# Canada military spending



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Wow, I can't believe it! FOr once Harper said NO to NATO/US! "Canada and Germany derail NATO request to increase military spending targets".
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...equest-to-increase-military-spending-targets/

I'd to see those spending decreased by at least 50%... Don't see any reason why military spending of Canada should be 1.55 times higher than, for example, of Israel..
btw, USA spends 60% of World total! Are they scary that Canada or Mexico will attack them?!


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

The thing about the NATO benchmark of 2% of GDP is that it used to be a condition of being a member. It's not so stringent anymore. Keep in mind that when the Liberals were in power, the defence spending was criticized by the Conservatives when it was hovering around the 1.2% mark. Aside from the uptick in 2009 of 1.4%, it has steadily declined down to the 1.0% mark. Not exactly a case for the Conservatives as a supporter of the Canadian military. Even in the "decade of darkness" of Liberal spending cuts, it dropped from 1.7% to 1.1%.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

My understanding is that in real terms, ie adjusted for inflation, Defense Dept. spending has actually decreased during the Harper administration.

And they certainly are not spending it on our luckless Veterans.


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

gibor said:


> btw, USA spends 60% of World total! Are they scary that Canada or Mexico will attack them?!



But Gibor... USA are the world police surely you know that.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

liquidfinance said:


> But Gibor... USA are the world police surely you know that.


Sure....who doesn't


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Hard to believe that the US wants everyone to up their arms spending. Excellent for their trade deficit. That is until China becomes the world's main arms supplier. 

On another note, how the heck does Russia justify buying major warships from France rather than building the ships themselves. How does this play politically on the home front. This sounds like something that a world power like Canada would do.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

uptoolate said:


> Hard to believe that the US wants everyone to up their arms spending. Excellent for their trade deficit. That is until China becomes the world's main arms supplier.
> 
> On another note, how the heck does Russia justify buying major warships from France rather than building the ships themselves. How does this play politically on the home front. This sounds like something that a world power like Canada would do.


Probably it's cheaper for Russia to order them in France...
_French President Francois Hollande said he will make a final decision on the delivery of two Mistral-class helicopters carriers in the end of October based on the situation in eastern Ukraine.
“Russia and France signed a $1.6 billion deal for two Mistral-class ships in June 2011 ...I will make my final decision in the end of October, depending on the situation,” Hollande said in French at the press conference during NATO summit in Wales.
"We were never forced to suspend the contracts," Hollande said. “The level of sanctions, adopted by the European Union never envisaged that the ongoing contract can be put in question.”_

Can you guess what will be Hollande's final decision?! ... unless US will cover all expenses


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Yes I'm with you on the final decision. I'm a bit surprised that the French delayed the delivery at all. And you're right in the cost issues as far as building them but there are so many other factors in play when it comes to producing capital ships. I mean this is Russia we're talking about, buying ships from France! The Soviet Union, even at it's zenith, didn't have much of a blue water navy, really only based on its submarine force without much in the way of naval aviation but to not build these ships just seems unfathomable for a country of such size and history.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_ French delayed the delivery at all._ they just got pushed too hard by NATO/US and should've tell something 

and you have to remember that Russia is not CCCP and they will try to find best output... if it's cheaper to build in France , they will build it in France.... there is no ideology any more, there is common sense , money and politics... this is the reason why US is scared of Russia maybe even more than from CCCP


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Wow, I can't believe it! FOr once Harper said NO to NATO/US! "Canada and Germany derail NATO request to increase military spending targets".
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...equest-to-increase-military-spending-targets/
> 
> I'd to see those spending decreased by at least 50%... Don't see any reason why military spending of Canada should be 1.55 times higher than, for example, of Israel..
> btw, USA spends 60% of World total! Are they scary that Canada or Mexico will attack them?!


Military spending in the US has always been part of their GDP, supporting their military-industrial complex that employs
hundreds of thousands of Americans, (unlike the consumer product economy that has been given away to China for cheap labour and more profits)
.
After the surprise attack on the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor in 1941, forcing the US to join Britain and it's allies into WWII, the Japanese admiral (Yamato), announced that 'they have awakened a sleeping giant"
the American policy has been..never to let their guard down...and we know what happened in 9/11 when they let their
guard down..they were bombed by hijacked commercial aircraft.

They have all kinds of military bases all over the world, in order to have their military ready at any moment to take the "war home to their enemies, declared war on them, or any other threat to their interests. 
The secret US Air Force base at a tiny island called Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, ensures that their nuclear strike readyB1/ B2 stealth bombers and F117 stealth fighters can reach any target in a matter of minutes or hours. 

Having these bases at strategic points around the world, and support of their extensive aircraft carrier/missile attack cruisers/atomic submarines with Polaris underwater nuclear strike missiles etc..ensures that they will always be ready when called upon.

This is not the same with Canada;
While we were active in WWI and WWII supporting Britain and their Allies, and some participation
in the Korean War as part of the UN contingent, Canada's mission in the world since the days of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson has been traditionally as the role of Peace Keepers. 

Yes, we do need to improve "a bit" on some of our antiquated military equipment, some dating from the days of WWII, but there is no reason that we should inflate our military spending EVEN if suggested by our NATO allies. 

If there is a valid reason to spend more money Canada for military purposes, I'm sure we will, with permission of our parliament..but only if there is a NATO or UN sanctioned situation that warrants it. 

We are not the "worlds policemen", nor have we ever been in that role..let the US take that role, as they have the capability and the means to afford it. We did join the UN forces in AGHANISTAN after the 9/11 bombing of NYC 
as part of the UN contingent. That was a 10 year effort that cost us untold billions in military spending and
the result..after 10 years of our presence there, its going back to the same as it was before 9/11.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> traditionally as the role of Peace Keepers.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/sunil-ram/article1139999/

A few years old....but....


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/sunil-ram/article1139999/
> 
> A few years old....but....


Yes, some of that is true..the gov't back in Pearson's days decided that Canada shouldn't get involved in every
frigin war that takes place every year somewhere in the world. 

Doing so would bankrupt us much quicker than the US ( now with a deficit in the trillions) and we don't have the military-industrial complex in Canada to support, unlike the US and other countries. 

We are essentially STILL "hewers of wood, and drawers of water" as we used to be called..well maybe
(oil these days instead of water) and any military spending is for self defence mostly, (protect our borders) and to muster up a small contingent ..that is...if we really get our collective arms twisted by the other world powers
in the UN or NATO organizations to avoid the embarrassment attached to saying "NO". 

Lets face it..we do not have the economy to support military campaigns across the world..the logistics and expense of flying materiel and supplies halfway around the world comes at a cost..and we have to ask ourselves as Canadians..what is that cost and what price will we pay ..if we don't get involved?..or involved, as the case may be.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> .what is that cost and what price will we pay ..if we don't get involved?..or involved, as the case may be.


_“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”_

Attributed to Leon Trotsky


----------



## malarcus (Jan 2, 2014)

Well got to jump in this one...

I am myself in the military, Navy actually. I am what you could see as vice-Chief engineer on one of our ship in Halifax. There is a funding problem with the military (at least the Navy) that needs to be addressed. To save money, the supply system does not maintain sufficient spare parts to permit us to effectuate all necessary repairs to keep your assets (the Ships) in a "ship shape" condition. When you have to buy every item separately, it cost you extra in shipping at the end of the year or the Ship does not get repaired. I run my budget at work as tight as my budget at home. I hate wasting money and 400K a year when you have to maintain a small city afloat is not much. 

I have to make decision everyday as to what is essential to repair and what is something we can live without. It is extremely frustrating as I see myself as the keeper of this asset that belongs to you and not me. At the end of the day, we probably can go to see but I pray for everything to keep working. Any bad surprises will reduce our capacity to be deployable on short notice.

The people that works for me are amazing. I Should have 25 engineers working for me but I only have 14. Out of these 14 only 8 are trained or skilled and the other 6 are brand new from recruit school. They work on average 76 hours a week (when in port) and I don't count the hours while at sea. As we don't have over time, the guy making 60K a year works as much as someone holding two 30K jobs. Believe me, you are getting premium service for what you pay.

When you guys mention all those deployments overseas, you forget what we do daily here in Canada. The Navy on a daily basis does fishery patrol outside of NFLD to ensure that over fishing does not happen anymore. Fishing still bring money in the coffers of the state and employ people here in Canada. We also do Search and Rescue at sea. This not advertised too much but it keeps us busy. Artic patrol is becoming also a greater part of the work we do. With the Ice melting up north and shipping companies looking at new shorter routes to get to Asia, we will be needed more than ever up there. What about the natural resources in the north. Oil, gas and minerals. Can we afford not to protect this? Do we wait until Russia decides to "liberate" the Canadian north from his oppressing government in Ottawa (for people who think it is crazy, look at Ukraine...). We are not just operating in distant countries but we do a lot at home.

The last budget reductions the military suffered were not evaluated before being put in place. Someone decided to cut the budget by so many percents for political gain. An other few years of those budgets and the military will not be able to function properly. I am not talking to increase our military but about maintaining what we have right now. The military is there in time of crisis (from Ice storm to....well...plowing the streets of Toronto...) and it is not possible to rebuild instantly what has been let go for years.

Marc


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

malarcus said:


> I am myself in the military, Navy actually. I am what you could see as vice-Chief engineer on one of our ship in Halifax. There is a funding problem with the military (at least the Navy) that needs to be addressed ...
> 
> When you guys mention all those deployments overseas, you forget what we do daily here in Canada. The Navy on a daily basis does fishery patrol outside of NFLD to ensure that over fishing does not happen anymore. Fishing still bring money in the coffers of the state and employ people here in Canada. We also do Search and Rescue at sea. This not advertised too much but it keeps us busy. Artic patrol is becoming also a greater part of the work we do. With the Ice melting up north and shipping companies looking at new shorter routes to get to Asia, we will be needed more than ever up there. What about the natural resources in the north. Oil, gas and minerals. Can we afford not to protect this? Do we wait until Russia decides to "liberate" the Canadian north from his oppressing government in Ottawa (for people who think it is crazy, look at Ukraine...). We are not just operating in distant countries but we do a lot at home.



hear, hear. All those patrols, watches & mandates that malarcus mentions are vital to the well-being of canada imho. 

regularly sailing coast guard & navy vessels through the Arctic channel waters has never, in our entire history, been more important, imho.

we need to protect the resources of our high Arctic.

is Churchill MB a year-round ice-free port yet? soon, it will be. What a difference to global shipping that is going to make.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 1, 2013)

Nemo2 said:


> _“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”_
> 
> Attributed to Leon Trotsky


Both Carverman and Nemo2 are bang-on with their comments as are Malarcus and humble-pie.

The trouble with being involved or not involved in wars is that you do not always have the choice. Great Britain was surprised at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the Argentinians back in the 1980's, and the more recent invasion of the Ukraine by Russia are two good examples.

We Canadians feel pretty secure what with sharing a friendly border with the world's most powerful nation, but the US wasn't willing to assist the Brits in the Falklands, nor the Ukrainians (with other than rhetoric) in their current conflict (though in fairness the US does not have a military pact with the Ukraine). We don't know what future conflicts we Canadians may be forced into; perhaps incursions by the Russians or the Danes (or insert any northern hemisphere country) over some as yet to be discovered resources in the Arctic, or maybe terrorist infiltration's along our huge and remote coasts. My point is that the day may come when we will have to stand alone, not just assisting our allies in some far-away war. We need a strong and well (best) equipped military to cope with threats that may arise without warning for both contingencies. 

In long-past conflicts we were given the time to build up our forces but the world is now a much smaller place and if we don't have a strong deterrent force in place we won't get a second chance to defend ourselves. 

Just how much is enough? That's what we pay our military planners and government to decide. In my opinion, having once served in the Navy, we are sorely under-equipped and under-funded. The "talk" the government has made about creating a deep-water port in the arctic along with the Coast Guard ships and icebreakers needs to be put in action. The delay in our navy ship building and helicopter replacement programs needs to be fixed, as does a budget boost for our current fleet. (It boggles my mind that the navy doesn't get the sea training it needs because they don't have enough in their fuel budget.) 

The Air Force needs to re-equip it's (now) third rate CF18 fighters with Super Hornets and/or F-35's. Why?, because we are closely allied with the US as part of the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and need to seamlessly integrate with their forces.

Expensive? Yes. But as Carverman points out "what is that cost and what price will we pay ..if we don't get involved..."? By all means we need to make sure we get the best financial deal we can for all military procurement's - but most importantly we need to get as much of the best equipment and people into service as quickly as we can.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

malarcus said:


> Well got to jump in this one...
> 
> The last budget reductions the military suffered were not evaluated before being put in place. Someone decided to cut the budget by so many percents for political gain. An other few years of those budgets and the military will not be able to function properly. I am not talking to increase our military but about maintaining what we have right now. The military is there in time of crisis (from Ice storm to....*well...plowing the streets of Toronto...) and it is not possible to rebuild instantly what has been let go for years.*
> 
> Marc


Thanks for your insight, right from the rank and file. As a retiree and former reserve military member years ago
(30th Field Artillery-HQ in Ottawa), I can certainly sympathise with your lack of funding plight that seems to everywhere in the military these days.

But even 50 years ago.,.when I was a young lad, employed part time by DND as a "militia men recruit", the lack of funding was apparent even then. Other than a uniform and a rifle, everything else, the 105mm howitzer, tanks and other ancient military equipment from WWII days, including the ubiquitous "Deuce"..that old 2 ton "power wagon" that hauled us around to parades and the artillery range at Camp Petawawa, was very much in need of overhaul and replacement..that was 40 years ago. 

65 or about 70 years ago, (from WWII on) we still had a fighter aircraft industry (reborn from the Lancaster Bomber contracts of WWII) and modernized a bit to replace the Avro CF100..our first "built in Canada all weather interceptor"
until of course, "Dief the Chief" screwed that up cancelled the Avro "pilot project" in favour of the ill fated US Bomarc missile,
and we lost the small part of our military-industrial complex (if you even call it that back then) to the Americans.

That's right..after the Diefenbaker gov't cancelled the Avro Arrow contract, pretty much all the military aircraft engineering talent was recruited by McDonnell Douglas and Boeing and North American-Rockwell to work
and their defence (aircraft) contracts..after being fast tracked to become US Citizens..a necessity if one works on a US gov't military contract.

So after that grand screwup, thanks to priorities , and constant wishy-washy changes of mind from the gov'ts of the day..we became once again "hewers of wood and drawers of water'...the only saving grace was Bombardier and their success with the Challenger jet commercial aircraft..and maybe the tiny part in the space race..the Canadarm for the shuttle..a notable achievement.

But other than a few of these to notch our belts, everything else has been the result of either gov't meddling or
priority changes when new gov't were elected. 

We all still remember the embarrassing 'old tubs (the leaky subs that we bought from the British scrapyard torches for a pittance..and after spending countless millions retrofitting them to be seaworthy..at best they can only be uses for submariner practice...torpedo less,,they would be a sitting duck for a foreign submarine like the Russians have.
So after more than 40 years, we have advanced from being "hewers of wood and drawers of water", have a small military for national border defence and mostly peacetime operations like..the Toronto snow storm and the big ice storm of Eastern Ontario in '98.

or the cancellation and 500 million in penalties for the badly needed EH101 maritime patrol helicopters to
replace the 100 year old (well maybe t50? SeaKings that literally fell out of the sky , and most were grounded
for lack of parts, and twhat parts were even available for them at that point, he repair depots had to
scrounge the world for hose parts.. aircraft built 50 years ago!

Do anybody seriously think that the Harper gov't that doesn't even want to sponser a NATIONAL DAYCARE PROGRAM,
want to spend billions on military materiel and weaponry contracts?...If you do..go over to Tim Hortons, smell the coffee and order a "double-double from TH...oh wait..its BurgerKing..another American enterprise taking over that too.

So other than maritime patrols (needed to protect the 12 mile limits on fishing rights, and overfishing of our cod stock
off the Grand Banks..why do we need to spend any more on NEW military acquisitions..to fight foreign wars like
the Taliban in Afghanistan and spend our tax dollars rebuilding their war torn infrastructure to be blown up again and
again and again?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

6811 said:


> The Air Force needs to re-equip it's (now) third rate CF18 fighters with Super Hornets and/or F-35's. Why?, because we are closely allied with the US as part of the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and need to seamlessly integrate with their forces.
> 
> Expensive? Yes. But as Carverman points out "what is that cost and what price will we pay ..if we don't get involved..."? By all means we need to make sure we get the best financial deal we can for all military procurement's - but most importantly we need to get as much of the best equipment and people into service as quickly as we can.


The CF18s are due for replacements and maybe the advanced CF18 SuperHornet would be the logical choice.
You really need two engines in case one cuts out, however, opting for a very expensive ESTIMATED COST plus (depending on the production run numbers and inflation) for the F35 contract that *requires a huge capital outlay for parts and retraining on them* is IMO, ridiculous and something we cannot afford.

Why do we need Mach2 capability supersonic aircraft to fly over our northern borders (the arctic) or for maritime patrol?
At 1000+ kph what "dog fight interceptions" are we going to encounter with the polar bears up there, or the seals on the ice flows in the east coast, or even the killer whales on the west coast? 
Why do we need a "Grand Prix expensive Ferrari", when a production "corvette" will do and is a more cost effective in terms of gas consumption and parts.

Besides, what about the Maritime patrol frigates program to build some fast frigates to intercept the hoards of drug runners, illegal immigrants and illegal fishing boats , as well as other intrusions that seem to occur on a frequent basis.
Are we going to fly over them at 1000kph in our F35s, and wave our wings to tell them to get the hell out of our territorial waters?
They will laugh at us...wrong tools for the job!

