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

[Aristides]

Canada is 6th from the top when it comes to NATO defence spending but 6th from the bottom when it comes to % of GDP.

[blackbird]

'A raw nerve': Alberta professor to assess level of white supremacy in military (msn.com)

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

'A raw nerve': Alberta professor to assess level of white supremacy in military (msn.com)

this is what the government spends the money on

if you give the defence department more money, they will just spend it on more of this

they are never going to give the troops more & better armoured vehicles nor anything like that

 

[Dougie93]

21 hours ago, Aristides said:

Canada is 6th from the top when it comes to NATO defence spending but 6th from the bottom when it comes to % of GDP.

there is no clause in the 1949 Washington Treaty which binds Canada to spend any particular amount

even if Article V is invoked, it doesn't stipulate exactly what the members are required to do about it

the Article simply states that an attack against one is an attack against all

none the less, it does not state what the members countries must do in response

each member retains full authority to decide how much or how little to contribute

this is to protect America from being bound to anything specific, but it applies to all members

the response to Article V being invoked could be as much as going to total war

or it could be as little as sending the attacker a strongly worded letter of protest

[Aristides]

An attack against one is an attack against all. Do you think a strongly worded letter would prevent someone from attacking you?

[Dougie93]

49 minutes ago, Aristides said:

An attack against one is an attack against all. Do you think a strongly worded letter would prevent someone from attacking you?

the Americans refused to be bound to anything specific in the treaty

the POTUS retains full authority to decide how to respond

it's not a given that the attack would be an all out sustained effort

America is not necessarily launching into World War Three at the slightest incursion

perhaps the attack is a meeting engagement at sea

perhaps the attack is a limited incursion, or skirmish

in this age of hybrid warfare, the attack could be covert, deniable, and/or by proxy

if it is not an all out surprise attack on a broad front, America is not bound to fight World War Three on the spot

and neither is Canada

let's say the Russians launch some missiles into Poland

Poland will invoke Article V

but that doesn't mean we go to war on the spot

America is not going to war with Russia for Warsaw unless it is an all out sustained effort

first thing the POTUS is going to do is get on the Red Phone to Moscow

the first action is going to be a strongly worded protest, not DEFCON 1

if it is not an all out surprise attack on a broad front

the Washington Treaty actually stipulates that NATO has to go to the UN first

the Russians know the score, and they have a veto at the UNSC

so it is extremely unlikely that they would in fact launch an all out surprise attack

instead, Mr Ivan would muddy the waters with the much more limited incursiom

according to the treaty, in order for NATO to go on the offensive

an United Nations Security Council Resolution Chapter 7 is required

so after the POTUS gets off the Red Phone to Moscow

the next step is to take things to Manhattan to start arguing about it at the UN

the Kremlin knows the score, and they have a veto at the UNSC

so in this day & age, it is extremely unlikely that they would launch an all out attack

it is entirely to the Russians advantage to muddy the waters with a limited incursion

if the balloon goes up, it will be the Russians trying to sow dissension in NATO

only the Eastern Europeans want to fight, the Western Europeans want no part of that

the Russian objective is to try to fracture NATO,

and a limited incursion in the East would do just that

nobody is launching ICBM"s for Romania nor Poland, and the Russians well know it

Edited January 12 by Dougie93

[Aristides]

Well I guess the easiest way to avoid your commitments is to make sure you don't have the capacity to keep them.

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Well I guess the easiest way to avoid your commitments is to make sure you don't have the capacity to keep them.

there is nothing in the 1949 Washington Treaty specifically binding the members to fight a war

nowhere in the treaty does it state the purpose of NATO is to fight wars

to include Article V which merely states

"if such an armed attack occurs, each of them will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary."

all it says is that a signatory is bound "to assist" the country which was attacked

it does not say that a signatory must fight a war for them

 it explicitly states that signatories will deem what action is necessary for themselves

the low information media & public think that NATO binds America to fight a war for Europe

but it doesn't actually say that,

all it says is that America will "assist"

and that America will deem what assistance is necessary

[eyeball]

On 1/10/2023 at 1:49 PM, Army Guy said:

Why does Canada need nuclear weapons, there are already to many in the world, we will never have a seat at the table ever, so why do we need to have nukes ?

Deterrence. I don't mean with a ordinary nuclear force, I mean with a couple big ol' dirty Cobalt so-called doomsday bombs. If we go so does everyone else.  An attack against us will immediately trigger our defence and we won't have to lift a finger.

The best part however is that we won't ever have to waste a bunch of money on a conventional force or get dragged into conventional conflicts.

 

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

The best part however is that we won't ever have to waste a bunch of money on a conventional force or get dragged into conventional conflicts.

