[Scape]

Truth hurts.

[sasquatch2]

One of lifes little ironies is that those who claim to be truthful are usually liars.

It's sorta like Maggie Thatchers said "If you are a lady you do not have to announce it."

[bootlegga]

As long as we're an independent nation with an airspace, NORAD will never be obsolete.

[BluesBud]

The way things are starting to heat up between Putin and Bush the second cold war could be warming up.....ah, chilling out.....well you get the idea.

Besides we need to keep an eye on our north. Maybe the time has come for us to man it ourselves. It seems everybody wants to call "the true north strong and Canadian" their's.

[Zipperfish]

Scape Scape:

Is NORAD obsolete?

Does a bear s**t in the woods?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Are the Kennedys gun shy?

[Zipperfish]

BluesBud BluesBud:

The way things are starting to heat up between Putin and Bush the second cold war could be warming up.....ah, chilling out.....well you get the idea.

Besides we need to keep an eye on our north. Maybe the time has come for us to man it ourselves. It seems everybody wants to call "the true north strong and Canadian" their's.

The fact is that Russia is sliding back to an autocracy. Bush's "my way or the highway" will simply expedite a Sino-Russian alliance. The Northwest Passge will become very lucrative once climate change starts to really hit.

All these factors point to tension in the north, so I think NORAD will continue to be useful for that reason.

[Scape]

Yes, the idea that we are a pawn if we can not take care of our own airspace is crystal clear. Our claims of sovereignty are just that, claims. Until there is muscle behind it in the form of a disciplined and well equipped domestic force then we will only be a pawn waiting for either the Russian bear to take a swipe at us or the American elephant to roll over on us. Being in NORAD does nothing to further or defend our national interests anymore that what we can do already or should be already doing in our own stead.

[kevlarman]

Just a few years ago I might have said yes to NORAD's growing obsolesence but that would've been a foolish thing to do. With Russia planting a flag under the water of the north pole, the USA sending a ship through the northwest passage and the increasing need the world has on oil I'd say that NORAD is far from useless. However, I do suspect that when a more sober, secular and definately smarter administration gets in office down here that we'll probably stop hearing about the USA's claims on the northwest passage.

Now as it stands we have just as much to worry about a beligerent President Bush's territorial claims and a beligerent President Putin's territorial claims. By utilizing these two giants against each other, by signing agreements with the other Polar countries in Europe we can reduce our risks all over the board, pit our two largest headaches against each other in a new cold war and more effectively manage our defences in the region.

We stand more to gain by sharing our resources in the North ( for a reasonable profit of course ) and I think we'll accomplish that with the next administration not the current one. This one is more concerned with the second coming of Christ, not the common sense sharing of energy and defence resourses against Russia. So those of you who think we ONLY have to worry about the Russians had better start googling the statements being made by this CURRENT administration pertaining to Arctic territorial claims.

Just my very humble civilian opinion.

[sasquatch2]

Only LIBRANOs think Canadian patriotism involves being anti-american.

HOCKEY PUCKS

[kevlarman]

There is a distinct difference between being Pro-Canadian and Anti-American. You don't have to hate America to dislike what it does. That's just an easy argument used by those who don't want the conversation they're in to go deeper into the truth. I like America. I live in America. I am a proud member of it's Law Enforcement in Houston. And I like to watch Fox News as much as CNN and Lou Dobbs. However, one would have to be blind not to see the HUGE flaw in ONLY worrying about Russia's desire for the Arctic and not caring at all about America's designs for the region which I might add most definately include plenty of oil barrels and dollar signs and very, VERY little concern about Canadian Sovereignty or environmental concerns in the region.

[BartSimpson]

The Russians have officially resumed long range missions with nuclear armed bombers so the answer, again, is no, NORAD is not obsolete.

Especially where Russia is laying claims to Canadian territory.

[Toro]

Scape Scape:

With the absorption of most of the former Warsaw pact members into NATO prodding Russia to ultra nationalism I would say 'Yes'. Backing a bear into a corner...

I can see allowing Georgia into NATO as being provocative, but maintaining a defense pact that is 50 years old and designed precisely to stop a Russian aerial attack probably is not.

[Scape]

Toro Toro:

Scape Scape:

With the absorption of most of the former Warsaw pact members into NATO prodding Russia to ultra nationalism I would say 'Yes'. Backing a bear into a corner...

I can see allowing Georgia into NATO as being provocative, but maintaining a defense pact that is 50 years old and designed precisely to stop a Russian aerial attack probably is not.

Canada defending its own airspace is important but is NORAD the most effective vehicle for that? NORAD was created in a time when the biggest threat was M.A.D and soviet bombers coming over the arctic. It's why we created the D.E.W line and the Avro arrow interceptor. At the time it was in context to a credible threat posed by an aggressive foreign military power. Does Putin's Russia warrant the same response when the threat could just as easily come from Kim Jong Il or Usama? When the focus was Communist Russia then NORAD had purpose but the threat has changed. It's not that NORAD was a bad idea it's that you must use the right tool for the right job. The threat has become decentralized so the response must in turn become decentralized least it become easily outflanked. We are not using responses in the most prudent manner when we are focused on fighting old wars. The airspace over our heads is our responsibility and we must seriously look into better protecting it ourselves rather than believe in the false gods that is a mutual defence pact. I'm certain that the US and their NORAD allies will help in a time of need regardless of status in NORAD and we can just as well utilize joint air excises within a flexible international defence pact rather than some rigid cold war entity that has morphed into the modern day NORAD that has more to do with a cocktail party for flag officers than having real meaning on defence issues.

[Clogeroo]

How is NORAD not cost effective especially for Canada? The United States is funding most of it. Not to mention...

The USAF is the largest and most technologically advanced air force in the world, with about 6013 manned aircraft in service (4,282 USAF; 1,321 Air National Guard; and 410 Air Force Reserve); approximately 160 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles, 2161 Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, and 500 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles; and as of September 30, 2006, had 334,200 personnel on active duty, 120,369 in the Selected and Individual Ready Reserves, and 107,000 in the Air National Guard. An additional 10,675 personnel were in the Standby Reserve and the Air Force employed 168,558 civilian personnel.

RCAF

Regular Force personnel: 14,500
Reserve Force: 2,600
Civilians: 2,500
All aircraft 370

The United States even has two air force bases in Alaska what do we have? Our most northern air force base is Goose Bay. We have what 80 F-18 Hornets? If we were left defending our airspace we would probably have every nation taking a claim out of it. The reality is the united states defends Canada and I have yet to see any real commitment by any government to actually try and defend ourselves on our own or at least share our cost burden that the united states is paying for. In order to do that then the armed forces is going to need a lot more funding and personnel to do so. But of course usually the same people who detest the Americans are the same ones who detest our armed forces budget increasing. I guess they just don't want us to have any defence and would rather sit here in our sandals smoking marijuana.

*Note the shortest route for any missile to travel is over the northern polar route hence why watching and defending it should be a priority.

[SprCForr]

Yep, they're back sniffing around again.

The Bears are back...