Author Topic: Canada to Increase Defence Spending (Read 6194 times)

segnosaur · « **Reply #540 on:** March 07, 2019, 04:16:21 pm »

Quote from: waldo on February 03, 2019, 10:06:39 am

speaking of fan-boy disappointment: Typhoon is the German political choice; however, in Germany's competition to replace its Tornado's, they dropped the F-35 in favour of the Super Hornet... Germany officially knocks F-35 out of competition to replace Tornado

Minor note: Germany has not (as of yet) decided to purchase the F18 Super Hornet. They did drop the F-35 from consideration, and now they are attempting to chose between the Eurofighter and F18 (either a single plane, or a mixed fleet).

It does appear that the decision may have been one that was more political, rather than one based on the 'best plane'. (The Eurofighter has more of a "made at home" feel.)

From: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-military-fighter/germany-drops-f-35-from-fighter-tender-boeing-f-a-18-and-eurofighter-to-battle-on-idUSKCN1PP2DM
Germany will pick either the Eurofighter or Boeing’s F/A-18 fighter jet to replace its Tornado warplanes, knocking Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth fighter out of a tender
...
Germany’s air force chief of staff was fired last year after he expressed a clear preference for the F-35. The ministry later said it favored a “European solution”....Paris, Germany’s closest European partner, had warned that buying the F-35 in particular could derail plans to develop a new Franco-German fighter by 2040.

Pinus or Vid or...????? · « **Reply #541 on:** March 07, 2019, 04:24:13 pm »

We should really build up our military. With Global Warming, areas previously uninhabitable will be settled by people. At the same time, populated area of the United States, China, and India will be affected by catastrophic events mass droughts (Arizona, Nevada, California, etc), flooding (Florida, New England, etc).

There will be a push from other countries to invade Canada when **** hits the fan. We have to brace ourselves for a worst case scenario.

wilber · « **Reply #542 on:** March 07, 2019, 05:20:37 pm »

Quote from: Pinus on March 07, 2019, 04:24:13 pm

We should really build up our military. With Global Warming, areas previously uninhabitable will be settled by people. At the same time, populated area of the United States, China, and India will be affected by catastrophic events mass droughts (Arizona, Nevada, California, etc), flooding (Florida, New England, etc).

There will be a push from other countries to invade Canada when **** hits the fan. We have to brace ourselves for a worst case scenario.

Unfortunately that could be a distinct possibility. It wouldn't be the first time climate change has caused mass migrations. Not sure we could do a lot about it though. It seems we are way behind our allies when it comes to cyber warfare as well.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyber-war-procurement-cadsi-1.5045950

waldo · « **Reply #543 on:** May 07, 2019, 06:08:04 pm »

LockMart making it up... on the fly! Threatening to pull the F-35 from the competition if Canada maintains the requirement for manufacturers investment within Canada.

apparently, exceptions don't count; like:
- F-35s being built in Japan
- although Israel is not a founding member partner, significant custom manufacturing of the Israel F-35 version occurs within Israel... along with operational maintenance being allowed to occur there

meanwhile both Airbus and Saab have given notice that if they are the winning bid they will open manufacturing plants for their respective Eurofighter and Gripen planes within Canada...

Trump may have given Trudeau the excuse he needs to ditch the F-35 once and for all

wilber · « **Reply #544 on:** May 07, 2019, 06:25:00 pm »

Maybe go Gripen interm and join with BAE, Saab and possibly others in the Tempest project for the long term.

queenmandy85 · « **Reply #545 on:** May 08, 2019, 09:36:39 am »

Quote from: Vid on March 07, 2019, 04:24:13 pm

We should really build up our military. With Global Warming, areas previously uninhabitable will be settled by people. At the same time, populated area of the United States, China, and India will be affected by catastrophic events mass droughts (Arizona, Nevada, California, etc), flooding (Florida, New England, etc).

There will be a push from other countries to invade Canada when **** hits the fan. We have to brace ourselves for a worst case scenario.

My old self would agree with you but my conscience says it will be better to not resist. As Gwynne Dyer said,"People have an unfortunate habit. They like to eat." Four hundred million people fleeing thirst and starvation are not going to be stopped without a massive nuclear salvo on the U.S. Many of those refugees are going to be well armed Americans. I cannot be party to the greatest mass murder in human history. President Kennedy said in the Cuban Missile Crisis "(In a nuclear war), the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth."

wilber · « **Reply #546 on:** May 08, 2019, 07:25:57 pm »

Quote from: queenmandy85 on May 08, 2019, 09:36:39 am

My old self would agree with you but my conscience says it will be better to not resist. As Gwynne Dyer said,"People have an unfortunate habit. They like to eat." Four hundred million people fleeing thirst and starvation are not going to be stopped without a massive nuclear salvo on the U.S. Many of those refugees are going to be well armed Americans. I cannot be party to the greatest mass murder in human history. President Kennedy said in the Cuban Missile Crisis "(In a nuclear war), the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth."

If that were the only concern I might agree but it isn't. People won't be descending on the Arctic to farm or migrate but they may very well for a lot of other reasons. You don't have to be as powerful as other countries, just enough to make it not worth their trouble. You don't have to be a lion, just being a porcupine can be all it takes.

queenmandy85 · « **Reply #547 on:** May 09, 2019, 02:07:40 pm »

Quote from: wilber on May 08, 2019, 07:25:57 pm

If that were the only concern I might agree but it isn't. People won't be descending on the Arctic to farm or migrate but they may very well for a lot of other reasons. You don't have to be as powerful as other countries, just enough to make it not worth their trouble. You don't have to be a lion, just being a porcupine can be all it takes.

