Quick, throw a party

February 4, 2007

After all, the “conservatives” are:

So, Canada is getting back on “track” by spending it’s way into a military build up. Wow. Amazing…. Who’d known it is so easy for a country to get back on track.

Some choice comments and my answers:

First, there is Speller:

Wars in the 21st Century are come-as-you-are affairs.
We cannot live in security if we do not prepare to fight the next war now.

Right, only problem is: The modern war (aka, 21st Century Warfare) is not between nation states but between smaller groups. The military doctrine of the West (not to mention the Military as an Organization) is not meant to fight like this. They are hellbent on taking out another military, but if there is no military the military proofs utterly useless.

We will have to invade and fight in Pakistan to win this war if the Pakistanis don’t deal with the Taliban/al-Qa’eda soon.

You and who’s army? And no, I do not mean that as a joke. Who has the resources to spare to actually do that? Not to mention, what is there to gain for us?

The world is getting smaller as technology spreads. Either we buy C-17A Globemaster IIIs which will allow us to fight limited conventional wars or we will need to buy or develop and build ICBMs with nuclear warheads.

So here’s a thought: We do not buy the Globemasters, instead we invest the money into a good intelligence service (yes yes, Oxymoron) and make sure that the police has all the equipment they need.

What’s the Taliban et. al going to do? Invade Canada by Air? Build a large Fleet and land in Halifax? If this is about National Security then there are way better ways to spend the money.

Eventually we will have to do both.

Is this an ICBM I see in your pocket?


Next one: Zebulon Pike:

“Do we really want to eventually spend $30 billion a year on defense when the only enemies we have are Afghan peasants 8,000 miles away…”

Short answer: yes. The Taliban are not the only enemy out there; they’re just the current one. Who knows what could happen in the near future. We could go to war with Iran as part of a large coalition – if Iran did something real to provoke a war. North Korea too, although that is less likely. Other emergencies like natural disasters could occur at any time, at home or abroad.

Little news-flash. Your planes are useless if you don’t have the soldiers to actually put them into the planes. From a military standpoint three planes are a drop in the bucket, although the C-17s are fucking big, they aren’t nearly enough to keep a supply line open in a time of conflict.

Yes, for disaster relieve they can work, but a way cheaper way is to just lease civilian planes and get support moved this way.

The best answer is, be prepared. The C-17s go a long way to helping the CF’s preparations for war and other emergencies.

The simple answer is, the C-17s are jerk-off material for military wannabes who think that buying those toys will transform the CF into a fighting force to be reckoned with.

What else could they use?

More toys? More toys? Please, do tell.

Army: new tanks (Abrams), more LAVs, more M777 artillery pieces, new trucks.

First of all the Abrams is a horrible piece of equipment. Not so much because of it’s use a weapon, but because of it’s gas turbine. When the US Army developed it it was done in pure American arrogance, with the idea that they will have unlimited supply lines to support their tanks no matter what.

Small quote from Wikipedia (I am sure you can find the same info on Janes):

The gas turbine propulsion system has proven quite reliable in practice and combat, but its high fuel consumption is a serious logistic issue (starting up the turbine alone consumes 40 liters of fuel).The high speed, high temperature jet exhaust emitted from the rear of M1 Abrams tanks makes it difficult for the infantry to proceed shadowing the tank in urban combat. The turbine is noisy, comparable to a helicopter engine, although the noise character (pitch) is significantly different from a contemporary diesel tank engine, reducing the audible distance of the sound, thus the nickname, “whispering death”. Future US tanks may return to reciprocating engines for propulsion, as 4-stroke diesel engines have proven quite successful in other modern heavy tanks, e.g. the Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Merkava. The small size, simplicity, power-to-weight ratio, and easy removal/replacement of the turbine powerpack does, however, present significant advantages over any proposed reciprocating replacement.

The Abrams can be carried by the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III. The limited capacity (one combat-ready tank or two transport-ready tanks in a C-5, one combat-ready tank in a C-17) caused serious logistical problems when deploying the tanks for the First Gulf War, though there was enough time for 1,848 tanks to be transported by ship. Tanks shipped in the transport-ready configuration require depot-level maintenance to install a number of sections of armor, and need to be fueled and loaded with ammunition. Tanks shipped in the combat-ready configuration can enter combat immediately.

