Canada's military is broken and falling apart.

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

During the Cold War we had... the operative word. Not having a base in Germany there's no need for our tanks there. And aside from training crews and tech, little need for them here either.
You don't fly 40 ton tanks to where the war IS.

And this arctic panic shit = WTH would Russia send vessels through "our Arctic"? What possible benefit would they derive from that? There's no need for oceanic shortcuts from Russia and only range disadvantages for boomer subs.
 

Canada is still a signatory to NATO, and it might be asked to provide troops and equipment to any where in the globe that NATO might be involved... Almost any mechanized battle group or Brigade group has tanks.. it is part of the rock, paper scissors game...it does not work with one element left out.

And we have flown 60 ton tanks to where the war is, By C-17 to Afghanistan...one at a time or by renting Russian airlift.

Russian military ground forces have already been in our artic, there has been Russian equipment, rations boxes, and other supplies found on our shores , why is that? why is it we patrol up there, it's not becasue the fishing is good, Why would Russian subs be in our artic waters to shorten flight time of nuke missiles.. and you don't need a boomer to launch nukes..

[blackbird]

If Canada had been smart, they would have combined the coast guard and navy.  It would have made a lot of sense because we need both on our coasts and would save billions of dollars.

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Here is just a thought, since none of us here are experts in things navy, ask our navy why we need subs, there are thousands of these Q&A on the web, from yes our naval commanders...all one has to do is goggle that...

military personnel are only expert in their specific trades

Generals & Admirals are not strategists

the leading experts on military strategy are all civilians

the most knowledgeable submarine expert was John P. Craven

he served in World War Two as an enlisted man on BB-40 USS New Mexico

but his expertise as the Project Manager for the Polaris Submarine program

and as Chief Scientist at the Navy Special Projects office

was as a PhD civilian 

 serving members of the military are not in any way strategic experts, not even close

in fact,  most assertions coming from military officers are naive compared to the general public

because they are bound to tow the party line

Edited February 1, 2023 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

military personnel are only expert in their specific trades

Generals & Admirals are not strategists

the leading experts on military strategy are all civilians

the most knowledgeable submarine expert was John P. Craven

he served in World War Two as an enlisted man on the USS Missouri

but his expertise as the Project Manager for the Polaris Submarine 

and Chief Scientist at the Navy Special Projects office, was as a PhD civilian 

 serving members of the military are not in any way strategic experts

If our Naval commanders can not tell us WHY we need subs in our inventory, then they should be working in the mail room. They have to have tactical and strategic sense how to deploy them and in what situations. Or atleast answer all of tree beards questions so he can understand.  

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If Canada had been smart, they would have combined the coast guard and navy.  It would have made a lot of sense because we need both on our coasts and would save billions of dollars.

if Canada wasn't detached from reality, they would get rid of their boondoggle navy and just have a coast guard

Canada is not even sovereign on these issues

Canada does not decide if/when Canada goes to war, nor what Canada does in a war

all that is decided by the Americans for Canada

so Canada's navy doesn't even work for Canadians, it is a instrument of foreign interests in Washington

I see no need at all to have the money which Ottawa seizes from me to be spent on such a boondoggle

if the Americans insist that Canada have a fake military just for show, let them pay for it

 

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

If our Naval commanders can not tell us WHY we need subs in our inventory, then they should be working in the mail room. They have to have tactical and strategic sense how to deploy them and in what situations. Or atleast answer all of tree beards questions so he can understand.  

the problem for the commanders is : there's no actual reason for Canada to have submarines

Denmark's military is way better equipped than Canada's, yet Denmark got rid of their submarines

if Denmark, living in the line of fire with the Russian in the Baltic doesn't need them, then Canada doesn't neither

the North American continent is defended by the US Navy by default

the Americans are not going to allow any hostile operations in Canada's waters to go unchecked

so the idea that Canada even needs a navy at all,  is entirely suspect

Edited February 1, 2023 by Dougie93

[TreeBeard]

24 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Here is just a thought, since none of us here are experts in things navy, ask our navy why we need subs, there are thousands of these Q&A on the web, from yes our naval commanders...all one has to do is goggle that...

 

Of course they want the latest and greatest submarine; it’s not their billions.  If I was in the navy, I’d want them too!  
 

Do we need them?  I’m unconvinced that we will lose our Arctic territory if we don’t have them. 

[Nationalist]

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You decide for yourself.  You can always find an angry group of people protesting something, but the last polls I saw showed nearly 80% of Poles supportive of sending weapons to Ukraine.  I suspect if they weren't restrained by NATO they'd have probably intervened themselves already.  Other than Ukrainians, nobody hates Russia more than the Poles...well the Poles and almost all of Russia's other neighbours. 

