Canada Kicks Ass
Experts call for an overhaul of Canada's national security

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



bootlegga @ Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:18 pm

Scape 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.


Based on their 2021 election platforms, both of them suggested we might pull out of NATO/NORAD, the Navy would become a glorified coast guard, and the Army and Air Force would be used to fight floods, fires, and other climate related disasters. To top it off, both called for cuts in defence spending, at a time when we need more spending, not less.

None of those policy changes are a good idea right now.



Scape Scape:
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.


I fully agree we need a White Paper on defence, but neither the Green Party or NDP would do a good job at that task at all. There are strong wings in both the Green Party and NDP that would turn the armed forces into a Boy Scout troop to deal with forest fires and floods and search and rescue. Whatever they turned into, they would not exist as they do in their current form under either party.

I also completely agree that the two major parties have a tendency to talk the talk, but not walk the walk on defence, but at least they foresee a need, and therefore a future for the DND, unlike the far left.

I would argue that the biggest reason there is so little support for the military is that we haven't had a really major conflict in several generations, and both leaders and citizens do not fully comprehend the need for capable armed forces, nor the time it takes to build up the armed forces if a major conflict was to erupt in the near future.

   



Scape @ Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:06 pm

bootlegga bootlegga:
Based on their 2021 election platforms, both of them suggested we might pull out of NATO/NORAD, the Navy would become a glorified coast guard, and the Army and Air Force would be used to fight floods, fires, and other climate related disasters. To top it off, both called for cuts in defence spending, at a time when we need more spending, not less.

None of those policy changes are a good idea right now.


Last I checked NATO is an alliance, not a suicide pact. We need to review our participation and more importantly understand the motivation for a cold war footing during peacetime. NATO's performance in Afghanistan and in the Ukraine is no where near our national interest and could very easily draw us into a larger conflict very quickly. It is irresponsible NOT to review that commitment.

bootlegga bootlegga:
I fully agree we need a White Paper on defence, but neither the Green Party or NDP would do a good job at that task at all. There are strong wings in both the Green Party and NDP that would turn the armed forces into a Boy Scout troop to deal with forest fires and floods and search and rescue. Whatever they turned into, they would not exist as they do in their current form under either party.


Just as much as the extreme right want to walk away from NATO. It is just as dangerous not facing up to the new reality. Is NATO the right tool for the job of national defence? Is it possible we could get away with something less but sustainable to our means? It is a conversation that needs to be had taboos be dammed.

   



bootlegga @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:49 pm

Scape Scape:
Last I checked NATO is an alliance, not a suicide pact. We need to review our participation and more importantly understand the motivation for a cold war footing during peacetime. NATO's performance in Afghanistan and in the Ukraine is no where near our national interest and could very easily draw us into a larger conflict very quickly. It is irresponsible NOT to review that commitment.

Just as much as the extreme right want to walk away from NATO. It is just as dangerous not facing up to the new reality. Is NATO the right tool for the job of national defence? Is it possible we could get away with something less but sustainable to our means? It is a conversation that needs to be had taboos be dammed.


The entire point of NATO is common interest, not national interest.

Denmark's security needs are different from Canada's, which are different from Spain's, but we all work together to achieve our needs in a larger multi-national framework.

Yes, that sometimes means we get pulled into issues that are not 100% in our interest, however, at the same time, somewhere down the road, Germany or Italy may be required to come to our aid even though it's not in their national interest.

If we were to leave NATO, we'd be at the mercy of larger countries like the Russia, China and the USA. If we're serious about maintaining our Arctic sovereignty, staying in NATO with other Arctic nations (Norway, Denmark, Iceland, USA) makes ay more sense than going it alone.

AFAIC, we should remain in NATO until it dissolves (if ever), because we're better off with like-minded nations than we are independently or on an adhoc basis.

   



Scape @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:03 pm

We must not lose sight of why this alliance was forged. It was to counter a now defunct pact. We kept it after the Warsaw pact dissolved to maintain global stability, not to line the pockets of defence contractors. Can we say that today?

Right tool for the right job. There are plenty of forums like the G7, G20, UN that would be more in line to our aim of stability. It is important to remember the reason why the Great War (WWI) started because one Duke got shot, Alliances. Once the 1st domino fell it was impossible to stop and the world was thrown into chaos as a result.

   



herbie @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:06 pm

So what's the real threat to the ARCTIC?
Say it. Say it out loud.
Russia isn't interested in a Greater Siberia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
China can't get there without the USA and Russia letting them.
It's Exxon oil tankers wanting a shortcut from Alaska to Eastern US ports. That's the ONLY real threat.