This is silly.  

There are bad people in the world that affect global stability.  Nuking them is generally not a reasonable option.  Even as a deterrence, you can't just say "We has Nukleer wepons".  You still need a way to deliver them, in different ways, all redundant to each other, to pose a credible threat.  That requires a conventional military, which defeats the purpose of your theory to start.  

Edited January 13 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

46 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This is silly.  

There are bad people in the world that affect global stability.  Nuking them is generally not a reasonable option.  Even as a deterrence, you can't just say "We has Nukleer wepons".  You still need a way to deliver them, in different ways, all redundant to each other, to pose a credible threat.  That requires a conventional military, which defeats the purpose of your theory to start.  

You don't need missiles to deliver Doomsday bombs you just set them off. I know it's MAD but that's the point.

Oh well at least we've proven we can come up with hundreds of billions of dollars in a pinch if we need to so the cost of a military is a moot issue now. Arm away to your heart's content.

[Moonbox]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You don't need missiles to deliver Doomsday bombs you just set them off. I know it's MAD but that's the point.

Ah, Doomsday bombs then. We spend untold billions enriching uranium to build unprecedented armaggedon bombs.  Gotcha.  How do we safeguard these bombs then? 

How do we ensure that someone doesn't first-strike our seppuku/MAD solution to conflict?   This will help us on peacekeeping missions and stuff too I assume?  🤨

[eyeball]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Ah, Doomsday bombs then. We spend untold billions enriching uranium to build unprecedented armaggedon bombs.  Gotcha.  How do we safeguard these bombs then? 

How do we ensure that someone doesn't first-strike our seppuku/MAD solution to conflict?   This will help us on peacekeeping missions and stuff too I assume?  🤨

I don't know, Israel is said to have one. And why would we need to spend billions, I thought the whole point of a dirty bomb is that they're inexpensive.

The cost of militarizing is probably half the reason I'm so unsupportive of wasting money on it, the other half was due to my conviction so many of the bad people out there were created by our side/allies.

Money is no longer an issue and no one else seems to overly concerned about how many of the bastards out but there are/were our own so... I'm not as invested in the issue as I used to be.  Does that mean I'm becoming more jaded? I think so 

[Moonbox]

52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I don't know, Israel is said to have one. And why would we need to spend billions, I thought the whole point of a dirty bomb is that they're inexpensive.

A dirty bomb is just a conventional bomb that would release radioactive material.  It is cheap.  A doomsday world-deterring bomb would be a large undertaking, with huge enriched fuel requirements and substantial engineering expertise.  There's a reason that Iran has struggled for decades now to build even basic nuclear weaponization.  

52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The cost of militarizing is probably half the reason I'm so unsupportive of wasting money on it, the other half was due to my conviction so many of the bad people out there were created by our side/allies.

Yes, the USA in particular has a shady history with foreign policy.  Even then, the good they've done has probably outweighed the bad, with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union being among the greatest of their defeated adversaries.  

52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Money is no longer an issue and no one else seems to overly concerned about how many of the bastards out but there are/were our own so... I'm not as invested in the issue as I used to be.  Does that mean I'm becoming more jaded? I think so 

Money is an issue, but the reality is that we HAVE neglected our military and spent nearly nothing on it for 20+ years.  We waste far more money on worthless pet projects and out-of-touch initiatives that accomplish nothing than the money we spend on our military, which accounts for less than 2% of our GDP.  

[Dougie93]

the flaw in the Doomsday Bomb theory is that deterrence has to be credible

no adversary is going to believe that you are actually going to use your Cobalt bomb

the most credible deterrent is one that is realistic to actually be used, one that has a fighting chance to win

so that would be massive preemptive first strike counterforce option, backed by survivable second strike 

with comprehensive ballistic missile defense to knock down the adversary's retaliation

[Dougie93]

n terms of what Canada would contribute to credible deterrence ?

that's where the CF-35A comes into play

how the F-35 dogfights is largely irrelevant

in that role, it basically fights like an F/A-18 on steroids, so there is no loss of capability

but it's called the Joint Strike Fighter for a reason

inclusive to that role, each F-35 is essentially a mini stealth bomber for preemptive counterforce option

when you load two B61-12 variable yield (0.3 to 400 kilotons ) thermonuclear bombs internally

F-35 can hit Moscow from NATO territory and the Russians would never see them coming

delivering NATO B61 thermonuclear bombs is Canada's nuclear strike role, dating back to the CF-104

in addition, Canada is responsible for NORAD Canadian National Region ( CANR )

with the deputy commander NORAD at Colorado Springs always being a Canadian

currently that is RCAF Lieutenant General Alain Pelletier

https://www.norad.mil/Leadership/Article-View/Article/2289346/lieutenant-general-alain-pelletier-rcaf/

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

the flaw in the Doomsday Bomb theory is that deterrence has to be credible

no adversary is going to believe that you are actually going to use your Cobalt bomb

the most credible deterrent is one that is realistic to actually be used, one that has a fighting chance to win

so that would be massive preemptive first strike counterforce option, backed by survivable second strike 

with comprehensive ballistic missile defense to knock down the adversary's retaliation

I can't really see any flaws in the credible nuclear deterrence theory knowing we can just borrow our way out of Armageddon.

