O'Connor is Such a Joker

[Black Dog]

I agree with the 'role' part. But your math is off. If their GDP is almost twice as big as ours, we shoudl only have to spend 1/2 as much as them to have a force that is 1/2 as big as theirs...

And, as I said, in order to spend half of what they do, we would have to double our current spending. And yeah, I'm sure our high GDP means we could handle the increae: but why? Why do we need to spend as much as South Korea, Russia or India and more than double what Israel spends? We're not facing any major military threats. We're not exactly lagging behind the pack (we're 12th in military spending world wide). If there's a problem, it isn't in the amount we're spending, but how we are spending it.

[White Doors]

I agree with the 'role' part. But your math is off. If their GDP is almost twice as big as ours, we shoudl only have to spend 1/2 as much as them to have a force that is 1/2 as big as theirs...

And, as I said, in order to spend half of what they do, we would have to double our current spending. And yeah, I'm sure our high GDP means we could handle the increae: but why? Why do we need to spend as much as South Korea, Russia or India and more than double what Israel spends? We're not facing any major military threats. We're not exactly lagging behind the pack (we're 12th in military spending world wide). If there's a problem, it isn't in the amount we're spending, but how we are spending it.

We rank last in NATO, after luxemburg in per capita spending. That's not us pulling our weight. We need more capability to be able to project Canadian influence on the world stage. To have a voice. Like it or not, that is how people listen to you. Walk softly but carry big stick. I want Canada to be relevant, don't you?

Also, the Islamic extremist problem is going to be with us for decades. Not to mention our troops should have the best kit available. Anything less is a national disgrace.

[Wilber]

The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards. They wanted missle cruisers, they got frigates.

The F-18 was a good choice. A versatile aircraft. The US Navy and Marines have used it to replace both the A6 and F-14. The F-15E didn't go into service with the Americans until 1988. All previous versions were air superiority aircraft. When the CF-18's went into service in 1982, our NATO role was ground attack, one of the design roles of the original F-18. It also had more up to date avionics and flight control systems than the F-15 as well as being built to withstand the stress of carrier landings.

The Leopard was a replacement for the Centurion which was probably the best tank in the world at the time it was built but was Korean War vintage. It's purpose was to duke it out with Soviet armor in Europe. Probably as effective as an Abrams in a place like Afghanistan.

Never heard of the Canadian Navy wanting missile cruisers. Whatever for, we don't have task forces to protect from hostile aircraft.

The submarines and helicopters were dealt with in a way that borders on criminal. Nothing but pure politicking at the military's and public's expense.

[M.Dancer]

Never heard of the Canadian Navy wanting missile cruisers. Whatever for, we don't have task forces to protect from hostile aircraft.

The submarines and helicopters were dealt with in a way that borders on criminal. Nothing but pure politicking at the military's and public's expense.

By missile cruisers I assumed he was refering to a ticonderoga class.....a Tomahawk cruise missile platform....which by reason means if you have one of those (or more likey two) you also need the escorts to go with it and a Navy with, oh, 30,000 bodies.......the navy never asked for that. The Frigates and detroyers we have are all equiped with modern surface to air missile.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually my post had no foundation of truth to it at all, it was a statement merely made to clearly indicate that our military asks for one thing and it gets another. As it so happens we have a very pathetic track record in properly equipping our forces.

My point is that this nation must carefully consider its position with respect to its military. We simply don't spend very much on it, and in this world you only get what you pay for. If you want to actually defend this nation you could expect to at least triple our budget for DND. Even then it will take more than a generation to even begin putting together a signifigant force composition. For my consideration modest means endangered on the battlefield.

[M.Dancer]

Actually my post had no foundation of truth to it at all, it was a statement merely made to clearly indicate that our military asks for one thing and it gets another. As it so happens we have a very pathetic track record in properly equipping our forces.

Yet. you offer no real proof.