The point is, they are going to come in the 100's of millions. As we've seen in the migration from North Africa into southern Europe, given a choice between almost certain death or likely death, people will choose likely death. Once the area encompassing Brazil to the northern border states of the US start feeling the full effect of climate change, anyone in that area that can move north, will move north. What are we going to do? Kill them all? They will come because they want a chance to live. Remember the US can over run us in a matter of hours and they will be one of the largest groups of refugees.
It's not all gloom and doom though. In two hundred thousand years, we will enter another ice age.

wilber · « **Reply #548 on:** May 09, 2019, 03:22:19 pm »

Quote from: queenmandy85 on May 09, 2019, 02:07:40 pm

The point is, they are going to come in the 100's of millions. As we've seen in the migration from North Africa into southern Europe, given a choice between almost certain death or likely death, people will choose likely death. Once the area encompassing Brazil to the northern border states of the US start feeling the full effect of climate change, anyone in that area that can move north, will move north. What are we going to do? Kill them all? They will come because they want a chance to live. Remember the US can over run us in a matter of hours and they will be one of the largest groups of refugees.
It's not all gloom and doom though. In two hundred thousand years, we will enter another ice age.

The problem is people look at things in extremes so they can either justify anything or nothing when the extremes rarely happen, it is always something in between.

That's not what I was referring to. We need a credible military to enforce our sovereignty otherwise there is nothing to stop another country from opening an open pit mine or start looking for oil in our Arctic islands or fishing anywhere in our territorial waters etc. Even something like the "Cod War" with Spain required it. Spain has a navy and at the time a carrier equipped with Harriers. We have mutual defence pacts in Norad and Nato. To be part of an alliance, you have to contribute to it. The real purpose of any military is to be a deterrent and to be one it has to be credible. If it has to fight in defending the country it has failed because someone has concluded it is weak.

queenmandy85 · « **Reply #549 on:** May 09, 2019, 05:03:44 pm »

I agree. Unfortunately, voters neither want to join the military nor do they want to pay for a real military force. Even Stockwell Day had no appetite for rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces. In this day and age, governments can only have a defence policy the voters will tolerate. As Gwynne Dyer said, "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a defence budget. In 1945, the Canadian Forces consisted on 1,074,000 members from a population of just over 11,000,000. If we were to use that proportion of our population today, we would have over three million members of the Canadian forces. We had the third largest navy in the world. Yet, the most fractious issue as we faced was conscription. We cannot rebuild the military without conscription and name one politician (other than me - I'm retired) elected or not, who is willing to advocate conscription or the tax hike required.

?Impact · « **Reply #550 on:** May 09, 2019, 05:39:35 pm »

Quote from: queenmandy85 on May 09, 2019, 05:03:44 pm

In 1945, the Canadian Forces consisted on 1,074,000 members from a population of just over 11,000,000. If we were to use that proportion of our population today, we would have over three million members of the Canadian forces.

The World War II sized armed forces is no metric to compare peace time to. In 1875 we had 20,000 men in the militia with a population of 4,000,000. You might say that is larger than today, but when you consider they were part time, only serving 12 days a year, it is much smaller than today.

The other big difference is the effect technology has had on armed conflict.

wilber · « **Reply #551 on:** May 09, 2019, 09:44:49 pm »

Quote from: queenmandy85 on May 09, 2019, 05:03:44 pm

I agree. Unfortunately, voters neither want to join the military nor do they want to pay for a real military force. Even Stockwell Day had no appetite for rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces. In this day and age, governments can only have a defence policy the voters will tolerate. As Gwynne Dyer said, "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a defence budget. In 1945, the Canadian Forces consisted on 1,074,000 members from a population of just over 11,000,000. If we were to use that proportion of our population today, we would have over three million members of the Canadian forces. We had the third largest navy in the world. Yet, the most fractious issue as we faced was conscription. We cannot rebuild the military without conscription and name one politician (other than me - I'm retired) elected or not, who is willing to advocate conscription or the tax hike required.

You can't compare post WW2 militaries with today, no one has a military anywhere near the size they did at the end of the war, including the US and Russia. Our navy may have been the third largest in number of ships but it was a small ship navy, primarily destroyers, frigates and corvettes. Our largest ships were a few escort carriers and a couple of cruisers.

Nothing wrong with mandatory service, all the Scandinavian countries have it as well as Switzerland. Sweden and Switzerland may be neutrals but they also know neutrals have to look after themselves because they don't have alliances to rely on.

wilber · « **Reply #552 on:** May 09, 2019, 09:56:13 pm »

Quote from: ?Impact on May 09, 2019, 05:39:35 pm

The World War II sized armed forces is no metric to compare peace time to. In 1875 we had 20,000 men in the militia with a population of 4,000,000. You might say that is larger than today, but when you consider they were part time, only serving 12 days a year, it is much smaller than today.

The other big difference is the effect technology has had on armed conflict.

We had over 600,000 in Europe during WW1 with a population of just under 8 million. That was over 7% of the population.

Pinus or Vid or...????? · « **Reply #553 on:** May 10, 2019, 07:22:46 am »

We will need a very strong defense to deter the Americans from invading us, when Global Warming displaces millions of Americans within the next 25 years.

queenmandy85 · « **Reply #554 on:** May 10, 2019, 08:55:20 am »

Hundreds of millions of South Americans lead by hundreds of millions of well armed Americans will not be deterred. We can't start killing them. So we do what we can to absorb them and make the best of it.

Canadian Politics Today

News:

Author Topic: Canada to Increase Defence Spending (Read 6194 times)

segnosaur

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

Pinus or Vid or...?????

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

wilber

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

waldo

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

wilber

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

queenmandy85

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

wilber

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

queenmandy85

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

wilber

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

queenmandy85

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

?Impact

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

wilber

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

wilber

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

Pinus or Vid or...?????

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending

queenmandy85

Re: Canada to Increase Defence Spending