor-Quebec corridor to a grinding halt with a relatively tiny number of warriors is the political reality that the public would not tolerate rolling over them with the army unrestrained. What an exaggerated paranoid perspective. Canada is working on building good relationships with people, Indigenous and foreign, not destroying them. One minute you suggest we scale down or eliminate our military; the next you say might is right. Which is it? Canada tries to take its commitments seriously, in all areas, not just militarily. We proportionately took far more refugees in than the US. That’s a contribution to peace because we helped resettle displaced people from a war ravaged country. Canada is managing well in a volatile world. I still think the best approach for Canada when it comes to world affairs in general is to seek alliances with countries that have similar goals. It’s the multilateral approach. We hope we can rely on our traditional allies to work together on common goals. We are adding allies and we must also know that we may not be able to count on all of our allies. Edited January 8, 2019 by Zeitgeist
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 Not sure how you got might makes right out of that, but whatever. I didn't say scale down the military, I said totally disband it, eliminate the Department of National Defence, and transfer the armed constabulary role to the Department of Public Safety.
Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Not sure how you got might makes right out of that, but whatever. I didn't say scale down the military, I said totally disband it, eliminate the Department of National Defence, and transfer the armed constabulary role to the Department of Public Safety. On what basis? Ridiculous.
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: On what basis? Formalizing and accelerating the process already in progress, in order to stop wasting $20 billion a year on what is now largely a heritage project to invoke the bygone days of the First and Second World War/Pork Barrel vote buying operation to no particular practical use vis a vis the security of the state nor people.
Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Formalizing and accelerating the process already in progress, in order to stop wasting $20 billion a year on what is now largely a heritage project to invoke the bygone days of the First and Second World War/Pork Barrel vote buying operation to no particular practical use vis a vis the security of the state nor people. Uh, no way. You dismantle your military. It’s got quite a history of its own, including the use of nuclear weapons on civilians.
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 While the Canadian Forces were gifted Bomarc missiles from the USA which could be armed with nuclear warheads, Canada never actually took delivery of the warheads which remained in storage in the US, so Canada has never actually possessed nuclear weapons to use on civilians.
Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: While the Canadian Forces were gifted Bomarc missiles from the USA which could be armed with nuclear warheads, Canada never actually took delivery of the warheads which remained in storage in the US, so Canada has never actually possessed nuclear weapons to use on civilians. That’s right. Trudeau Sr. turned them down, which I disagree with, but he was a pacifist. Canada has all the tech anyway going back to our CANDU reactors. Don’t forget our important supply of uranium. Canada often achieves a high level of tech in key industries. Again though, as with the Avro Arrow, we can’t go into full production of everything until we have a bigger population, which is coming whether we like it or not. 35000 asylum seekers crossed the border into Canada last year. That’s completely separate from the 20000 refugees and hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Can Congress also pay for our border wall? Edited January 8, 2019 by Zeitgeist
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: That’s right. No it's not, I was just testing your knowledge, the warheads were delivered to North Bay on 31 December 1963. The Americans maintained control of them on site with the 425th maintenance squadron, back in those days the Americans had forces based in Canada. But this was Pearson not Trudeau. Trudeau inherited them in 68', but he didn't return them, the unit was disbanded in 1972. Also, Canada could have bombed civilians with nuclear weapons in the event of World War Three, as that was the mission of the RCAF CF-104's in Europe, using the NATO stockpile of B61's.
Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: No it's not, I was just testing your knowledge, the warheads were delivered to North Bay on 31 December 1963. The Americans maintained control of them on site with the 425th maintenance squadron, back in those days the Americans had forces based in Canada. But this was Pearson not Trudeau. Trudeau inherited them in 68', but he didn't return them, the unit was disbanded in 1972. Also, Canada could have bombed civilians with nuclear weapons in the event of World War Three, as that was the mission of the RCAF CF-104's in Europe, using the NATO stockpile of B61's. My point is that Trudeau denuclearized the Canadian military. We knew the Americans were patrolling the Arctic with nuclear submarines. That’s the deal with NATO. In a roundabout way Canada is still a nuclear power. I don’t have a problem with that and would like to go further strictly as a deterrent.