If onething may be sure, the military often asks for 100 of one thing, and only gets 20. But they never ask for something thati s not part of the mission as defined either by that last white paper or by the Defense Ministry.

[Black Dog]

We rank last in NATO, after luxemburg in per capita spending. That's not us pulling our weight. .

And Luxembourg has such a quality military, right? Per capita spending is not a accurate measure of a military's quality.

We need more capability to be able to project Canadian influence on the world stage. To have a voice. Like it or not, that is how people listen to you. Walk softly but carry big stick.

Can you give me some concrete examples of how military power improves the global standing of a middle power like Canada? We're a century removed from Teddy Roosevet's utterance and the world has changed a fair bit since then. What's more, using concerns over prestige to justify military spenduing can lead to all kinds of ridiculous purchases (I'm thinking of Imperial Germany's massive pre WWI naval build up, motivated by the desire to compete with Britain . Of course when war finally came, they couldn't bear to risk their precious fleet in action, so it sat in harbour for most of the conflict.)

I want Canada to be relevant, don't you?

I don't particularily care. In fact I find this Canadian trait of agonizing over what the cool kids are saying to be most unseemly. I'd be happy if we were Sweden.

Also, the Islamic extremist problem is going to be with us for decades.

That's idealogical/political problem that can't be solved or addressed my military means alone.

Not to mention our troops should have the best kit available. Anything less is a national disgrace

That I will agree with.

My point is that this nation must carefully consider its position with respect to its military. We simply don't spend very much on it, and in this world you only get what you pay for.

Again: we're 12th world wide in military spending, ahead of Spain, Australia and Israel, ferchrissakes. That's a lot of dosh.

If you want to actually defend this nation you could expect to at least triple our budget for DND

Okay: why? Does Canada face any sinificant threats to its territory? Is Canada without allies and thus recquires a large military to defend itself? Are we maintaining an overseas empire? No? No? No? So please: back your statement up.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We rank last in NATO, after luxemburg in per capita spending. That's not us pulling our weight. .

And Luxembourg has such a quality military, right? Per capita spending is not a accurate measure of a military's quality.

We need more capability to be able to project Canadian influence on the world stage. To have a voice. Like it or not, that is how people listen to you. Walk softly but carry big stick.

Can you give me some concrete examples of how military power improves the global standing of a middle power like Canada? We're a century removed from Teddy Roosevet's utterance and the world has changed a fair bit since then. What's more, using concerns over prestige to justify military spenduing can lead to all kinds of ridiculous purchases (I'm thinking of Imperial Germany's massive pre WWI naval build up, motivated by the desire to compete with Britain . Of course when war finally came, they couldn't bear to risk their precious fleet in action, so it sat in harbour for most of the conflict.)

I want Canada to be relevant, don't you?

I don't particularily care. In fact I find this Canadian trait of agonizing over what the cool kids are saying to be most unseemly. I'd be happy if we were Sweden.

Also, the Islamic extremist problem is going to be with us for decades.

That's idealogical/political problem that can't be solved or addressed my military means alone.

Not to mention our troops should have the best kit available. Anything less is a national disgrace

That I will agree with.

My point is that this nation must carefully consider its position with respect to its military. We simply don't spend very much on it, and in this world you only get what you pay for.

Again: we're 12th world wide in military spending, ahead of Spain, Australia and Israel, ferchrissakes. That's a lot of dosh.

If you want to actually defend this nation you could expect to at least triple our budget for DND

Okay: why? Does Canada face any sinificant threats to its territory? Is Canada without allies and thus recquires a large military to defend itself? Are we maintaining an overseas empire? No? No? No? So please: back your statement up.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/mil_...pita&nofb=1

I have often said that we need to decide what to do with our military. I have also said that that particular decision would have great impact on the force composition of the military.

Any further explaination required?

[Black Dog]

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/mil_...pita&nofb=1

I have often said that we need to decide what to do with our military. I have also said that that particular decision would have great impact on the force composition of the military.

