More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere.

[Army Guy]

15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Instead of increasing spending to increase our military, maybe we should scale back the scope of the military to suit its budget.   

Good suggestion, what would you see scaled back, it is pretty much at the bone right now... but give us some suggestions.... and while we do that what is in place to stop our government from using this scaled back force...it has not stopped them before... 

We need to ask the question why do we have a military ? what should be it's focus ? and at what cost are we willing to pay to have or not have a military. becasue it cost regardless of how you want it. 

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Irregular warfare? Are you serious? You would wait until you are occupied before you fight back? With what?

I see three alternatives. Nuclear deterrence - would lead to a nuclear response and mutual destruction.

If we are to fight the enemy before they have a chance ot occupy, we have to build a viable military force capable of defending against invasion. Extraordinary expensive as Army Guy pointed out. We need to tool up, to manufacture armoured vehicles, various types of aircraft, infantry weapons, air defence weapons, surface ships and submarines and the list goes on. As Army Guy said, it will take years to ramp up. 

40 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

40 billion is a little over kill, for tanks and armoured vehs, we don't need a massive military, 100 to 120 k would be more than enough,

Of our two potential enemies, one had, until recently 😁, over ten thousand tanks. the other about 8500.  That is what a robust functional military would be prepared for. The reason to have a military is to defend the nation. 

What the Canadian public will accept is a token force of maybe 100,000 all ranks in the CAF. A force that size would not last more than a few weeks in an invasion.

We have to face the fact that irregular warfare built on cadres of Canadian Forces regulars and reservists is the only way we could remove an invader.

Canadians do not believe the country will be invaded. They are most likely correct, so from their point of view, why spend hundreds of billions of dollars for something nobody thinks will happen. I don't agree with that view, but that is what every government since 1945 has had to consider. 

[Contrarian]

Interesting, 2 days in a row the CBC had critique articles about the Liberals, this one counts too. Must confuse the usual suspects which think is all a big conspiracy. 

Yesterday, the big McKinsey contracts story, this one with the military today. 

Edited January 9 by Contrarian

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I see three alternatives. Nuclear deterrence - would lead to a nuclear response and mutual destruction.

If we are to fight the enemy before they have a chance ot occupy, we have to build a viable military force capable of defending against invasion. Extraordinary expensive as Army Guy pointed out. We need to tool up, to manufacture armoured vehicles, various types of aircraft, infantry weapons, air defence weapons, surface ships and submarines and the list goes on. As Army Guy said, it will take years to ramp up. 

Of our two potential enemies, one had, until recently 😁, over ten thousand tanks. the other about 8500.  That is what a robust functional military would be prepared for. The reason to have a military is to defend the nation. 

What the Canadian public will accept is a token force of maybe 100,000 all ranks in the CAF. A force that size would not last more than a few weeks in an invasion.

We have to face the fact that irregular warfare built on cadres of Canadian Forces regulars and reservists is the only way we could remove an invader.

Canadians do not believe the country will be invaded. They are most likely correct, so from their point of view, why spend hundreds of billions of dollars for something nobody thinks will happen. I don't agree with that view, but that is what every government since 1945 has had to consider. 

How would you carry out irregular warfare if your country is occupied? Partisan warfare is extremely destructive and civilians are the main victims. How do you ramp up cadres of regulars and reserves if you have no equipment for them? How would the command structure work and how would operations be co-ordinated in an occupied country? If Canadians are not willing to maintain a capable military, what makes you think they would be prepared to engage in guerrilla warfare with its inevitable reprisals against civilian populations?

We don't need to contend with 8500 tanks because an enemy would have to get them here. You do not need to be able to defeat an enemy to remain secure, you just need to be prickly enough to not be worth the trouble and have allies to cover your back. That is what NATO is about but if other members are ramping up defence spending and we aren't willing to, what are we worth as an ally of anyone?

 

Edited January 9 by Aristides

[RedDog]

Seriously, how many whining, limp wrist Canadians would enlist or defend a Tim Hortons drive through today?

We are 100% reliant on the USA. Let’s admit it and pay up accordingly.

[Aristides]

5 minutes ago, RedDog said:

Seriously, how many whining, limp wrist Canadians would enlist or defend a Tim Hortons drive through today?

We are 100% reliant on the USA. Let’s admit it and pay up accordingly.

Pay up for what?