Trust me, it's not nearly as amusing as seeing some donkey cite state-sponsored news from the Islamic Republic of Iran to try and prove his point, and to do so with a straight face.  ??

Funny that all this means to you is support for your blood sport.

I guess that's about all that needs to be said about that.

 

[TreeBeard]

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If Canada had been smart, they would have combined the coast guard and navy.  It would have made a lot of sense because we need both on our coasts and would save billions of dollars.

The Canadian Coast Guard is not military.  Why would you combine a non-military department with the military?  

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the problem for the commanders is : there's no actual reason for Canada to have submarines

Denmark's military is way better equipped than Canada's, yet Denmark got rid of their submarines

if Denmark, living in the line of fire with the Russian in the Baltic doesn't need them, then Canada doesn't neither

the North American continent is defended by the US Navy by default

the Americans are not going to allow any hostile operations in Canada's waters to go unchecked

so the idea that Canada even needs a navy at all,  is entirely suspect

Question: If NATO actually decides to attack Russia and WWIII ensues, wouldn't some extra subs and other new hardware be of use?

[Army Guy]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the problem for the commanders is : there's no actual reason for Canada to have submarines

Denmark's military is way better equipped than Canada's, yet Denmark got rid of their submarines

if Denmark, living in the line of fire with the Russian in the Baltic doesn't need them, than Canada doesn't neither

Well in a 2 second google search i found this ,from the Canadian naval review...they seem to have a different view. and i'm not trying to squeeze in the middle here, as i am not a naval guy... but having no subs is like the army having no armored recce elements, or tanks for that matter.  it does not make any sense...

Canada’s Future Submarines – Canadian Naval Review

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Question: If NATO actually decides to attack Russia and WWIII ensues, wouldn't some extra subs and other new hardware be of use?

only nuclear powered submarines would be useful for offensive operations against the Russians

the diesel electric powered submarine is really only for coastal defence

they make sense for countries in Europe perhaps

but the Russians submarine threat to Canada is lurking under the polar ice cap

the Russians use the ice as cover, to make a protected bastion,

in order to launch a nuclear strike against North America

so without nuclear powered submarines, Canada would play no role

Edited February 1, 2023 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The Canadian Coast Guard is not military.  Why would you combine a non-military department with the military?  

Canada's military origins are British

the British have never had a military coast guard

the UK Coast Guard, like Canada's, is a civilian agency

the military roles performed by the American Coast Guard, are performed by the navy in Britain & Canada

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Of course they want the latest and greatest submarine; it’s not their billions.  If I was in the navy, I’d want them too!  
 

Do we need them?  I’m unconvinced that we will lose our Arctic territory if we don’t have them. 

Thats your way of looking at it, I'm a tax payer and they want to spend my tax dollars i have questions, as you should......most of the equipment in our inventory is critical to the whole mission .. the Military already has lost dozens of capabilities on the ground, air, and at sea...and come game time (time of hostilities) these lost capabilities will cost lives, history has shown us every conflict our nation has been in, all of them we were ill prepared and lives were lost becasue of it. Becasue the government knows it is cheaper to bury our soldiers than equip them.. and if you agree then good on you, but one day it may be your son or daughter that is called to arms in this equipment...

Hans island is an example of disputed territory, we are lucky this was with a friendly nation...Both nations military forces played a cat and mouse game over this island...we also have disputes with the US , Russia, over artic borders...Russia is spending bils to build up their artic forces, and i'm pretty sure it is not to give them that artic holiday Russian have always dreamed about.. The treat is there, and we as a nation bury that under the carpet...The US is paying attention. 

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Well in a 2 second google search i found this ,from the Canadian naval review...they seem to have a different view. and i'm not trying to squeeze in the middle here, as i am not a naval guy... but having no subs is like the army having no armored recce elements, or tanks for that matter.  it does not make any sense...

Canada’s Future Submarines – Canadian Naval Review

Canadian Naval Review is hardly a disinterested party

Canadian Naval Review wants to save the RCN, God love them

but that doesn't mean that Canada actually needs a navy in a practical sense

sure, everybody involved with the Canadian Forces would like to save the institution

but since there is no conventional military threat to Canada which is not dealt with by the Amerricans

they don't actually have a rational case

it's all national pride & emotion

which will never stand up to logic

hence why the Canadian Forces are not a priority for the government at all

[Army Guy]

14 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The Canadian Coast Guard is not military.  Why would you combine a non-military department with the military?  

