Harper Announces Six Arctic Patrol Boats

[geoffrey]

Didn't we illegally seize a fishing boat awhile back?? I don't know if it changed the Portugese opinion on fishing over here, but perhaps a little muscle flexing can get some ends acheived.

[bush_cheney2004]

Didn't we illegally seize a fishing boat awhile back?? I don't know if it changed the Portugese opinion on fishing over here, but perhaps a little muscle flexing can get some ends acheived.

Do you mean The Great Turbot War? Wasn't that Spain?

[weaponeer]

Our population is among the largest in the world.

Umm? I agree Canada needs and should invest in sufficient assets to assert its sovereignty, but lets stick with facts here. Canada has roughly 32 million people. Countries that have populations "among the largest in the world" have 10-40 times more than that.

As for affording to arm ourselves, it's not a matter of the wealth of the country as much as of its priorities. Canadians do not and would not support a large portion of the GDP being used on the military, due to prevalent political views and the general feeling that Canada is safe as is. Some countries that are much smaller, with smaller population and economies, can and do have substantially more powerful militaries, where it's a higher national priority.

In the case of Canada, we pretty much have relied on the US to be able to protect us in case anything ever really happened where Canada would be threatened. The US protecting us still holds true, except in the case of opposition just between the US and Canada. And in that particular scenario, if the US really wanted to use military force against Canada, then no military that Canada could realistically deploy could match the US military, and we all know that.

If it came to disagreement between the US and Canada, and specifically in the area of arctic sovereignty, do you really think an armed icebreaker would change anything? Either the US decides to respect Canadian claims in those regions, in which case the absence of armed icebreakers won't matter, or the US decides not to respect our claims, in which case even if we had a carrier battlegroup up there in the arctic, they wouldn't dare to use military force against a US vessel, knowing that that would be disasterous for Canada.

That's the entire problem, we have been relying on others to protect us since we first became a country. First the British, then the Americans. What you are saying is that we are a vassal state, hollow, no real responsibility for ourselves. We are soverign until it costs us $$.

The number 1 responsibility of the Gov't is to protect Canada, a responsibility that every gov't, tory or lib, has abdicated since 1867. Healthcare and social programs are Prov gov't responsibility, the military, defence and security is the Feds domain. The best social program the Gov't of Canada can give it's citizens is to keep them alive and free!!!!!

Canada has been freeloader on defence for years. We hand over our defence to the Americans and bitch about how they handle it. Its like letting the neighbour come over and screw your wife and bitch about how he does it, it's discraceful. How can anyone be proud to be Canadian when someone else is protecting us....

Canada can afford a well equipped and trained military. If Australia can, we can, if Holland can, we can, if Norway can, we can....... People have to wake up and stop thinking small, stop thinking we are some poor down and out country. This is Canada, we are in the G8, extremely rich. Canadians have to say, this is Canada, our country, and we want to be proud that we defend it. Canadian men & women protecting Canadians....

[Bonam]

Canada can afford a well equipped and trained military.

Which programs would you cut and/or which taxes would you raise to be able to increase our military budget from $17 billion (as of 2004, don't know a more current number) to the amount we'd need to have a competitive military, say $100 billion (still only ~1/5 as much as the US, not including Iraq funding). Roughly, that's an increase from 1% to 6% of our GDP. Do you realistically think that anyone could sell the necessary program cuts and tax raises to the Canadian public, which is generally averse to the whole concept of having a military that does anything besides "disaster relief" and "peacekeeping"?

[weaponeer]

Canada can afford a well equipped and trained military.

Which programs would you cut and/or which taxes would you raise to be able to increase our military budget from $17 billion (as of 2004, don't know a more current number) to the amount we'd need to have a competitive military, say $100 billion (still only ~1/5 as much as the US, not including Iraq funding). Roughly, that's an increase from 1% to 6% of our GDP. Do you realistically think that anyone could sell the necessary program cuts and tax raises to the Canadian public, which is generally averse to the whole concept of having a military that does anything besides "disaster relief" and "peacekeeping"?

The agreed upon number for defence spending in order to have an effective military is 2 - 2.5% GDP. It's not that much. Other countries do it, and have socialized medicine, even better medical care than we have. We do not need a $100 billion dollar defence budget, we're not going to conquor the world. We need around 30-40 billion, and it is doable without upsetting the apple cart. We are a very rich country, very rich.

You cannot compare to the US, we are not in their leauge, you have to look at the middle powers such as Australia, Norway, Holland and Singapore and how they do it. We do not need 1200 fighters, we need about 120. We do not need 2000 tanks, we need about 200, we do not need 10000 armoured vehicles for the army, we need 1000 (we have 650 now, we are close) we do not need 600 navy ships, we need about 25-28 (we have 21 now).

Our problem is not $$, it's how we spend what we have, not very smart. Instead of buying direct from the companies, we negotiate all these side deals to get business to Canadian companies, well intention but the cost sky rockets. We are more concerned about how much $$ from the contract is spent in Quebec, how much goes to Alberta etc... then when we buy equip we use it forever, casusing us to have to replace everything at once.

Our new C17s, our first one will arrive in Canada in August. The day it lands, we need to start looking for it's replacment in 30 years. Our ships, we built 12 frigates, as soon as they were finished we should have started building the replacements for our 4 destroyers, then when they were done start building the 3 new supply ships, when they were done bring the figates in for mid-life upgrade, when they were upgraded, then bring in the destroyers you just built for refit, and so on..... instead we shut down our ship building yards as soon as we are done building ships, then realize we need them to refit our aging ships, so we have to pay to re-open the ship yard etc....

In the 1950s & 60's Canadair company built some of the best fighter planes in the world, what happened???? We F#@'d that up!! We buy stuff then forget about the need to replace it.......the answer is to buy equipment "of the shelf" (already exists) for the Americans, Germans, France etc.... just like our alllies do..... and to get Canadian industry back in the game and keep it in the game....

[geoffrey]

Didn't we illegally seize a fishing boat awhile back?? I don't know if it changed the Portugese opinion on fishing over here, but perhaps a little muscle flexing can get some ends acheived.

Do you mean The Great Turbot War? Wasn't that Spain?

I stand corrected.

The bottom line is that Canada relies on the seas for much economic activity. We even (illegally) enforce an economic zone beyond that of any other nation. If we are going to be such hotshots, we need to put our money where our mouths are and defend our claims.

An exclusive economic zone is only as exclusive as the firepower to enforce it.

I'm not agreeing with our 200 mile limit (I actually think it's ridiculous), but if we want to pretend we have it, we're going to need something to back it up... maybe even seize some more vessels.

[Bonam]

Weaponeer, I think that to have comparable defense to some of the countries you mention, Canada would need to invest a larger % of the GDP in the military, since we have much more territory to defend, and much of it is sparsely populated and doesn't have existing civilian population centres to incorporate military facilities with. Building stuff from scratch is more expensive, and building and operating stuff in extreme environments (the arctic) is more expensive.

However, I do agree that of the money that we do allocate to the military, much of it could be used more efficiently than it is.

Anyway, I also think that without its own nuclear deterrent, a country can't be a serious military power, especially not when in a dispute with a country that does have nuclear capabilities. If Canada was serious about sovereignty and defense, we'd have a nuclear weapons program. We have plenty of nuclear reactors and the expertise to do it, but the Canadian public wouldn't support it.

[Remiel]

There is nothing you could possibly think of that costs so much and does so little as nuclear weapons. It would be irresponsible to spend even more money on a nearly useless technology when our allies already spend a ridiculously excessive amount of money on it.

Nuclear weapons are perhaps the one area where there should be no guilt for " freeloading " off of the Americans, because in many situations it would likely be worse for them if we were to waste money on them, instead of putting our cash into things that can help us and our allies on a day to day basis.

The only country in the world that could menace us with nuclear weapons without setting off the Americans is the U.S. itself, and I hardly think that even in the most dire scenario imaginable, they would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons on their neighbours, where a chance wind could blow the nuclear fallout all over their own cities.

[bush_cheney2004]

The only country in the world that could menace us with nuclear weapons without setting off the Americans is the U.S. itself, and I hardly think that even in the most dire scenario imaginable, they would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons on their neighbours, where a chance wind could blow the nuclear fallout all over their own cities.

This is a commonly held misconception. American Cold War nuclear weapons testing and ABM systems not only detonated nuclear warheads as high altitude, air, and surface bursts, but the resulting downwind fallout was studied as part of the tests for a better understanding of nuclear weapons effects. Underground testing continued after atmospheric testing was banned by treaty, but this did not prevent fallout from reaching inhabited areas in the US (aka "Downwinders").

The release of nuclear weapons follows very strict protocols and considers dozens of technical, military, political, and environmental parameters. If a necessary target objective was developed on/over Canadian soil, the cost benefit analysis would be computed, same as it was for our early warning and interceptor weapons systems of years ago.

WRT to Canadian nukes, the domestic political dance of denial continued for years through 1984, all the while being the principal supplier of uranium for both the UK and USA's nuclear warhead stockpiles.

[Remiel]

Who cares? That is not relevant to the argument I am making.

The only relevant part is that it would be a waste of money to build our own nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons would not improve our military capabilities in any way that actually mattered.

In any case, I could get behind spending that 2% on the military, but real transparency must come with it. If we are going to spend double on the military, it cannot be seen as some sort of windfall, it will have to be spent just as judiciously (if not more) as we spend what he have now.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Remiel

[bush_cheney2004]

Who cares? That is not relevant to the argument I am making.

The only relevant part is that it would be a waste of money to build our own nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons would not improve our military capabilities in any way that actually mattered.

Your argument is flawed for the reasons I have cited, and some others. Whether Canada actually builds its own warheads or hosts somebody elses was already determined for events and conditions in the past century; such conditions may recur with or without an American umbrella.

I am confident that Ottawa has contingencies for manufacturing nuclear weapons. It would be foolish not to.

Edited July 17, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Remiel]

Having a plan to be able to produce nuclear weapons if you need them and actually producing them before you need them are two entirely different things. Of course there should always be a plan, but there is no need to at this point in time.

[Bonam]

Building nuclear weapons isn't exactly an overnight task, even if you have the needed fissile and/or fusile materials ready. Nuclear weapons are fairly complicated and difficult to produce, particularly the trigger mechanism which has to combine multiple subcritical masses together in a very short amount of time, and then hold them in that configuration for a period of time as the chain reaction progresses. You can't design a nuclear weapon and know that it will work without actually building it, and possibly testing it as well.

Even if Ottawa has detailed plans for the production of nuclear warheads in a contingency, I'd guess it would take at least a year from the moment the plan was approved for implementation until the time we'd have a useable weapon system. And in any kind of situation where we'd find ourselves wanting to possess or use nuclear weapons, having to wait a year for them might be a lot longer than we have.

Not to mention Canada doesn't even have any readily useable means of delivering nuclear weapons. Developing such means would also take time, likely more than a year.

[M.Dancer]

have.

Not to mention Canada doesn't even have any readily useable means of delivering nuclear weapons.

You mean aside from CF -18s, Harpoon missiles and 155 and 105 howitzers?

During the cold war when Canada maintained a theatre presence in germany Canada trained with nuclear capable artillery. It was a fundamental pillar in the defense doctrine of western europe that a Soviet armour attack would be countered by tactical nuclear weapons.

A nuclear armed 105 sabot shell was designed by Space Corp of Montreal for the South African Governement in the 70s.....the shell had a range exceeding 25 k

[White Doors]

Who should we nuke first?

