[herbie]

Britain offers Canadian military help to defend the Arctic
Other than the oft repeated BS that China is a threat in the Arctic and Canada has mere 'claims' to it's own territory, what say you?

[bootlegga]

herbie herbie:

We're not at all like Germany. Aren't and never were an Imperial power, annoyed Britain for 100 more years until it left of it's own volition, only fought when we we had no choice.
Nice to dream and chat all Tim Allen ooh-ooh nuclear subs, project power - but that isn't Canada. FFS if we ever get one of those subs we should man it and give it to Australia where there's a reason, a mission and a tangible threat.
As for mercy missions, rescues and small deployments we keep calling Joe's Air Cargo and they can pay the day to day maintenance on their Antonovs and Galaxys.

I guess I wasn't clear enough, my mistake.

Canada is like post Cold War Germany, coasting on its past (during the Cold War, Germany had the best military in NATO man for man, and us lauding peacekeeping and our Cold War ASW role) and hoping it allies will pick up the slack.

I agree that ee don't need nuclear subs, German air independent propulsion (AIP) Type 212 subs can spend two or three weeks underwater, which is enough of time for most Arctic patrols, as well as patrolling our Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

Diesel electric subs are also much quieter than nuclear subs (reactors are kind of noisy) - the biggest advantage nuclear subs offer is that they can travel at higher speeds than conventional subs. If all we're doing is patrolling our coasts, we don't need them to do 25 knots, 20 knots is just fine.

As maligned as our used British subs are, they're quiet killers who have performed excellently in wargames and exercises. We just need to replace them with modern subs.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

We're not Germany but we should be like modern post-war Germany. Keep the boys at home to make sure the fence is protected, and not go overseas to places like Afghanistan ever again. This is what we can and should do. It's not photo-op glamourous but it also doesn't exhaust our resources to the point of collapse.

Cold War Germany was who we should emulate, not the current Germany, which can barely maintain its air force and has hollowed out its army. They are a shadow of what they were 40 years ago.

[Thanos]

Things have changed though. It's no excuse for the Germans letting their forces deteriorate. But the situation is radically different today than it was in 1991. The East Bloc is gone. Poland and Ukraine are now a huge buffer zone between Russia and Central Europe. The Russians and Germans have numerous economic arrangements that benefit them both, and have essentially become trusted trading partners to each other. Russia also has so many economic, social, and political arrangement throughout all of Eastern Europe that threatening those countries (most of whom are now in NATO anyway) would be so wildly counter-productive it could conceivably collapse the Russian economy, if not the Russian state itself, altogether. Plus the Russians have found out to their own entertainment that screwing around with the West via cyber-sabotage gets them the same results that fielding a three-million man occupation army in the old Warsaw Pact did. Seriously, they don't need to have 10000 battle tanks on the borders to cause a conniption fit in the United States. All they have to do now is jack around on Facebook to get a cretin like Donald Trump elected POTUS and their interests are served just as well.

So it's like this IMO. We can't judge any situation through the lens of the Cold War anymore, any more than thinking that having massive World War Two style militaries is what it takes to stay safe. In reality open conflict with Russia is practically unthinkable right now because it would be of absolutely no benefit to either side. Like I said, the Germans letting their forces stagnate is not good. At the same time though the state of crisis from 1950 to 1990 is long over, which means keeping a military designed for that particular era at the same level of readiness doesn't make much sense either.

[herbie]

[bootlegga]

herbie herbie:

That video is generous to Canada, Australia does a much better job of pulling its weight than we do.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

Things have changed though. It's no excuse for the Germans letting their forces deteriorate. But the situation is radically different today than it was in 1991. The East Bloc is gone. Poland and Ukraine are now a huge buffer zone between Russia and Central Europe. The Russians and Germans have numerous economic arrangements that benefit them both, and have essentially become trusted trading partners to each other. Russia also has so many economic, social, and political arrangement throughout all of Eastern Europe that threatening those countries (most of whom are now in NATO anyway) would be so wildly counter-productive it could conceivably collapse the Russian economy, if not the Russian state itself, altogether. Plus the Russians have found out to their own entertainment that screwing around with the West via cyber-sabotage gets them the same results that fielding a three-million man occupation army in the old Warsaw Pact did. Seriously, they don't need to have 10000 battle tanks on the borders to cause a conniption fit in the United States. All they have to do now is jack around on Facebook to get a cretin like Donald Trump elected POTUS and their interests are served just as well.

So it's like this IMO. We can't judge any situation through the lens of the Cold War anymore, any more than thinking that having massive World War Two style militaries is what it takes to stay safe. In reality open conflict with Russia is practically unthinkable right now because it would be of absolutely no benefit to either side. Like I said, the Germans letting their forces stagnate is not good. At the same time though the state of crisis from 1950 to 1990 is long over, which means keeping a military designed for that particular era at the same level of readiness doesn't make much sense either.

My point was that Germany took the armed forces seriously during the Cold War (as we did for the first half of it), and since the mid-90s, has been coasting on their past and neglecting their armed forces, just like Canada has.

I agree that Germany (or most NATO members for that matter) doesn't need huge fleets of main battle tanks, which is why we were able to buy 100 Leopard IIs from the Netherlands and Germany for a song a decade ago. However, they do need decent air forces and naval elements, and stories like this one are why some people think the Germans aren't pulling their weight in NATO - German air force only has four active combat ready Typhoon jets.

Compare Germany with the Netherlands and you'll see that they're is investing in the armed forces, while Germany is not. We need to do better and Germany is not a good role model, Australia, the Netherlands, or Norway would be much better ideals to shoot for.

[herbie]

$1:

That video is generous to Canada, Australia does a much better job of pulling its weight than we do.

Are you saying Canada didn't "pull it's weight" in Afghanistan?
Or are you simply not recognizing that Australia has a lot more to pull than we do?
They have a 'sphere of influence' with many actual threats. We don't. They can actually help keep China's Navy bottled up.We can't.

[bootlegga]

herbie herbie:

$1:

That video is generous to Canada, Australia does a much better job of pulling its weight than we do.

Are you saying Canada didn't "pull it's weight" in Afghanistan?
Or are you simply not recognizing that Australia has a lot more to pull than we do?
They have a 'sphere of influence' with many actual threats. We don't. They can actually help keep China's Navy bottled up.We can't.

No, we did our fair share in Afghanistan, maybe even more than our fair share. But other than that, we've been only able to make token contributions to our alliances (NATO and NORAD).

That's because successive governments have treated the armed forces as political pork to win votes, and the resulting delays have seriously weakened our Navy and Air Force. Our air force is down to a handful of operational fighter squadrons, and those planes are approaching 40 years old, so they are near the end of their service life. Our maritime patrol aircraft are a few years older than our CF-18s, and fly along our coasts looking for illegal smugglers (drug, human, etc.), illegal fishing operations, and foreign vessels illegally in our waters.

The role of our Navy is not to 'bottle up China's navy' - it is to protect our sovereignty and participate in security operations with our allies. The Royal Canadian Navy has lost most of its blue water capability in the last decade, and can only operate at extended distances from our coasts with support from our allies (usually the US). Fifteen years ago, we could deploy a small task force (a destroyer, a frigate or two, and a supply ship) to operate anywhere in the world, whether it was interdicting pirates in the Indian Ocean, helping people deal with natural disasters (Haiti, the US, and elsewhere), or even provide a show of force to deal with conflicts (like after 9/11). Now, without our replenishment vessels and destroyers, we cannot deploy around the world for any mission, without the assistance of our allies.

While we do not have anywhere as many threats as Australia, there are threats to our sovereignty from a variety of nations, and not all of them are like Denmark, which cheerfully leaves a flag and bottle of booze on Hans Island every couple years.

If Canada wants to be heard on the world stage (like with the Two Michaels) we need to be able to contribute internationally, and that is often with our military, even if they are not bombing or shooting at someone.