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: My point is that Trudeau denuclearized the Canadian military. We knew the Americans were patrolling the Arctic with nuclear submarines. That’s the deal with NATO. In a roundabout way Canada is still a nuclear power. I don’t have a problem with that and would like to go further strictly as a deterrent. No he didn't, all NATO forces were nuclearized including the RCAF in Europe, and in fact still are, including the CF-18's which can deliver the B61 from the NATO stockpiles in Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands. The Americans patrol the arctic with nuclear powered attack submarines, but those are not normally armed with nuclear weapons, the mission of the attack subs is to follow and if necessary sink nuclear armed ballistic missile submarines. The American nuclear armed ballistic missile submarines patrol in protected bastions in waters like the Sargasso Sea off of Bermuda The American SSBN's are not designed to hide under the polar icecap and pop up through to deliver the missiles, only the Russian SSBN's can do that, which is why the American SSN's are up there. Edited January 8, 2019 by Dougie93
Zeitgeist Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: No he didn't, all NATO forces were nuclearized including the RCAF in Europe, and in fact still are, including the CF-18's which can deliver the B61 from the NATO stockpiles in Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands. The Americans patrol the arctic with nuclear powered attack submarines, but those are not normally armed with nuclear weapons, the mission of the attack subs is to follow and if necessary sink nuclear armed ballistic missile submarines. The American nuclear armed ballistic missile submarines patrol in protected bastions in waters like the Sargasso Sea off of Bermuda Yes our military is interoperable with other NATO forces, but to my knowledge we don’t have any nuclear warheads on Canadian soil. That’s Trudeau Sr.’s doing. It sounded very peace, love and Hare Krishna, but really, we’re part of NATO which includes nuclear force. Why pretend otherwise?
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: Yes our military is interoperable with other NATO forces, but to my knowledge we don’t have any nuclear warheads on Canadian soil. That’s Trudeau Sr.’s doing. It sounded very peace, love and Hare Krishna, but really, we’re part of NATO which includes nuclear force. Why pretend otherwise? I don't pretend otherwise, I embrace nuclear weapons; keeping the Third World War at bay, since 1945.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 8, 2019 Author Report Posted January 8, 2019 Just in time for the 2019 election....begin to reduce expectations for Canadian Forces procurements, even with deficit spending. Justin Trudeau will be able to avoid some hard choices as just too expensive... Canada can afford new fighters or new frigates — but not both at once: report Economics trumps Virtue.
cannuck Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) I remember the nuke years very well, as my Father was lead instructor for the 1SSM (1st Surface-to-Surface Missile Battery). Spent years in the US and Europe to learn the weapons, integration within NATO and then teach others the game. I also remember very well WHY we de-nuked on our soil. People so easily forget, or CHOOSE to forget that we elected a Prime Minister who was a card carrying Communist Party membership card (if you ever wonder why I extend the "commie" epithet beyond the NDP to include the LPC). During his Sorbonne years he spent considerable time behind the Iron Curtain. Ever wonder why he was such a close personal friend to Fidel Castro? Yeah, just another "co-incidence" - MY ASS. Canada shifted very, VERY sharply to the left in his years IMHO to host the East's attack on their nuclear opponent just on the other side of our border. Turning the Canadian armed forces from a very capable and honourable defense and offensive tool into a social engineering project went a long way to accomplishing his goals (and hosting GreenPeace, etc.) Edited January 8, 2019 by cannuck 1
Dougie93 Posted January 8, 2019 Report Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Just in time for the 2019 election....begin to reduce expectations for Canadian Forces procurements, even with deficit spending. Justin Trudeau will be able to avoid some hard choices as just too expensive... Canada can afford new fighters or new frigates — but not both at once: report When push comes to shove, the ship contract is the priority because that's the vote buying contract, unlike the CF-18's, the fighters will not be made in Canada so that has little to no priority at all. Although the ship contract may collapse as well, they're certainly not going to build 15 of them before the money runs out in any case, the RCN will be counting themselves lucky if they get 6 of them. Edited January 8, 2019 by Dougie93
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 8, 2019 Author Report Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: When push comes to shove, the ship contract is the priority because that's the vote buying contract, unlike the CF-18's, the fighters will not be made in Canada so that has little to no priority at all. Although the ship contract may collapse as well, they're certainly not going to build 15 of them before the money runs out in any case, the RCN will be counting themselves lucky if they get 6 of them. Politically, it looks like the acknowledgement of the obvious (i.e. Canada is no longer a multipurpose force capable of some previous missions) will happen on Trudeau's watch, and maybe it's exactly what he wants. A hobbled military is incapable of foreign adventures and commensurate headaches back home. Modern strike aircraft ("bomb trucks") will be last on the list for capital investment, even lower than the rotary wing procurement fiasco(s). Edited January 8, 2019 by bush_cheney2004 Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts