# Should Canada be part of an North American ABM system?



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

President Bush wants to establish an Anti-Ballistic Missile system to defend North America from missile attack. Time and again, it has been proven that few missiles can intercept another missile and successfully blow it up or whatever it is supposed to do to it.

Many experts say it is like trying to stop a bullet with a bullet. Can you imagine trying to intercept several bullets at the same time?

IMHO, the reason for wanting a continental missile system seems more inclined towards offense rather than defense.

Present threats to the USA have been coming from terrorists, who are not likely to possess missiles capable of coming at us from over the Arctic, or across any of the oceans. Thus the motives for such a network seem more for attack, than retaliation.

Especially when the US has more nuclear devices than anyone else in the world, and ready to attack any country considering building their first one!

I can see the 'intercepts' occurring over Canada to save the USA. We get to become a target, and our citizens will die as a result of 'friendly-fire" in our skies.

Why else would Bush want our co-operation?

However I believe it is an important issue that needs discussion as it threatens our sovereignty and could haunt our children and subsequent generations... if there is still life in Canada.

Bring on the comments!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ooh darntootin', this is a flagrant effort to unleash anti-USA rhetoric. Shame on you









For the record:

1. I think its a silly idea as its impractical and will lead to a false sense of security. 

2. It assumes that the primary delivery mode of a WMD is via the outer atmosphere.

3. Counter-measures always result in the generation of anti-counter-measures (in this case, there may not be a need if the system is deemed ineffective).

4. Canada and the USA should be building common bonds, not a common "wall".

5. Neither we nor the USA can afford this.

6. Most importantly, it provides at least the illusion for the rest of the world that the countries beneath the shield have pre-emptive strike capability (and those shielded countries may assume a new level of confidence).


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I feel if we spend money on defense it should be on a Coast Guard/Navy, Army and Air Force.









Money should be spent on conventional equipment so we can “enforce” our sovereignty over our coasts and our offshore economic zones especially our northern coast.

I’m sorry but I don’t think in the International Court of Justice the postal code for the North Pole of H0H 0H0 is not enough to sustain our sovereignty over the North Pole.





















Northern Rangers just "don't" cut it either.

To heck with peace keeping (cleaning up USAsian messes).  Let 's be in a position to take care of the home “front”.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> 6. Most importantly, it provides at least the illusion for the rest of the world that the countries beneath the shield have *pre-emptive strike capability* (and those shielded countries may assume a new level of confidence).


this is exactly the point
BushCo. have never addressed the issue of Amerikan first strike capability. They conveniently ignore it. They want to be viewed as the only country to have first strike capability with a protective envelope (read Canada).

Again, this is great for "cowboy diplomacy."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I would support this under one condition.

That the facility be primarily geared towards a long term goal of asteroid interception.

Nailing an asteroid accurately call for somewhat the same technology and is likely a higher threat to more people.
If the US wants to spend money in THAT vein fine.

Knocking big ICBMs out - tough to do. Expensive to do.
Ego trip.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macdoc, if George W. had half a wit, he would have proposed the "asteroid interception shield" instead of the anti-ICBM shield and we wouldn't have been the wiser. Downsize the interceptor missiles and, voila, you've a system for knocking down ICBMs....

Except that the rest of the world trusts the present administration about as far as George W. could throw Dick Cheney (oops... sorry PosterBoy).


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc...

If the USA wanted to vaporize an astroid, they wouldn't need launcing pads in Canada. As a matter of fact, many countries would probably consider allowing the USA to build facilities within their borders.

But in the real world... where the rubber meets the road... such idealism is extremely remote from the reality and motivations for the present plans being proposed to Canada.

An ABM moat around the continent will protect nothing. For example, even Russia, North Korea, China, and Iraq (Saddam) mobilized their rockets and missiles to keep enemies guessing where their long-range defense systems were located. Every country in the world can access and read information from satellites to locate any permanent missile locations and have spies infiltrate ABM sites and cause enough damage to disable missiles. 

How long before other countries begin taking the USA to task for doing what they're telling other countries not to do?

IMHO, the establishment of ABM sites around the perimeter of North America is inviting confrontation. And begins a new round of intimidations for world dominance.

It also provides new money for the major weapon manufacturers in the USA since they have alienated many of their old customers.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

BigDL...

I agree!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Gettin a really goog giggle here while I read all the posts from the hard lefties.









You guys have decided amongst youselves that this is not practical, that the money could be better spent eleswhere...that the system will NOT work, anyway....and that there is no real threat. 

It's totally silly and unnecessary. Besides...it's one of George W. Bush's initiatives, so there MUST be an ulterior motive! (EEEEK!)

Welll...now I can relax.  

Your collective track record at predicting the outcome of current events is way south of DISMAL!

So that means that the ABM treaty is a done deal. It will be a reality within a few years...with full co-operation from Canada!  









Well...now THAT'S a huge load off my mind!

I just love it when our totally committed left/lib contingent weighs in on a problem.

It makes it Sooooo much easier, after all.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> ...that the system will NOT work, anyway....and that there is no real threat.


For everyone's sake, I certainly hope that it never comes to pass that either of you are proven wrong.

Is ABM a good idea? I'm unconvinced about both the concept and about the apparent threat it is designed to protect from. Should Canada participate? Well, we want that border to stay open, right?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Last time we said yes, we lost the best airplane ever developed.

Personally I would say no, because an ABM just isn't going to work nowadays. Star Wars/SDI however would. I don't see anything worthwhile coming out of this deal other then tax dollars being given to defense contractors. The money would be much better spent refurbing our armed forces.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

missile defence is a pipe dream
if a nuclear exchange were to start the response and counter response would doom the planet for (almost) ever

there is no such thing as a winnable nuclear exchange

there are already enough nukes around the globe to kill the world several times over

investemtn in dialogue will reap huge benefits

the world has become a much much smaller place
conventional wars and weapons only affected regions
nukes and their fallout affect millions, perhaps billions

it is a very dangerous road to travel


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Well, if they're going to do it, just make sure they don't charge exorbitant banking fees. I mean, $20.00 service fee to take out cash, just because I'm in a strip joint? Really. That's not a fair ABM system, trust me on this.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

In a world where a determined group of people can highjack jetliners and turn them into flying bombs, and where young women with infant children can strap bombs around their torsos, walk up to a military checkpoint and kill several people by detonating themselves, I rather doubt the efficacy of something so terribly high tech as what Bush and co. are proposing. The more technologically advanced a weapon (or weapons system) gets, chances are the more finnicky and high-maintenance it will be, too. There was precious little high-tech in what happened on September 11, 2001.

I think George Bush and co. wants us all to buy into a new paranoia and, in the process, feed a voracious military-industrial complex. Sure, there'd probably be spinoff benefits for a select few Canadian companies. But I expect that the complacency and false sense of comfort this theoretical shield will purchase will in fact be more dangerous than the 'threat matrix' it's supposed to defend us from. Barring some further detailed information to make me a convert, I am opposed.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

LOL...Elmer you are one funny dude.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Can't decide who is the funniest...

Open minded Elmer...

Or the other kind of minded macnutt


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Didn't Canada already go through this hurdle before,
I seem to remember the U.S. wanted us to be protected with
U.S. missles instead of Canada developing the Avro Arrow.

I think a leaky submarine is enough to protect Canada.

Dave


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I think a leaky submarine is enough to protect Canada.


Great!! We already have some of those.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

darntootin', I sent you a PM days ago and it is still unread.

Have you not noticed it flashing below your name on the ehMac home page, and also did you get my email?

Just curious??

Cheers


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Sinc...

Photo Radar... garbage bag tags.. discourteous drivers... town councils... petty battles... traffic tie-ups after fireworks display... I envy you, it sounds a lot like the town I left to come to the Halifax/Dartmouth region.

But most noticeable, is your ability to remain respectfully detached yet maintain a good sense of humour.

You must have a blast... I mean there are so many issues to choose from for you columns.

Great stuff Sinc!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

darntootin', glad to hear you enjoyed the columns.

Yep, I do try to have fun with the columns.

After all, what's life with no fun?

Cheers


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

According to the Halifax Daily News (Jan 16/04) the US proposal for Canadian involvement in the North American Missile Defense System agreement could include missiles being launched from Canadian ships by Americans.

That is scary, for it means our ships could be used at any time at the discretion of another country. Maybe even against ourselves?

However, nothing was said or implied in the article that would permit the Canadian Military to launch missiles from American vessels.