Don't worry about Russian bombers coming across our Northen border, the Americans track them very closely with NORAD , and they won't allow any unidentified Russian aircraft to invade our air space..
..so other than that..who else do we have to worry about in terms of that issue?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_That was a 10 year effort that cost us untold billions in military spending and
the result..after 10 years of our presence there, its going back to the same as it was before 9/11._
Actually it's worse now....

_why do we need to spend any more on NEW military acquisitions..to fight foreign wars like
the Taliban in Afghanistan and spend our tax dollars rebuilding their war torn infrastructure to be blown up again and
again and again?_
Exactly!

btw, I'm not sure that Canada should be NATO member at all


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Is Canadian Coast Guard get funds from Military ?! Isn't they belong to DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> _
> 
> btw, I'm not sure that Canada should be NATO member at all_


_




Canada has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since its inception in 1949. Canada was not only a member but one of the principal initiators (founding countries) of the alliance. This Atlanticist outlook was a marked break with Canada's pre-war isolationism, and was the first peacetime alliance Canada had ever joined.
However, Canadian officials such as Hume Wrong and Lester B. Pearson and including Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent worked in favour of the alliance *not only because they sought to contain the Soviet Union, as did other members, but because they hoped the treaty would help to eliminate any potential rivalries between the United States, the United Kingdom, and other European great powers (principally at the time France, but later including West Germany), where Canada would be forced to choose sides.*

Click to expand...

Interesting thought. Historically Canada became part of NATO because of the Western Powers being suspicious of Comrade STALIN'S
intentions of isolation of WEST BERLIN after the BERLIN BLOCKADE in 1948-1949.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade

Comrade Nikita (Krushchev) continued in his "master's footsteps) with veiled threats that was the beginning of the COLD WAR between CCCP and the Western Allies. Although thankfully, we never went to war against the " EVIL EMPIRE" as one US President called it back then, *it came VERY CLOSE with the Cuban missile crisis*
between JFK and Kruschev, that went as far in the UN with Krushchev banging his shoe on his podium, while addressing the UN and US, and exclaiming for the world to hear "WE WILL BURY YOU!"

What a ignorant hot headed remark from a former peasant that was elected Premier of the Soviet Union, and had worked his way up under Stalins iron fisted rule to utter to the world. Of course the West took him seriously!

Later on when comrade Gorbachov replaced the Leonid Brezhnev , and the other two short term leaders (Andropov and Chernenko) , his beginning of Glasnost- Perestroika was a welcome sigh of relief from the Western powers, and of course, tearing down the Berlin Wall and the eventual unification of Germany.

For a period of time, up until now, the "waters of the Cold War have been relatively calm"..but now with the (alleged) Russian (Putin's secret agenda) intentions on the Ukraine..we are not so sure what can happen in the future.

Certainly the Americans (and Obama) do not want to tangle with Russia militarily, they all know too well from the past what can happen..if it goes that war. 

Whether the doomsday clock is starting to tick again is anybody's guess right now, but for now, Canada better keep "one foot in the NATO door", just in case it needs it's allies....primarily the Americans._


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

As far as I'm concerned, NATO countries should keep military spending up, not down. One never knows when some nut case like Hitler quietly builds strength, then goes for land grabs. Prior to WW2 my understanding is the US was weak, and had a isolationist philosophy. They didn't even have any intelligence operations and didn't know how to do it. The Brits had to teach them. Apparently that was the seeds of the CIA. The world was caught flat footed by Japan and Germany and it is naive to think it can't happen again. 

We should never assume that peace will be lasting, or that we/Nato can easily take on all comers. From an economic perspective it is cheaper to have a strong military and be able to challenge aggressors right away, than to let weakness set in and play catch up later. We need to be able to out gun any potential aggressors, and counter all their moves - that way, they won't bother. The best way to keep peace is the ability to wage war. Sorry if any don't agree, but that's human nature.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> As far as I'm concerned, NATO countries should keep military spending up, not down. One never knows when some nut case like Hitler quietly builds strength, then goes for land grabs. Prior to WW2 my understanding is the US was weak, and had a isolationist philosophy. They didn't even have any intelligence operations and didn't know how to do it. The Brits had to teach them. Apparently that was the seeds of the CIA. The world was caught flat footed by Japan and Germany and it is naive to think it can't happen again.
> 
> We should never assume that peace will be lasting, or that we/Nato can easily take on all comers. From an economic perspective it is cheaper to have a strong military and be able to challenge aggressors right away, than to let weakness set in and play catch up later. We need to be able to out gun any potential aggressors, and counter all their moves - that way, they won't bother. *The best way to keep peace is the ability to wage war. *Sorry if any don't agree, but that's human nature.


I'm not disagreeing. 

With what has happened after 9/11, Bush taking out one dictator in Iraq, which now is leading to the seeds being sown to make way for ISIL, nothing is surprising in world events anymore. 

Saddam over the years managed to acquire a lot of Soviet era military hardware and even the US and Britain had a tough tie dislodging and cutting down his defences during the first Gulf war. 

Once an unfriendly power gets established in a middle eastern country, the longer
you wait to dislodge them, the more costlier it becomes in terms of human life (our soldiers), collateral damage and the huge expense of deploying and undertaking a large military campaign. 

Canada's problem now is ; in order to upgrade the weapons and logistics to be able to be in a successful campaign in the middle east, we need to s*pend a pile of money *again. While some of the military eqt from Afghanistan may still be useful against..say a semi organized force like ISIL, (still relatively weak against a stronger more organized force), if not checked soon, as soon as they take over the entire region of Syria and Iraq, 
they will get stronger and set their sights on other nearby countries. It will start with insurrection from within those countries first...similar to the "Arab Spring". 

Going back in history, lets not forget Hitler and the Battle of Britain...that one was CLOSE!, won by two inventions that came along just at the right time..the Supermarine Spitfire that was an equal to the Mersserschmitt ME190 , radar and the fact that the "enigma" German High Command communications scrambler /descrambler was stolen by
Polish operatives, and brought to Benchly Park for examination..
after that score, the British knew when the Germans were coming.
That one was also just too close to call....the Germans "postponed" Operation Sea Lion because they were running
out of time and the RAF was not destroyed as they had hoped.

The ABomb was secretly under development by Hitler as well as a more powerful V-2. 
At the end of the war in April 1945, Werner Von Braun and the Nazi scientists working on that super V-2 intercontinental escaped from the Russians and fled to the "west'. They were whisked away by the Americans for their US Army Redstone rocket program, and later on NASA for the space race to the moon.

The Russians also got some of the Nazi enhanced rocket program, and some of the scientists from the secret ABomb program under development, but they were beat to it by the Americans and Oppenheimer on the "Manhattan Project" and "Fat Boy'..dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945..
The Cuban missile crisis was brought on by those events about 20 years later, had events worked out the other way..it could have easily been the Nazis dropping the A bombs on the US.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 1, 2013)

Pluto said:


> As far as I'm concerned, NATO countries should keep military spending up, not down. One never knows when some nut case like Hitler quietly builds strength, then goes for land grabs. Prior to WW2 my understanding is the US was weak, and had a isolationist philosophy. They didn't even have any intelligence operations and didn't know how to do it. The Brits had to teach them. Apparently that was the seeds of the CIA. The world was caught flat footed by Japan and Germany and it is naive to think it can't happen again.
> 
> We should never assume that peace will be lasting, or that we/Nato can easily take on all comers. From an economic perspective it is cheaper to have a strong military and be able to challenge aggressors right away, than to let weakness set in and play catch up later. We need to be able to out gun any potential aggressors, and counter all their moves - that way, they won't bother. The best way to keep peace is the ability to wage war. Sorry if any don't agree, but that's human nature.


I agree. :applouse:


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> Bush taking out one dictator in Iraq, which now is leading to the seeds being sown to make way for ISIL, nothing is surprising in world events anymore.


Actually things were (pretty much, or as much as can be expected in the M.E.) 'under control' before the present WH occupant arbitrarily reduced the US military presence in Iraq....despite Bush's prescient warning of 7 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53S5TKKsAc8


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> Actually things were (pretty much, or as much as can be expected in the M.E.) 'under control' before the present WH occupant arbitrarily reduced the US military presence in Iraq....despite Bush's prescient warning of 7 years ago:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53S5TKKsAc8


Just to clear the air, Bush is the one who had agreed to withdraw the troops in 2008 for the 2011 timeline:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p..._rice_we_never_expected_to_leave_iraq_in_2011

Even if they had expected to have it extended, Iraq was not giving up the immunity to US soldiers:
http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

Better yet, why not use the elder Bush foresight on why they didn't remove Saddam Hussein:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> Better yet, why not use the elder Bush foresight on why they didn't remove Saddam Hussein:
> https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html


Interesting read. Thanks.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> Actually things were (pretty much, or as much as can be expected in the M.E.) 'under control' before the present WH occupant arbitrarily reduced the US military presence in Iraq....despite Bush's prescient warning of 7 years ago:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53S5TKKsAc8


"it would mean that American troops would have to return someday to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous"..
For once he did tell the truth. 