If Canada needs a new MBT, get a Leopard 2, after all Canada is already successfully using the Leopard 1 and had extensive experience with it, though what exactly a MBT is useful for in this changed war environment is a bit beyond me.

Air Force: new fighters (F-35s), new C-130Js, tankers, Chinooks (also on the way), maybe some attack helicopters (AH-64s my choice) or Black Hawks.

The need for transport helicopters I can sort of see, but why replace the planes? Unless Canada plans on invading every little country people like Zebulon Pike et. al. are threatened by it’s a waste of money.

Navy: maybe a large amphibious ship like this – http://tinyurl.com/2qae9j – scrap the subs and destroyers, concentrate on frigates; supply ships as well.

See Air Force.

Also: don’t worry about “Arctic sovereignty” – it’s a non-issue. The only two countries on the other side of the issue (I don’t want to say enemies) are the US and Denmark, HARDLY a realistic threat. Besides, Denmark could beat Canada.

You forgot Russia my friend. And I take it if the US takes over security of these sea ways that’s just fine with you. Heck, why not simply merge the two militaries?

Next up: Jack Macleod:

Fact is we have the same problems as all Countries in the Western World with ruthless militant and fanatic Islam. The Western World is required to defend itself, it’s citizens, resources and values
against overt agression which is much worse now, than when we were faced with a misguided country
stolen by ignorant Communists whose lack of historic perspective compelled them to threaten a real superpower which thanks to Ronald Reagan put them out of business. Defence of our free world is not going to go away. MacLeod

I just have one word: Delusion (actually I have more words, but considering that I don’t want to waste an entire evening on this bullshit I just stick with that).

rockyt is also insightful (not):

Canada is like a fat, rich, squealing pig in the world of today. And therefore, Canada needs the necessary resources to defend itself.

Sorry, I have no words.

The Quebec Perspective, courtesy of Remy Houle:

With Iran threatening the middle east and China supporting terrorists and NK still at war (no peace treaty ever signed, they are still ready to assault their neighbour), we cannot let our army down.

I suggest the situation is now heading towards another ww if we cannot find a way to disarm Iran, change regimes in China and North Korea.

I see, so now Canada gets into Nation Building. Five years of Afghanistan and three years of Iraq has proven how well we are doing there.

Oh, more Jack McLeod:

I agree with Michael Shannon’s initial post but his assessment of the Red Army’s ability to fight the NATO allies in Europe and win in “five hours” is nonsense. NATO led by the US had no intention whatever to attempt to fight the Red Army on European soil on their terms. The entire Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union would have been attacked with nuclear munitions. The RCAF F-104’s in Germany were programmed in the Low Altitude Bombing System (LABS) created at RCAF Cold Lake and targeted in Europe against Cities like Praha, Warsawa. But Canadian politicians were taken aback
when many, many senior RCAF Commanders flatly refused to destroy over half of Europe. None of the Russian veterans I’ve met over the years felt that a war between the Soviet Union and the “West”
was winnable. Aside from that they were greatly admired in most Western Air Forces – Macleod

History books are an interesting thing. The reality is that the “defence” plan for Western Europe (that’ll be Western Germany) was to keep the Soviets from reaching the Rhine before additional forces could have made it from the US to France. Meaning, to hold Germany for a week, and if that meant to turn it into a parking lot that would have been a-ok.

Soviets, fully aware of the fact, realized that they had approx. one week to make it to the Atlantic in order to prevent American troops from landing.

The reason it didn’t happen was ultimately the realization by both sides that they could at best achieve a no-win outcome.

And always good for entertainment: Liz J:

Canada is on it’s way BACK to the great country it was before we got some panty waist governments lead by people more interested in pandering to certain elements for votes. We all know bloody well who they were on both sides of the equation. The same elements are still with us to some degree.
Harper will not be influenced by them.We will be a country with a military to defend and protect us and do our share on the world stage, to stand with our allies when needed.

We have the best Prime Minister in many of our lifetimes and we had better work hard to ensure we keep him in office for some time to get the Country back on track. There is NO ONE in the wings to compare.

Sorry, I feel off of my chair laughing so hard <wipes tears from eyes>

Oh I could go on, but there are funnier things to do on a Sunday night. Go, read it yourself, jump into the Echo Chamber…..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: