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

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying Canada needs to build a nuclear deterrence to balance  that American dominance in NATO. A war like the Ukraine is measured in months and years. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they would come after NATO countries next, if it were not for the British, French and American nuclear deterrence. If Russia or China attacks a NATO country, that war will be measured in hours, and the aftermath in weeks. Chieftain tanks, F-35's, and frigates will have no effect on the outcome.

Any war will start with conventional weapons, resorting to nukes is just mutual suicide.

[blackbird]

Just now, Contrarian said:

Jesus wrote the Bible? A few days ago you told me it was written by different witnesses like in a courtroom.

Yes Jesus wrote it.  Jesus is God and inspired men to write the Holy Scripture.

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”   John 1:1

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”   John 1:12 KJV
 

"“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”   2 Timothy 3:16 KJV

[Aristides]

What does any of this have to do with re equipping our military?

[Contrarian]

 

22 minutes ago, Aristides said:

What does any of this have to do with re equipping our military?

Aristides the Just has a point. I deleted my latest off topic post. 

In regards to numbers:

---> Permanent residents now eligible to join the Canadian Armed Forces. December 5th news report. 

Permanent residents can now apply to join the Canadian Armed Forces, regardless of whether they have been trained by a foreign military.

It’s the latest effort by Canada’s military to boost recruitment, which are lagging well behind the target of adding 5,900 new members by March.

Until now, permanent residents in Canada could sign up only if they were skilled professionals who were trained by foreign militarises, but the federal government is now broadening the pool of applicants.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9326290/canadian-armed-forces-permanent-residents/

Edited January 9 by Contrarian

[RedDog]

11 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

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

Taxpayer. I bought and paid for it.

[Queenmandy85]

Russian strategic and tactical thinking has not changed from the Soviet era, going back to Chairman Khrushchev. Open with bombardment to soften enemy positions, then advance. Since Malinovsky to the present, Russian doctrine does not differentiate between what the west calls conventional weapons and nuclear weapons. Russia would be the first to use tactical nuclear weapons but after that there will be an all out nuclear exchange that will likely include China. 

[RedDog]

11 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

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

Taxpayer. I bought and paid for it. I hired, trained and employed those in the service.

Edited January 9 by RedDog

[herbie]

HTG who'd consider using tactical nukes against attacks the size used in modern warfare? That Cold War thinking was for fronts with million man attacks, 1,000s of pieces of armour.
Even in the early stages in the Ukraine when all that Russian armour was clogged up on the roads, a handful of A-10s could have obliterated them as effectively as a handful of tactical nukes. A soon as you bring nuclear weapons into play, everybody loses. Even Putin knows that.

Edited January 9 by herbie

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

What does any of this have to do with re equipping our military?

The fact that you and some others on here are anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-Christianity is why the military is run by a bunch of liberal left pacifists and so-called progressives and not funded properly.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

The fact that you and some others on here are anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-Christianity is why the military is run by a bunch of liberal left pacifists and so-called progressives and not funded properly.

Bla, bla, bla.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That is false but common belief.  Even the Communist revolutionaries would probably think that.

But Jesus wrote the whole Bible and this is what it says in the first part of Psalm 37 about what will happen to evil people:

"Psalms Chapter 37 (A Psalm of David.) Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming."

People like you oppose me and what I am saying.  You can see from this Psalm you are on the losing side.  You and Contrarian support abortion I see which just proves my point about immorality and what side you are on.

 

Dude.
 

1)  “Communist Revolutionaries” are atheists so actually don’t believe in God or Jesus at all. 

2) Jesus did not write the Old Testament. In fact nowhere does anyone say Jesus wrote any part of the bible  much less “the whole bible” 

3) The story of Jesus is the story of the New Testament.  You cannot quote the Old Testament to prove the lessons of the New Testament. That’s a reason it’s called the NEW Testament.

4) Quoting your religious texts to people who don’t believe in your religion is a waste of energy. If the Taliban quoted koran verses to you would it convince you to become muslim?

[Nefarious Banana]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Can you please show me the bible passages where Jesus speaks about the importance of upgrading military equipment and recruiting soldiers?

You've 'triggered' the zealot . . . . thanks, thanks a lot.

 

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

If the Taliban quoted koran verses to you would it convince you to become muslim?

No, because I thankfully have enough knowledge about the Bible to know the Koran is not from God.

 

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

4) Quoting your religious texts to people who don’t believe in your religion is a waste of energy.

That's not for me to decide.  God says speak the word, in season and out of season.  One never knows how God's word works, especially since it is God's word.  If you want to waste your life opposing God that is your choice, but it is unwise.

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 “Communist Revolutionaries” are atheists so actually don’t believe in God or Jesus at all.

