Army Guy Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 7 hours ago, eyeball said: I wasn't thinking about a program, just a big stick really. To be honest though I don't think anything can protect us and no one's getting out alive. So I'd rather blow our money on enjoying the time we have left. You make it sound like we just go to the nuke store lay some cash out on the table and poof your a proud owner of a nuclear weapon....Nope..first you need a nuclear weapons' program , a way to enrich uranium, which apparently those nations that have nuke weapons' are not going to share, or they will prohibit the tools to do it...next we need people who could put it all together, and then where do you plan on testing this thing...i would suggest BC , keeping the radiation from going over the mountains...hey we could move all you guys to Quebec... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 On 1/10/2024 at 5:40 PM, eyeball said: Why on Earth can't we simply admit we're utterly useless at this and contract out our defence to an ally? By the time we announce a date we plan on catching up everyone else will be upgrading to their 2nd or 3rd generation battle-bots and drones. We sort of have for the last forty years. But we like to keep up the pretense of sovereignty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 9 hours ago, eyeball said: That's just me, I'm quite certain many Canadians would welcome an American invasion as a liberation. Well, if the alternative was nuclear war... yeah. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 4 minutes ago, Army Guy said: You make it sound like we just go to the nuke store lay some cash out on the table and poof your a proud owner of a nuclear weapon....Nope..first you need a nuclear weapons' program , a way to enrich uranium, which apparently those nations that have nuke weapons' are not going to share, or they will prohibit the tools to do it...next we need people who could put it all together, and then where do you plan on testing this thing...i would suggest BC , keeping the radiation from going over the mountains...hey we could move all you guys to Quebec... You make it sound like we're a developing nation with no resources and a people without the brains to use them. Between nuclear ambiguity and borrowing Israel's Samson Option, a "last resort" against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of our ability to resist we should be just fine at a fraction of the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 11 minutes ago, I am Groot said: But we like to keep up the pretense of sovereignty. Like the pretence of democracy - both seem increasingly over-rated as time goes by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 3 hours ago, Moonbox said: The Cold War, which concluded with the collapse of the world's most powerful authoritarian regime and the liberalization and democratization of most of Eastern Europe...that's what led to more authoritarianism? What a weird take. No, what led to more authoritarianism was funding and supporting dictatorships around the world to help bring about the USSR's collapse. After that dictators were needed to help support globalization and a largely western led multi-national corporate domination of most of the world's economy. Some measures even suggest that a greater number of countries became more authoritarian in 2022 than in any year since 1990. If the decline of democracy continues at the present pace, less than 5% of the world’s population will live in a full democracy by 2026. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/how-the-global-rise-of-authoritarianism-is-misunderstood-and-why-it-matters#:~:text=Some measures even suggest that,a full democracy by 2026. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted January 12 Author Report Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Whether true or not some of history suggest that 1973 war a nuclear weapon strike was contemplated , and i can not find any source for 67 war, but it would be strange to have reported having a nuke weapon around that time but not being able to use it... Nuclear weapons' were of no deterrence for those middle eastern countries at the time, or perhaps those countries did not see it as a threat. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/israel-nearly-went-nuclear-win-1973-yom-kippur-war-172087 Do you really think that ANY country would agree to Canada using a nukes in it's sole defense against any armed invader...one that was not a already global conflict with nukes flying every where...just the fall out alone would travel the globe....just the damage from the fall out could be considered an act of war to any country effected...and if the globe is at war and their has already been an exchange the couple of nukes that canada would have would be pointless...Russia , Canada, the US, UK, France would all be glass... As for the US being the only threat thats not what experts say in NATO where Russia dominance in the artic areas, poses a huge threat to the US and Canada... Participating in any conflict regarding NATO is a must have...unless i'm missing something, hence why we joined that along with NORAD, and 5 eyes. refusing to participate would have serious consequences for this nation...in all realms, diplomatically, economical, and for our entire security apparatus...it would be a line would would not want to cross...the largest undefended border would become heavily armed...with no