There goes our sovereignty!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

when push comes to shove amerika will look our for amerika, with no mind for Canada
we're just a buffer zone over which to shoot down incoming missiles in their mind
also, it allows the U.S. first strike capability and i think makes Canada a target for terrorism

but as i have said before, if a missile is ever launched, it will probably start WW III and this time with nukes, so it probably won't matter much


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

A few questions (with a little humor in 'em):

When haven't we been a buffer zone? We are after all a country known to get into the middle and peacekeep.

Fire missles from our ships? What ships? Our navy is in a horrible state of disrepair, and desperately needs the one year off and complete retooling the Canadian government said they would do.

An ABM system is from the 1950s, the threat isn't missles anymore. It's briefcases, airplanes, and shoe heels. Explosives are small, and it isn't that hard to smuggle a briefcase into the country if you know how. (Hint: Don't go through customs, or enter the country normally.)


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: just love it when our totally committed left/lib contingent weighs in on a problem.

It makes it Sooooo much easier, after all.<<


See, that's the problem with the neo-conservative right ... always letting someone else do their thinking for them.









Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

I'm with Maxwell on this one.

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> DarnTootin: That is scary, for it means our ships could be used at any time at the discretion of another country. Maybe even against ourselves?

Actually, the Canadian captain would have to delegate "shoot" authority to the American's before any firing. Therefore the ultimate decision is still a Canadian one.

Mike


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Maybe the question is not only whether we should or shouldn't join in an ABM defense system, but rather if there is a real or perceived need for such a system.

I'm confident if we were to take a heapin' helpin' of Macdoc; a pinch of Macnutt, and a large chunk of Chealion and other young whipper-snappers, we might come up with a new approach as to how Canada could be defended.

I agree with Chealion that our military is in a sad state at present, but be informed that the men and women of our Armed Forces are even more aware of deficiencies than we are. Yet they are still expected to function in theatres of war with what little inferior equipment we, as a nation provide for them. And they courageously do the best they can. I have but the highest respect for them.

Our Navy is in dire need of helicopters, but is not as wanting as are the Army and Air Force. The Canadian Navy is already capable of deploying missiles, so it is not an issue. The Navy's problem is lack of younger people to replace it's aging and/or retiring personnel.

Throwing money at the military is not the ultimate solution. Canada needs to define exactly what the country's needs are for the future as well as replacing worn-out equipment. We perhaps should be looking at acquiring or building equipment to address new threats and new technology instead of simply purchasing newer equipment to fight the old ways. The world has changed, so we shouldn't be trying to catch up to the past.

Comments?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It sure isn't an easy issue to address, and I agree that throwing more money at the armed forces will not necessarily improve them. Although we should be paying our people more. And we need to replace those [email protected] Sea Kings before they kill more good people.

Part of the problem is the sheer size and scope of this country - makes it very hard to defend our borders. I think we need to think more about forming light, highly-mobile forces that can get to the battlefield quickly, depending on our own transport modes. That alone will be plenty of bucks. But we need to start somewhere. We need to give people a reason to join the Canadian military, to restore some lustre to the services. Morale can certainly be higher than it is. I'm no military man but I do read a bit of history and I know that Canucks were no shirkers of duty in the 1st and 2nd world wars.

Good topic to discuss, however. I'd really like to hear from people who actually serve in the forces what they would like to see, especially in terms of how they wish fellow citizens would see them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I've beat this drum before so I won't do a major repeat.

No more traditional military.

Roll it all into Canadian Services some of which like the coast guard and policing services may have a military element.

SAR, Coast Guard, fire fighting ( oil and forest ) , disaster relief, rapid evac, communications, policing/peacekeeping, medical services, and other associated and where possible integrated public services right to National Park service. ( ie communications would be an example of integration - skill sets available to all segments. )

Equip them for work at home and abroad with fast lift capability to areas where they are needed.

Start a 2 year mandatory, no exceptions all Canadians & landed immigrants Canadian Service stint with additional post service education grants for "danger service" ala Swiss but without the military - just Canadian Service.

Evolve that into a Canadian Services reserve to keep instructors and experienced staff in the skill set along with a volunteer core of professional paid Canadian Service specialists ( like the SAR are now ).

= happy tax payer
= Canada a good world citizen

Cooperate/coordinate with the US on strategic and perhaps also communications and Coast Guard and pick off specific projects like with did with the Canadarm and the International Space Station.....our astronauts train with the US guys anyway.

The ground work is there. Somebody's gotta have the political will to do it. Just as the separate branches of the Armed Forces were integrated much to some dismay I would like to see the next step away from military to the types of Canadian Service Forces listed above.

and lets start with the damn helicopters.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> DarnTootin: ... The world has changed, so we shouldn't be trying to catch up to the past.

WOW!

That is the best bit of writing I've come across in this forum in a while.

My 2 cents worth ...

The problem, as I see it, is that we as Canadians, can not afford to launch another Royal Commission. We have wasted all to much time in the past talking and posing. The problems are fairly self-evident. So are the solutions. We have a well defined role for our armed forces. Protect Canada's sovereign shores. To accomplish that task we need to build an effective coastal and border patrol system. In our case, that means lots of small, fast ships and lots of multi-role helicopters.

Our problems crop up when we begin to look beyond those borders. Here I think that the best we should hope for is to build an effective "hearts and minds" force. Let others worry about projecting power. We should concentrate on projecting freedom and security. Small highly mobile combined arms brigades with integrated civil engineering units would be a great place to start. Most of that is already in place from an organizational and philosophic point of view. We just need people and equipment. Take a page from GWB's book and spend the money to buy the equipment (ask the troops, they'll tell you what we need) and deficit be damned. Next pay the troops civilian equivilant wages. Finally, give them, particularly the civil engineering units, a long term committment to "make it right".

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: No more traditional military.

Roll it all into Canadian Services some of which like the coast guard and policing services may have a military element. <<

... and who was talking RealPolitik in another thread? 

I think that the idea of doing away with the traditional military is going one step over the line. Rather, we should be looking at re-defining the role of the military to encompass the civil engineering roles you envision. Nothing in a "hot" zone can happen without security and security requires military power. Not a lot, in most cases, but it requires a military based organization to conduct the operations required to provide that security.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Guess I know which way you'll be voting  

My concern is that without a clean sweep there will be difficulties in integration but yes in realpolitik it would be a transformation = slower and more costly.

But first







now!!

Oh I said that







....well be damned I'll say it again.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Once again Guinness, I find myself in total agreement with you.   

We have no hope of projecting power outwards...and no real collective desire to do so.

And, despite all of the hopes and dreams of the Federal Liberals, no real ability to provide any kind of sustainable "Peacekeeping Forces" anywhere in the world. Or even in our own country, for that matter.

It would be very nice if some future Federal Government finally realised this, and limited our scant resoursces to a North American border and coastline patrol.

It would be very good if we could use the tiny amount of personnell and the very few ships that we have left to actually OBSERVE our own borders and coastline.

You know...just to make a half-hearted attempt at preserving our sovreignty as a nation.









Or NOT. 

Just a thought.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> It would be very good if we could use the tiny amount of personnell and the very few ships that we have left to actually OBSERVE our own borders and coastline.


you mean like telling the Amerikans to buzz off when they use the "northwest passage" (canadian territory) as their own little backyard, WITHOUT asking permission.

yeah, good point.
how do you choose to implement?
fire on U.S warships?


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

A military for the future...

I was especially delighted to hear our new Minister of Defense, David Pratt, announce there would be no more troops deployed abroad for a minimum of one year. IMHO, there is a need for a strong defensive military in Canada, and I sincerely hope the new people in charge of our country, and our taxes, understand it is time to make wholesale changes.

This week, I watched as HMCS TORONTO sailed out of Halifax harbour. It was headed for Norfolk to meet up with US ships also headed for the gulf region. (don't read anything into it, as ships prefer to travel in groups as it provides opportunity to practice maneuvers)

I watched as family members braved excruciating cold weather (-20C, -31C wind chill) to express their farewells to loved ones. 

As we discuss the world from our safe and warm comfortable homes, we mustn't forget the impact wars have on our own military personnel and their families.

My concerns include the age of the ship. It was built in 1993, and is in good condition. A credit to our skilled work force at HMCS DOCKYARD and experienced navy personnel working together. While it isn't an old vessel by world standards, HMCS TORONTO and other frigates, are continually being refitted and modified to keep up with current technologies. But those are the extent of our sea power. No aircraft carriers, thus no air support...

