[Canadian_Mind]

Bruce, who have you talked to thank thinks 40 planes are adequate? Thats barely enough to maintain a single combat squadron and a single (half) training squadron. Have you ever travelled across the country? The place is huge. No matter where you put the single squadron, you wouldn't be able to get to any of the coastlines ontime to intercept hijacked planes, enemy bombers, etc.

We were very lucky that the cold war didn't turn hot. Thats the only reason why we were able to act as "peacekeepers". Had it ever gone hot, we would have found our military inadequate, and while we were tryng to mobilise our troops to fight in Europe, 60s era Russian bombers would have been dropping 2500 pound bombs on our cities and industrial complexes virtually unopposed by our limited airforce. We would not have been as well protected by the US as you think we would have been, because their entire military strategy was based around either all-out nuclear warfare, or a ground war in europe with an air war over alaska and along the US coastline. They would have helped us where they could, but they didn't allocate resources specifically to "defend Canadians" back then, nor do they today. There were certainly joint protection measures, such as NORAD, the DEW line, etc. But only when it suited them. At the end of the day when an American combat squadron had to choose between defending 20 000 Americans in Anchorage, Alaska or 600 000 Canadians in Edmonton, they would have told us we were up the fucking creek. Sad reality is that all we really weren't much more to them than a resource cache and a buffer zone between them and Russia.

Taking more lessons from the past, we can't see the future. It is highly unlikely WWIII will break out tommorow. But just as quickly as WWI, WWII, the advent of the cold war, the Korean War, and everything inbetween broke up, our world could seriously go to shit. And we better be prepared for it, because the worst case scenario see's a declining Europe and USA unable to protct us from the badguys anymore, whether they want too or not. We might be able to see it brewing a month, a year, or even several years ahead of time. But unless we are already prepared and have equipment ready, we will never be ready for the outbreak of war on our home front.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The newspapers are reporting Liberal focus group polling has alterted them to the unpopularity of the F35, rather the $16 billion. I talked to quite a number of people and they suggested 40 or so stealth capable fighters would do.

There is not going to be a major power war in the next century. All the major poweres want to do business with each other. They are nuclear armed. The smart weapons alone are weapons of mass destruction.

Canada has a miniscule miitary and it has to pick a specialty, a niche. Traditionally we have done peace keeping.

[Canadian_Mind]

it was a Liberal focus group poll? be more definitive, and provide a link if possible. I don't trust polls unless they are done by a non-partisan polling source.

Again, I specifically asked "who" you talked to, not how many. You can ask any individual on the street what their opinion is, and 9 times out of ten they'll be so uninformed that their opinion is useless as a fact. All it is, is an opinion.

People who research a subject are better, perferably if they aren't tied to any specific political party or orginisation. There are alot of retired USAF types that are downright fearfull of the F-35 procurement. Not because they are afraid of technology (airforce has always been on the bleeding edge), rather it's because they were around during the heydays of the F-4 and see the same problems that adversely effected the F-4 having the same effects on the F-35 program.

The best people to talk to are the fighter pilots, seeing as how this is their niche. Now, if you've personally talked to a fighter pilot or non-partisan airforce strategist who says 40 stealth aircraft are enough to defend this country, you win this debate. But I highly highly doubt you have.

You saying there isn't going to be a war this century makes you just as fucking daft as the Brits after Chamberlain declared "Peace in our Time" after the Munich Agreement. As a result, WWII broke out when it did, and as a result 60 million people died. The casualty rate would have been 1/10th that had the Brits and the French snuffed out Germany when they first broke the Treaty of Versailles. War will happen. It always has, and it always will. The only questions are where, and when. There will never be a day where we all get to sit around a big campfire holding hands singing Kumbai ya. The day there is true peace on this planet is the day every species has gone extinct.

I'm no war mongerer, having freinds die sucks. But war is a fact of life, and it is better to be prepared for it and be able to proect your way of life, then it is to live on your knees and become someones lapdog while enemy troops take your wife to call their own, brainwash your children to live by their ideals, etc. Or worse, you are all killed, and the only reason you deserve to be killed is the fact that you exist in the first place. Again, it happened in history, again WWII: German occupation of Poland, and subsequent countries across Europe.

Yes we do have a miniscule military, and we should pick a specialty. That specialty should be the defense of Canada, it's interests, its sovereignty, and it's people.

Further, what do you think peacekeeping is, and what do you think it accomplishes?

[saturn_656]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

The newspapers are reporting Liberal focus group polling has alterted them to the unpopularity of the F35, rather the $16 billion. I talked to quite a number of people and they suggested 40 or so stealth capable fighters would do.

Well thank Christ focus groups are not calling the shots. We'd be really hooped then.

$1:

There is not going to be a major power war in the next century. All the major poweres want to do business with each other. They are nuclear armed. The smart weapons alone are weapons of mass destruction.

Hey bro... got the lottery numbers for the next few Lotto Max draws too?

$1:

Canada has a miniscule miitary and it has to pick a specialty, a niche. Traditionally we have done peace keeping.