consideration to Canada's welfare, or sovereignty. Not sure why that issue would even come up in conversation, if conflict did brew up Canada would deploy as many Canadians as it could, (that is almost a fact) even if it meant the conscription to keep up with numbers required......as far as not having any useful equipment, we would not have to worry about it most of it would be destroyed early in the conflict...along with most of the professional military...and god knows what equipment would be available to buy or manufacture but it would not be world class, and our sons and daughters would be paying the price( History has proven that several times)...Don't let the war in Ukraine fool you the Russians are far for done....they have 1.5 million troops and plenty of equipment old equipment...those kinds of numbers are still capable of busting through any NATO defensives, and set Europe ablaze...they may not win or keep their gains....in those battles, but europe would be ablaze none the less... No combat force can invade Canada from the arctic. Just getting a significant invading army into the Canadian arctic would be logistical feat that would make D-day look like child’s play and the minths-long build up of invading forces in Russia would be easily spotted long in advance. But even that notwithstanding after landing an army in our arctic, getting that army from our arctic shores to the populated areas down south would be all but impossible. There are fewroads ip there and tue muskeg and swamp and boreal forest would make cross country travel impossible. And the US would never let it happen at any rate. A more realistic threat from Russia would be commandos and saboteurs attempting to disrupt natural resources operations and landing unopposed on islands in the archipelago in order to claim contested territory or waterways The thing about these great power conflicts in the nuclear age is that they are all about credible deterrence not actual direct combat between NATO and Russia. . Russia would never attack a NATO force directly but I believe they might happily seize undefended territory which then puts us in the awkward position of having to attack them and start a shooting war if we want it back but of course we’re not suicidal either and they know it. Russia will also fight us through proxies like Wagner, and the Donbas separatists but never open war or invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted January 12 Author Report Share Posted January 12 Finally the beginning of the end for the detestable LSVW! Canada Selects Winner for Logistics Vehicle Modernization Project January 11, 2024 - by Richard Pettibone Mercedes-Benz Zetros is the basis for the LVM. Image – Mercedes-Benz The Canadian government has chosen General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada as the preferred bidder for the Logistics Vehicle Modernization (LVM) program, a major initiative to upgrade the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) fleet of logistics vehicles. This victory marks a significant step forward in ensuring the CAF’s readiness for missions both at home and abroad. The LVM project seeks to replace the CAF’s aging fleet with new light and heavy logistics vehicles, trailers, and various modules. These modern vehicles will offer several key advantages over their predecessors including increased load capacity, enhanced mobility and greater protection. General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada – leading “The Power Team” – emerged victorious after a competitive bidding process involving several other renowned companies. “The Power Team” members include Marshall Canada, Mercedes-Benz (Daimler Trucks), SOFRAME, and Manac Inc Rivals for the LVM program, which was first announced in 2019, included Team 45° North (Rheinmetall Canada, Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles (RMMV) and Navistar Defence Canada), Iveco Defense Vehicles, Mack Defense, and Oshkosh Defense. The Power Team proposal centers around the proven NATO-fielded Mercedes-Benz Zetros Truck, known for its ruggedness and versatility. Using a common chassis for different configurations, The Power Team promises over 90% commonality in parts and subsystems, simplifying maintenance and logistics. The official contract is expected to be finalized in spring 2024, paving the way for the delivery of the new vehicles to the CAF. https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2024/01/11/canada-selects-winner-for-logistics-vehicle-modernization-project/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted January 12 Author Report Share Posted January 12 (edited) 12 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Finally the beginning of the end for the detestable LSVW! Canada Selects Winner for Logistics Vehicle Modernization Project January 11, 2024 - by Richard Pettibone Mercedes-Benz Zetros is the basis for the LVM. Image – Mercedes-Benz The Canadian government has chosen General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada as the preferred bidder for the Logistics Vehicle Modernization (LVM) program, a major initiative to upgrade the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) fleet of logistics vehicles. This victory marks a significant step forward in ensuring the CAF’s readiness for missions both at home and abroad. The LVM project seeks to replace the CAF’s aging fleet with new light and heavy logistics vehicles, trailers, and various modules. These