According to the Admiral in charge of Maritime Defense (Atlantic), we are well defended as there is always ONE frigate somewhere along the Atlantic coast. (I know... it's not very reassuring) Oh, and ONE somewhere patrolling the Pacific coast.

But in spite of what we don't have, I'm still a dreamer. I envision a military able to conduct surveillance of the trade routes from Europe, the Pacific Rim, and southern nations on water, in the skies, and on the roads.

I envision a navy and air force using modern equipment designed and built mainly by Canadians to deal with our own climate(s), and particular needs. Duties such as patrolling for fishing violations by foreign fishing fleets, Canadian fishing boats, drugs, oil spills, and of course to defend against aggression.

One of the most critical responsibilities as mentioned by Macdoc, is Search And Rescue. Be it in the mountains of BC and Alberta; the tundra of our North or floods in Winnipeg, our armed forces should be supplied with the best equipment to respond.

Mostly, we have to be ready to defend against becoming the killing fields from attacks against the USA. We are positioned to becoming targets as aggressors could well consider Canada a weak obstacle to setting up bases of operations to fight against the USA.

I doubt if any country IS LIKELY to attack from the eastern front with missiles. I do expect it could occur from the west, but even that is remote (no pun).

Attacks in the future will probably come from guerrilla type warfare... destroy Canadian hydro-electric sites supplying US grids... destruction of pipelines... disruption of shipping routes... instilling fear... but somehow, the only immediate missile threat that I know of today, might come from North Korea. However, from media spin, they don't have enough nukes to waste them on Canada.

As mentioned by others, for Canada to spend money on an ABM system is to divert funds better spent elsewhere within the CANADIAN military community.

Macdoc... I don't dispute your concept for the role for our military, but the Canadian Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries should remain separate from the military, as their responsibilities are law enforcement. I wouldn't like, or want, the military roaming the streets, rivers, lakes and oceans of Canada in peacetime. Know what I mean?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"But in spite of what we don't have, I'm still a dreamer. I envision a military able to conduct surveillance of the trade routes from Europe, the Pacific Rim, and southern nations on water, in the skies, and on the roads."

That's satellites = Communications in Canadian Services

"I envision a navy and air force using modern equipment designed and built mainly by Canadians to deal with our own climate(s), and particular needs. Duties such as patrolling for fish...."

Coast Guard and SARs properly equipped
We do not need a "traditional" military nor can we afford it. There is nothing wrong with armed and trained service personnel where it's called for.

We do need what you described.
It wouldn't be the military it would be Canadian Service personnel.
They are mostly all there anyway - it needs a unifying vision.

We need to shake off 18th, 19th and 20th century strictures, define the services we require and build them NOT hampered by older ideas that served their time well.  

Just nudge that dream along a bit.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc...

Your goals are similar to mine. But how can we make drastic 180 degree changes when the rest of the world is still living in the past? If we get out of step with the global status quo, there are those not too far from our borders who might get a little upset if we didn't design our military to complement theirs.

A Canadian Service is forward thinking, and not out of the realm of possibility, but it would have to be incorporated in stages, and make whatever modifications acceptable to governments and the populace.

Any new type of system would have to still hold on to some traditions while embracing new and unique methods and policies for the 'Canadian Service'. The rest of the world would have to make wholesale changes for us to be able to make wholesale changes.

What I like about your concept, is it opens the mind to new approaches to defending against the real threats of the 21st century, and responding to domestic and world disasters. Another benefit would be to continue putting Canada on the leading edge of peace rather than war. But we would also have to avoid being viewed as a vulnerable dove to hawks of the world.

As for conscription, as in Switzerland, I have no idea how Canadians would accept it. Of course we could make university education FREE to all as an incentive to justify 'the draft'.

Remember, if such a plan were to be proposed to Canadians, people like me might be surprised at the level of acceptance.

Dream on Macdoc... I like it!


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Cross posted to the new thread on Canadian military

>> MacDoc: We do not need a "traditional" military nor can we afford it. There is nothing wrong with armed and trained service personnel where it's called for.<<

Those, my friend, are dangerous dreams. We will *always* need a traditional military, and the reasons is in the words themselves. 

Tradition!

Without a military organization, structured and funded as a military organization, all of our existing traditions and methods of operation will be lost and as any student of military history will tell you it is those self-same traditions which enable a group of ordinary, walk-about civilians to perform the extra-ordinary tasks asked of them in times of war. That is why the regimental system has always been so important (although in the US and Russia it applies at the divisional level). Tradition.

Secondly, when and if they are needed, we will have to have a strong cadre of trained and ready troops to serve as an officer corps and nco corps. They will have to know all of those things that a traditional military trains in day after day; small unit tactics; integrating armour and infantry; close air support tactics; defensive fields of fire; artillery usage; etc. etc. etc. These are things that can only be learned in a traditional military environment becuase they have to be practiced again and again and again.

Mike


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Guiness...

Tradition. You're bang-on!

My perception of making changes includes maintaining tradition for the important reasons you highlighted. While the points you made may seem mundane to civilians, they are important and entrenched habits not easily forgotten at all ranks, for their entire lives!

In my view, the only changes we can make to get immediate and positive results, is to begin providing our armed forces with more modern equipment.

That doesn't include equipment discarded or mothballed by other nations! To do so is to defeat the purpose, and propagate the existing problems faced by the military.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That what the French said about the Germans. 
The British about the American tactics.
The Americans about the Vietnamese
The world about Al Qaeda
Times change.

We cannot physically defend our country so what invader are we to shoot at.

If we wish to take a generally neutral stance then tagging along militarily with a ragtag military doesn't do much good and perhaps a lot of harm in being lumped in with the "imperialists".

On the other hand being experts in all the other areas allows to offer superb and effective strategic and tactical support in areas that are also critical but for us serve double purpose. It also makes us welcome where ever disaster strikes man made or not and a good resourcse for the UN.

There is no less a rigour needed for effective Coast Guard and SAR activity.
Intelligence in the form of communications has always had a less "spit and polish" style as have the engineer corps. Get it done more to their liking.
SWAT teams of highly trained snipers and well arm small squads have had and will continue to have a role in policing.

I'd love to see Wesley Clark and Martin sit down and rationalize the coastal and communication and support structure with Canada's lead role being the latter.

Should be be whacking around in Raptors in the next decade?? 
Or should we have best in class SAR and Coast Guard both of which can do double duty.
We can't afford both and I know which one I'd prefer - I think most Canadians would concur.

How to get there.??


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> DarnTootin: In my view, the only changes we can make to get immediate and positive results, is to begin providing our armed forces with more modern equipment.

Quite right, although I would also add that we must also look closely at the salary and structure of our existing forces. I remember reading once about the outrageous number of general officers in the Canadian forces and what a disproportionate amount of the defence budget they eat up. But equipment, equipment, equipment.

First the helicopters, then the Arrow ...

MIke


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc...

If you are convinced we are unable to provide even ragtag defense for our nation, then turning our back on the problem and accepting a subservient role to whoever asks for it, will hardly solve our military problem. In fact I believe it means you have identified a problem that needs attention... and it needs it NOW, for I hate to think there are other Canadians who have also given up the farm.

Regardless of how we are perceived, we MUST have effective and ready defense. That's the prime reason why we pay taxes! To protect our sovereignty.

But don't despair, I expect an increase in the capabilities of our armed forces in the immediate future. I also expect dual roles for our armed forces that fit many of the duties you have described.

If the world is ever at total peace, we can have a National or Canadian Service as you propose, but for now, someone south of us keeps disturbing hornet nests, causing us to be as prime a target as they are.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Yeah...

They are quite top heavy. My reference to new equipment was in the context of improving morale as we were talking about tradition.

But you're right of course. The pay structure leaves something to be desired. I am often reminded that some of the people in the NCO ranks earn in excess of $60,000.00 per year...

While others live on the poor side of town and visit the food banks from time to time!

Go figure, eh!


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: We cannot physically defend our country so what invader are we to shoot at.

Unfortunately, MacDoc, that is true only in a most limited sense. Can you guarantee that twenty of thirty years from now we won't be facing the fighting forces of the remnants of an American Empire which had collapsed into revolution, devolved into three or four separate "republics", one of which decides that it must have our water/oil/hydro/wheat or whatever. Can you guarantee that a revitalized but similarly devolved ex-Russian Siberian nation won't attempt to cross the Bering Straight to re-take Alaska and parts of the Canadian North. The nature of the military is, as I have stated with the Traditions post, a generational thing. It's raditions and learnings are not something that can be picked up and learned over night. You must have a cadre. You must have a tradition.