[Demian_164]

if we are really that stupid to only spend enough on defence for our "peacekeeping" missions then we deserve whatever we get in the future. how can you say "there will be no major conflict in the next century"..what century didnt have at least one major conflict? there is huge potential for conflict in the coming century and we arent preparing ourselves because we think america will do it all for us, just like the european countries do.

i am reminded of that fire story from tenessee.

[Bruce_the_vii]

There's a report in the newspaper that focus groups have alerted the Liberals to the questionability of the F35 for Canada, politically. It's a reasonable poll. It's just a paragraph I read last month, I have no link.

I talked to rather a lot of people on the street about the F35 and they have the idea it's too expensive and will never be used.

War will happen, it's true. However it won't be between the major powers. They are all nuclear armed and they all want to stick to business, not built empires. The days of empires is long gone. Have you thought about this at all? A cruise missile attack on the oil refineries of a major country would paralize the country over night, in 24 hour. Even if the USA goes into depression it's military will be armed with all these high tech weapons that could devaste a tin pot dictator. Ditto for NATO.

Canada's military is miniscule and peace keeping is one thing it could do. The thing of it is the other countries have refused to do peace keeping in the past. Germany and Japan wouldn't let their military cross the border. The other thing is Canada should arm with something that will be used, and using it, contributing, would give us world wide credit. It's one idea. I got it from talking to people.

[Demian_164]

i dont get how from "talking to people" you can claim to know the collective will of all the major powers on the planet and what their intentions are with the next century...

the purpose of the canadian forces is to defend its citizens. how can it do that with 40 fighters on the second largest country on earth?

"people" like to talk about peacekeeping because it makes them feel good about their country and themselves.

[SprCForr]

Talking about niches, I'd argue that Canada's traditional niche would be assault of heavily defended locations frontally.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

The newspapers are reporting Liberal focus group polling has alterted them to the unpopularity of the F35, rather the $16 billion. I talked to quite a number of people and they suggested 40 or so stealth capable fighters would do.

There is not going to be a major power war in the next century. All the major poweres want to do business with each other. They are nuclear armed. The smart weapons alone are weapons of mass destruction.

Canada has a miniscule miitary and it has to pick a specialty, a niche. Traditionally we have done peace keeping.

The problem with the $16 billion or so number is too many ppl are discounting the fact that $10 billion of that could potentially come back to Canada in the form of parts and maintenance contracts over the next 15-20 years. One Canadian company already has a $1 billion 10 year contract upon Canada purchasing the F-35.

Second, the F-35 was actually Liberal policy. Remember when Chretien cancelled the EH-101 contract? He did so to help fund the development of the F-35. That would indicate to me at least that the previous Liberal gov't wasn't too concerned about this aircraft being "sole-sourced".
What Iggy is essentially saying is, the Liberal gov't was wrong to fund this project. And now he wants us to trust the Liberals to "fix" it.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I call myself an "activist" and I talk to rather a lot of people. It's a small poll, that's all. It's worth doing, I get corrected all the time.

There's some arm chair military strategists here on CKA but, frankly, I don't actually think they are very good strategists. I haven't done much reading on the military but the guys here strike me as loose talkers. They talk about major conflicts. There are no empires or that anymore. All the developed countries like to sit in the counting house tabulating GDP. There's the USA and NATO to call, There's smart bombs, which would be devasting. On the other hand Viet Nam and Iraq where disasters financially, affecting the world. Geurilla wars. All the developed countries are headed for debt levels that would prohibit another "police action" like Irag. So high tech wars are not as important as some scenario like Sadam Huissen who attacked the worlds oil supply not once, but twice.

[Gunnair]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

I call myself an "activist" and I talk to rather a lot of people. It's a small poll, that's all. I get corrected all the time.

There's some arm chair military strategists here on CKA but, frankly, I don't actually think they are very good strategists. I haven't done much reading on the military but the guys here strike me as loose talkers.

Bruce also wrote:

$1:

I talked to people and they thought 40 planes or so would do and that Canada should re-equip for our traditional role as peace keeper.

Yeah... I hope the irony isn't lost on you...

[PublicAnimalNo9]

To be honest, the ONLY issue I have with the F-35 is the lack of a 2nd powerplant.

When it comes to this however;

$1:

So high tech wars are not as important as some scenario like Sadam Huissen who attacked the worlds oil supply not once, but twice.

stealth is still a major benfit when it comes to AAA and SAMs. It's a lot harder to shoot something you can't see. Unless of course we still want pilots running Wild Weasels to neutralize those threats first.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Loose talkers. I dunno.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Something like hardened targets is difficult, facinates, however in Iraq they lost 130 in battle and 4000 to the guerrilas. Also some trillions in cost, paid by borrowing.

[Gunnair]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Loose talkers. I dunno.

And your training and experience make you eminently more qualified to comment on this?

Or is that really just training and experience to quiz a bunch of local humps on the street before handing out your opinion while dismissing everyone else as an armchair tactician and loose talker.

Yeah... thought so.