The pesky French?

How about the Spanish and Portugese for the genocide the perpetuated on our Cod, Halibut and Tuna stocks..

Of course, there is also tyranical Japan.. Killing whales for 'research'..

harummpphh!

Orf wit der 'eads!

[Bonam]

I was more referring to strategic nuclear weapons, not tactical ones. As for the CF-18 and the Harpoon, are you sure that either are really designed for deployment of nuclear warheads? Realistically, to establish a nuclear deterrent, you need either submarines with nuclear missiles or ICBMs, or both. I'm pretty sure Canada doesn't have either of those.

[M.Dancer]

I was more referring to strategic nuclear weapons, not tactical ones. As for the CF-18 and the Harpoon, are you sure that either are really designed for deployment of nuclear warheads? Realistically, to establish a nuclear deterrent, you need either submarines with nuclear missiles or ICBMs, or both. I'm pretty sure Canada doesn't have either of those.

A nuclear weapon is a deterent wether its delivery system is an ICBM or FedEx.

If you are building the weapon from scratch, then yes, an f-18 or harpoon would work quite well

...according to the FAS the F-18 can carry the B-57 or B-61 Nuclear bombs.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

Edited July 17, 2007 by M.Dancer

[ScottSA]

I was more referring to strategic nuclear weapons, not tactical ones. As for the CF-18 and the Harpoon, are you sure that either are really designed for deployment of nuclear warheads? Realistically, to establish a nuclear deterrent, you need either submarines with nuclear missiles or ICBMs, or both. I'm pretty sure Canada doesn't have either of those.

A nuclear weapon is a deterent wether its delivery system is an ICBM or FedEx.

If you are building the weapon from scratch, then yes, an f-18 or harpoon would work quite well

...according to the FAS the F-18 can carry the B-57 or B-61 Nuclear bombs.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

Unfortunately Fedex is only marginally more effective than F18s as delivery systems, and neither are adequate. But I'm quite sure canada has the technology and the components to produce ICBMs head and shoulders above anything most of the third world can produce, and could do it within a short period of time if necessary. I don't know what our alleged space program, buried under snow 11.95 months of the year, has in terms of lift capability, but it could probably heft a nuke or two in a pinch. As for a thermonuclear warhead, favored by 9 out of 10 doctors for strategic deterent effect over plain jane nuclear weapons, I imagine canada could produce one in about ten minutes if it needed to.

[Bonam]

I don't know what our alleged space program, buried under snow 11.95 months of the year, has in terms of lift capability, but it could probably heft a nuke or two in a pinch.

Our lift capability is zero. Canada relies entirely on other space agencies for launch capabilities. We provide scientific instruments, scientific analysis, individual robotic components (like the arm), etc. However, we definitely don't have our own launch capability. So no, we don't have any launch vehicles that we could use as ICBMs if we needed to.

As for a thermonuclear warhead, favored by 9 out of 10 doctors for strategic deterent effect over plain jane nuclear weapons, I imagine canada could produce one in about ten minutes if it needed to.

Then you imagine wrong. Thermonuclear weapons are more complicated to produce than plain fission weapons, not less.

A nuclear weapon is a deterent wether its delivery system is an ICBM or FedEx.

As long as the delivery system is quick and difficult to counter, then it can be used as a deterent. I don't see the harpoon as an effective delivery system, as it has a short range. It would need to be launched from a navy surface vessel from off the coast of a target country. However, for a country with a substantial military, it's quite trivial to prevent one of our ships from getting into range. As for the f-18, sure, they'd be fine if we had some aircraft carriers to launch them off of, but we don't.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

is a deterent wether its delivery system is an ICBM or FedEx.

As long as the delivery system is quick and difficult to counter, then it can be used as a deterent. I don't see the harpoon as an effective delivery system, as it has a short range. It would need to be launched from a navy surface vessel from off the coast of a target country. However, for a country with a substantial military, it's quite trivial to prevent one of our ships from getting into range. As for the f-18, sure, they'd be fine if we had some aircraft carriers to launch them off of, but we don't.