>> MacDoc: That what the French said about the Germans. 
The British about the American tactics.
The Americans about the Vietnamese
The world about Al Qaeda
Times change.

I'm assuming that the first line of that statement should refer to the Romans and Germans not the French and Germans. 

In answer:
Dietmold Hermann, the leader of the German tribes which defeated the Romans, spent the vast majority of his life as a ROman Legionnaire. He brought a cadre of commissioned and non-commissioned officers with him when he returned to the German frontier in 7AD. The German formations where all aligned by tribal groupings which, in those days would have served as a quite acceptable substitute for the Regimental system of traditional armed forces. When Hermann built his force, he took into consideration all of the elements learned through years with the Romans and combined them with the traditions of the tribes. It was poor tactics which defeated the Romans. Had the three Roman Legions met the Germans in open field combat the Germans would have been the ones to be slaughtered.

The case of the British and American forces in 1776 was similar in that most, if not all of the American cadre where British trained. The individual units fighting on the American side where, once again, "tribal" in nature in that they were raised from the individual settlements as a group. They, where, however, almost without exception, a military force with ample experience in the type of fighting that was required to defeat the English. They had gained that experience through the years 1750 to 1765 during the French and Indian wars. It was poor tactics that defeated the English. Had the English Regiments met the Americans in open field combat, it is the Americans who would have been slaughtered.

The US vs Viet Cong. I guess that a case could be made there, however, it would have been interesting to view the outcome had the American's made the decision to take Hanoi by seaborne assault. Again in open field combat the Viet Cong could not have held up long against the Americans

Al Qaeda. No question this is a different situation. However, recognize that wherever and whenever the terrorists have tried to stand and fight they have been defeated. My question with Al Quaeda is whether there are in fact sufficient numbers in existance to actually call them an enemy army.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

C'mon darn tootin you've got a good brain.
Defence against whom.
The US - not a chance

Anyone else? Who? How?.... that the US would not be engaged? What??... an amphibious assault??
Sovreignity is assured by a world role where everyone within reason is our support and vice versa and we have the respect and support the institutions that are slowly emerging to prevent unilateral attacks.

If they want to come where we already welcome them with open arms. You tell me a plausible scenario.

This isn't a pissing contest about who has the snazzier toys.
The US did more with 88 nurse and doctors in Iran that with all their weaponry.
Doesn't that tell you WHERE money should be spent.

Canada's military is gone as is the need for it - we aren't projecting power anywhere other than by example of how conduct a multicultural society and be a good world citizen.

There is no harm in honouring those that fought and died in just cause. It's different world - different needs. The very state of the military shows how little priority it has because there is no mission statement for it.

A billion dollars spent on improving the trade flow between us and the US would do way more to enhance our society and make us an invaluable trade partner than 1billion in "light armoured vehicles".

This is an enormous country with one land border up against the only current superpower against whom we would have not a prayer.
So what the hell are we doing "traditional" military for??

There are tons of other critical roles in the world and at home that money is far better spent on.
Hospitals, medical expertise, SAR, fire fighting.....or guns.
Which infrastructure would you choose -cuz you can't afford both.

Our southerly neighbour is in that spiral already. Don't get sucked in.  

We've led the world in innumerable ways other than force of arms - let us continue on our strengths and imagination of a better way to use our resources for both our own benefit and those of the world.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

What we have ignored in the past is now coming back to haunt us.

Let's not keep doing it any more...

...and there ARE enemies out there, real and perceived, and I refuse to have Canada lay down its arms and surrender even before we are challenged!

Sorry.

Good night all... I have thoroughly enjoyed the sharing of ideas, but it's my bedtime... Got to get up at 5:00 AM.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc: Sovreignity is assured ...

Sovereignty is *never* assured. How can you be so short sighted as to make such a claim. Look back at the changes in the global community over the past fifty years, and guarantee me that the friends we have today will be our friends tomorrow.

As for a scenario ...

CNN: August 2007
President George W. Bush announced today that, due to the continued threat of terrorist attacks, the Republican dominated Congress and Senate have agreed to his request to suspend the November 2008 Presidential elections in order to allow his administration the tiem needed to "deal effectively with any and all threats to the American way of life"

CNN: January, 2008
The New England states, after long and strenuous debate today announced that they will be holding an emergency vote in all states to authorize their local state governments to cede from the Union on the grounds that President Bush has unlawfully taken control of the government.

CNN: February, 2008
Boston, the new Capital of the New England Confederation was today the sight of a demonstration of the resolve of the people of the New England Confederation to govern themselves. The local military, using arms and equipment from the local National Guard repositories, where presented with new Regimental colors. These colors where drawn from the original regimental units of the first continental army.

CNN: March, 2008
California and Nevada today joined with the New England states in ceding from the nation.

CNN: May 2008
President Bush, hampered by the fact that most of the regular army, marine and air force units where committted to the on-going war against terror in Iran and the New Arabian Territories, placed the National Guard in all states on alert and transferred them to federal authority.

CNN: August 2008
Having been fought to a standstill in Connecticut by the tougher than expected resistance of the New England Army, President Bush today replaced his field commanders and issued new orders to take the "secessionist bastards" any way necessary.

CNN: September 2008
Forces of the New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania National Guard today crossed the Canadian border in force. Although their force levels are severly reduced, particularly in armour, due to overseas committments to the regular forces, they did not seem particularly concerned about the Canadian response. Their intention, as stated to the Canadian National Service unit stationed at the Niagara Falls crossing is to do no harm to Canada or Canadians but rather to "use your rather excellent HWY 401 to get to the northern Vermont border and deal with our wayward cousins in a substantial manner".

CNN: September 2008
The Canadian Government today issued a blistering protest against the American incursion and required that they leave immediately. However, as no effective Canadian fighting units exist, President Bush brushed the protest aside with the comment that he would do whatever was necessary to protect America. 

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We cannot defend against the US. Not likely even a small confederation of states.

It's entirely a waste of money to envision that scenario as the lead up to it would be world shaking.

If you want a modification then "sovereignity is assured as much as it can be in practical terms".
It also would serve us most well to be valued world citizens with other allies upon whom we could depend.
My point stands.
Useful skilled world citizens.
Just as doctors are valued in clashes by both opposing sides, so should we position ourselves.

Besides if the US wants to us the 407 it'll cost em big. 

[ January 18, 2004, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc: We cannot defend against the US. Not likely even a small confederation of states.

Of course we can. Defense is infinitely easier than attack, and a modern well equipped force of moderate size could easily hold up an attacking force with 5 to 10 times it's nominal strength.

My point, however, was not so much the scenario as the potential for change over the next quarter century. To leave ourselves open to challenge with no recourse but to beg someone else to come to our assistance is, in my mind, a defenseless position. Now if you were to provide a scenario where a viable UN armed force existed, I could go along with you. Depending upon the continued good will of another nation or group of nations is not the way to move forward.

Mike


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> We cannot defend against the US. Not likely even a small confederation of states.


We could do it if we do it like the Vietnamese did to kicked their asses but alas our military would have to forfeit Toronto pity ...that is unless Toronto was hit by a major winter storm.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I waited a while before I waded into this one. But, for the record:

I believe we should agree to join the system. It won't cost us a lot (they're going to build it anyway, and don't expect us to pay for much of it). Although I don't agree with the justifications used to start the program, the fact remains it is going ahead and we need to be there if it does.

NORAD is going to be dismantled with this system. Canada has benefitted greatly from it's participation in NORAD; it's a lot safer when Canadian Officers are in the building and have full security access.

I would suggest the joint training and exercises over the years have significantly helped our military preparedness and has also allowed us to save defense spending dollars. Much of what these systems incorporate would have to be created by us alone, and at higher cost, if we don't join.

As to whether the system is of any value, all I know is we don't know what role, exactly, the shield is going to play in security in the future. Our defense is all about the unknown.

Certainly NORAD was and is of massive intelligence value to Canada and it was essentially useless for it's intended purpose about 30 years ago (once the USSR no longer needed bombers to attack North America).

One obvious example, unfortunately squandered, is September 11. NORAD was aware of the second jet (which clearly indicated a terrorist attack and not just an ordinary aviation disaster) and had there not been cuts to budgets and protocols after the collapse of the USSR that plane could have been intercepted.

Jets were scrambled and all of that notification and preparation was from NORAD facilities. Although they didn't have any effect, that was due to the altered threat procedures and not NORAD itself, which did it's intended job.