[Aristides]

Canada is sixth among NATO countries in total defence spending but sixth from the bottom when it comes to spending as a % of GDP.

[RedDog]

Canadians won’t pick up litter. It’s below them. They’ll get what they deserve.

Edited January 9 by RedDog

[RedDog]

34 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Pay up for what?

Pay up for peaceful sleep at night. Jesus.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Instead of increasing spending to increase our military, maybe we should scale back the scope of the military to suit its budget.   

I kinda subscribe to the old safety meeting advice, 'if nothing moves no one gets hurt'. We could also just build a couple of really bad-assed Cobalt Doomsday bombs for one hell of a lot less money than a modern military and simply serve notice that if we go so does everyone else.  That'll be the last we ever hear of it.

I think forcing other people into debt and poverty by being a threat due to building up your own military is a crime against the economy - in some circles that's probably worse than a crime against humanity.

 

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, RedDog said:

Seriously, how many whining, limp wrist Canadians would enlist or defend a Tim Hortons drive through today?

We are 100% reliant on the USA. Let’s admit it and pay up accordingly.

Firstly Timmies coffee sucks so tttpppbbbht to that... as for the loudest limp-wristed whiners they're the one's who often lament leaving our poor allies to clean up the messes they created in the first place. The moral weight we have to carry when we do join them is punching way way below our belt.

Edited January 9 by eyeball

[herbie]

Start by growing up and realizing there's only ONE country that could possibly invade or occupy Canada, and they don't have to. And that we're not going to bomb, invade or attack anyone either, WE don't want to.

We need coastal patrol, electronic intelligence stations (NORAD), search & rescue and a small rapid deployment force for NATO and UN involvements. Like a deployable air squadron, a light armoured battalion or two and a few extra frigates. And shit loads of missiles, shit loads.
That seems doable and adequate.

Should be obvious to everyone by now all armies can do is blow shit up, they can't 'conquer' or occupy places the native people don't want them.

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, RedDog said:

Pay up for peaceful sleep at night. Jesus.

Pay who for what?

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Start by growing up and realizing there's only ONE country that could possibly invade or occupy Canada, and they don't have to. And that we're not going to bomb, invade or attack anyone either, WE don't want to.

We need coastal patrol, electronic intelligence stations (NORAD), search & rescue and a small rapid deployment force for NATO and UN involvements. Like a deployable air squadron, a light armoured battalion or two and a few extra frigates. And shit loads of missiles, shit loads.
That seems doable and adequate.

Should be obvious to everyone by now all armies can do is blow shit up, they can't 'conquer' or occupy places the native people don't want them.

So we patrol. What do you do if you actually find something, invite them for lunch?

[myata]

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

Canada is sixth among NATO countries in total defence spending but sixth from the bottom when it comes to spending as a % of GDP.

Wow, great numbers! .. you mean, comparing to Latvia and Lithuania, right? As pretty much anything in this country these days, only a matter of the (right) perspective. Here's a good one, by MP salary to median income, we're leading the democratic world!

Edited January 9 by myata

[myata]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

there's only ONE country that could possibly invade

You mean, Russia? Greet it with boat patrols, electronic stations, search & rescue and maybe a small force (if you scramble one in time), and don't even think of bombing them, right? What a brilliant thinking.. by the way, what is your planet, has to be really cute.

[TreeBeard]

8 hours ago, RedDog said:

Seriously, how many whining, limp wrist Canadians would enlist or defend a Tim Hortons drive through today?

We are 100% reliant on the USA. Let’s admit it and pay up accordingly.

What rank did you make it to in your military service?

[Contrarian]

Canada's defence minister is set to provide an update today on the military's plans to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets.

No details on Anita Anand's morning announcement were immediately available, but information disclosed last month shed some light on what lies in store.

The Canadian Press previously reported that the Department of National Defence received approval to spend $7 billion on 16 F-35 fighter jets along with related gear, technology and facilities.

The expected move is part of a decade-long effort to buy 88 fighter jets to replace aging CF-18s.

Experts have long argued upgrades to the fighter jet fleet and its associated infrastructure are necessary given the state of the Air Force's current equipment and facilities.

https://www.cp24.com/news/defence-minister-anand-to-provide-update-on-military-fighter-jet-plan-1.6222692

[Queenmandy85]

6 hours ago, myata said:

You mean, Russia? Greet it with boat patrols, electronic stations, search & rescue and maybe a small force (if you scramble one in time), and don't even think of bombing them, right? What a brilliant thinking.. by the way, what is your planet, has to be really cute.