Any further explaination required?

What you said was: "If you want to actually defend this nation you could expect to at least triple our budget for DND." That's practically the opposite of "decid(ing) what to do with our military." That's making a decision to spend more based on the perception that we don't spend enough.

I asked for explanation, you give me a chart showing the rather useless measure of per capita expenditures (which I dealt with early in the post your quoted: by your own figures, we also spend way more per caita than that "grave threat to world security" Iran and lag behind powerhouses like Brunei). So again: what reality could possibly justify a three-fold increase in our military budget to levels unheard of even when this country was embroiled in a war?

In fact, I'm going to go further and say Canada could easily improve its military without any increases to its budget and indeed, could even spend less than it does today.

[White Doors]

We rank last in NATO, after luxemburg in per capita spending. That's not us pulling our weight. .

And Luxembourg has such a quality military, right? Per capita spending is not a accurate measure of a military's quality.

We need more capability to be able to project Canadian influence on the world stage. To have a voice. Like it or not, that is how people listen to you. Walk softly but carry big stick.

Can you give me some concrete examples of how military power improves the global standing of a middle power like Canada? We're a century removed from Teddy Roosevet's utterance and the world has changed a fair bit since then. What's more, using concerns over prestige to justify military spenduing can lead to all kinds of ridiculous purchases (I'm thinking of Imperial Germany's massive pre WWI naval build up, motivated by the desire to compete with Britain . Of course when war finally came, they couldn't bear to risk their precious fleet in action, so it sat in harbour for most of the conflict.)

I want Canada to be relevant, don't you?

I don't particularily care. In fact I find this Canadian trait of agonizing over what the cool kids are saying to be most unseemly. I'd be happy if we were Sweden.

Also, the Islamic extremist problem is going to be with us for decades.

That's idealogical/political problem that can't be solved or addressed my military means alone.

Not to mention our troops should have the best kit available. Anything less is a national disgrace

That I will agree with.

My point is that this nation must carefully consider its position with respect to its military. We simply don't spend very much on it, and in this world you only get what you pay for.

Again: we're 12th world wide in military spending, ahead of Spain, Australia and Israel, ferchrissakes. That's a lot of dosh.

If you want to actually defend this nation you could expect to at least triple our budget for DND

Okay: why? Does Canada face any sinificant threats to its territory? Is Canada without allies and thus recquires a large military to defend itself? Are we maintaining an overseas empire? No? No? No? So please: back your statement up.

Yes we do. We are in danger of losing our arctic lands to Denmark for Chrissakes.

The Northwest passage is in danger of being deemed international waters despite it going right through our territory. Our Soldiers in Afghanistan are having to do 2-3 tours to keep our small contribution of 2300 troops there until 2009. You think any of that is healthy? No one else does.

[M.Dancer]

We rank last in NATO, after luxemburg in per capita spending. That's not us pulling our weight. .

And Luxembourg has such a quality military, right? Per capita spending is not a accurate measure of a military's quality.

We need more capability to be able to project Canadian influence on the world stage. To have a voice. Like it or not, that is how people listen to you. Walk softly but carry big stick.

Can you give me some concrete examples of how military power improves the global standing of a middle power like Canada? We're a century removed from Teddy Roosevet's utterance and the world has changed a fair bit since then. What's more, using concerns over prestige to justify military spenduing can lead to all kinds of ridiculous purchases (I'm thinking of Imperial Germany's massive pre WWI naval build up, motivated by the desire to compete with Britain . Of course when war finally came, they couldn't bear to risk their precious fleet in action, so it sat in harbour for most of the conflict.)

I want Canada to be relevant, don't you?

I don't particularily care. In fact I find this Canadian trait of agonizing over what the cool kids are saying to be most unseemly. I'd be happy if we were Sweden.

Also, the Islamic extremist problem is going to be with us for decades.

That's idealogical/political problem that can't be solved or addressed my military means alone.

