Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

42 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

despite being pilloried at the NATO summit

Canada once again declines to meet its NATO obligations

Trudeau says Canada will reach NATO spending target in 2032

Canada is lagging behind, with current spending at around 1.37 per cent, which is set to rise to 1.76 per cent by the end of the decade

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/trudeau-nato-spending-target

As predicted another non-announcement that contains no new information and no details on where the year 2032 came from….maybe that’s when they’re expecting to next have a legitimate shot at getting elected and they want to be able to say on the campaign trail “we were on track to reach the 2% target and PP broke it!”

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

As predicted another non-announcement that contains no new information and no details on where the year 2032 came from….maybe that’s when they’re expecting to next have a legitimate shot at getting elected and they want to be able to say on the campaign trail “we were on track to reach the 2% target and PP broke it!”

thing is, despite all the bluster, there is nothing NATO can do about it

Canadians are not particularly concerned with geopolitics, hence it's of no consequence to the voters

and any threats of punishment, are actually things which would be inflicted upon Canada anyways

you yourself decry the colonial paradigm

it's only colonials who would feel the need to render unto the Hegemonic Caesar

even when said Caesar is weak, and doesn't really have any leverage over them

if Canada is no longer the Shock Troops of the Empire ?

there is no practical reason for Canadians to forgo their preferred social programs, in favour of military spending

furthermore, I would  suggest that the actual security threat to Canadians is civil disorder in the streets

wherein they would be better off spending the taxes on the constabulary,

to wit the Department of Public Safety instead

[Dougie93]

32 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

“we were on track to reach the 2% target and PP broke it!”

that wouldn't move the needle in the slightest

since conservatives no longer support NATO

hence PP would be better off invoking tax cuts and massive cuts to government spending instead

there is no movement between the ideological camps

the narratives of the enemy camp are only preaching to choir

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

thing is, despite all the bluster, there is nothing NATO can do about it

Canadians are not particularly concerned with geopolitics, hence it's of no consequence to the voters

and any threats of punishment, are actually things which would be inflicted upon Canada anyways

you yourself decry the colonial paradigm

it's only colonials who would feel the need to render unto the Hegemonic Caesar

even when said Caesar is weak, and doesn't really have any leverage over them

if Canada is no longer the Shock Troops of the Empire ?

there is no practical reason for Canadians to forgo their preferred social programs, in favour of military spending

furthermore, I would  suggest that the actual security threat to Canadians is civil disorder in the streets

wherein they would be better off spending the taxes on the constabulary,

to wit the Department of Public Safety instead

And yet when we were in a similar situation with Trudeau the Elder back in the 1970s we hit 2% of GDP after brow-beating from our allies. During a trade mission to West Germany the Chancellor told him “no tanks, no trade” and Canada soon afterwards bought the Leopard 1 fleet.  A fleet of CF-18s came soon afterwards. So perhaps there are still levers to pull and consequences to be had. 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 So perhaps there are still levers to pull and consequences to be had. 

I am not so cynical

if any Canadian boy is to kill and die for the state, I have to understand the moral underpinnings

one should only enlist to be the Shock Troops of the Empire

for God, King, Country

Regiment, Colours, Commander-in-Chief

beneath the preamble ;

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

 

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

And yet when we were in a similar situation with Trudeau the Elder back in the 1970s we hit 2% of GDP after brow-beating from our allies.

I find it odd, that you, as a self proclaimed leftist, would advocate for military spending

on the basis of securing trade agreements which only benefit multinational corporations

furthermore, if the Soviets had crossed the Trace on the Inner German Border at the time

that would have precipitously escalated into a thermonuclear war, theatre counterforce at minimum

rendering the entire Canadian land force in Europe moot in a matter of hours

to wit, when you start spending money on military hardware without a strategic plan as to how to employ it

that is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars

take for example the plan to acquire SSKs

not that it isn't going to be cancelled when the Canadian media reports what the actual price is going to be

but SSK's are actually totally useless to Canada

if Canada is not buying SSN's, better for Canada to have no submarines at all

[BeaverFever]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I find it odd, that you, as a self proclaimed leftist, would advocate for military spending

I guess my views are left of centre but I’ve never called myself “a leftist”. And anyways the left haven’t always been anti/military. The political left from across the western world were the first to fight Hitler’s forces in the Spanish Civil War as foreign fighters in international brigades, much as many foreign fighters flock to Ukraine today. All of this was done through labour unions and left wing political organnizations with no support or acknowledgement from any western capitalist country’s government. Meanwhile many influential people on the political right were still playing footsie with him, same as many on the right are playing footsie with Putin now. The left only became officially pacifist in the 60s and hopefully have now been woken from their slumber by Putin’s aggression. 
 