The nation actually in a position to invade Canada is the US. They have tried to invade twice and attacked us a third time  and even planned an invasion in the 1920's. 

Currently, there is no sign they have any interest in invading us. That could change quickly. The question to ask the voter, is it worth while to have a military to repell them or do we follow Red Dog's strategy to just roll over and let them come in and wreck the place. Do we ask the voter to pay trillions of dollars for something that won't happen in our life times? Do we wait until it happens an respond by slowly bleeding them out while they set about destroyng our country?

The Americans are a wonderful people but their governments have a history of hostility towards us/

[myata]

22 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And the media and political class are obsessed not with doing anything about any of that but with pronouns, gender fluidity, diversity, equity, and weeding out any slight, faint trace of racism they can find or invent

Pretty much. And will it get any better? Like, why? What would be the cause, and incentive?

[myata]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Americans are a wonderful people but their governments have a history of hostility towards us/

You are sooo out of touch with the reality. I mean this, real and current one, right out the window not two centuries back, the proud and generous period of Canadian democracy.

Russia lost close to 300 jet fighters in less than a year of a war of attrition with only recently, a third world country. Keep dreaming about search and rescue and boat patrols, in a not so hypothetical scenario if some future China-Russia empire alliance would begin looking for a juicier belly to skin, Trump-like president of very dangerous States decides to look the other way, and of course European allies would jump into the fray, selflessly. Say I'm only dreaming, right.

Edited January 9 by myata

[Contrarian]

4 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Canada's defence minister is set to provide an update today on the military's plans to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets.

No details on Anita Anand's morning announcement were immediately available, but information disclosed last month shed some light on what lies in store.

The Canadian Press previously reported that the Department of National Defence received approval to spend $7 billion on 16 F-35 fighter jets along with related gear, technology and facilities.

The expected move is part of a decade-long effort to buy 88 fighter jets to replace aging CF-18s.

Experts have long argued upgrades to the fighter jet fleet and its associated infrastructure are necessary given the state of the Air Force's current equipment and facilities.

https://www.cp24.com/news/defence-minister-anand-to-provide-update-on-military-fighter-jet-plan-1.6222692

This is official now. F-35 fighters jets to replace CF-18s. 19 billion = the price. 

[BeaverFever]

On 1/8/2023 at 6:34 AM, myata said:

Has anything in the country gone anywhere? In the say, last three decades? Fix it for a generation? Eliminate child poverty? Provide remote communities with clean water? Army? RCMP "reforms"? Light rail in Ottawa? Please!

One could be worried, with the trend. Which world is going to, that is, into? I would.

P.S. except MP, public CEO etc. compensation packages, those have all been moving in the right direction. Only a matter of perspective, "criteria of success". Just pick one.

TAX CUTS AND AUSTERITY AT ALL COSTS!!

 

“Real Canadians” don’t care about living in a first world country, they only want NO TAXES and NO PUBLIC SPENDING under any circumstances!! That’s REAL freedom!!

Edited January 9 by BeaverFever

[myata]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

“Real Canadians” don’t care about living in a first world country, they only want NO TAXES and NO PUBLIC SPENDING

They may also be aware or have a nagging feeling that increasing the spending dramatically would do wonders to the paychecks, bonuses, pensions should I mention allowances etc of MPs and our other selfless public heroes, while having very minor effect on the observed reality. Like, "fixed it for a generation" anyone has any idea what the check pulled? Of course miracles happen too.

[BeaverFever]

On 1/8/2023 at 10:22 AM, Aristides said:

There needs to be a schedule for renewal of different systems and it needs to be stuck with so equipment spending is spread out and manageable instead of letting everything rust out and have to be replaced at the same time, which is what we always do. Right now we are in a situation where all three services need replacement of major systems. Again. 

The military has these but it’s the politicians who get to decide and there’s no political advantage to military spending in Canada for either party.   The “left” is obsessed with pacifism and large increases to social spending while the “right” is obsessed with cuts to all public spending and taxes. Governments of all stripes are beholden to the business lobby which is also obsessed with tax cuts and austerity (and corporate welfare for themselves). 

Edited January 9 by BeaverFever