As for the pretext of WMD, justifying Bush's invasion of Iraq, we know from history that if one dictator is deposed, another one will come along that is far more dangerous...and now, this is happening in Iraq because of the void left when the US disposed of Saddam. Yes he was brutal as well, but there was a bit of ME stability then, now there is nothing but chaos.

The big problem, and western countries like the US now understand from their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that you really cannot change things with western style puppet governments. Afghan still has parts that are as dangerous as they ever where as the Taliban is now making a come back..sure in Kabul, you may be reasonably safe (for now from bombers for now) but in Kandahar..it's a different story. 

So what did 12 years of US and Canadian/UN presence accomplish there? 

Obama said:


> Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them,” he said. “Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century.”





> Besides carrying out operations against the remnants of Al Qaeda, the troops that stay behind will train Afghan security forces. But from 2015 onward, they will be quartered at Bagram Airfield and in Kabul, the capital. While they will be supplemented by NATO troops, alliance members are likely to follow America’s lead in pulling out by the end of 2016.


In about 2 years time as the US pulls out their troops and foreign funding of Karzai's puppet gov't drys up...watch Al-Qaeda and
the Taliban roll in and heads start to roll...what is happening in Iraq will happen there as well. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hs-about-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

^

As we have seen in Libya:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...control-tripoli-airport-seized-operation-dawn

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ef7176-d47a-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Pluto said:


> As far as I'm concerned, NATO countries should keep military spending up, not down. One never knows when some nut case like Hitler quietly builds strength, then goes for land grabs.


Or NATO can create another Hitler (like US created bin Laden).... or just bomb any country they want like in Yugoslavia...
NATO should've been dismissed after end of Warsaw Pact.


I don't care if NATO increase spendings as far as Canada won't part of it...like Switzerland, Sweden or Finland for example.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Or NATO can create another Hitler (like US created bin Laden).... or just bomb any country they want like in Yugoslavia...
> NATO should've been dismissed after end of Warsaw Pact.
> 
> 
> I don't care if NATO increase spendings as far as Canada won't part of it...like Switzerland, Sweden or Finland for example.


The Swiss and Swedes have always been neutral when it comes to hostilities..good for them. The Finns too, except for the Russo-Finnish war in which the Finns defended themselves vigorously from Stalin's intentions to take over them.

Canada, on the other hand has been there for Britain, in WWI. WWII, and as part of the UN contingent in Korea, Kosovo, Ruwanda (genocide), Iraq (JTF1/CF18s in first Gulf war after Saddam invaded Kuwait in '91) and Afghanistan 2002, (US goes in gunning to get Bin Laden after 9/11).

JTF1/2 ) Canadian version of the US special task forces trained to go in behind the lines)

So Canada has participated with their own troops in mostly UN sanctioned military events. None so far with any of the Warsaw Pact countries. Is there any point in NATO being around now..except for maybe the "old boy's club"?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

I know the history and think that Canada should be more neutral and less participate in US / NATO and UN adventures....

_Is there any point in NATO being around now..except for maybe the "old boy's club"?_ No point... except for "old bully's club"


----------



## 6811 (Jan 1, 2013)

gibor said:


> I know the history and think that Canada should be more neutral and less participate in US / NATO and UN adventures....
> 
> _Is there any point in NATO being around now..except for maybe the "old boy's club"?_ No point... except for "old bully's club"


I absolutely disagree. If you cast off your friends when things are going well for you where do you think they'll be if you ever need help?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Gibor, maybe you would prefer that Canada isolate itself from its allies, but you have made it pretty clear that you don't have a lot at stake in Canada since you have two backups.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Well here is the sad reality of the situation, guys....the Russians still possess more fire power than we, or some of the NATO allies will ever have. They still have more nucs to blowup the free world ten times over and the ICBMs to deliver
them., Remember Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative? 

The Russians have NEVER allowed any UN weapons inspection teams on their ground, to see if even a small amount of the nuclear arms they were *supposed* to destroy as a result of the SALT talks many years ago, and their advanced fighter jets, bombers, nuclear subs and ICBMs can make short work of any NATO initiative to "teach them a lesson". 
SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) signed between the Russians (USSR) and USA.

Only the US still has the fire power and capability to equal them, and that is only one nation in NATO that bully Putin
is concerned about..they don't give a sweet bippie about anyone else.

So whether Canada still wants to participate in NATO as part of the big three is hard to say at this point. 

It does give us some status in the eyes of the world like G7, although very little. As far as the UN (or "Useless Nations"), the Russians and the US have veto power to cancel each other out when it comes to decisions
that require some form of military action.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

gibor said:


> I know the history and think that Canada should be more neutral and less participate in US / NATO and UN adventures....
> 
> _Is there any point in NATO being around now..except for maybe the "old boy's club"?_ No point... except for "old bully's club"




actually gibor has recently told cmf forum that he intends to move to australia as soon as his children have received their excellent, low-cost university education here in canada ...

gibor, are you a canadian citizen now, by any chance? if so, whatever happened to those modern history lessons on canada that you were supposed to have studied for the citizenship papers? they fully explained the critical nature & importance of the deep-rooted canada/USA relationship.

if not a canadian citizen, though, why would you be commenting on canadian foreign policy ..


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

gibor said:


> Or NATO can create another Hitler (like US created bin Laden).... or just bomb any country they want like in Yugoslavia...
> NATO should've been dismissed after end of Warsaw Pact.
> 
> 
> I don't care if NATO increase spendings as far as Canada won't part of it...like Switzerland, Sweden or Finland for example.


There is no way Canada should leave NATO. The fact that Swiss are neutral, for example, is not what saved them avoid WW2 devastation. No land grab psychopath wants or needs Switzerland. Nor resources to speak of, and surrounded by mountains. It would be a waste of resources to take it. But Canada is a gem. Untold riches in Canada. Far more desirable than Switzerland or Sweden. 

Nato should be backing Ukraine now. Right to the hilt. 

Ukraine, not too long ago, had the third largest largest Nuclear arsenal in the world. In 1995 US, Britain, Russia, and Ukraine signed an agreement that said essentially: if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, their security would be guaranteed. Ukraine is now obviously plagued by rebels loyal to Russia, and Russia who signed the agreement could care less about the agreement. 

Where did we see this movie before? Hitler and Chamberlain. Hitler is oft quoted as saying, if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one. Recently Putin has flatly denied any interest in or assistance to these rebels. Sounds like a big lie to me. sounds like Putin has no intention of taking the 1995 agreement seriously. And if Ukraine is not backed and helped, no one in future will take any such agreement seriously again. Why for instance, should N Korea, or Iran, give up aspirations for nuclear weapons based on empty promises of assured security if Ukraine is abandoned to rebels? 

gibor, one way to peace is to give up and let tyrants take over, then live in peace under tyranny. Or stand up to tyrants. In my perspective Putin is a tyrant who will stop at nothing if he can get away with it. He can't even put up with verbal/written criticism. Remember Alexander Litvinenko? A little dissent from him and he is killed. And you get a little dissenting all girl rock band - guess what - they go to prison. Hey, I don't trust Putin, and backing off of his moves is a big mistake.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> There is no way Canada should leave NATO. The fact that Swiss are neutral, for example, is not what saved them avoid WW2 devastation. No land grab psychopath wants or needs Switzerland. Nor resources to speak of, and surrounded by mountains. It would be a waste of resources to take it. But Canada is a gem. Untold riches in Canada. Far more desirable than Switzerland or Sweden.


true but the Nazis deposit a lot of Jewish gold in the Swiss bank accounts, most of it confiscated and extracted from the teeth of their concentration camp victims..the Swiss didn't care either way , and they didn't get involved in any grandiose plans for Hitler to try to conquer the rest of the world..they just idly stood by, and opened their vaults to Nazi stolen treasures and gold.



> Nato should be backing Ukraine now. Right to the hilt.


Putin is carving up Ukraine through subversive means..these fighters involved..nobody knows if they are pro Russia Ukranians or Russian agitator plants. I think the US has discovered that helping the wrong side (as in the Syrian conflict.,.the al-Qeada rebels) they will come back to bite you in the =..well you can figure out the rest. 

What is Nato going to do? Bomb the Ukranian "rebels" into submission and risk further "collateral damage" as well as their own aircraft shot down? Or maybe enter with boots on the ground and engage in a full scale ground war..the kind Putin is ready for, and willing to help out the pro-Russians for their succession from Ukraine to join Russia.

Any kind of confrontation like that could be a LOT WORSE than what is happening in the middle east. In WWII, the Nazis learned a lesson never to have TWO FRONTS where all the forces are split and engaged.. They lost because of the two fronts and the fact that they threw away over half of their army ( Gen Paulus/ 6th army Wermach) leaving them very weak for the Allied attack in Normandy. 



> Ukraine, not too long ago, had the third largest largest Nuclear arsenal in the world. In 1995 US, Britain, Russia, and Ukraine signed an agreement that said essentially: if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, their security would be guaranteed. Ukraine is now obviously plagued by rebels loyal to Russia, and Russia who signed the agreement could care less.