Again, to be shut out of continental defense and intelligence would be a great blow to Canada and Canadian contractors and companies. The net gain I think easily justifies a Canadian presence.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Gordguide: "Again, to be shut out of continental defense and intelligence would be a great blow to Canada and Canadian contractors and companies. The net gain I think easily justifies a Canadian presence."

Ummm... are you saying that we should be part of a fundamentally flawed (at the scientific level), politically motivated and expensive program in part so we can make money? While I agree that it has been useful to have a Canadian or two in the Rockie Mountain control centre and I've nothing against working with the USA on issues of mutual interest, what is the point of participating in this project? It seems to me that, unlike NORAD, this is a largely autonomous missile targetting system. Due to the timing, the amount of human intervention will have to be minimal (perhaps limited to aborting a missile once launched).

Does Canada lose any of its sovereignty by participating? Would our image as an independent nation overseas be compromised? What would the price of that be?

Perhaps Canada's participation should be performance related. In other words, Canada would participate as an extension of NORAD to the point of proven efficacy (in tests). It would not, however, allow a repeat of the Patriot missile debacle where hardware was prematurely field-deployed with abysmal performance - there is far too much at stake. Canada should also demand a failsafe such that the system could never be used pre-emptively (although I cannot see how such a safe-guard could be realised).


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Guiness...

Frightening scenarios. BUT... any progression towards a future that even remotely resembles your news of the future is scary.

Macdoc...

Thinking peace is admirable, but even I know peace and civil order has to be nurtured and protected.

IMHO, to participate in a scheme that permits another country to build a moat around Canada's coasts, is tantamount to handing the USA our sovereignty in a veiled political surrender.

How will the world view us? They will probably see us as a baby in the cradle being protected by its mother... or a country surrounded by another country!

All efforts to yell and scream to the world that we are still a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions will never be listened to again the moment we sign the deal.

Somehow, the offer smacks of 'World Order' as first prescribed by Bush Sr. in the early 1990s, and Bush Jr. today. To join in a North American Missile defense system, is to succumb to the real goal of capturing Canada without a shot being fired... all part of 'World Order'!

Remember, the agreement will have dubious clauses and double-meaning statements we won't fully comprehend until it's too late. Maybe we'll understand the agreement, loud and clear, when the plans to build missile sites in Canada are scrapped, for whatever reasons, and replaced, for example, by and with 'North American' troops made up of Canadians and Americans. Soon the line indicating the Canada/USA border between Canada and the USA would be but a memory. And you know what??? The time is ripe since none of us have much confidence in our own military.

I don't believe the USA wants *only* to build an ABM defense system... they may also want some sort of agreement in writing... so they can change the rules later... just like the Free-Trade Agreement has changed and become one sided. 

_My own little scenario:_ "Hey Canada... if you were ready to let us put nuclear missiles on your land, why won't you let us put troops and equipment in Canada instead? It will be called the North American Defense group. You'll be a full participant... the USA will run it of course, but we'll use what little military people and equipment you already have now. Damn... Mr. Martin... you won't have to buy anything... we'll even give all your soldiers brand-new super-duper shiny American weapons... and we'll give your women nylons and the kids chocolate bars... and your civilians can have American cigarettes too. (Sound familiar?)

Of course to maintain all of this, my people need the keys to your oil, water, lumber and hydro-electric plants...

...and since we don't want to be arguing all the time... we'll just borrow your sovereignty for a few generations. We promise to give it back... _honest!_

After all... we gotta fight those bad 'ol terrorists... ya know!"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Darn tootin how come you can't grasp the idea of a powerful and armed Coast Guard









If you are talking ABM it's a waste of money as far as I'm concerned but we should have a very strong communications and surveillance and includes dedicated communications planes to coordinate SAR and other services like fire fighting etc.

And about your little scenario. IF the US wanted to do it and enforce it- diddley squat could be done about it.

"They will probably see us as a baby in the cradle being protected by its mother... or a country surrounded by another country!'
That's a crock and you know it. You still cling to this glory days soldiers marching, flags flying representing our military might.

Leave the nonsense to the US and Britain - it's of no use to us.

Over the next couple of decades there will continue to be a high level of refugee and economic flight that will need to be controlled. There already IS a greatly heightened risk of severe weather and flooding due to to global warming.

The Arctic is rising in temperature far quicker than any other area of the planet and the consequences are going to be severe no matter if it results in higher temperatures or even the clear possibility of a snap ice age if the fresh water content of the Atlantic rises fast enough and far enough to stop the Gulf Stream.

"The U.S. has sustained 49 weather-related disasters over the past 22 years in which overall damages and costs reached or exceeded $1 billion. *Seven occurred during 1998 alone—the most for any year on record, though other years have recorded higher damage totals."*

Now accelerated climate change IS happening and we own a big chunk of where it's the worst. This does need to be prepared for and all of the categories in Canadian Services have bearing from fire to rescue to coast patrolling and surveillance. Once THIS is prepared for then talk to me about soldiering.

"Arctic Summer Sea Lanes Open
By 2015 Forecasts ONR

"Although recent terrorist events keep our minds occupied elsewhere in the world, what a navigable Arctic means for our national security is significant," says Dr. Dennis Conlon, Program Manager for Arctic Science at the Office of Naval Research. "Geographical boundaries, politics, and commerce changes would all become issues."
 Washington - Feb 14, 2002
The Arctic ice cap is shrinking that much is known with certainty. Over the past century, the extent of the winter pack ice in the Nordic Seas has decreased by about 25%. Last winter the Bering Sea was effectively ice-free, which is unprecedented, and if this big melt continues, some say the formerly ice-locked Arctic will have open sea lanes as soon as 2015. By 2050, the summertime ice cap could disappear entirely"

Here's the other shoe to drop
Worth a read if you aren't aware

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/gribbin.asp

Exerpt
"The perpetual chill of Antarctica helps to drive the ocean conveyor belt, as cold salty water sinks to join the deep current flowing from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But latest measurements show a slow-down in the sinking Antarctic waters.

In his latest research, Broecker and his colleagues at Columbia University, New York, have just announced that *the surface water near Antarctica is sinking at only a third of the rate it was a century ago.*

This has really set the cat among the climatological pigeons. If Broecker is right, the slowdown in the Antarctic deep current ‚ starting about a century ago ‚ ought to be doing two things. It should make the Antarctic colder, and also encourage the Gulf Stream to make Europe warmer."

"But one thing is for certain. As we enter the 21st century, the links between ocean currents and weather are moving from academic analysis into a matter of life and death around the globe"

There is a tremendous increase in fresh water flowing into the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. If Greenland as well kicks in significantly

"Record melt in Arctic and Greenland
*Ice sheets shrank by 1 million square kilometres this summer. *
9 December 2002 

TOM CLARKE 

Ice covering the Arctic Ocean and Greenland shrank by record amounts this summer, new research shows. The rise in seasonal melting has led some experts to estimate that 20% of Arctic sea ice could be lost by 2050.

Combine that with this

" * Yet it is the N. Atlantic where these changes can act to disrupt the overturning circulation and cause a rapid climate transition.* 

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_keigwin.html

Now that's a real Threat with capital T especially to Canada.

We are only one country and cannot stop global warming. We CAN be prepared for the consequences even if we are uncertain of the exact nature of those consequences.

Well equipped Canadian Services WILL be needed here and abroad to deal with the climate changes that absolutely are inevitable.

It doesn't matter if it's man made or a natural process there will be severe consequences especially as we have a 50% population increase to endure over the same period world wide.

The nations working together to ameliorate the effects of this will be more important than ever.
The situation with the Iranian earthquake shows just how important aid in time of disaster is. It transcend all this military posturing and puts people in mind tha we are all humans and we all need help fomr time to time.

We could do nothing better for our children and for other countries than be superbly equipped in the Canadian Service categories mentioned cuz sure as hell we WILL need them.  

Hmmm puts me in mind of another poll


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> DarnTootin: just like the Free-Trade Agreement has changed and become one sided. 

Ask those hundreds of thousands of American's who have lost jobs due to the movement of manufacturing south and north and they would agree with you. Only to them they are the losers.

I believe that, for the most part, Free Trade is working exactly as it was planned to. Certainly there are issues such as Softwood lumber to content with, but that truly is a difficult one because it goes beyond the normal commerce to commerce relationship and begins to touch upon questions of social value. In a Free Trade environment where costings are the bottom line, we are clearly out of line in the softwood lumber question. Free trade has given a lot more to Canada than it has taken away.

Mike


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Guiness...