Not to mention our troops should have the best kit available. Anything less is a national disgrace

That I will agree with.

My point is that this nation must carefully consider its position with respect to its military. We simply don't spend very much on it, and in this world you only get what you pay for.

Again: we're 12th world wide in military spending, ahead of Spain, Australia and Israel, ferchrissakes. That's a lot of dosh.

If you want to actually defend this nation you could expect to at least triple our budget for DND

Okay: why? Does Canada face any sinificant threats to its territory? Is Canada without allies and thus recquires a large military to defend itself? Are we maintaining an overseas empire? No? No? No? So please: back your statement up.

Yes we do. We are in danger of losing our arctic lands to Denmark for Chrissakes.

The Northwest passage is in danger of being deemed international waters despite it going right through our territory. Our Soldiers in Afghanistan are having to do 2-3 tours to keep our small contribution of 2300 troops there until 2009. You think any of that is healthy? No one else does.

One lonely Island is jardly the entire arctic.....and I doubt Denmark is in any position to defend their dubious claim strongly. Besides, if it does come to blows, two democracies wil fight that war in court.

[Black Dog]

Yes we do. We are in danger of losing our arctic lands to Denmark for Chrissakes.

Overstate much? We have a territorial dispute over Denmark over one solitary desolate island. Not the kind of thing that signals a great danger to the dominion.

The Northwest passage is in danger of being deemed international waters despite it going right through our territory. Our Soldiers in Afghanistan are having to do 2-3 tours to keep our small contribution of 2300 troops there until 2009. You think any of that is healthy? No one else does.

Canada's claim over the northwest passage has always been contentious (as is the claim that it runs throuh our territory). like the Hans Island business, the solution doesn't lie in force of arms. Indeed, it would take only a very modest increase in capability to have an effect on our ability to project ourselves into the north.

As for the strain Afghanistan is putting on our forces, well, maybe that's something our government should have considered before dispatching them there. Certainly, that's an argument for a better defined role for our forces, not more spending necessarily.

[White Doors]

We rank last in NATO, after luxemburg in per capita spending. That's not us pulling our weight. .

And Luxembourg has such a quality military, right? Per capita spending is not a accurate measure of a military's quality.

We need more capability to be able to project Canadian influence on the world stage. To have a voice. Like it or not, that is how people listen to you. Walk softly but carry big stick.

Can you give me some concrete examples of how military power improves the global standing of a middle power like Canada? We're a century removed from Teddy Roosevet's utterance and the world has changed a fair bit since then. What's more, using concerns over prestige to justify military spenduing can lead to all kinds of ridiculous purchases (I'm thinking of Imperial Germany's massive pre WWI naval build up, motivated by the desire to compete with Britain . Of course when war finally came, they couldn't bear to risk their precious fleet in action, so it sat in harbour for most of the conflict.)

I want Canada to be relevant, don't you?

I don't particularily care. In fact I find this Canadian trait of agonizing over what the cool kids are saying to be most unseemly. I'd be happy if we were Sweden.

Also, the Islamic extremist problem is going to be with us for decades.

That's idealogical/political problem that can't be solved or addressed my military means alone.

Not to mention our troops should have the best kit available. Anything less is a national disgrace

That I will agree with.

My point is that this nation must carefully consider its position with respect to its military. We simply don't spend very much on it, and in this world you only get what you pay for.

Again: we're 12th world wide in military spending, ahead of Spain, Australia and Israel, ferchrissakes. That's a lot of dosh.

If you want to actually defend this nation you could expect to at least triple our budget for DND

Okay: why? Does Canada face any sinificant threats to its territory? Is Canada without allies and thus recquires a large military to defend itself? Are we maintaining an overseas empire? No? No? No? So please: back your statement up.

Yes we do. We are in danger of losing our arctic lands to Denmark for Chrissakes.

