[Scape]

That's a worse case scenario but it is happening there and if that can happen in this day in age then what really is stopping that from happening elsewhere? A military strength is rooted upon regimented discipline, the only check to that is the civilian authority it is designed to serve. Like the Rottweiler owner who sleeps safe at night knowing outside that dog is going to do great harm to anyone stupid enough to trespass, if that dog goes rabid it is just as likely to attack the owner as anyone else and will need to be put down. When a military goes rabid (aka Burma) no one can put it down except another, bigger, dog. the military, by it's very nature is extreme. It's designed to kill. So our respect for that type of power should be heightened as well.

[bootlegga]

Tricks Tricks:

Interesting how in one thread we see people crying civilians need to be involved in military matters, then in this one we see the civilians fucking up the military.

I wouldn't say the blame falls 100% with Chretien. The navy brass offered up the cheapest option and Chretien pounced on it. You can hardly blame a politician who doesn't know where the front of a helmet is for choosing the wrong type of sub. I'd argue the navy brass is at least partially (say 25%) to blame for this fiasco.

And civilian oversight is important for every department, not just the CF. No military should ever be given carte blanche to do whatever it wants in a democracy, otherwise it's possible the democracy might just disappear.

[herbie]

I agree with your opinion. If you approach gov't with the lowest common denominator option, you run the risk they'll take it.
I also question the need and role of submarines for our Navy.

[uwish]

There is no question we need submarines. I still argue that we need arctic capable subs, a nation with some of the longest shore lines in the world it is a must.

We should have a fleet of 6 to 10 subs in my opinion.

[bootlegga]

There is no question of the need for submarines IMHO.

Even if the second-rate French Rubis nuke boats were the only ones available, Mulroney should have bought them in the 80s, along with the Polar 8 icebreaker. All these problems we're having with Arctic sovereignty would be a moot point because we would know who was moving around up there. I think Canada needs at least 6 subs to a maximum of 12. That's because usually only 1/3 of your fleet is active at any given time, with the rest training, resting or refitting.

[DerbyX]

bootlegga bootlegga:

There is no question of the need for submarines IMHO.

Even if the second-rate French Rubis nuke boats were the only ones available, Mulroney should have bought them in the 80s, along with the Polar 8 icebreaker. All these problems we're having with Arctic sovereignty would be a moot point because we would know who was moving around up there. I think Canada needs at least 6 subs to a maximum of 12. That's because usually only 1/3 of your fleet is active at any given time, with the rest training, resting or refitting.

The problem I see is that the people that seem to be the least enthusiastic about getting subs seems to be the navy. I talked to Wullu about this. How does a gov't thrust a sub program on a navy that is less then willing and doesn't have the expertise?

I don't blame Chretien for the subs. Far from it. He pounced on what he thought was a great deal. The British, afterall, have been a premier naval power for a 1/4 millenia and as such he believed the subs were mothballed but in primo condition and easily converted to our needs.

Scape said its going to take money and lots of it, to get a good sub fleet/program into effect and its something we should achieve.

We can't do that wasting billions in a useless war and we can't do that with a gov't pissing away the surplus instead of paying down the debt rapidly so that in a few years we have freed up the capital we need to build the CF to whatwe need it for.

[uwish]

Chretien didn't pounce on anything, the Brits offered it up over a year before he even said they MIGHT be interested