I don't disagree, but I also feel we succeed as long as the USA pulls the strings. We have many new jobs in the service sectors, and except for a few companies, most of our new economies are dependent on the USA instead of our own entrepreneurship.

Macdoc...

I don't dispute your views at all, including an armed Coast Guard. But I also look at the rest of the world and even our own Canadian childrens' facination with guns, bombs and killing in the majority of their computer and other games and favorite movies. I know the world plays its own games with weapons and guns and missiles. So for the second largest country in the world to turn its back on maintaining a separate and serious defense system is... very hard to grasp. That's because the rest of the world has not passed around enough olive branches to each other for me to realistically view this as the right time to totally trust any nation in the world.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It all comes back to the same question.
We have no land threat other than one we cannot defend against.
We have limited resources and cannot compete with US military technology.

We CAN be world leaders in the other things. We ARE in some already.

To some large degree North America is a team -we all know this. If we're good, real good at critical skills like those mentioned that we can afford then we are a useful partner and team player.
If we are ill equipped because we are trying to split our priorites THEN we become both a drag on our team mate and ineffective in both.
We CANT DO BOTH.
So do the one we're good at, the one we can afford to the very best of our ability.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc...

What would you have Canada do if the USA decided to have a hot or cold war with the United Nations? Or with the European Union? Do we side with the USA simply because we're connected at the economic hip?

Or do we declare ourselves neutral, and wait for the dust to settle, then go in with our National Service to affect peace?

Which country would we help first... the winner or the loser. One will see us as a potential catalyst that could have brought victory to the loser, or a better, or quicker win for the winner.

Our wide open spaces, and abundance, shared by only 30,770,000 (2000 census) that's 3.1 residents per sq.km... very attractive to our neighbours to the south, and to nations around the world.

At the end of the day, whether you and I agree or not as to how Canada should proceed with defense policies, there are 30M+ folks out there putting a lot of confidence in our government to maintain the defense of the country, its sovereignty, its resources, and its freedoms.

I know that sounds corny, but I do too!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"maintain the defense of the country"
Once more...... How against whom??


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc...

I don't want to go around in circles!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nor do I and there still is no credible scenario that actually deals with a valid need to "defend" our territory militarily.

Indeed you pose an interesting question but perhaps it might be EU and the US at loggerheads.

With OUR commitment to NATO and the with the US increasing "go it alone" style it's not inconceivable we would be caught in the middle with divided loyalties - a more severe form of the Iraq war issue.

Even there I cannot see us making a difference with military hardware - in fact it might put us in a very awkward position trying to disentangle from then conflicting commitments between NATO and Continental.









I just completely fail to see a multi billion commitment to say Raptors being the best use of Canadian tax dollars. I suppose an offset is found with areospace income if we get a cut of the project but is that not selling out our values for jobs.
Cant' we instead revive some ship building for Coast Gurad use and even "heaven forbid" build our own helicopters just the way our bush planes are "home grown".

I've gotta think we've got some solid ground in many areas that are good 24/7 use.

Will someone point to a crucial use of our military forces in the last 40 years other than clearing snow.







What I mean is a situation where OUR military made a significant difference beyond just show.

You'll get little argument from me in the WWs and their immediate aftermath but since then??? ( Do we want to call Trudeau's escapade crucial use?? )

I think we'd find that their "use" is more in the lines of the Services concept but I'll listen to specifics.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Hurricane relief, flood relief, helping injured seamen/disabled (air) ships and lost (insert occupation/activity when getting lost).  

Protecting our sovereignty with issues involving the fisheries and pollution patrols.   

Darntootn’ help us out here your in the HRM what else are the military involved in.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly - NOT pointing artillery or running around in tanks.

What you described was a strong Coast Guard and SAR - exactly where our strengths lie and our dollars should go.

East Coast ship building and ocean rescue could be burgeoning with funds spent that way.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One thing is for sure....

Any country that can't even patrol it's own borders or coastlines has no real sovreignty over those boundaries. Canada is not currently able to patrol or even observe it's boundaries. We can't even patrol our own west coast with the friggin Coast Guard very effectively, because of the severe cutbacks by the Chretien government.

Even if we started right now...it would still take the better part of a decade to reverse this decline.

We currently exist as a seperate country from the US because the political climate in that country wants it that way. Now.

The Americans have been saying for decades that they would very much prefer it if Canada were a more equal partner in the defence of North America. They would rather we take care of our own turf...so they don't have to.

IF they ever have to, then we will cease to be a seperate country from them in very short order. Just the way it is.

And I don't like that prospect any more than the rest of you.

Trust me on this.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc & BigDL...

Far be it for me to have to justify having a military with strike-force or response capabilities...

What you both have described is homefront activities. Yes, they have performed domestic duties unrelated to bang-bang war.

But a state of readiness is equally important. Especially in these tumultuous times when anything can and has been happening overnight.

Macnutt... had you asked for the past 50 yuears or so, I would of course, have brought up our involvement in Korea. But that becomes a pissing contest.

Stayed up late... gotta go listen ta dubya!

G'night all!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Darntootin...

Of course I realise we were involved in the Korean "Police Action". I also know about the thousands of Canadians who fought in Viet Nam. Some of them were even related to me.

I firmly believe that every country...EVERY country...needs to have a viable miltary. Any that don't are signalling to the rest of the world that they are an easy target and are ready to be absorbed by a more powerful neighbor.

"Easy Meat" would be the slang miltary term.

Even socialist Sweden has a rather strong miltary. Especially for their relative size. They have maintained this for several decades, despite a peaceful stance.

And you sure can't put some sort of defensive force together in a hurry AFTER you've been attacked. Just doesn't work that way.

What I was attempting to point out...to some of our more "insulated" citizens...is that we are very far away from having an effective coastal patrol. MILES away from having an effective border/coastal defence system.

And WORLDS away from having a real miltary.

We are...at this moment..."Easy meat".


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: Will someone point to a crucial use of our military forces in the last 40 years other than clearing snow. What I mean is a situation where OUR military made a significant difference beyond just show.

Take your pick of any UN peacekeeping mission from 1960 to 1996. You may not consider them crucial, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the locals did.

Mike


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ok macnutt, how are you going to pay for this new found military to defend the 2nd largest country (in terms of land mass) in the world
oh and remember we only have 31 million people

please outline your plan - i'm listening....

maybe if we increased your property tax to the tune of 10 million dollars per year, eh?
canadian or u.s. dollars, your pick


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Take your pick of any UN peacekeeping mission from 1960 to 1999"
I am in no way advocating our participation in peace keeping be diminished - if anything it should be enhanced which is why I included policing -as Bush & Co know it ain't the same.

Are we soldiers or peacekeepers. It's a different occupation and the US training shows it.

Remember a certain Canadian Airborne situation.  

I really don't have issue with contributing our fair share and existing facilities to a UN armed facility that actually is in command. But I think Canadians would prefer soldiering abroad ( not peace keeping ) soldiering be done under the UN flag NOT the Canadian flag.

I would like nations the world over when they see a Canadian flag on a vehicle or person that it is NOT a military unit but like DWOB there to lend aid and help.

Good use of our funds.

And Mike - why is it so bad that we ARE in keeping with the rest of the world in military spending - just not in linw with the US which is rapidly spending its way into oblivion.  45% increase in military budget..unbeleivable.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum wrote...

"Okay..how you pay for all of this?"

That's a VERY good question macspectrum.  

We should also be asking how the heck are we going to fund our failing Health care system?

Both have been terribly neglected by the previous Chretien government. While they were "balancing the budget". 
















BOTH are absolutely crucial to maintaining Canada as we know it. Without either of these major programs, we will be forced to face up to some very nasty facts. And we will see some VERY unfortunate changes in the land we love.

Irreversible ones.  

THAT'S the "Chretien Legacy" 









Perhaps you might direct your question at him...or his chosen sucessors.

Because WE are in a pickle. And THEY have put us there.

Hopefully, they will have some answers.

But I bet we are ALL gonna end up paying for this nonsense. BIG TIME.

And soon.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum...

We in Canada are not even CLOSE to keeping up with worldwide miltary commitments. Spain now has a stronger navy than we do.

At the end of the Second World War, Canada had the world's third largest navy. What a change!

And our own military advisors...and pretty much everyone else who knows about this stuff...is currently saying that we must give our tiny and ill-equipped military a year or two "off" from peacekeeping duties.

Just to let them recover a bit. We are running a tiny four cylinder motor at high RPM's for extended periods of time...while feeding it really cheap gas, and not changing the oil.

Somethings gotta give. And soon.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacSpectrum: please outline your plan - i'm listening....