Have you ever heard of "Liberation Theology".  It was a widely believed ideology by Communist revolutionaries in Central and South America.  Sometime preached by Catholic liberation theology priests decades ago in Central America.  Many of its followers may actually have believed Jesus was some kind of Communist revolutionary.  This might have helped motivate them.  Castro was involved with Che Guevara and other revolutionaries in Central America also.  Some might have been atheists;  others may have believed in their false god of Communism.  

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

2) Jesus did not write the Old Testament. In fact nowhere does anyone say Jesus wrote any part of the bible  much less “the whole bible” 

I quoted several verses above that show Jesus was referred to as the "word" in John ch1.  The word refers to the whole Bible.  The Bible as a whole is about Jesus Christ.  There are many prophecies in the Old Testament that are referring to him.  The New Testament has a lot about Jesus including the fact he is God and the Old Testament refers throughout to God and what God said.

14 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

3) The story of Jesus is the story of the New Testament.  You cannot quote the Old Testament to prove the lessons of the New Testament. That’s a reason it’s called the NEW Testament.

The New Testament is closely connected to the Old Testament.  Both parts are important and inter-related.  That involves theology.  God inspired men to write both, the same God.

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

 The other 15 countries bought them for a reason.

that reason is economies of scale

America will eventually build 4000+ F-35's

while the competitors only build a few hundred jets at most

the cost savings of the F-35 are in the logistics

it's always cheaper to buy from the massive American program which dwarfs all competitors many times over

[Dougie93]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The F-35 has one of the same drawbacks as the Avro Arrow. They are too expensive. Time will tell if they are worth it. Lets hope we never have to find out.

the Avro Arrow was exponentially more expensive than the F-35

one Avro Arrow cost $12.5 million in 1959

that is the equivalent of $1.024 billion per Avro Arrow in today's dollars

F-35A is selling for $85 million in today's dollars

so the Avro Arrow was 12 times more expensive than an F-35, in inflation adjusted dollars

to understand just how expensive Avro Arrow was in 1959 dollars, it to know why it was cancelled

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Any war will start with conventional weapons, resorting to nukes is just mutual suicide.

That is the whole idea. As long as the potential enemy believes you are willing to destroy them and you, rather than submit, you have deterrence. "MAD"

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is the whole idea. As long as the potential enemy believes you are willing to destroy them and you, rather than submit, you have deterrence. "MAD"

"MAD" only works if all tactical nuclear weapons are removed from the equation

so long as there are tactical nuclear weapons in play, "MAD" is undermined

for example, the Russians could nuke Romania or Poland, and America would not go to DEFCON 1 as a result

MAD only applies to a strategic exchange over the pole

otherwise, there is plenty of room for tactical nuclear weapons to be used in theatre without mutual destruction

[Dougie93]

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

 resorting to nukes is just mutual suicide.

not necessarily

there are two types of nuclear war

strategic nuclear war,  otherwise known as Countervalue deterrence

Countervalue is holding each others population centres hostage to a strategic nuclear retaliation

there is another mode of nuclear warfare however

tactical nuclear war, otherwise known as a Counterforce option

Counterforce is when you only strike military targets in theatre

you avoid striking population centres and decline to attack your nuclear adversary directly

for example, in the Cold War, the Soviets only planned to use nuclear weapons against proxies

the Soviets would not strike America, Britain nor France

yet they would use tactical nuclear weapons against NATO countries in Europe

knowing full well that America, Britain & France would never blow the world up for Brussels, Warsaw, nor Berlin

MAD is actually a bluff

because neither side would actually launch an all out massive retaliation under any circumstances

this then opens the way for both sides to use their tactical nukes against each others proxies

furthermore there is tactical nuclear warfare at sea

as neither side is going to launch a massive retaliation

if you drop a nuclear depth charge on a submarine, or a nuclear cruise missile on an aircraft carrier

NATO's principle tactical nuclear weapon is the B-61 tactical thermonuclear bomb

stored at bases in Germany, the Netherlands, Italy & Turkey

Edited January 10 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

On 1/8/2023 at 6:52 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

1.....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. 

2....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.

3.... 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.

4.....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. 

1....I think you might have missed the point here, Australia just invested almost 300 billion into their military in the last 4 years, and will be ongoing for the next 5 years... Thats including 90 Bil on subs....there are millions of ways to buy the latest equipment, off trusted off shore nations, like the US, Germany, South Korea, and some of it can be built in Canada, but the high end items like ships UK and Australia can build them for a 1/3 of the price why can't we... 

Our next conflict/ big Natural disaster  is come as you are, you must have all that stuff i was talking about on hand yesterday... **Note that our military is the primary responder to anything that needs manpower and equipment, from natural disasters/ pandemics etc...there is just not enough military to go around... Winnipeg flood took all 3 of the Armies Brigades, most of the Air force, and some of the Navy, still not enough... Ice storm once again took the entire army,and sent them to Ontario, Quebec, and NB, not to mention power companies, RCMP, OPP, QPP and many more...