F-18s can be refuelled in air and Harpoons can also be air launched.

[Bonam]

So your proposed idea is to send a squadron of our CF-18s, armed with Harpoon missiles with nuclear warheads, to fly from land bases in Canada, across an ocean, with multiple aerial refuelings, to be able to strike at some country. Sure, I guess its theoretically possible, but there's a reason nations with serious nuclear deterrent have developed ICBMs and submarines. Specifically, the above proposed delivery system would be in plain sight for a very extended period of time and would be very easy to shoot down before arriving at the target. This diminishes the value of the system as a deterrent, since a country would consider it realistic to be able to counter our delivery system.

[ScottSA]

So your proposed idea is to send a squadron of our CF-18s, armed with Harpoon missiles with nuclear warheads, to fly from land bases in Canada, across an ocean, with multiple aerial refuelings, to be able to strike at some country. Sure, I guess its theoretically possible, but there's a reason nations with serious nuclear deterrent have developed ICBMs and submarines. Specifically, the above proposed delivery system would be in plain sight for a very extended period of time and would be very easy to shoot down before arriving at the target. This diminishes the value of the system as a deterrent, since a country would consider it realistic to be able to counter our delivery system.

Don't mind Momo...he just likes to argue. He may not realize that the "A" in MAD stands for "assured", and that assurance gets severely watered down if the "destruction" has to be trundled across an ocean or two on the backs of ancient attack jets.

[M.Dancer]

So your proposed idea is to send a squadron of our CF-18s, armed with Harpoon missiles with nuclear warheads, to fly from land bases in Canada, across an ocean, with multiple aerial refuelings, to be able to strike at some country. Sure, I guess its theoretically possible, but there's a reason nations with serious nuclear deterrent have developed ICBMs and submarines. Specifically, the above proposed delivery system would be in plain sight for a very extended period of time and would be very easy to shoot down before arriving at the target. This diminishes the value of the system as a deterrent, since a country would consider it realistic to be able to counter our delivery system.

Not at all. Just pointing out the fallacy of suggesting that a nuclear deterent needs be intercontinental in order to be a deterent.

India, North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Israel all have a deterent and none are intercontinental. nitpicking over delivery systems is pointless.

....especially when the deivery system may be FedEx.

[M.Dancer]

Don't mind Momo...he just likes to argue. He may not realize that the "A" in MAD stands for "assured", and that assurance gets severely watered down if the "destruction" has to be trundled across an ocean or two on the backs of ancient attack jets.

One day you may have an epiphany and have a clue about something, somewhere. When that happens be sure to PM me.

[Bonam]

India, North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Israel all have a deterent and none are intercontinental. nitpicking over delivery systems is pointless.

India and Pakistan need to deter only each other, and don't need deterrent against anyone else. So of course their systems don't need to be intercontinental. As for North Korea, it's questionable whether they have a deterrent... their only nuclear test was tiny, and there is no proof they have more weapons. If the US wanted to invade North Korea, do you think their current level of nuclear armament would completely deter the possibility of any US attack?

As for Israel, they, too, only need to deter nations that are right nearby, and so don't need intercontinental delivery systems. However, Israel does have intercontinental capability anyway, as it has its own space launch vehicles (which is more than can be said for Canada). I wouldn't be surprised if Israel has a wide range of nuclear systems ready to go, including MIRVs and ABMs, not just ICBMs. They are pretty serious about defense over there.

Coming back from those examples to Canada, which nations would we need to deter? Is the United States, on the same continent as us, the only country we'd be pointing our nukes at? Or do we perhaps want to have a system that would work against some other countries? If we want a deterrent against nuclear powers on other continents, then our delivery system also needs to be intercontinental. Just having nukes doesn't do anything to prevent an attack if your enemy knows that you can't actually use the nukes against them.