Ask Justin remember that 2 % of GDP number , Justin counts a lot of the coast guard duties as military along with the most of the RCMP are considered under the military umbrella when it comes to "budget" Not command,...An accounting game meant to boost our military numbers or fool Canadians and NATO allied into how much we are spending on our military. it has gotten him maybe 3 or 4 points to about 1.5 %. 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Ask Justin remember that 2 % of GDP number , Justin counts a lot of the coast guard duties as military along with the most of the RCMP are considered under the military umbrella when it comes to "budget" Not command,...An accounting game meant to boost our military numbers or fool Canadians and NATO allied into how much we are spending on our military. it has gotten him maybe 3 or 4 points to about 1.5 %. 

Justin Trudeau is a psychopathic lunatic

all he cares about is clinging to power cravenly by any means necessary

because he thinks 24 Sussex Drive is his house, not yours

he did grow up there after all, so its easy to see how he feels entitled to it

Edited February 1, 2023 by Dougie93

[Nationalist]

16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

only nuclear powered submarines would be useful for offensive operations against the Russians

the diesel electric powered submarine is really only for coastal defence

they make sense for countries in Europe perhaps

but the Russians submarine threat to Canada is lurking under the polar ice cap

the Russians use the ice as cover, to make a protected bastion,

in order to launch a nuclear strike against North America

so without nuclear powered submarines, Canada would play no role

Sooo...buy some?

[Army Guy]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canadian Naval Review is hardly a disinterested party

Canadian Naval Review wants to save the RCN, God love them

but that doesn't mean that Canada actually needs a navy in a practical sense

sure, everybody involved with the Canadian Forces would like to save the institution

but since there is no conventional military threat to Canada which is not dealt with by the Amerricans

they don't actually have a rational case

it's all national pride & emotion

which will never stand up to logic

hence why the Canadian Forces are not a priority for the government at all

Collapsing the military comes at a cost as well , like our sovereignty, our seat at the table, that comes with costs as well, like in trade, or at the UN, or human rights,  your voice will get muted. Very few nations in the world do not have a military. 

 

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Ask Justin remember that 2 % of GDP number , Justin counts a lot of the coast guard duties as military along with the most of the RCMP are considered under the military umbrella when it comes to "budget" Not command,...An accounting game meant to boost our military numbers or fool Canadians and NATO allied into how much we are spending on our military. it has gotten him maybe 3 or 4 points to about 1.5 %. 

I don’t really care about the creative accounting to try and justify a 2% figure to the Americans.  CCG is not military and has no military capability.  So it makes zero sense to combine them. 

[Dougie93]

Just now, Nationalist said:

Sooo...buy some?

again, the Americans will not allow Canada to buy them

the Americans control who is in the club and who is not

they do not want Canada to have nuclear powered submarines

Canada already went through this process

Canada was going to buy nuclear powered submarines in the 1980's

until the Americans sent a letter to Ottawa saying that they opposed it

Canada,  being totally reliant on the Americans for all things military, simply did as they were tolt at that point

never mind that nuclear submarines are ten times as expensive as the Victoria class Canada has now

if Canada is too cheap to pay for the submarines it has now

then Canada doesn't have the will to buy nuclear, even if the Americans permitted it

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Collapsing the military comes at a cost as well , like our sovereignty, our seat at the table, that comes with costs as well, like in trade, or at the UN, or human rights,  your voice will get muted. Very few nations in the world do not have a military.

no it doesn't

all the Americans want from Canada is compliance & access

they don't actually want Canada to have a powerful military

that would undermine American influence over Canada

America doesn't want you to fight, they just want you to obey

[Dougie93]

try to see things from America's point of view

what is the advantage of Canada & Mexico ?

both Canada & Mexico are weak, they are no challenge for the Americans

the whole point is that America has no military powers on America's borders

so a heavily armed Canada or Mexico is entirely against the American interest

America will defend fortress North America

all they ask of Canada, is to do as you are told and stay out of America's way

 

[Army Guy]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

I don’t really care about the creative accounting to try and justify a 2% figure to the Americans.  CCG is not military and has no military capability.  So it makes zero sense to combine them. 

The Coast Guard is a member of the security apparatus, they are responsible for patrolling the coast and protecting our water ways, many different governments have thought about arming them. but decided not to, but their ships could be easily armed with LT guns if they had to...They work hand in hand with our Navy and RCMP in doing that...

[Dougie93]

in terms of overseas operations ?

all America wants is your flag

that squishy liberal internationalist bleeding heart soppy old nonesense blathering Canadian flag

it provides political cover for American imperialism

the Canadian flag looks good on an American military adventures resume

other than that, they don't care

the Canadian Forces don't come with logistics, so they don't add anything, they are actually a burden

America will provide logistics to the Canadian flag, for political reasons

the actual military component therein is best kept as small as possible

like Canada can send a field hospital with some cute nurses, that would be fine

but in terms of warfighting ?

Canada was the Shock troops of the British Empire perhaps

but the Americans provide their own shock troops, they don't need Canadians for that