[Scape]

Meh, we are not getting a Suez crisis that is regulating the commonwealth to the scrap heap of history anytime soon. Although there is argument that we can and should do more in the Ukraine to stiffen the spine against Russian aggression.

Where we would do wonders is in a place is the west bank but neither side is going to agree to invite the UN in there either, just as much as Kashmir. What Canada can't do with guns it can do with butter. We can and should be a broker to nations looking for investment to develop their economies. Not saying we should shell out CAN-DO reactors to everyone but Canada is know worldwide as a mining giant and we can do more good here for less.

[herbie]

And what I'm saying is hardly anyone sees a need for a blue water Navy. WE only need a Navy to patrol, there is no one to defend from.
What we need now is not soldiers, sailors or an Air Force, it's a Cyber Force branch. That's the actual threat today.
And a couple ice breakers and some planes that can still fly...

[Scape]

Better to have it and not need it that to need it and not have it.

Canada needs a navy, not a glorified coast guard. We need to keep criminals and unscrupulous international actors in check. Do we need a LARGE navy? No, but we do need to get from point A to point B without outside help. That will require supply ships and they need to be protected so that means destroyers/frigates. We also need some form of credible power projection that won't bankrupt us and we can maintain this is where a few subs fill the bill.

Our other option is to become a larger version of Puerto Rico and cede ALL military to the US of A. We can't do both and at some point our bluff will be called and when we go to war we go with the army we have not the one you aspire to. Don't think Uncle Sam will defend us if we can't be bothered to do it ourselves. If anything they will just occupy us if we are lucky.

[Scape]

Footnote, a standing army/navy in good order functions like a good fence does between neighbors. In an ideal world you would never need one.

[bootlegga]

Scape Scape:

Better to have it and not need it that to need it and not have it.

Canada needs a navy, not a glorified coast guard. We need to keep criminals and unscrupulous international actors in check. Do we need a LARGE navy? No, but we do need to get from point A to point B without outside help. That will require supply ships and they need to be protected so that means destroyers/frigates. We also need some form of credible power projection that won't bankrupt us and we can maintain this is where a few subs fill the bill.

Well said - if we want to remain part of NATO, we do need a credible navy. We don't need aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, or the large ships the major powers have, but we do need the ability to send a task force farther than a thousand kilometers from our coastline. That means some blue water capability - like we used to have just seven years ago.

Scape Scape:

Our other option is to become a larger version of Puerto Rico and cede ALL military to the US of A. We can't do both and at some point our bluff will be called and when we go to war we go with the army we have not the one you aspire to.

This is the path the NDP and Green parties would have us go, and it's not palatable IMHO.

Scape Scape:

Don't think Uncle Sam will defend us if we can't be bothered to do it ourselves. If anything they will just occupy us if we are lucky.

This is the path some American conservatives would prefer, at least that's the position they've taken in the past.

[Scape]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Scape Scape:

Our other option is to become a larger version of Puerto Rico and cede ALL military to the US of A. We can't do both and at some point our bluff will be called and when we go to war we go with the army we have not the one you aspire to.

This is the path the NDP and Green parties would have us go, and it's not palatable IMHO.

The NDP/Greens have developed this much of their platform as the PPC have with white nationalists. That is to say they have toyed with it but have never actually endorsed. There is a difference between debating it and endorsing it and their detractors constantly throw this in their face like it is an insult. The dog doesn't hunt for 2 main reasons, one they are no where near the seat of power to make that decision and two if they actually did they would quickly end up not having a nation to run. Since their primary drive is to be in power that would sober them up quickly.

That said, there is a serious need for review of the military since the unification of the branches under Pierre Trudeau. This mean we need to axe a lot of bases and weapon platforms (we need to let go of the antiques) and start to refocus on our needs in the projected future. So far the major parties see the military as a sacred cow when pressed in public and a pariah to be ignored and neglected otherwise. Much like the environment, they talk a big game but do not back it up with action. THAT IS WORSE THAN THE NDP AND GREENS. At least the NDP/Green have the courage to talk about serious policy changes and sustainability.