modern vehicles will offer several key advantages over their predecessors including increased load capacity, enhanced mobility and greater protection. General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada – leading “The Power Team” – emerged victorious after a competitive bidding process involving several other renowned companies. “The Power Team” members include Marshall Canada, Mercedes-Benz (Daimler Trucks), SOFRAME, and Manac Inc Rivals for the LVM program, which was first announced in 2019, included Team 45° North (Rheinmetall Canada, Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles (RMMV) and Navistar Defence Canada), Iveco Defense Vehicles, Mack Defense, and Oshkosh Defense. The Power Team proposal centers around the proven NATO-fielded Mercedes-Benz Zetros Truck, known for its ruggedness and versatility. Using a common chassis for different configurations, The Power Team promises over 90% commonality in parts and subsystems, simplifying maintenance and logistics. The official contract is expected to be finalized in spring 2024, paving the way for the delivery of the new vehicles to the CAF. https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2024/01/11/canada-selects-winner-for-logistics-vehicle-modernization-project/ What I struggle with is how/why this vehicle will replace the LIGHT and HEAVY trucks but not the MEDIUM trucks, which are based a completely different vehicle that was fully delivered in 2015-2020. If this newest platform can do the full spectrum why not just use it for everything for efficiency of parts and trained maintenance personnel? I’m sure it comes down to money and the reality of replacing what you can when you can but still it just illustrates all the inefficiencies with our current military procurement. Edited January 12 by BeaverFever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 20 hours ago, eyeball said: You make it sound like we're a developing nation with no resources and a people without the brains to use them. Between nuclear ambiguity and borrowing Israel's Samson Option, a "last resort" against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of our ability to resist we should be just fine at a fraction of the cost. Which is why we have a nuclear arsenal today... You don't understand, the rest of the worlds great powers don't want Canada to have a nuclear program, not yesterday nor tommorrow....there is a whole list of reasons why we don't have one...way to expensive , we are not responsible enough to have them, the ones we had we gave back to scary for Canadians, beside we can't even look after conventional weapons', nobody is going to give us that tech that allows us to have a program to start with.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Army Guy said: You don't understand, the rest of the worlds great powers don't want Canada to have a nuclear program Sounds like what they really don't want is for us to exercise our sovereignty. In either case isn't this all the more reason for the great powers to take responsibility for everyone elses' defense? Do you think Ukraine would have been left alone if it still had it's own nuclear arsenal? Edited January 12 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 WTH are you talking about? WE decided not to have nuclear weapons 60 years ago, not someone else. We pissed off the Yanks at the time. Nobody wants any now either. Asking for a stockpile that can rust away like all thousands of trucks in a boneyard? At least those you could have used if they were needed. Stockpiling weapons is like stockpiling potato chips when you live next door to a 7-11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 (edited) 5 hours ago, BeaverFever said: What I struggle with is how/why this vehicle will replace the LIGHT and HEAVY trucks but not the MEDIUM trucks, which are based a completely different vehicle that was fully delivered in 2015-2020. If this newest platform can do the full spectrum why not just use it for everything for efficiency of parts and trained maintenance personnel? I’m sure it comes down to money and the reality of replacing what you can when you can but still it just illustrates all the inefficiencies with our current military procurement. The medium trucks where already purchased, they decided to go with the heavy french trucks, made by mack but french design...The army wanted to get heavy trucks , but it was canceled by the government, so instead they purchased the below trucks as MLVW replacements. I know it does not make sense, but here it is...They heavy trucks that your article mentions have a ton rating of 2 1/2 to 15 tonnes...as for the light trucks not sure if they are sticking with Mercedes and going with MOOG 5000l truck or not...They should have gone with Mann seris which provides a better truck with a common parts from 2 ton to 25 ton platforms...and standard in many NATO nations like UK , Australia, Germany, etc...there is a reason why Germanies main fleet is the MANN truck seris... ons .. Edited January 12 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, herbie said: WTH are you talking about? WE decided not to have nuclear weapons 60 years ago, not someone else. We pissed off the Yanks at the time. Nobody wants any now either. Asking for a stockpile that can rust away like all thousands of trucks in a boneyard? At least those you could have used if they were needed. Stockpiling weapons is like stockpiling potato chips when you live next door