2.... History has shown us that Canada has only fought one war on our soil, the rest was around the globe... and it will be anyone of 3 or 4 dozen different nations considered hostile, or not friendly. And any future conflict will be with a coalition... the problem is this, Canada will go, as we have always go , ready or not.... and you can save lives by having the best equipment, or you can get use to burying our sons and daughters, it really is that simple. 

3... Not sure where this is coming from, but our military does not practice much gorilla warfare, maybe at the higher tiers like CSOR, JTF might touch on it , but the regular army closes with and destroys our nations enemies through maneuver warfare. We either destroy the enemy or we become combat ineffective then have 2 options regroup or surrender.  

4.... Canada's son and daughters have rarely died on Canadian lands in conflict, but rather or hopefully on someone else country...Trust me Canada does not want to see war on it's door steps or back yard...

Every Government that has had to consider declaring war and sending it's citizens to war, has done so with no to very little military on hand... or professional soldiers... and thousands of Canadians have paid the price for those decisions with their life's... take a good look at WWI, and what equipment we had at the start and what equipment the government purchases to send them into battle...

How many men died becasue the ross rifle they had was garbage, and were forced to pick up rifles from dead British soldiers...not to mention all the other crap that was purchased....same as WWII, Korea... we keep doing the same thing over and over again... and we are happy to bury our soldiers, becasue it is cheaper, a letter, a flag, coffin, head stone, and perhaps a plot in the military cemetery.  NEXT, person...repeat... It's really that cold of a process...WOW atleast my taxes did not go up 100 bucks...

In basic training they use to tell us these thought provoking things like how long an average infantry soldiers life expectancy was once on a high intensity battle field. 7 seconds, from the time you stepped off the departure line until you made contact with the enemy... 7 seconds, in a tank it was 3 seconds, the list is long and ugly, those numbers are in the top of the line equipment...imagine now your strapped in to a 40 year old plane, or an old tank, or 40 year old ship...watch those number get really small... and if your lucky to survive, your head will never be the same ever...my Sgt Major told me once dyeing is the easy part , living thats the hard part...

Reports coming out of Ukraine, are saying most the units that started out in that conflict have no one left from the original group, all have been killed, wounded, or replaced.  and that conflict is how old, just over a year.. Knowing this why would we not give our kids a fighting chance, by ensuring they had modern equipment every little edge might mean them coming home...of all the things i get taxed for, i would gladly give more to see our kids come home... but thats not how we roll here in Canada, life does have a price and it goes for cheap...

 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

HTG who'd consider using tactical nukes against attacks the size used in modern warfare? That Cold War thinking was for fronts with million man attacks, 1,000s of pieces of armour.
Even in the early stages in the Ukraine when all that Russian armour was clogged up on the roads, a handful of A-10s could have obliterated them as effectively as a handful of tactical nukes. A soon as you bring nuclear weapons into play, everybody loses. Even Putin knows that.

It is Russian doctrine, to use them, to them any weapon that is not used is a useless weapon... authorization to use them was down to army commanders or lower during the Cold war, It was not until NATO declared that any tactical nuke was consider a WMD and could escalate to a full exchange. 

Using them gave the offensive force the speed and momentum it needed to just over run everyone else, it would also remove units that were of a higher threat, like tanks ,dug in infantry  or runways or air heads...It also forces your enemy to fight in full NBCW gear, which makes everything 100 times harder to accomplish. simple things like drinking and taking a dump can now kill you.. add the summer heat to the mix and you will suffer ...It's like wearing a snowmobile suit and very restrictive mask to breath through to the beach. 

it also made the ground un useable for centuries, contaminating water supplies, farming land, it also made the ground a unpassable due to high levels radiation.

In Ukraine the Russians want the land, so poisoning it was not an option.   

 

 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

that reason is economies of scale

America will eventually build 4000+ F-35's

while the competitors only build a few hundred jets at most

the cost savings of the F-35 are in the logistics

it's always cheaper to buy from the massive American program which dwarfs all competitors many times over

Of course. Also, other countries had contributed to the aircraft's development.

Edited January 10 by Aristides

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is the whole idea. As long as the potential enemy believes you are willing to destroy them and you, rather than submit, you have deterrence. "MAD"

Yes but the downside is you have to commit suicide to do it. Are you willing to have your bluff called just because you have no conventional capability?   Would you like to see Ukraine use nukes to counter the conventional attack from Russia?

Edited January 10 by Aristides

[Moonlight Graham]

Change the name of Canada to "Wet Noodle".