   



Tricks @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:24 pm

herbie herbie:
So what's the real threat to the ARCTIC?
Say it. Say it out loud.
Russia isn't interested in a Greater Siberia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
China can't get there without the USA and Russia letting them.
It's Exxon oil tankers wanting a shortcut from Alaska to Eastern US ports. That's the ONLY real threat.

As the north west passage melts, that passage will be at least as important (if not more so) than the panama canal. The country that controls that will control a significant amount of international trade.

   



DrCaleb @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:36 pm

Tricks Tricks:
herbie herbie:
So what's the real threat to the ARCTIC?
Say it. Say it out loud.
Russia isn't interested in a Greater Siberia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
China can't get there without the USA and Russia letting them.
It's Exxon oil tankers wanting a shortcut from Alaska to Eastern US ports. That's the ONLY real threat.

As the north west passage melts, that passage will be at least as important (if not more so) than the panama canal. The country that controls that will control a significant amount of international trade.


And why we can't let the UK help us patrol it. Because they haven't recognized our sovereignty to it.

   



Scape @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:40 pm

U.S. says Canadian claim to Northwest Passage is ‘illegitimate’

There is a reason why the US send subs every 5 years or so to challenge our claim. Same as the do with the freedom of navigation in the Taiwanese strait.

   



CDN_PATRIOT @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:48 pm

Scape Scape:
U.S. says Canadian claim to Northwest Passage is ‘illegitimate’


The USA can fuck off, too.

-J.

   



PluggyRug @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:27 pm

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
Scape Scape:


The USA can fuck off, too.

-J.


USA not a problem. With Biden in command he'd have the ships sail backwards.

   



Thanos @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:24 pm

LOLwut, did you also say things like that when Trump abandoned the Kurds to torment by Assad & ISIS so US troops in Syria could go "protect the oil wells" as per the POSPOTUS's exact words? :lol:

   



herbie @ Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:30 pm

$1:
And why we can't let the UK help us patrol it. Because they haven't recognized our sovereignty to it.


?? They were the ones who GAVE IT to us. You mean the US.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... HxWYlaNEEL

   



DrCaleb @ Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:24 am

herbie herbie:
$1:
And why we can't let the UK help us patrol it. Because they haven't recognized our sovereignty to it.


?? They were the ones who GAVE IT to us. You mean the US.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... HxWYlaNEEL


No, to my knowledge, no country has recognized the North West passage as Canadian sovereign territory. They all consider it to be entirely inside 'Canada', but the right to pass through it is not controlled by Canada.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/britai ... -1.6187347

If Britian were to sail armed warships through it, they would be able to claim it is international territory, and most other countries would agree.

$1:
Article39

Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage

1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:

(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;

(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;


https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention ... /part3.htm

   



bootlegga @ Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:23 am

herbie herbie:
So what's the real threat to the ARCTIC?
Say it. Say it out loud.
Russia isn't interested in a Greater Siberia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
China can't get there without the USA and Russia letting them.
It's Exxon oil tankers wanting a shortcut from Alaska to Eastern US ports. That's the ONLY real threat.


Of course China can get there - they have icebreakers and nuclear subs. In 2018 China published its Arctic policy calling China a 'Near Arctic State';

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/china-w ... -road.html

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/202 ... ina-arctic

China is working with Russia on a 'Polar Silk Road', and planning all sorts of activities in the Arctic, investing in energy and infrastructure projects in Russia, Greenland, Iceland, and Scandinavia.

And China isn't the only authoritarian major power with ambitions in the Arctic, Russia is in that club too...and they are investing heavily in infrastructure and military presence in the Russian Arctic.

If Canada can't effectively patrol the Arctic, we won't have any legal basis to argue that the NW Passage is internal waters, and not an international waterway like the Straits of Malacca or South China Sea.

   



bootlegga @ Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:28 am

Scape Scape:
We must not lose sight of why this alliance was forged. It was to counter a now defunct pact. We kept it after the Warsaw pact dissolved to maintain global stability, not to line the pockets of defence contractors. Can we say that today?

Right tool for the right job. There are plenty of forums like the G7, G20, UN that would be more in line to our aim of stability. It is important to remember the reason why the Great War (WWI) started because one Duke got shot, Alliances. Once the 1st domino fell it was impossible to stop and the world was thrown into chaos as a result.


The G7 and G20 are more geared towards economic goals, not defence or sovereignty-related issues, and the UN is generally ineffective because the both the General Assembly and Security Council are full of their own flaws (vetoes and groups run by authoritarian nations) and a general inability to act effectively on most issues.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because despite its flaws, I still believe that NATO is still our best multi-lateral organization for dealing with defence-related issues right now.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next