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

on the basis of securing trade agreements which only benefit multinational corporations

Not necessarily. It depends who is doing the negotiations and what their agenda is.Much to the chagrin of many on the right,  trade agreements increasingly have other beneficiaries beside multinationals and the business lobby, such as *gasp* pollution controls and environmental protections. 
 

15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

furthermore, if the Soviets had crossed the Trace on the Inner German Border at the time

that would have precipitously escalated into a thermonuclear war, theatre counterforce at minimum

rendering the entire Canadian land force in Europe moot in a matter of hours

to wit, when you start spending money on military hardware without a strategic plan as to how to employ it

that is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars

This is the paradox of military deterrence: if the equipment purchased works it goes unused. Does anyone believe that if NATO had unilaterally disarmed at the height of the cold war, nuclear deterrence alone would have preserved the peace?  NATO is not going to start WW3 if USSR commits a Sudetenland-style  annexation of a small undefended territory where there are no NATO boots on the ground, if an entire NATO division had been stationed there and was attacked, that might trigger events that escalate to a nuclear war hence the conventional force is deterrent because it is a clear tripwire for the nuclear deterrent while also having the ability to respond to smaller local crises and skirmishes without having to resort to a nuclear option  

 

33 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but SSK's are actually totally useless to Canada

I wouldn’t say TOTALLY useless. but they should be reevaluated given recent amd forthcoming uncrewed and autonomous options 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I wouldn’t say TOTALLY useless. but they should be reevaluated given recent amd forthcoming uncrewed and autonomous options 

SSK is nothing more than a coastal defence submarine

it's not suitable for projecting power overseas

an SSK is too slow, too short ranged

an SSK is fine if you are Sweden in the Baltic

but for a North American continental force defending against enemy SSN's under the polar ice ?

Mulroney actually had the right idea : SSN or bust

[Dougie93]

29 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

nuclear deterrence alone would have preserved the peace? 

but that was actually the plan and it actually worked

we know from declassified Soviet plans that they were going to employ tactical nuclear weapons right away

hence the deterrent was actually an Anglo - American theatre thermonuclear counterforce

with  submarine launched Trident & Tomahawk

hence why the Soviets never crossed the Trace

to wit, America is not a land power, America is a seapower

America would never prevail in some sort of prolonged land war in Europe against Russia

the American arm of decision is the nuclear submarine employing thermonuclear weapons

either we will sink your entire navy conventionally, rendering you helpless

or in extremis, we will nuke you into the stone age in a preemptive counterforce option

Glorious Union, to free all the slaves everywhere, or die trying

that was the fiery gospel written in burnished rows of steel

which deterred the Soviets in the end

it's not about arms, it's all about resolve to use those arms in the face of totalitarianism

Edited July 11, 2024 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 The left only became officially pacifist in the 60s and hopefully have now been woken from their slumber by Putin’s aggression.

the Woke 2SLGBTQIA++ left couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag

hence why Putin is winning

 

[Dougie93]

46 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

NATO is not going to start WW3 if USSR commits a Sudetenland-style  annexation of a small undefended territory where there are no NATO boots on the ground, if an entire NATO division had been stationed there and was attacked, that might trigger events that escalate to a nuclear war hence the conventional force is deterrent because it is a clear tripwire for the nuclear deterrent while also having the ability to respond to smaller local crises and skirmishes without having to resort to a nuclear option 

quite sure the Kremlin is fully prepared to resort to the theatre nuclear option if they are about to lose the war

because what would NATO actually do in the face of that ?