Just a little history lesson for all those who doubt our ability to generate force levels to defend ourselves...

By the end of the 2nd world war 

Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world.
One in every 12 Canadians,, not just military aged men, but one out of every 12 men, women, children, grandmothers, grandfathers, was serving in the armed forces.
Canada had lost more fighting men and women, on a per capita basis, than any of the allied nations.
Canadian airmen, on average, shot down more enemy planes, on a per capita basis, than any other allied nation
Canadian troops fought in every major action in the European theatre after the withdrawal from Dunkirk.
Canada spent more, on a per capita basis than any other allied nation besides Great Britain.

And finally, MacSpectrum, defence is a very cost effective military process. It may take brigades of tanks to capture a location that can be held by a relatively small number of troops with relatively inexpensive shoulder launched anti-tank and anti-air weapons. Defence does not mean running out and spending mountians of money for great big MB tanks, and aircraft carriers, and super expensive fighter jets. Those things, along with the missiles and bombs that go with them are used to project power, not defend and secure.

Mike


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i stil haven't heard one concrete idea on how you are going to pay for the new miltary, macnutt

i'm still waiting for a viable solution that you would propose

with your new hi speed and all you should be able to find some facts and figures on belinda.ca - frank stronach's daughter now running to lead the unholy alliance...

did i mention i was still waiting?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> And finally, MacSpectrum, defence is a very cost effective military process


again, still waiting on how to pay for this all
higher taxes?
cancel health care?
sell 1st born?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thank you.... sounds like a well supplied Coast Guard to me.

Communications, SAR, Coast Guard, fishing and pollution regulation and international support projection all rely on a rational use of ships and helicopters and even orbiting communications planes as well as satellites.

Damn we have the longest coastline in the world - an effective Coast Guard WILL cost a lot as will an effective SAR structure and natural disaster relief facilities.
It's not a big shift from the situation now which has been in "waffle mode" for years.
The current forces evolved from separate arms, Navy Army Air Force and the wailing and nashing of teeth was horrible.

Time for the next step. One that all Canadians can get behind with pride in the dollars being spent....effectively.

The Artic Ocean will be a major travel route very shortly. The issue right now is not that Canada can not do it - it did it before a Mike pointed out.
It's the vision thing......


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

MacDoc, you must have a military organization behind the entire process. It must be built that way, funded that way, and operated that way. You can call it whatever makes you happy, but it must be a military organization.


MacSpectrum: You would do it the way any major organization handles capital expenditures, take out a loan, i.e. run a deficit for a few years to cover the acquisitions of the needed equipment, and pay for ongoing operations out of current accounts. They, that is ongoing expenses, are not going to run much beyond our present day expenditures - particularly if we get rid of some of the deadweight at defence headquarters in Ottawa. Do you know we have one general for ever 575 other ranks?

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now we come to the heart of the matter.
It needs a Canadian Services organization which the military is a part and yes the deadwood gone.

It's top heavy and equipment poor. There is no vision. It's caught between the past and the future.

Wow I just stumbled across and amazing site

http://www.library.ubc.ca/poli/international.html  

more later...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc, old buddy....

It does my cold black heart proud to see you finally coming around to reality.   

About bloody time!














 

Welcome to the light.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macnutt...



> I firmly believe that every country...EVERY country...needs to have a viable military. Any that don't are signaling to the rest of the world that they are an easy target and are ready to be absorbed by a more powerful neighbor.


YOU'RE RIGHT... 

On funding... I have often told friends that a well funded health care system is worthless if we can't defend the sovereignty that provides it.

Macspectrum...

I agree we have to make a decision as to where money will come from, so I did some thinkin'









If you read _Canada Without Armed Forces_, you most likely would understand the precarious position Canada is in right now. We have no choice but to do something, and to do it fast!

Other countries have employed financial instruments to access future money; just as most of us do with bank credit. If Canada were to put a business plan together based on what we need, and stagger the purchases over the next five years, we could access monies using everything from debentures to bonds to raise money and to pay it back annually and still keep it within or close to our annual budgets.

Because of negligences in the past, we have no choice but to initially purchase off-shore, but we could immediately fire-up our own shipbuilding and aircraft manufacturing, while expanding and diversifying the building of our own military equipment. We have the skilled people at all levels.

To address escalating maintenance and spare parts of equipment usage, we would, of course, allocate funds annually, based on factors applicable to specific equipment and their obsolescence, be they aircraft, tanks or ships.

The most important asset to any military is personnel, and it is an issue that has reached critical levels in our armed forces, and should be addressed immediately.

For now, I would like to see financial commitments to protect Canada, and to provide more than lip service to international involvement.

We would still be able to say _no_ to preemptive strikes if we wanted to. But we could finally say _yes_ to defense or peacekeeping... with conviction!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Ok, so we buy on credit.
Will the electorate and business communities be ok with that?
Or will Canada's credit rating fall into the toilet because of our now "increasing debt?"

Will the oppostion parties jump on board or just bitch and moan about how the feds are spending the money that our children will have to pay back?

It's a double edged sword.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are completely dreaming MacNutt. I am in no way onside the military as we know it now and if you read the articles the military knows the writing is on the wall. They themselves indicate Canada cannot stay on a par for miliitary equipment with the US.

The process is happening - has been happening.

We cannot afford anything like the structure we have now and cannot afford not to have the Coastal Patrol structure we need.

New vision.

"Viable military" -- now there's a foggy notion. Our border just with the US is so long that every single existing Canadian could stand along it an we'd be all of 2 deep let alone the entire coast.

Viable military...against whom? - same old question..no credible answer.
Ravenous Siberians or Lapps perhaps.









Foggy foggy just like our coasts.

It's not going on as it has, it IS changing rapidly and it will not be what it was. It will be what we can afford and suits our situation.

But get the damn helicopters in place as a start....grrrrr.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

certainly long range helicopters, long rage reconossaince propellor aircraft for patrolling the coasts and how about blimps? yes, blimps?

they can be set with radar tracking systems and with cameras to take note of ships going in and out of our coastal waters

the blimps are inexpensive, unmanned, and a proven technology.

sure, one will blow away once in a while, but that would be the cost of a coastline/border watch

the blimps can be remotely monitored and a helicopter or aircraft can be dispatched it need be

warships are very expensive and take far too long to build

multi-purpose helicopters to dispatch trops, equipment, fire fighting, search and rescue and long range aircraft that can coordiante communications for an incident and can be used for patrols and responding to issues on the seas

"warships" can come later if they do at all


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Radar-picket blimps were used very effectively in the early days of the cold war. As Macspectrum has noted, they can stay up for a very long time and are much cheaper to build than ships. 

What I had in mind, though, was more like a decent helicopter fleet that could land almost anywhere. Combined with a more modern version of the Aurora naval patrol aircraft they would form the backbone of a new Canadian Rescue/Defense Force.

We are talking quite a few helicopters and quite a few new airplanes here. Plus the crews to man them.

And that would be just the start.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Used to be Jw asked me:

" ... Ummm... are you saying that we should be part of a fundamentally flawed (at the scientific level), politically motivated and expensive program in part so we can make money? ..."

Well, not exactly. I am saying, however, that we should be part of it in part so we can make money and develop technology with Canadian firms and to hire Canadian college graduates based on those contracts. Yes.

"Fundamentally flawed" it may or may not be; we don't know where the technology will lead us, flawed in concept or not.

"Politically motivated". No argument there. I would prefer it not be a done deal, but that's outside the scope of my comments. What is versus what should be. This is, and it won't go away just 'cuz we want it to.

Expensive? You bet. Let's siphon off some of those dollars to Canada. We gain far more in employment, technology, keep valuable people here with jobs, etc.

I don't expect the cost to Canada's treasury to be great, and I don't think we could get the same return on investment if we spent those same dollars on national security, which we will be forced to do when NORAD is disbanded.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macspectrtum...

Are you suggesting Canadians remain defenseless so one party doesn't pee-off the other party?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

no
what i am asking is what the pundits will say if we buy military hardware on the country's credit card?

the same pundits who want more military spending and don't have a plan on how to get the money will be howling next election becuase Canada has fallen further in debt.

that's what i'm saying

perhaps PM could make it a free vote re: increasing our national debt in order to buy military hardware and keep the names of those that voted YES on file for all to see


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macspectrum...

It's not an issue to be put to a vote. What is an issue is when will the government wake up and address a basic responsibility!

The Canadian government has been able to avoid that responsibility because we let them... we wanted the money for other programs, and complained when we didn't get enough.