And based on the fact "they" (who?) carelessly shot down a civilian airliner, what is to prevent them pulling out the nuclear warheads, stored away for "safekeeping" and use them against NATO forces...don't kid yourself...this is not some Arab country with insurgents going around with AK47s mounted on Toyota pickup trucks...Russia has the military hardware that will stand up against ANY NATO aggression.. that is, if they think that's the way it is going...it could be a lot more dangerous for Europe than it already is. 



> Where did we see this move before? Hitler and Chamberlain. Hitler is oft quoted as saying, if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one. Recently Putin has flatly denied any interest in or assistance to these rebels. Sounds like a big lie to me. sounds like Putin has no intention of taking the 1995 agreement seriously. And if Ukraine is not backed and helped, no one in future will take any such agreement seriously again. Why for instance, should N Korea, or Iran, give up aspirations for nuclear weapons based on empty promises of assured security if Ukraine is abandoned to rebels?



Ok, lets put N Korea and Iran aside, those are different ideologies as well. Putin is ex KGB and trained in the KGB ways of subversive infitration. He is not stupid to make serious mistakes that the West is hoping he will..like moving the Red Army across the Ukrainian borders like the Soviets did with Hungary in the mid 50s..he will eventually get what he wants by carving up pieces of the Ukraine anyway, 
and having the population favour being under Russian control...redrawing the borders..just like Hitler did with Austria (annexed it), then grabbed the Czech "Sudeten" land' because of the German minority population was being "persecuted there". Once he had annexed Austria and CzechoSlovakia, and had control of that, he had his minions take care of the rest politically, and that positioned him to set his sights on Poland.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

carverman, So what? 

There was an agreement signed as part of nuclear weapons reduction. If the agreement isn't honoured, no country will trust the signers. And if the signers are't trusted, you can kiss further arms reductions goodbye. 

so Russia is backed by a huge nuclear arsenal. So is US. It cuts both ways. I'd say to Putin: so you deny helping the rebel's? He says Yes. Then say to him, so you won't mind if we honour our agreement and help Ukraine deal with their security issues like we all agreed in 1995? What Putin going to say? So suppose Nato goes and backs Ukraine with what ever it needs, even troops if necessary. As long as Putin is denying any interest in the rebels, how is there going to be a war with Russia? Putin will either back down, or show his hand. Personally I think he is bluffing, and he who hesitates is lost.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

There are enough 'neutral' countries in the world already. Canada should definitely stay involved with NATO. Canada should continue to form its own foreign policy and follow its own values but sadly, NATO seems to be becoming more and more relevant. I don't quite agree with carverman as to the UN standing for Useless Nations (not far off most days though) but it is far from the most excellent and Useful Nations. Some good work gets done but when it comes to standing up to military actions - not so much. Even the most relevant thing the UN ever did, Security Council Resolution 84 - to support South Korea in 1950, only passed because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council and Mainland China did not yet have a seat on the council (that international heavyweight Taiwan did - the west was still hoping that the Nationalist would prevail).

The Canadian Armed Forces should be better funded and supported and be larger. The current active service strength of the RCN is only something like 8500. Not much more than the compliment of a single Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Ouch!


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

I agree that the Ukraine may have been naive in giving up its nuclear weapons. And what message does it send to Iran and every other non-nuclear country to see Ukraine get kicked around.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> actually gibor has recently told cmf forum that he intends to move to australia as soon as his children have received their excellent, low-cost university education here in canada ...
> 
> gibor, are you a canadian citizen now, by any chance? if so, whatever happened to those modern history lessons on canada that you were supposed to have studied for the citizenship papers? they fully explained the critical nature & importance of the deep-rooted canada/USA relationship.
> 
> if not a canadian citizen, though, why would you be commenting on canadian foreign policy ..


Hp, when did I tell that we intend moving to Australia?! Another lies like in case with Nemo?! You are definitely master of it....
Yes, I'm Canadian citizen for more than 10+ years and as citizen and tax payer I can have my own opinion of Canadian foreign policy... 
btw, are you Canadian citizen?!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_Putin is carving up Ukraine through subversive means.._ don't you remember how all mess started?! Victoria Nuland admited that US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian, "Democratic Institutions"! Who stand behind all those "Coloured revolutions "?!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Neutrality only works when the other parties agree to let them stay that way.

How did neutrality work out for Belgium?

Swiss "neutrality" has historically been very convenient for the other parties. They also have a larger military and a much higher military/land area ratio than is possible in Canada.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Neutrality only works when the other parties agree to let them stay that way.
> 
> How did neutrality work out for Belgium?
> 
> Swiss "neutrality" has historically been very convenient for the other parties. They also have a larger military and a much higher military/land area ratio than is possible in Canada.


We have NORAD and imho it's enough...also don't compare geographical location of Belgium and Canada  We have real border only with US....


----------



## 6811 (Jan 1, 2013)

gibor said:


> We have real border only with US....


And Denmark (Greenland) and France (St. Pierre et Miquelon). (We actually have an ongoing minor border dispute with Denmark over an island in the far north.)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> carverman, So what?
> 
> There was an agreement signed as part of nuclear weapons reduction. If the agreement isn't honoured, no country will trust the signers. And if the signers are't trusted, you can kiss further arms reductions goodbye.
> 
> so Russia is backed by a huge nuclear arsenal. So is US. It cuts both ways. I'd say to Putin: so you deny helping the rebel's? He says Yes. Then say to him, so you won't mind if we honour our agreement and help Ukraine deal with their security issues like we all agreed in 1995? What Putin going to say? So suppose Nato goes and backs Ukraine with what ever it needs, even troops if necessary. *As long as Putin is denying any interest in the rebels, how is there going to be a war with Russia? Putin will either back down, or show his hand. Personally I think he is bluffing, and he who hesitates is lost.*



Well maybe he is bluffing and maybe he isn't? Many poker games have been won on a bluff? 

Here is one SALT treaty that was never signed between Clinton and Yeltsin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_III


> The talks faced a number of obstacles. Russia opposed the eastward expansion of NATO and American plans to build a limited missile defense system (which would have required changes to or the US withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty). Russia strongly hinted that any progress on START III would be subject to the satisfaction of its concerns on these issues. *In addition, a Russian proposal to reduce stockpiles still further to 1,000-1,500 warheads was opposed by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.*


Now why would the US Joint Chiefs of Staff not want the strategic stockpiles further reduced? ..hmmmm?..because they didn't want THEIR STOCKPILES further reduced because IF THEY DID but the USSR didn't..the US would be at a disavantage, in case of NUCLEAR WWIII.

Now, lets look at the LATEST efforts to reduce the nuclear arsenal of both countries:



> New START replaced the Treaty of Moscow (SORT), which was due to expire in December 2012. In terms of name, *it is a follow-up to the START I treaty, which expired in December 2009*, *the proposed START II treaty, which never entered into force*, and the START III treaty, for which negotiations were never concluded.





> Under terms of the treaty, the number of *strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half*. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism.
> It does not limit the number of operationally inactive stockpiled nuclear warheads that remain in the high thousands in both the Russian and American inventories.[7]


Lets say there is what the Russians consider a serious provocation to their security...Nuclear Armageddon?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

6811 said:


> And Denmark (Greenland) and France (St. Pierre et Miquelon). (We actually have an ongoing minor border dispute with Denmark over an island in the far north.)


This is why I wrote "real border"


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_Now why would the US Joint Chiefs of Staff not want the strategic stockpiles further reduced? ..hmmmm?..because they didn't want THEIR STOCKPILES further reduced because IF THEY DID but the USSR didn't..the US would be at a disavantage, in case of NUCLEAR WWIII.
_ Very interesting logic  but what if USSR DID and US DIDN'T ?!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> We have NORAD and imho it's enough...also don't compare geographical location of Belgium and Canada  We have real border only with US....


Agreed, but what would stop the Russians from doing a sneak attack by ICBM or their latest supersonic nuclear bombers now? Norad may be able to detect them as soon as they cross over the Artic circle ( and maybe the US has military spy satellites up in Polar orbit to replace the, old DEW (Distant Early Warning) radar sites scattered across Canada's far north to warn the US (and Canada) will give early warning of a launch and a unprovoked attack..

....the exact scenario that was feared during the COLD WAR between Russian and the US. 

The Cuban missile crisis with JFK and Kruschev..put the DoomsDay clock one minute closer to midnight..NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON.,
Thank goodness cooler minds prevailed on both sides and the missiles in launchers pointing at the US
were quietly dismantled and shipped back to the USSR.
Kruschev's announcement of "WE WILL BURY YOU"..came very very close to becoming a reality.!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis


All these DEW line sites were dismantled years ago..when Russia entered "Glasnost-Perestroika"
under Gorbachov. 
Not to say it will happen, but ...how can anyone know for sure it isn't going to happen in the future.

Suppose the Russians still have 1000 nuclear weapons (hidden in underground bunkers safe from the watchful eyes of US military satellites), what would stop themfrom pulling them out of storage and lobbing them over the Canadian Arctic (fastest way) to get at the US major cities?