Fork the 4 Horsemen.

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I can't really see any flaws in the credible nuclear deterrence theory knowing we can just borrow our way out of Armageddon.

Fork the 4 Horsemen.

as a retired Canadian Forces NCO

my remit is simply to provide the Canadian public with the best military analysis as I am able

I was a Cold Warrior, and I have spent forty years studying the thermonuclear war I was indoctrinated to fight

I simply pass on what I have learned, through decades of practical experience and theoretical study

ducimus

 

[BeaverFever]

On 1/11/2023 at 7:46 PM, Aristides said:

Canada is 6th from the top when it comes to NATO defence spending but 6th from the bottom when it comes to % of GDP.

We have a lit more overhead costs than other countries. Before we even spend one cent on tanks or expeditionary forces or “war fighting” capabilities we have massive domestic responsibilities. We have the world’s longest coastline and largest offshore territory bordering THREE oceans, one of which is the Arctic. Canada is world’s second largest landmass. You pretty much can fit all the European NATO countries INSIDE Canada. That means just day-day basic existence l, things like search and rescue, disaster relief, sovereignty patrols, airspace control etc we need a lot more bases and have a lot more costs than most peer countriees.

 

Thats why we have so little left over for force projection despite being “the 6th largest” spender. Although I’m not even sure “6th largest” is such a meaningful ranking anyway.  What number should we be? Yes we spend more than tiny landlocked Luxembourg. Who do we think we are? Shame on us!

[BeaverFever]

On 1/12/2023 at 5:57 AM, blackbird said:

'A raw nerve': Alberta professor to assess level of white supremacy in military (msn.com)

Remember if they find any it means the entire country is made up of nazis and Russia must invade for denazification, which is somehow accomplished by annexing a piece of our territory 

[BeaverFever]

On 1/11/2023 at 2:32 PM, Army Guy said:

It is not a competition on who's moral compass is superior, it is about choice really, the American people and governments choose to be the worlds policemen...we also had the same choices we could have been partners to that choice, we could have had a real seat at the table much like the UK, Australia, France etc ... But we choose not to have any of that, instead we choose to seat on the side lines and watch, and once in a while give them the finger....is that the moral compass your talking about... (signing the new NATO agreement and then days later telling the world we Canada has not intention in spending 2 % of our GDP on defense that is giving the finger) It is those acts that will put us at the bottom of the pile every time. 

I agree 100 % Canada should step up and show leadership, and not in all the easy topics but like you said in global defense as well. But that is an area we really lack is leadership, atleast leadership that is willing to step up and lead our nation...and make decision best for the country and not for their careers. 

Canada’s moral compass is as good or better than any other nato country when it comes to dealing with global events. We dont have crazy pro-Putin MAGAs rooting for the enemy like USA and we don’t have entrenched colonial interests like much of Europe.   That’s all I’m trying to say. 

Edited January 19 by BeaverFever

[eyeball]

35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Remember if they find any it means the entire country is made up of nazis and Russia must invade for denazification, which is somehow accomplished by annexing a piece of our territory 

It's a wonder the US hasn't carpet-bombed us back into the stone-age for being such flagrant commie socialists.

[BeaverFever]

Just now, eyeball said:

It's a wonder the US hasn't carpet-bombed us back into the stone-age for being such flagrant commie socialists.

We’ve been too useful as a economic puppet state and serving as “America’s pantry” for  raw material. 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

 That means just day-day basic existence l, things like search and rescue, disaster relief, sovereignty patrols, airspace control etc we need a lot more bases and have a lot more costs than most peer countriees.

none of those things are the role of the military

all those things could be handled by the armed constabulary

if you are not preparing the Canadian military to fight and win wars, then you don't actually need a military

America can handle airspace control, and already does, from Colorado Springs

for the rest, you've got the Coast Guard & RCMP, both civilian agencies

 

[Dougie93]

33 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Canada’s moral compass is as good or better than any other nato country when it comes to dealing with global events.

the absurd pathology of Canadian priggishness

seek help Canada, you are delusional