The Northwest passage is in danger of being deemed international waters despite it going right through our territory. Our Soldiers in Afghanistan are having to do 2-3 tours to keep our small contribution of 2300 troops there until 2009. You think any of that is healthy? No one else does.

One lonely Island is jardly the entire arctic.....and I doubt Denmark is in any position to defend their dubious claim strongly. Besides, if it does come to blows, two democracies wil fight that war in court.

Of course they will fight it in court. But ask your self: What will be the main assertion in who wins? it will be looked at who most closely asserted their sovereignty. That's done with military capability and presence.

[White Doors]

Yes we do. We are in danger of losing our arctic lands to Denmark for Chrissakes.

Overstate much? We have a territorial dispute over Denmark over one solitary desolate island. Not the kind of thing that signals a great danger to the dominion.

The Northwest passage is in danger of being deemed international waters despite it going right through our territory. Our Soldiers in Afghanistan are having to do 2-3 tours to keep our small contribution of 2300 troops there until 2009. You think any of that is healthy? No one else does.

Canada's claim over the northwest passage has always been contentious (as is the claim that it runs throuh our territory). like the Hans Island business, the solution doesn't lie in force of arms. Indeed, it would take only a very modest increase in capability to have an effect on our ability to project ourselves into the north.

As for the strain Afghanistan is putting on our forces, well, maybe that's something our government should have considered before dispatching them there. Certainly, that's an argument for a better defined role for our forces, not more spending necessarily.

You are not looking at the issues very closely, that is very apparent. That 'desolate island' carry's with it territory of some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. Seem inconsequential to you now?

How could the claim that the northwest passage runs through our territory be contentious? Do you even know where the route runs? In my estimation there is no point where the passage is more than 50 miles from Canadian land and over 2/3rds of the route is bordered by Canadian territory on BOTH sides.

Clearly you are over your head here.

[White Doors]

Here is a map of the Northwest passage:

http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm

[Black Dog]

You are not looking at the issues very closely, that is very apparent. That 'desolate island' carry's with it territory of some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. Seem inconsequential to you now?

Well first, I'd like to see some proof of that claim. Second, how would ramping up our military spending improve our position WRT our claim?

How could the claim that the northwest passage runs through our territory be contentious? Do you even know where the route runs? In my estimation there is no point where the passage is more than 50 miles from Canadian land and over 2/3rds of the route is bordered by Canadian territory on BOTH sides.

Take it up with U.S.A. which is claiming the passage is an international strait. And, since the U.S is the key party disputing our claim, do you think that military force would be decisive in advancing our claim?

So far, all you've done is tossed out issues without any indication of how boosting military spending would help resolve them.

[Riverwind]

How could the claim that the northwest passage runs through our territory be contentious? Do you even know where the route runs? In my estimation there is no point where the passage is more than 50 miles from Canadian land and over 2/3rds of the route is bordered by Canadian territory on BOTH sides.

Terroritorial waters are only 22km wide. If you use Google Earth you can see that the are many places where the straits are 100km+ wide which means the straits are not within Canada's territorial waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Waters

That said, all archipelagic waters within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state like Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered territorial waters. But Canada is not an archipelagic state so the US can try to claim that the archipelagic state rules do not apply.

Bottom line: from a strictly legal perspective Canada's claim is not air tight. From a moral perspective it is indisputable.

[White Doors]

You are not looking at the issues very closely, that is very apparent. That 'desolate island' carry's with it territory of some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. Seem inconsequential to you now?

Well first, I'd like to see some proof of that claim. Second, how would ramping up our military spending improve our position WRT our claim?

How could the claim that the northwest passage runs through our territory be contentious? Do you even know where the route runs? In my estimation there is no point where the passage is more than 50 miles from Canadian land and over 2/3rds of the route is bordered by Canadian territory on BOTH sides.

Take it up with U.S.A. which is claiming the passage is an international strait. And, since the U.S is the key party disputing our claim, do you think that military force would be decisive in advancing our claim?