to a 7-11. Well then go back and research it, those nukes we had were loaned to us by the yanks during the cold war, one of the reasons we stopped research on Aero was those very nukes ..... and "we" returned them becasue they were to scary...and the general public did not want them at the time...sounds exactly what i posted before, and exactly what you posted now...so WTF are you talking about We never had a nuclear weapons' program where we were developing our own weapons ever...becasue those powers to be did not want to share that tech nor did they want us to develop our own tech...it is to expensive ....why has all the NATO countries not developed nuclear weapons programs...They are point less, you can't use them when ever you want, becasue the damage like radiation does not stay in one area. take a look a ukraines melt down and you can see it cover a good portion of europe...a nuke weapon would be 10 times the cloud, and travel over a good portion of the globe...not a good way to make friends, an excellent way to pi$$ people off... I'm not advocating for nuclear weapons Eyeball is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 21 hours ago, BeaverFever said: No combat force can invade Canada from the arctic. Just getting a significant invading army into the Canadian arctic would be logistical feat that would make D-day look like child’s play and the minths-long build up of invading forces in Russia would be easily spotted long in advance. But even that notwithstanding after landing an army in our arctic, getting that army from our arctic shores to the populated areas down south would be all but impossible. There are fewroads ip there and tue muskeg and swamp and boreal forest would make cross country travel impossible. And the US would never let it happen at any rate. A more realistic threat from Russia would be commandos and saboteurs attempting to disrupt natural resources operations and landing unopposed on islands in the archipelago in order to claim contested territory or waterways The thing about these great power conflicts in the nuclear age is that they are all about credible deterrence not actual direct combat between NATO and Russia. . Russia would never attack a NATO force directly but I believe they might happily seize undefended territory which then puts us in the awkward position of having to attack them and start a shooting war if we want it back but of course we’re not suicidal either and they know it. Russia will also fight us through proxies like Wagner, and the Donbas separatists but never open war or invasion. You base that on what exactly....becasue the military has plans for almost every contingency, including over the pole attacks... Russia does possess the equipment to do that feat with ease, we are not talking about traveling thousands of miles we are talking about hundreds of KM's at best...Spotted how, we do not regularly patrol our northern border areas, and what patrols we do mount are much further inland, and done mostly by reserve forces, not that that fact matters as regular forces would have the same issues. Russia has equipment built for this mission, the fact that most of Russia road net works are not paved but considered for extreme off road vehicles only...Russian regular travel in their northern areas with ease...Now Canada does not have the equipment to pursue anything in that territory, except helos or aircraft...US could land para, or helo mounted troops but they to have no way of ground traffic in that terrain, but russia does and lots of it...And while i'm not an expert in artic warfare, Russia does nothing if it does not have a chance to succeed...why would they go through all the trouble to build up massive military bases in their north....And i'm sure any invasion plans would also include hitting us troops based in Alaska.... Once again based on what sources, during the cold war Russia did have plans of taking Europe and NATO would have been pushed aside before reinforcements could arrive to stop them...i don't remember how many exercises we did to stall Russian forces for just 48 hours and we never could...The question is now could Russia accomplish the same things , i would say no, but i would not bet my life on it...there is still well over a million troops scattered around mother Russia...thats a lot of vodka fueled soldiers running around...and NATO has been living of peace bonds for 20 plus years, and is not up to the task of stopping any large conventional force...and the US can only be in so many places at any one time....Russia knows this China knows this...What do you think would happen if they decided to take out Latvia next...only this time managed to do it in a few short weeks...does NATO go to war, or does it draw another line in the sand... Russia has already stated Ukraine is just the start...or is it all a bluff...why did Russia gamble NATO would sit idle by doing nothing of any real significance...Becasue NATO does not scare them...becasue they know they have the numbers...Russia is a huge threat, and NATO takes them seriously, and perhaps the best thing coming out of Ukraine is Waking up NATO into spending more...and that wont come to bear for years down the road...but for now Mother Russia could start eating up countries , that threat has a lot of credibility to the Sweds, and Finland...and the Sweds have put their nation on a war footing...it is telling it's citizens to prepare for war...maybe they know more than we do...or