Putin is fully prepared to hunker down in his nuclear bunker

so he's got you by the balls

since nuclear deterrence does not actually work

unless the adversary is totally convinced that you are prepared to go to DEFCON 1 as necessary

[herbie]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the Woke 2SLGBTQIA++ left couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag

hence why Putin is winning

Stupid comment.

If you think being a world pariah with only N Korea, Iran and China on your side is "winning" you're using Trump's defintion of it and not the dictionary's.

Edited July 11, 2024 by herbie
I forgot Putin's bumboy Belarus...

[BeaverFever]

48 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

SSK is nothing more than a coastal defence submarine

it's not suitable for projecting power overseas

an SSK is too slow, too short ranged

an SSK is fine if you are Sweden in the Baltic

but for a North American continental force defending against enemy SSN's under the polar ice ?

Mulroney actually had the right idea : SSN or bust

1) Coastal defence is still a valuable asset

2) Projecting power overseas includes projecting power on your enemies coastlines and SSKs are more capable in coastal /littoral waters than SSNs

3) when submerged SSKs are significantly stealthier than SSNs7

4) Several SSK subs including the new  Swedish-Dutch C71 “Expeditionary” SSK under development meet or exceed a  range of > 21,000 km and endurance of 70 days (including snorkelling time), meanwhile the German Type 212 can remain submerged for up to 21 days without snorkelling. 
 

Obviously the need to snorkel for several hours every few weeks is a limitation in some scenarios including extended patrols  under polar ice. But I wouldn’t say TOTALLY useless 

[Dougie93]

13 minutes ago, herbie said:

Stupid comment.

If you think being a world pariah with only N Korea, Iran and China on your side is "winning" you're using Trump's defintion of it and not the dictionary's.

you Commie traitors provide no deterrence at all

the Kremlin could overrun you, simply by declining to use your preferred pronouns

you absurd leftists are the weakest hand the West has ever tried to play

again, hence why Putin is going for broke, regardless of the attrition

thus why Kiev is going to be forced to sue for an armistice inevitably

Trump will simply move on without Ukraine,

which will not be a burden to Americans at all, quite the opposite, Ukraine is totally expendable downrange

Trump will however engage in the real fight to defend the West

by giving Israel carte blanche to annihilate its enemies

yeehaw

Edited July 11, 2024 by Dougie93

[BeaverFever]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

quite sure the Kremlin is fully prepared to resort to the theatre nuclear option if they are about to lose the war

because what would NATO actually do in the face of that ?

Putin is fully prepared to hunker down in his nuclear bunker

so he's got you by the balls

since nuclear deterrence does not actually work

unless the adversary is totally convinced that you are prepared to go to DEFCON 1 as necessary

Kremlin is not going to attack a NATO force ever. They might invade territory with no NATO force present however, calculating that NATO isn’t going to draw first blood with a nuclear attack. Ukraine is a perfect example. Had NATO troops been there in 2022 Russia wouldn’t have invaded. But since NATO wasn’t there, they also knew we were not going to nuke them over it since they didn’t spill a drop of NATO blood. 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

1) Coastal defence is still a valuable asset

but the Canadian coastal threat is entirely under the polar ice

neither the Russians nor Chinese are ever going to send a surface combatant nor a submarine

against Halifax Harbour

Canada is not actually defending itself against the threat

unless and until the RCN is deploying SSN's up under the ice

Just now, BeaverFever said:

Kremlin is not going to attack a NATO force ever.

there's no need to attack a NATO force direclty

not when you have leftist lunatic Woke governments like Canada's undermining NATO from within

[BeaverFever]

39 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the Woke 2SLGBTQIA++ left couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag

hence why Putin is winning

 

 What woke 2SLGBTQIA++ left is fighting in Ukraine?  NONE

 Putin is winning because the Republican Party was actively aiding and abetting him by cutting off aid. 

Stop talking like a Retarded Trump supporting troll

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

 What woke 2SLGBTQIA++ left is fighting in Ukraine?  NONE

 Putin is winning because the Republican Party was actively aiding and abetting him by cutting off aid. 