A doomsday scenario that we hope we never see in this millennium.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_what would stop themfrom pulling them out of storage and lobbing them over the Canadian Arctic (fastest way) to get at the US major cities?
A doomsday scenario that we hope we never see in this millenium. _ yeah... but most likely aliens or zombies will attack us that your scenario ... in any case , do you really thing (if this happens) Canadian participation in NATO gonna help?! Or may be opposite?!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

and why Russia need arctic for it if they have bunch of nuclear submarines?!
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russia-submarine-capabilities/

Russia Navy Larger Than U.S. Navy Now...
Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/russi...on-of-ukraine-navy-ships/#18YLFI22Ui9hbPhQ.99


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> _Now why would the US Joint Chiefs of Staff not want the strategic stockpiles further reduced? ..hmmmm?..because they didn't want THEIR STOCKPILES further reduced because IF THEY DID but the USSR didn't..the US would be at a disavantage, in case of NUCLEAR WWIII.
> _ Very interesting logic  but what if USSR DID and US DIDN'T ?!


Then the US WOULD have a nuclear advantage over Russia...basically neither side trusts the other, and without 100% inspections by AN INDEPENDENT UN authorized inspection team like Hans Blix in Iraq BEFORE George W. Bush invaded them..he didn't believe that the UN inspection team told the UN that they did not find any proof of the WMDs being hidden in Iraq and just because their was NO PROOF, that didn't mean that Saddam didn't have them.
George Bush and his Chiefs of Staff didn't believe the UN team because their intelligence told them Saddam had them, but hidden away in underground bunkers..which turned out to be false.

IRAQ and the claim there was WMDs


> Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[9] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[10] despite multiple dissenting opinions[11] and questions of integrity[12][13][14] about the underlying intelligence


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> and why Russia need arctic for it if they have bunch of nuclear submarines?!
> http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russia-submarine-capabilities/
> 
> Russia Navy Larger Than U.S. Navy Now...
> Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/russi...on-of-ukraine-navy-ships/#18YLFI22Ui9hbPhQ.99


..and these are stealth capable subs..that is why the US has an arsenal of nuclear/missile launching/torpedo launching subs in the HUNTER-KILLER
CLASS...they are out there all 24/7 to patrol the shores of the US...against sneak attack by Russian nuclear sub..
while possible but unlikely, due to detection by US underwater surveillance systems.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

We don't know if he believed or not.... he just DIDN'T want to believe! He had another agenga! There is a simple solution .... leave UN... 2 countries should've inspect each other 

btw, you know very well that only USA so far used nukes for military purposes


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

My point that I equaly don't really believe US/NATO or Russia.... doesn't matter who starts such war , everything will be destoyed ... and it will be really stupid if such war will be initiated by US/NATO because East Ukraine wants to separate from Ukraine...


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

carverman said:


> Then the US WOULD have a nuclear advantage over Russia...basically neither side trusts the other, and without 100% inspections by AN INDEPENDENT UN authorized inspection team like Hans Blix in Iraq BEFORE George W. Bush invaded them..he didn't believe that the UN inspection team told the UN that they did not find any proof of the WMDs being hidden in Iraq and just because their was NO PROOF, that didn't mean that Saddam didn't have them.
> George Bush and his Chiefs of Staff didn't believe the UN team because their intelligence told them Saddam had them, but hidden away in underground bunkers..which turned out to be false.
> 
> IRAQ and the claim there was WMDs


"We found the weapons of mass destruction." –President Bush, in an interview with Polish television, May 29, 2003 ( Source ) 

Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" —President Bush, joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, March 25, 2004 ( Source ) 
"It's a slam-dunk case!" –CIA Director George Tenet, discussing WMD and the case for war during a meeting in the Oval Office, Dec. 21, 2002 
Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." –President Bush, 2004 State of the Union Address
And this one is Number 1:
""We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

gibor said:


> My point that I equaly don't really believe US/NATO or Russia.... doesn't matter who starts such war , everything will be destoyed ... and it will be really stupid if such war will be initiated by US/NATO because East Ukraine wants to separate from Ukraine...


Exactly right, and that is why Putin knows he can do whatever he wants, in that neck of the woods.

Most Americans probably don't even know where Ukraine is.............let alone would agree to start WW3 over it.

Putin will have his part of Ukraine............and perhaps in the future.......if he wants, he will have the rest of it.

Then maybe........he might want a slice of another country.........or maybe a whole country.........who knows.

Who is going to stop him ? The US can't even figure out how to stop ISIS........a rag tag military force at best.

In any event.........back to Harper.........like the old saying goes........."money talks and BS walks".

Since the start of this thread, Harper has voted not to give any more funding to NATO..........so his BS walks.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> Exactly right, and that is why Putin knows he can do whatever he wants, in that neck of the woods.
> 
> Most Americans probably don't even know where Ukraine is.............let alone would agree to start WW3 over it.
> 
> ...


Agreed  but the same applies to US/NATO side...... just believe me 99% of Russian knows exactly where is US 

P.S I remember somebody posted image where US guys thinking where Ukraine is 
beleive it or not some Americans thinking that Channel Tunnel connects Europe with ... US 

and ...you know... talk to Europeans (not politicians)...they hate/afraid US much more than Russia

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=334_1365380932 (Germans thing that US more dangerous than Iran )

http://garnetreport.com/5-things-europeans-hate-about-americans/#sthash.AbsMT60b.dpbs


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

carverman said:


> They have all kinds of military bases all over the world, in order to have their military ready at any moment to take the "war home to their enemies, declared war on them, or any other threat to their interests.
> The secret US Air Force base at a tiny island called Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, ensures that their nuclear strike readyB1/ B2 stealth bombers and F117 stealth fighters can reach any target in a matter of minutes or hours.
> Having these bases at strategic points around the world, and support of their extensive aircraft carrier/missile attack cruisers/atomic submarines with Polaris underwater nuclear strike missiles etc..ensures that they will always be ready when called upon.


How is this base a secret if you know about it?
The F-117 has been retired for years ,there are only 20 B-2's left in service.The B-1 force has also been cut back in numbers.In fact what they probably have the most of left is the 1960's era B-52 still chugging along.The real threat is from ICBM's not manned bombers.
Polaris missiles were removed from service years ago (1980) and the current gen is the Trident II


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

carverman said:


> Suppose the Russians still have 1000 nuclear weapons (hidden in underground bunkers safe from the watchful eyes of US military satellites), what would stop themfrom pulling them out of storage and lobbing them over the Canadian Arctic (fastest way) to get at the US major cities?
> 
> A doomsday scenario that we hope we never see in this millennium.


Ever heard of this? It's one reason why uranium prices were lower while this fuel source was being used up.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/n...ilitary-warheads-as-a-source-of-nuclear-fuel/


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

yyz said:


> How is this base a secret if you know about it?


 probably rt.com revealed this secret


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

yyz said:


> Ever heard of this? It's one reason why uranium prices were lower while this fuel source was being used up.
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/n...ilitary-warheads-as-a-source-of-nuclear-fuel/


Wow! enough eneriched uranium 235 and 260 tonnes of Plutonium 239 to destroy the world 50 times over...now we know what the Russians (and the US) have been up to for all these years...fabricating these warheads for "later use'..if need be...of course..when diplomacy fails and they have to resort to beating each other over the head with their
nuclear "swords".

It's good that these nations may be attempting to "beat their swords into ploughshares' (LEU for atomic reactors to generate electricity)....but nevertheless..it scares the "bejezzus" out of me to think how close we came to NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON back in the 60s when the "evil empire" was making them faster than probably the US, and these formidable warheads are not something you can just toss on the scrap heap like other materials made by man.




> The last of the 500 tonnes of HEU was downblended in August 2013 by Russia’s ElectroChemical Plant (ECP) at Zelenogorsk and shipped in November. Other plants involved in the project were Urals Electrochemical Combine at Novouralsk, Siberian Chemical Combine at Seversk, Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Combine, and PA Mayak at Ozersk. *The whole deal is equivalent to 20,000 nuclear warheads and 89 million SWU. *According to Tenex, total revenue was US$17 billion, including hard currency gains and the cost of natural uranium component.


And..if used as LEU (Low energy Uranium) in breeder reactors for generating electricity (like they used in Chernobyl Ukraine) and that cooling accident mishap...it could be very interesting, if some future unforseen problem occurred in one of these.
Naturally, like always, we can be assured the Russians (and Ukranians) have things "under control" and we can sleep soundly that they always have good intentions for the world. 



> T*he half-life of uranium 238 is of 4.5 billion years, while uranium 235 has a half-life of 'only' 700 million years. *Though both isotopes were at the time of Earth formation equally abundant, natural uranium today consists today of 99.3% uranium 238 and only 0.70% uranium 235.