maybe they are panicking...my bet is on they know something... but then again anything is possiable...US thought about the same thing in alaska, until the Japanese took over small chunks of the state....The odds of Canada being attacked over land are slim, not that it would take much, a few hundred commandos could set this country back to the stone age...with very little effort...if a bunch of goat herders can hold back a huge NATO force,with nothing more than some small arms and a few stingers... think about what they could do here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 19 hours ago, Army Guy said: I'm not advocating for nuclear weapons Eyeball is... I'm simply advocating for not wasting money on a military no one really seems to want or need. The powers that be didn't even want us to develop our own fighter jets FFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted January 15 Author Report Share Posted January 15 On 1/12/2024 at 7:34 PM, Army Guy said: You base that on what exactly....becasue the military has plans for almost every contingency, including over the pole attacks... Russia does possess the equipment to do that feat with ease, we are not talking about traveling thousands of miles we are talking about hundreds of KM's at best...Spotted how, we do not regularly patrol our northern border areas, and what patrols we do mount are much further inland, and done mostly by reserve forces, not that that fact matters as regular forces would have the same issues. Russia has equipment built for this mission, the fact that most of Russia road net works are not paved but considered for extreme off road vehicles only...Russian regular travel in their northern areas with ease...Now Canada does not have the equipment to pursue anything in that territory, except helos or aircraft...US could land para, or helo mounted troops but they to have no way of ground traffic in that terrain, but russia does and lots of it...And while i'm not an expert in artic warfare, Russia does nothing if it does not have a chance to succeed...why would they go through all the trouble to build up massive military bases in their north....And i'm sure any invasion plans would also include hitting us troops based in Alaska.... Once again based on what sources, during the cold war Russia did have plans of taking Europe and NATO would have been pushed aside before reinforcements could arrive to stop them...i don't remember how many exercises we did to stall Russian forces for just 48 hours and we never could...The question is now could Russia accomplish the same things , i would say no, but i would not bet my life on it...there is still well over a million troops scattered around mother Russia...thats a lot of vodka fueled soldiers running around...and NATO has been living of peace bonds for 20 plus years, and is not up to the task of stopping any large conventional force...and the US can only be in so many places at any one time....Russia knows this China knows this...What do you think would happen if they decided to take out Latvia next...only this time managed to do it in a few short weeks...does NATO go to war, or does it draw another line in the sand... Russia has already stated Ukraine is just the start...or is it all a bluff...why did Russia gamble NATO would sit idle by doing nothing of any real significance...Becasue NATO does not scare them...becasue they know they have the numbers...Russia is a huge threat, and NATO takes them seriously, and perhaps the best thing coming out of Ukraine is Waking up NATO into spending more...and that wont come to bear for years down the road...but for now Mother Russia could start eating up countries , that threat has a lot of credibility to the Sweds, and Finland...and the Sweds have put their nation on a war footing...it is telling it's citizens to prepare for war...maybe they know more than we do...or maybe they are panicking...my bet is on they know something... but then again anything is possiable...US thought about the same thing in alaska, until the Japanese took over small chunks of the state....The odds of Canada being attacked over land are slim, not that it would take much, a few hundred commandos could set this country back to the stone age...with very little effort...if a bunch of goat herders can hold back a huge NATO force,with nothing more than some small arms and a few stingers... think about what they could do here... Yes we are talking thousands of KMs. Many thousands in fact. The Alaska highway as but one example, which the fastest way south, is 2,237km long and only gets you as far south as Dawson creek. And that’s after Russia somehow figures out how to invade and overrun Alaska. From Dawson it’s another 1,190km to Vancouver and from Vancouver to Ottawa its 4,291 km. most of it within minimum of the US border. All the while their army is backed up bumper to bumper on a highway of death under US and Canadian bombardment Now you talk about overland invasion which would be only slower amd less probable. The Canadian arctic is impassable with lakes and mountains and swamps and very few roads especially in the summer. You say Russia has experience with this in Siberia but I doubt they’re ever moving multiple divisions with heavy vehicles especially armour and tanks long distances at all much less over the roughest terrain imaginable. Furthermore its a journey with no sources of fuel or water or food along the way. There are only a few north-south roads that