So far, all you've done is tossed out issues without any indication of how boosting military spending would help resolve them.

Here is s decent backgrounder for you:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/arctic.html

If we can't calim that we patrol and control it now, our case is much weaker in international court. You patrol and control it with a military presence.

[M.Dancer]

USCGS Polar Seas .....Icebreaker .

The US was quite provocative and sailed the ship fropm one end to the other, making a point not to ask permission....but my memory fails.....did the CCGS Louis St Laurent have to free her from ice?

[White Doors]

How could the claim that the northwest passage runs through our territory be contentious? Do you even know where the route runs? In my estimation there is no point where the passage is more than 50 miles from Canadian land and over 2/3rds of the route is bordered by Canadian territory on BOTH sides.

Terroritorial waters are only 22km wide. If you use Google Earth you can see that the are many places where the straits are 100km+ wide which means the straits are not within Canada's territorial waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Waters

That said, all archipelagic waters within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state like Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered territorial waters. But Canada is not an archipelagic state so the US can try to claim that the archipelagic state rules do not apply.

Bottom line: from a strictly legal perspective Canada's claim is not air tight. From a moral perspective it is indisputable.

Nope, not air tight at all. The bottelnecks are all less than 22kms though. Increased Military presence will help our claim.

[M.Dancer]

How could the claim that the northwest passage runs through our territory be contentious? Do you even know where the route runs? In my estimation there is no point where the passage is more than 50 miles from Canadian land and over 2/3rds of the route is bordered by Canadian territory on BOTH sides.

Terroritorial waters are only 22km wide. If you use Google Earth you can see that the are many places where the straits are 100km+ wide which means the straits are not within Canada's territorial waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Waters

That said, all archipelagic waters within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state like Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered territorial waters. But Canada is not an archipelagic state so the US can try to claim that the archipelagic state rules do not apply.

Bottom line: from a strictly legal perspective Canada's claim is not air tight. From a moral perspective it is indisputable.

Nope, not air tight at all. The bottelnecks are all less than 22kms though. Increased Military presence will help our claim.

Our claim...has been challenged by the US. The US doesn't recognise IC decisions against them, what are we going to do? Invade and make a regime change?

[Black Dog]

If we can't calim that we patrol and control it now, our case is much weaker in international court. You patrol and control it with a military presence.

So we add an icebreaker or two (which, if I'm not mistaken, is in the cards). But I remain unconvinced that drastic or even a significant increase in spending is neccesary.

[White Doors]

If we can't calim that we patrol and control it now, our case is much weaker in international court. You patrol and control it with a military presence.

So we add an icebreaker or two (which, if I'm not mistaken, is in the cards). But I remain unconvinced that drastic or even a significant increase in spending is neccesary.

Well the think tanks that study these things vehemently disagree with you.

[White Doors]

How could the claim that the northwest passage runs through our territory be contentious? Do you even know where the route runs? In my estimation there is no point where the passage is more than 50 miles from Canadian land and over 2/3rds of the route is bordered by Canadian territory on BOTH sides.

Terroritorial waters are only 22km wide. If you use Google Earth you can see that the are many places where the straits are 100km+ wide which means the straits are not within Canada's territorial waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Waters

That said, all archipelagic waters within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state like Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered territorial waters. But Canada is not an archipelagic state so the US can try to claim that the archipelagic state rules do not apply.

Bottom line: from a strictly legal perspective Canada's claim is not air tight. From a moral perspective it is indisputable.

Nope, not air tight at all. The bottelnecks are all less than 22kms though. Increased Military presence will help our claim.

Our claim...has been challenged by the US. The US doesn't recognise IC decisions against them, what are we going to do? Invade and make a regime change?

Yes, that is exactyl what I'm saying.

[Black Dog]

Well the think tanks that study these things vehemently disagree with you.

Then surely it shouldn't be too hard to produce a link or something.