The other interesting thing is that by using "refurbished" uranium isotopes from enriched uranium warheads in breeder reactors..you get...well what do you know!...weapons grade uranium again!
but..I suppose they "don't know this" already.:biggrin:


> Fission of the nuclear fuel in any reactor produces neutron-absorbing fission products. Because of this unavoidable physical process, it is necessary to reprocess the fertile material from a breeder reactor to remove those neutron poisons. This step is required if one is to fully utilize the ability to breed as much or more fuel than is consumed. All reprocessing can present a proliferation concern, since it extracts weapons usable material from spent fuel.[21]


At least our CANDU Canadian reactors are designed differently from the Russian and US reactors.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gibor said:


> We have NORAD and imho it's enough...also don't compare geographical location of Belgium and Canada  We have real border only with US....


You're right, we only have a real border with the US.
We have an openly disputed underwater border with Russia and other northern countries. That's the problem.

My point was that you can say "I'm neutral" as much as you want, but you'll only actually be neutral as long as the other guys decide to leave you alone.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> You're right, we only have a real border with the US.
> We have an openly disputed underwater border with Russia and other northern countries. That's the problem.
> 
> .


Than maybe instead of NATO, Canada need to invest into own "underwater forces"?!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Funy article with pics.... US vs Geography
http://www.boredpanda.com/americans-place-european-countries-on-map/


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Than maybe instead of NATO, Canada need to invest into own "underwater forces"?!


I thought we already had them?:biggrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine

I think we might have gotten a much better deal from the Ukranian Navy..lots of 'Sovesky Soyuz" decommisoned subs in their secret submarine caves that would go real cheap now to the highest bidder...problem is that the manuals are in Russian and so is the instrumentation..."Harasho!" :highly_amused:


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

carverman said:


> I thought we already had them?:biggrin:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine
> 
> I think we got have gotten a much better deal from the Ukranian Navy..lots of 'Sovesky Soyuz" decommisoned subs in their secret submarine caves that would go real cheap now to the highest bidder...problem is that the manuals are in Russian and so is the instrumentation..."Harasho!" :highly_amused:


The personal can use google translator  the problem that there can be some unappropriate sleng


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

These Upholder/Victoria Class subs haven't exactly been a screaming success. They were out of service for 10 years before they were sold to Canada and have seemed to have issues ever since. I remember being in Portsmouth in the mid-nineties and seeing a bunch of decommissioned subs lying on there sides on the mudflats at low tide. The pictures that came out of the Soviet/Russian sub yard at Polyarny near Murmansk were similar - the peace dividend. Also recall that we bought 4 of these - this is our submarine fleet. And bear in mind that these are diesel-electric boats - good for sneaking up on things but not so much for long operations in the far north and under ice. If we ever got serious about the north we would need at least a few nuclear boats and to upgrade our ice-breaking fleet considerably.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

uptoolate said:


> If we ever got serious about the north we would need at least a few nuclear boats and to upgrade our ice-breaking fleet considerably.


Maybe for time being Canada need to hire "vodolaz" (divers) 

but seriously Canadian list of icebreakers looks pretty depressing , last one was built 27 years ago
CCGS Northern Light (1876–1890; sold)
CCGS Mikula (1916; sold to Russia)[4]
CCGS Saurel (1929–1967; broken up)[4]
CCGS N.B. McLean (1930–1979; broken up)
CCGS Ernest Lapointe (1939–1978; museum ship)
CCGS D'Iberville (1952–1983; broken up)
CCGS Labrador (1954–1987; broken up)
CCGS Alexander Henry (1959–1984; museum ship)
CCGS John A. Macdonald (1960–1991; broken up)
CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent (1969–)
CCGS Amundsen (1979–)
CCGS Des Groseilliers (1982–)
CCGS Terry Fox (1983–)
CCGS Henry Larsen (1987–)
CCGS Pierre Radisson (1987–)
CCGS John G. Diefenbaker (2020s–; proposed)


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Yep this pretty much sums up our level of commitment and not just to the north of course. Most are happy (along with most Europeans) to let the Americans do the heavy lifting.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

uptoolate said:


> These Upholder/Victoria Class subs haven't exactly been a screaming success. They were out of service for 10 years before they were sold to Canada and have seemed to have issues ever since. I remember being in Portsmouth in the mid-nineties and seeing a bunch of decommissioned subs lying on there sides on the mudflats at low tide. The pictures that came out of the Soviet/Russian sub yard at Polyarny near Murmansk were similar - the peace dividend. Also recall that we bought 4 of these - this is our submarine fleet. And bear in mind that these are diesel-electric boats - good for sneaking up on things but not so much for long operations in the far north and under ice. If we ever got serious about the north we would need at least a few nuclear boats and to upgrade our ice-breaking fleet considerably.


Diesel/electric..koff! koff! is WWII era U-Boats with some modern conveniences. Not exactly good for under 5-10 feet of ice in Canada's far north
and these subs have to surface for the diesels to recharge the batteries..sitting ducks for any modern enemy subs.
We really have to get nuclear subs to be really effective.
Even surface ships, like the patrol frigate program can get picked off very easily by the Russian subs..it they really want to.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Maybe for time being Canada need to hire "vodolaz" (divers)
> 
> but seriously Canadian list of icebreakers looks pretty depressing , last one was built 27 years ago


Even before that. We built them out of wood..the most famous the St. Roch which circumnavigated the North West Passage in 1940-42..
Took them 2 years to get through from the west coast to the east coast. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Roch_(ship)



> CCGS John G. Diefenbaker (2020s–; proposed)


What?... the Canadian Coast Guard is going to name one of their ships after "Dief the Chief" who killed our fighter aircraft industry in 1957?

Heresy!! What will they think of next? ..naming another one after "bags o cash" Mulroney?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_CCGS John G. Diefenbaker (2020s–; proposed) _ don't worry  it's just proposal ... doubt if it's serious...

but, seriously, considering Canadian Arctic region I kinda surprised  Maybe Canada stop buiding any icebreakers for last 27 years waiting for Global Warming (kinda why too spend $$$ and ice gonna melt by yourself) 

again, imho, Canada and Russia should communicate and work together in Arctic region ...that will benefit both countries


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_Heresy!! What will they think of next?_ sponsorship of Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> _Heresy!! What will they think of next?_ sponsorship of Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien


HMCS "Shawinagate." :biggrin: 

Jean ("I will kill the GST if elected Prime Minster") Chretien...instead he killed the EH101 Helicopter contract!




> The cancellation of the EH101 helicopter program in 1994 by Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government stopped a much-needed program to replace the fleet of aging Sea King helicopters with a modern multipurpose (land and sea) helicopter.
> 
> The cancellation of the program was little more than crass politics on the part of the Chrétien government, which actually cost Canadian taxpayers $900 million in cancellation fees. The cancellation resulted in the loss of over 1,000 Canadian high tech jobs at Paramax Electronics of Montreal, the prime contractor, and hundreds if not thousands more jobs across the Canadian aerospace industry.
> 
> This Liberal approach ended up placing our Canadian soldiers at increased risk in Afghanistan because they had to hitch rides from our allies when deploying on operations and for medevac of Canadian wounded. *Ultimately we had to rent helicopters to ferry our Canadian troops*.




yes, we should really name one of our Artic patrol boats after Chretien who killed the deal on the EH101 maritime patrol helicopter deal, that we badly needed to replace the aging Seakings..(which were about 50 years old)and literally falling out of the sky.."Bags o' Cash" B. Mulroney negotiated the deal and then the Cons got defeated . The Fiberals got in with Chretien (Shawinigate. Sponsorship scandal/Adscam, and the resulting Gomery inquiry)..
the cancellation on that deal cost taxpayers over 500 million and absolutely nothing to show for that money...
NOT EVEN ONE new EH101 HELICOPTER!...Canadian history repeating..(Diefenbaker killed the Avro Arrow) due to political whims of the day...





> In January 1998, Chrétien's government announced that the CH-113 helicopters would be replaced by a scaled-down search-and-rescue variant of the EH101, carrying the designation CH-149 Cormorant. Unlike the Petrel/Chimo contract which Chrétien had cancelled in 1993, these 15 aircraft were to be built entirely in Europe with no Canadian participation or industrial incentives. The first two aircraft arrived in Canada in September 2001 and entered service the following year. His Maritime Helicopter Project was supposed to find a low-cost replacement aircraft. The candidates were the Sikorsky S-92, the NHIndustries NH90 and the EH-101, although critics accused the government of designing the project so as to prevent AgustaWestland from winning the contract. A winner, the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone, would not be announced until after Chrétien retired.






> Until the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the Chrétien government tended to be hostile towards defense spending with the government's white paper "Defense 94" declaring that in a post-Cold War world there would be less and less need for armed forces, which accordingly meant reduced budgets for the military.[104] The Canadian historian Jack Granatstein in his 2004 book *Who Killed the Canadian Military? *accused the Chrétien government of putting the military in the uncomfortable position in the 1990s of having to do more and more UN peacekeeping missions while cutting defense spending at the same time.