can take you south out of the territories and very few east-west roads in the north Nunavut has virtually no roads at all and only a few scattered hamlets on the mainland. Sorry but I just can’t picture thousands of tank transporter trucks and troop carrier trucks and then of course all the logistics and supply vehicles carrying their fuel and supplies, off-roading up and down the side of mountains, through peat bogs and swampland, diverting around lakes every few miles, and somehow squeezing through the dense boreal forest. the boreal forest. Canada has no major airfields or deep water ports in the arctic so it’s virtually impossible for Russian to deploy such a force a large field army with a massive baggage train much less keep it sustained and supplies. To the question of spotted how, it’ pretty impossible to hide a massive invasion force of this size. First Canada and its allies would become aware of military building up in Russia either from direct surveillance, leaks informants etc. You can’t just mobilize multiple divisions, air forces squadrons naval fleets etc and move them to your ports without countries noticing. But even if we pretend that that somehow Canada is in some kind of info bubbles we still have arctic surveillance satellites radars and sonars in use now and civilians still report activity all the time. The idea that somehow hundreds of Russians transport ships and aircraft could be unloading hundreds of thousands of tons of personnel and equipment and setting up bases across the Canadian arctic while we are completely unaware doesn’t seem plausible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted January 15 Author Report Share Posted January 15 (edited) On 1/12/2024 at 6:36 PM, Army Guy said: They heavy trucks that your article mentions have a ton rating of 2 1/2 to 15 tonnes...as for the light trucks not sure if they are sticking with Mercedes and going with MOOG 5000l truck or not... It’s one platform for both light and Heavy, based on Mercedes Zetros. Both will use the same chassis, and they say 90% commonality between the light and heavy. From the images the two mostly look identical except the Heavy has 8 wheels instead of 4. I assume it must have a more powerful engine brakes etc. compared to the light. I don’t know much about military trucks but it appears that Germany and Australia use both the MAN and the Zetros. We also have the Armoured Heavy Support System, the big heavy Optimus Prime looking armoured transport trucks bases on Mercedes Actros that we bought for Afghanistan and them put into long term storage after. Apparently a number of them are being brought back to life and readied for Latvia. Edited January 15 by BeaverFever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 13 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Yes we are talking thousands of KMs. Many thousands in fact. They don't have to travel thousands of km to decide their claim to the Arctic supersedes ours and simply take it much like China has done in waters near them. And what are we going to do about it? Not one damn thing other than protest. Because we can't even get to those areas in the winter anyway. They can walk in, plant a flag and start drilling for oil and there's not thing one we can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted January 15 Author Report Share Posted January 15 (edited) 34 minutes ago, I am Groot said: They don't have to travel thousands of km to decide their claim to the Arctic supersedes ours and simply take it much like China has done in waters near them. And what are we going to do about it? Not one damn thing other than protest. Because we can't even get to those areas in the winter anyway. They can walk in, plant a flag and start drilling for oil and there's not thing one we can do. Sure for islands in the archipelago. You might recall we had a friendly dispute with Denmark over a tiny arctic rock called Hans Island where each country took turns sending troops to plant its flag and take down the other country’s flag. I’m just saying they can’t invade mainland Canada like they did Ukraine. Our economic interests and sovereignty are at risk but Canadian people are not at risk of falling under Russian rule like Crimea. Edited January 15 by BeaverFever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 48 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: I’m just saying they can’t invade mainland Canada like they did Ukraine. Our economic interests and sovereignty are at risk but Canadian people are not at risk of falling under Russian rule like Crimea. I don't think anyone believes they're going to try to march into Toronto, or even Yellowknife. But our economic interests and sovereignty are worth protecting. Not to mention that if we have the ability to fight for them Russia is much, much less likely to just walk in and b1tch-slap us and take them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: They don't have to travel thousands of km to decide their claim to the Arctic supersedes ours and simply take it much like China has done in waters near them. And what are we going to do about it? Not one damn thing other than protest. Because we can't even get to those areas in the winter anyway. They can walk in, plant a flag and start drilling for oil and there's not thing one we can do. Wait a minute, I thought commies had already long since taken over our government at every level and without having fired a shot. Isn't that what I'm supposed to conclude given all the references to commies that people make about the dictatorship we live in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 Just now, eyeball said: Wait a minute, I thought commies had already long since taken over our government at every level and without having fired a shot. Isn't that what I'm supposed to conclude given all the references to commies that people make about the dictatorship we live in? Maybe direct this nonsense toward the people who make such references. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Maybe direct this nonsense toward the people who make such references. They're certainly some in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 15 Report Share Posted January 15 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Yes we are talking thousands of KMs. Many thousands in fact. The Alaska highway as but one example, which the fastest way south, is 2,237km long and only gets you as far south as Dawson creek. And that’s after Russia somehow figures out how to invade and overrun Alaska. From Dawson it’s another 1,190km to Vancouver and from Vancouver to Ottawa its 4,291 km. most of it within minimum of the US border. All the while their army is backed up bumper to bumper on a highway of death under US and Canadian bombardment Now you talk about overland invasion which would be only slower amd less probable. The Canadian arctic is impassable with lakes and mountains and swamps and very few roads especially in the summer. You say Russia has experience with this in Siberia but I doubt they’re ever moving multiple divisions with heavy vehicles especially armour and tanks long distances at all much less over the roughest terrain imaginable. Furthermore its a journey with no sources of fuel or water or food along the way. There are only a few north-south roads that can take you south out of the territories and very few east-west roads in the north Nunavut has virtually no roads at all and only a few scattered hamlets on the mainland. Sorry but I just can’t picture thousands of tank transporter trucks and troop carrier trucks and then of course all the logistics and supply vehicles carrying their fuel and supplies, off-roading up and down the side of mountains, through peat bogs and swampland, diverting around lakes every few miles, and somehow squeezing through the dense boreal forest. the boreal forest. Canada has no major airfields or deep water ports in the arctic so it’s virtually impossible for Russian to deploy such a force a large field army with a massive baggage train much less keep it sustained and supplies. To the question of spotted how, it’ pretty impossible to hide a massive invasion force of this size. First Canada and its allies would become aware of military building up in Russia either from direct surveillance, leaks informants etc. You can’t just mobilize multiple divisions, air forces squadrons naval fleets etc and move them to your ports without countries noticing. But even if we pretend that that somehow Canada is in some kind of info bubbles we still have arctic surveillance satellites radars and sonars in use now and civilians still report activity all the time. The idea that somehow hundreds of Russians transport ships and aircraft could be unloading hundreds of thousands of tons of personnel and equipment and setting up bases across the Canadian arctic while we are completely unaware doesn’t seem plausible to me. You talk as if it can't be done, when history shows it has already been done,by the Japanese during WWII, a small force about brigade size landed and remained fighting for 3 months...against a US and Canadian force of roughly 34.000 troops...It does not take a huge force to tie up thousands of NATO troops...Afghanis proved that already... Our north is not patrolled 24 /7 landing a brigade size or larger force would be easy, the problem would be logistics, but in todays world that could be accomplished by several means. Russia has designed equipment for this very purpose artic warfare, these vehicles can haul troops, fuel, whatever you want and wherever they want, they are designed to swim, deep snow, even large crevices...Once inland our patrols never sweep that far inland but concentrate on coastal areas...once inland they could be used to set up a series of FOBs filled with fuel and other supplies...to operate even longer or to provide supplies for a much larger force...these are not new concepts but ones we use when up in the artic...even in Afghanistan in the mountains or open desert....and as far as heavy tanks and IFV's you don't need them to fight ...you think the us has heavy tanks , IFV on deep artic operations...not really...more like Airborne troops, light infantry...light equipment like BV210 or 206, snow mobiles and skies...it is what we use..and somehow we are suppose to be the experts in artic warfare... Us and Russia do it all the time, travel the north without us knowing about it, including surface ships, how does that happen, like everything else in our military artic surveillance is broken...and the US does not monitor great swaths of Canadian artic...Once they provide a foot hold it would take a huge assault force to dig them out...Russia could do this all day everyday... If you want to see these vehicles in action just go to u tube, their capabilities would easily handle any artic terrain including open water... swamp, muskeg, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.