Now the neglected responsibilty has deteriorated beyond anything we realized.

Gotta pay the piper some day... and it might as well be NOW!

G'night.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"What I had in mind, though, was more like a decent helicopter fleet that could land almost anywhere. Combined with a more modern version of the Aurora naval patrol aircraft they would form the backbone of a new Canadian Rescue/Defense Force.

We are talking quite a few helicopters and quite a few new airplanes here. Plus the crews to man them."   

I'm in awe....exactly.
Dewar cutters are actually quite cheap given what they can do.
You can't afford to do it all with air - there's a huge coast to be patrolled.
Frigates and destroyers get$$$$ and outdated.

What's incredible is in reading you can see the Canadian military itself sees it moving in that direction. It almost seemed the Manitoba flooding was a watershed ( sorry could not resist) for the Canadian Services - they even use that term in some of the articles.

And darn tootin you can wake up to
"Defenceless against whom???".......either make your case or stop berating others about "defence".

There is not enough money for "vague threat" suppression.
There's enough real threat in climate and catastrophe heading our way and our world neighbors way.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Gotta pay the piper some day [re: increased military spending]... and it might as well be NOW!


ok, no worries, but make sure you aren't pissed when your taxes go up or if health care payments aren't increased.

the economy is pretty much a zero sum game
you can't give without taking from somewhere else, hence deficits

also, diplomacy and foreign policy can go a very very very long way to helping defend this great country of ours.

of course if someone really want to "take over" canada using military force, there will be no way to stop it no matter how much we spend.

i applaud your approval for increased military spending even if it means increasing the debt and just hope you write/call your your local non-gov't in power MP to let them know that the increased deficit is ok by you

gov'ts change
politicians looking for any edge to gain power, don't


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Gordguide, I'm not sure that its a done deal or that Canadian companies will get any more out of it that the Canadian government puts in. To me, the only reason for going along with this is not to further erode our relationship with the USA. However, there many other reasons for not joining in as discussed already.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macdoc...



> And darn tootin you can wake up to
> "Defenseless against whom???".......either make your case or stop berating others about "defense".


Cool your jets! Intentionally berating others is not my style.

The point I have been trying to delicately make, without offending, is that Canada is not about to drop anchor on the present defense system, jump ship, and switch to something new overnight.

If you remember, I earlier said you and I were on the same page regarding the need for change. However, regardless of the system chosen, it will have to be an extension of what we have now. Only slow systematic and prudent modifications will succeed in a traditional nation like ours.

As for identifying specific enemies to Canada, I would only be making unfounded predictions.

However, I can't envision a National Defense System in this country. Not yet. Not while the threat of secession is still fresh in the minds of most Canadians. I well remember a past provincial leader stating any military equipment on his soil would become the property of the new nation.

I'm a little nervous about a national service as you suggest, as there is always the possibility it could backfire. One province could use their well trained _armed citizens_ against another, or other provinces. The rest of the country (provinces) could become split as to which province(s) they would support.

Armed conflict in a confederation of states or provinces is not new, or out of the realm of possibility here in Canada. Might it be better to have a traditional military force to also quell such insurrections within Canada?

I do support your idea of having a national service with very limited access to weapons, but able to respond to disasters and emergencies at home and abroad.

Could we have both?


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Back to the original topic...

The question of ABMs in Canada includes the decision to become a nuclear-armed country. How can we promote ourselves as a peacekeeping country while having our own Weapons of Mass Destruction?

The decision should reflect our own national personality, and not that of another.

As Macdoc often eludes to... where is the threat coming from? I would add... that justifies the need for WMDs?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"berating" consider yourself needled about defense vagaries  

"As for identifying specific enemies to Canada, I would only be making unfounded predictions" 
..there we go bang on.

Secession is a valid point but if soldiers were from conflicting provinces or even stationed withint the results would be wildly unpredictable anyway.

I don't see limited access to weapons as a goal - it's just where the money gets spent. High tech jets with limited local usefulness or vehicles and equipment that is useful 24/7 and may play a support role for either disaster relief or military action by the UN.

We can never divorce ourselves from the US continental defence as they see they need it and as Gord points out there are income opportunities.
But we cannot - our military admits this - keep up with US technology or spending so lets do what we can afford and is useful to us and to others.
That's all.

The WMD issue will have to be dealt with by the US as part of their continental vision and by being next door we will always be in harms way until they get into a totally different headspace. We can't NOT participate as it would take away any input in the decision making and direction - some is better than none in that case but I don't see Canada being able to go it alone in that direction - it's the US' call.

We can however change other aspects and instead of being poor cousin military we can be top notch Services.  
Every downed pilot from any nation should be thrilled to see a Canadian SAR team on the way.

y'know the way the hockey ad goes...
"These guys are goooood!"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> "These guys are goooood!"


isn't that the same tag line used for the PGA (pro golfers assoc.?)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes it is. Same idea. I think they've covered a number of major sports with that campaign. Anyway I came across this. Very appropo











There in lies the problem - and yes ladies and genst this a US source major newspaper so for those of you who think it's just us left wing radicals








t'ain't necessarily so........as the song goes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

oh c'mon you know what a bunch of left wing, pinko, tree-hugging, socialist, commie, radicals those people are over at the Wall Stree Journal


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... The question of ABMs in Canada includes the decision to become a nuclear-armed country. ..."

Canada has been a nuclear-armed country in the past (at least 25 of the last 60 years). Exept for a period after WWII and the last 19 years we have always had military nuclear capability in one form or another. Canadian Forces have also deployed nuclear-armed systems in Germany.

DND

As you can see from the link the decision to decommission the Bomarc was strategy-based, not political. As it should be.

Canadian warplanes have also carried nuclear munitions. Again, the decision to do so or not should be based on a comprehensive strategy for defense.

Genie Nuclear missiles were deployed in Canada up to 1984. Currently the Prime Minister can authorize nuclear munitions be deployed on his order, with an agreement with America to supply said armaments from the US arsenal on request.

Nuclear Weapons in Canada (book summary).

[ January 23, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmm join the parade eh




















Getting pretty pointed these days.  

How do we dissassociate with the regime but cooperate with the NA defense


----------



## godot (Jan 17, 2004)

Random Thoughts:

The Bush administration unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty ratified back in 1972 and now wants Canada to be part of its missile defence system. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

How does Costa Rica, located in the political hotbed of Central America manage to be one of the most peaceful nations in the area and yet has no army?

The only country that ever attacked Canada has been the United States. Each time we won.

Money for Star Wars or money for health care? Methinks money for health care will make us more secure.

I'm no fan of Paul Martin, but he did get his priorities right when he decided to invite Kofi Anan to address the Canadian Parliament before inviting Bush. It should be a signal that our security is tied more closely to multi-lateral organizations than with the U.S.

As we both live next to the elephant, we have more in common with Mexico than we do the U.S. Let's put more of our resources into working jointly with the Mexicans.

Cheers,


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

With all due respect Godot, we Canadians have far more in common with the USA than we do with Mexico.

I've lived and worked in both the US and Mexico. One is very much like Canada. One is, most decidedly, not.

That said, we all need to work together a bit more closely. I am certainly happy that our current leader is ready to make that a priority. Especially after the dismal performance of his predecessor.

The damage is serious....both to the miltary and to close relations with the Americans. Neither bodes well for our future.


----------



## godot (Jan 17, 2004)

"With all due respect" MacNutt, you do love throwing your "credentials" around. You are not unique in having lived and worked abroad. May I suggest that you quit making assumptions about how others know less than you do because they haven't lived where you have.

By golly gee whiz, I've even lived on Salt Spring Island and am happy to report that your views are not typical of those who live in that wonderful place.

My point about Mexico is that we have a lot in common with Mexico with U.S. being our common neighbour. There are ways for us to cooperate with the Mexicans so that we are not sucked into the priorities of the American administration.

As for Martin's predecessor, in my view Chretien did a good job. Quebec separation is no longer an issue; the budget and economy is in good shape (certainly when compared with the disaster of Bush); and we stayed out of the quagmire of Iraq. Not bad!

Who was your choice for leader during the period Chretien was our Prime Minister? Stockwell Day?

Cheers,


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> By golly gee whiz, I've even lived on Salt Spring Island and am happy to report that your views are not typical of those who live in that wonderful place.


do my eyes deceive me?
can it be true?
someone else that lived on SSI and is NOT a rampant right winger and evidence that not all SSIers are not from the same political mold as macnutt?

belly up to the bar, boys. i'm buying!


----------