IMO, there should be NO ships named after any of Canada's recent prime ministers. Pearson airport in Toronto and Pierre Elliot
Trudeau Airport (Dorval) is probably as far as we need to go to honour the recent PMs.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

carverman said:


> Jean ("I will kill the GST if elected Prime Minster") Chretien...instead he killed the EH101 Helicopter contract!
> 
> yes, we should really name one of our Artic patrol boats after Chretien who killed the deal on the EH101 maritime patrol helicopter deal, that we badly needed to replace the aging Seakings..(which were about 50 years old)and literally falling out of the sky.."Bags o' Cash" B. Mulroney negotiated the deal and then the Cons got defeated . The Fiberals got in with Chretien (Shawinigate. Sponsorship scandal/Adscam, and the resulting Gomery inquiry)..
> the cancellation on that deal cost taxpayers over 500 million and absolutely nothing to show for that money...
> NOT EVEN ONE new EH101 HELICOPTER!...Canadian history repeating..(Diefenbaker killed the Avro Arrow) due to political whims of the day...


A few things to point out. 

First, killing the EH101 was a campaign promise as the Liberals portrayed them as cadillacs. Some ended up being purchased for SAR, and it turns out there was some design flaw with rotor cracks that appeared. Just an aside really.

Secondly, they had nothing to do with ferrying troops in Afghanistan as they are for completely different roles. It was the Chinooks that are used for in theatre troop transport and they were sold off to the Dutch by the Mulroney government. Not too happy when CDN troops were being ferried by the Dutch in the same helicopters that we sold them.

Thirdly, it's nice to take a quote out of the Who Killed the Canadian Military? out of context. The conclusion is that it is the general CDN public who is to blame as every government will reduce funding to the military as it is an easy political sell, with no reprecussions.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

carverman said:


> Well maybe he is bluffing and maybe he isn't? Many poker games have been won on a bluff?
> 
> Lets say there is what the Russians consider a serious provocation to their security...Nuclear Armageddon?


Helping Ukraine deal with rebels as per the agreement, that Russia signed too, is not a provocation to Russia's security. It isn't right to abandon them.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

carverman said:


> Suppose the Russians still have 1000 nuclear weapons (hidden in underground bunkers safe from the watchful eyes of US military satellites), what would stop themfrom pulling them out of storage and lobbing them over the Canadian Arctic (fastest way) to get at the US major cities?


They would think of all the McDonald's stores that would be lost, and change their mind.

And why ICBM's? Isn't nuclear armed cruise missiles from subs the order of the day for surprise attacks?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> A few things to point out.
> 
> First, killing the EH101 was a campaign promise as the Liberals portrayed them as cadillacs. Some ended up being purchased for SAR, and it turns out there was some design flaw with rotor cracks that appeared. Just an aside really.


Rotor cracks aside, and few other models have had rotor cracks. On new production, these things can happen just like in cars. Aircraft are inspected more frequently than other modes of transportation. to detect any anomalies in the]
first few months of service. [/quote]

And what did we end up with?.. after WASTING $500 MILLION OR MAYBE IT MAS CLOSER TO $900 MILLION?(practically a billion down the drain)?..after cancelling the EH101 in favour of the Sikorsky S-92/Cyclone .a variant at a lessor price..the Canadian military set their sights on a "cadillac" and instead they were given a "pinto"...



> So much in the way of new electronics equipment and weapons systems has been added to Canada’s demands that the Cyclone has grown too heavy for the originally planned engines. Adding more powerful engines has in turn *required the redesign of many other aspects of the aircraft – a difficult, expensive and time-consuming process.*
> 
> Adding to the problems, the Cyclone is based on a civilian variant, the Sikorsky S-92, w*hich experienced a catastrophic accident off Newfoundland in 2009 after titanium studs in the main gearbox sheered off*. The Transportation Safety Board later stated: “Both Sikorsky and the FAA [US Federal Aviation Authority] indicated that a loss of lubricant from the [main gearbox] oil filter bowl due to a failure of its attaching fasteners was not considered when performing the initial design assessment based on past service history.”


read on about Canada's helicopter fiasco... (auditor general) 



> According to Ms. Fraser, in 2000 the “total indicative costs of the 28 maritime helicopters were estimated at $2.8-billion and revised to $3.1-billion in 2003”. She estimated an actual cost of $5.7-billion over 20 years, with this estimate not including “contracted Sea King support, new infrastructure, Canadian Forces personnel, and ongoing operating costs.” In short, the price of the helicopters had doubled, and is probably continuing to rise


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ill-no-helicopters-for-canada/article8435147/


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> Pierre Elliot
> Trudeau Airport (Dorval) is probably as far as we need to go to honour the recent PMs.


And why wasn't, (if it HAD to be done at all), Mirabel Airport renamed after Trudeau, (hung around his neck like The Rime of the Ancient Mariner), rather than Dorval?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

carverman said:


> Rotor cracks aside, and few other models have had rotor cracks. On new production, these things can happen just like in cars. Aircraft are inspected more frequently than other modes of transportation. to detect any anomalies in the]
> first few months of service.


There is a difference between a design flaw and parts that are failing more rapidly than expected, i.e. GM ignition problem or Pinto vs ball bearings seizing too quickly.

Trust me, I'm quite aware of the problems with the helicopter program and not defending the cancellation. My point was that it was an election promise and a political issue.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Pluto said:


> Helping Ukraine deal with rebels as per the agreement, that Russia signed too, is not a provocation to Russia's security. It isn't right to abandon them.


Would Canada/US/NATO help GB if GB declares Scotlsh people rebels (after referendum) and start fighting them?!


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

gibor said:


> Would Canada/US/NATO help GB if GB declares Scotlsh people rebels (after referendum) and start fighting them?!


Wouldn't want to go in there. The UK's nukes are all in Scotland. UK would be helpless vs. a nuclear armed Scotland.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Would Canada/US/NATO help GB if GB declares Scotlsh people rebels (after referendum) and start fighting them?!


GB or Scotland the Brave? Of course we will...didn't you see Braveheart? We can even send over our Scottish Regiment to show them...er...our stuff..:biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Scotland has all the oil, too.
All the UK will be left with are a bunch of corrupt, insolvent, criminal banks such as RBS, Barclays, and HSBC :biggrin:


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> Scotland has all the oil, too.
> All the UK will be left with are a bunch of corrupt, insolvent, criminal banks such as RBS, Barclays, and HSBC :biggrin:


And a whole whack of ISIS wannabees.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> And a whole whack of ISIS wannabees.


About that...people who live in glass houses...

*Canadians have joined ISIS to fight -- and die -- in Syria*


----------



## cashinstinct (Apr 4, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> And why wasn't, (if it HAD to be done at all), Mirabel Airport renamed after Trudeau, (hung around his neck like The Rime of the Ancient Mariner), rather than Dorval?


Because the Mirabel Airport is now a dump, so it would not be an honour !


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

cashinstinct said:


> Because the Mirabel Airport is now a dump, so it would not be an honour !


_That_ is a matter of opinion. :wink:


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> About that...people who live in glass houses...
> 
> *Canadians have joined ISIS to fight -- and die -- in Syria*


Self-inflicted wounds on the part of both Canada & Britain........however, I do like the "and die" part. :biggrin:


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

How much does Switzerland spend on military ? Some say so much wealth is stored there they are less likely to get attacked. Maybe Canada could become more like Switzerland if Switzerland is spending less could we not copy them ?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Nemo2 said:


> Self-inflicted wounds on the part of both Canada & Britain........however, I do like the "and die" part. :biggrin:


Very conserning  
_The Government works closely with law enforcement partners to prevent violent extremism by building prevention capacity in local communities. Where appropriate, this includes targeted early intervention with individuals who have not yet crossed the threshold to violent extremist activity. For extremist travellers, a High Risk Travel Case Management Group examines individual cases to tailor the best response. _
this is where government should spend money and not on sending troops/equipment to Ukraine and Afganistan


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

gibor said:


> targeted early intervention with individuals who have not yet crossed the threshold to violent extremist activity.


Rather than focus on those who might be influenced, how about cracking down on those who are doing the influencing?


----------



## cashinstinct (Apr 4, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> _That_ is a matter of opinion. :wink:


You are joking right?

They are destroying the main gate because they have nothing to do with it now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...au-s-white-elephant-to-be-torn-down-1.2628421



> The Mirabel airport terminal is no longer economically viable and will soon be no more, says Aéroports de Montréal president and CEO James Cherry.
> 
> The authority launched a call for tenders on Thursday to demolish the Mirabel terminal.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

cashinstinct said:


> You are joking right?
> 
> They are destroying the main gate because they have nothing to do with it now.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...au-s-white-elephant-to-be-torn-down-1.2628421


As I indicated previously......let me rephrase that......as I (apparently unsuccessfully) _attempted_ to indicate.......renaming Mirabel after P.E.T. (especially since it's being demolished), would be apropos 'honor-wise'.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 1, 2013)

Article in the Ottawa Citizen today generally agrees with my views on our need to improve our Air and Naval strength.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/victor-suthren-strength-at-sea-for-canada


----------