Stop talking like a Retarded Trump supporting troll

stop talking like a retarded CBC Woke Commie traitor with Trump Derangement Syndrome

[herbie]

Yes all us commie traitors are supporting Ukraine unlike you so-called defenders of democracy.

That's why we have troops in Latvia next door to Putin while we offend you by not spending enough on $10,000 toilet seats and $2 million smart bombs to knock out Toyota trucks.

 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

Yes all us commie traitors are supporting Ukraine unlike you so-called defenders of democracy.

That's why we have troops in Latvia next door to Putin while we offend you by not spending enough on $10,000 toilet seats and $2 million smart bombs to knock out Toyota trucks.

 

I don't defend democracy

democracy is the rule of the mob

thus Putin will school you about how that actually works out

the "defenders' in Latvia are doing jack shit for Ukraine

the Russians are winning the war, while you hide on the sidelines

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the Canadian coastal threat is entirely under the polar ice

 

Not true at all. Threats exist along the entire North American coast, not only from Russian and Chinese submarines and spy ships but also smugglers, poachers polluters etc. and submarines have been used for monitoring all of these 

Furthermore the arctic isn’t entirely under ice there are many ice-free areas at least part of the year and that will only accelerate with climate change. That will mean new surface traffic to monitor, both military and commercial 

Guarding the arctic and northern passage also means guarding the southern approaches such as Labrador Sea and Hudson Strait which are not under polar ice

 

19 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

neither the Russians nor Chinese are ever going to send a surface combatant nor a submarine

against Halifax Harbour

They lurk off the North American coast, in international waters, especially spy ships disguised as commercial vessels. 
 

20 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

not when you have leftist lunatic Woke governments like Canada's undermining NATO from within

I thought you said NATO doesn’t need Canada. Now you’re saying NATO is being destroyed from within because Canada isn’t making its contribution?  You’re just trolling now.   The only people undermining NATO from within are Putin’s useful idi0ts in the Republican Party. Long before the 2022 invasion fifth columnists like Tucker Carlson was already actively trying to publicly discredit and destroy NATO. 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Not true at all. Threats exist along the entire North American coast, not only from Russian and Chinese submarines and spy ships but also smugglers, poachers polluters etc. and submarines have been used for monitoring all of these 

Furthermore the arctic isn’t entirely under ice there are many ice-free areas at least part of the year and that will only accelerate with climate change. That will mean new surface traffic to monitor, both military and commercial 

Guarding the arctic and northern passage also means guarding the southern approaches such as Labrador Sea and Hudson Strait which are not under polar ice

 

They lurk off the North American coast, in international waters, especially spy ships disguised as commercial vessels. 
 

I thought you said NATO doesn’t need Canada. Now you’re saying NATO is being destroyed from within because Canada isn’t making its contribution?  You’re just trolling now.   The only people undermining NATO from within are Putin’s useful idi0ts in the Republican Party. Long before the 2022 invasion fifth columnists like Tucker Carlson was already actively trying to publicly discredit and destroy NATO. 

Canada is the poster child for NATO

all talk, no action

you're not going to confront the Russians in any meaningful way

you are simply selling Canada & Ukraine down the river

in the name of Woke leftist Communist treason

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Not true at all. Threats exist along the entire North American coast, not only from Russian and Chinese submarines and spy ships but also smugglers, poachers polluters etc. and submarines have been used for monitoring all of these

why would you need a submarine to interdict spy ships, smugglers, poachers, polluters etc

when the RCMP & Coast Guard already perform that role ?

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Yes all us commie traitors

Joe Biden confuses Zelensky for Putin

LOL !

you are going down in flames, you leftist Communist traitors

the future is Trump's boot stamping on your faces forever

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

why would you need a submarine to interdict spy ships, smugglers, poachers, polluters etc

when the RCMP & Coast Guard already perform that role ?

1) Covert surveillance of, as opposed to interdiction …Canada has done this even with its old Oberon class subs

2) RCMP, Coast Guard no jurisdiction outside of territorial waters. Some situations require military eg Operation Megaphone

https://cimsec.org/sea-control-174-operation-megaphone/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Megaphone