News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

AlvinofDiaspar said:
The more badly someone wanted to deny access, the more important it is for us to have it. And if they are going to remove the economic lever given their stance thus far, the only avenue left to them is military.

AoD
Click to expand...

Sentiment is fine. But the US threatened to invade Cuba to stop nuclear weapons being placed there. I imagine the reaction would be the same to any attempt by Canada to start a nuclear weapons program. We don't need nukes anyway. We need to develop economic measures that make conflict with Canada very unappealing. Keep in mind this is a country that elected Trump over inflation being a few points too high. What do you think they would do to him and his cronies if inflation was even higher? An invasion itself would destroy the US economically and geopolitically. So I don't see that happening.
 
Northern Light said:
The Globe has an article out suggesting that a joint program for developing new diesle electric subs by Germany and Norway would like Canada to join and in exchange get early access to the product:

www.theglobeandmail.com

Germany and Norway offer Canada early access to new submarines in pitch to join project

German ambassador to Canada says if Ottawa agrees to buy the 212 CD, a submarine under development by TKMS, it will not have to wait for 12 vessels to first be delivered to Germany and Norway
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the French doing this:


We don't need much earlier access. What we need, with such a large order, is a real partnership. And that includes a willingness to build them partially, or wholly, in Canada.
 
kEiThZ said:
Reminds me of the French doing this:


We don't need much earlier access. What we need, with such a large order, is a real partnership. And that includes a willingness to build them partially, or wholly, in Canada.
Click to expand...

I had understood South Korea to be a likely frontrunner to supply our new subs.

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on differences in cost, end product quality, and industrial benefit to Canada between these.
 
Northern Light said:
I had understood South Korea to be a likely frontrunner to supply our new subs.

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on differences in cost, end product quality, and industrial benefit to Canada between these.
Click to expand...

I have a preference for South Korean kit. The quality is really there.

All that said, like the fighters, I just want to see an honest process followed and that we don't just run off and pick a solution based on (real or perceived) American pressure.

My stretch desire? This country starts having a real conversation on guarding Arctic sovereignty without the US. This means a military that has sufficient expeditionary capability to deploy to the Arctic wherever and whenever necessary. This means persistent surveillance with drones, seafloor and space sensors. This may even mean nuclear submarines. Or at least enough subs that friendlies have to worry about collision risk and discloser their ops to us. And hostiles are substantially deterred from entering our Arctic waters. And all of this should not be treated as optional. As defence has been treated for basically my whole life. If we genuinely want the Americans to stop treating us like a plaything, this is what it will take. Not theatrics like not buying American ketchup.
 
kEiThZ said:
[https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...cle_80edfa37-2a20-5988-bee5-b5acd3bf5096.html

I'm not saying it was the Russians but.....
Click to expand...
Curious.

Possibly one of those clapped-out flag-of-convenience ships under contract to some Russian shell company that just happened to have problems with its anchor brake.

It would put control of arctic waters into perspective if we can't control our temperate waters.

AIS records should be helpful and any ships found operating in our waters without an AIS should be subject to boarding.
 
kEiThZ said:
And we've long refused to fund the kind of capabilities needed to counter this. Our Coast Guard should have infrastructure protection vessels.
Click to expand...
There's been a lot of talk over the years whether or not our Coast Guard should be an armed service like the US. Some people think it is as simple as slapping a couple of .50 cals on their ships. It's a lot more complex than that but I think there are merits to developing a 'constabulary fleet' for the CG, similar to the white fleet vs black fleet in the USCG.
 
lenaitch said:
There's been a lot of talk over the years whether or not our Coast Guard should be an armed service like the US. Some people think it is as simple as slapping a couple of .50 cals on their ships. It's a lot more complex than that but I think there are merits to developing a 'constabulary fleet' for the CG, similar to the white fleet vs black fleet in the USCG.
Click to expand...

I think there needs to be varying levels of equipment given that we essentially have 3 very different coast lines.

The Arctic and Atlantic coasts should have the means to assert our sovereignty if required. We need to be able to say "Try it, I dare you" if Russia, America, China or others try to cause problems.

On the Pacific coast it is not so bad but we still need someone to patrol the areas in conjunction with other agencies.
 
Richard White said:
I think there needs to be varying levels of equipment given that we essentially have 3 very different coast lines.

The Arctic and Atlantic coasts should have the means to assert our sovereignty if required. We need to be able to say "Try it, I dare you" if Russia, America, China or others try to cause problems.

On the Pacific coast it is not so bad but we still need someone to patrol the areas in conjunction with other agencies.
Click to expand...
I'm no sure I agree. Enforcing domestic laws within our territorial jurisdiction and, as mentioned, infrastructure protection, would be fairly universal with the exception of unique needs of the Arctic simply because of the environment. Military or even quasi-military aggression from a foreign power is not a civilian role.
 
This is by far the best analysis I've seen on both the current state of the CAF and the absolute ignorance of military issues across Canadian society, our elites and our political class. Highly worth the listen.


A lot of people still don't get it. All our major parties are still posturing, thinking that military spending is about buying them access. None of them are genuinely acting like we might face a war. But if we actually want to avoid war, we need to actually prepare for one. And we are years from ready. Decade or more in some areas.

It's an hour long. But it is genuinely the closest analysis to folks actually serving. These guys don't seem to have just talked to a bunch of retired guys at the Legion or generals working as defence execs.
 
Is there any talk of expanding the CETA? That would seem in both Canada and Europe’s interests.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)

The European Union (EU) is the world’s second-largest economy and Canada’s second-largest trading partner. The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) presents Canadian businesses with preferential access to and excellent opportunities for growth in the EU. Learn...
www.international.gc.ca www.international.gc.ca

en.wikipedia.org

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

And for goodness sake, let’s drop the trade war with China!

Canada–China trade war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
globalnews.ca

‘If the U.S. no longer wants to lead, Canada will’: Carney proposes global free trade coalition | Watch News Videos Online

Watch ‘If the U.S. no longer wants to lead, Canada will’: Carney proposes global free trade coalition Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca

Strong words from Prime Minister Carney today.

What does Canada leading the world look like? The below piece has some ideas:

policyoptions.irpp.org

It’s time for Canada to have a foreign policy

Sign up for A Stronger Canada for The Trump Era to receive the latest analysis on Canada-U.S. relations from Policy Options, as soon as it’s published. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent trip to France and the United Kingdom was a reminder there is a world beyond Donald Trump. It’s been quite a...
policyoptions.irpp.org policyoptions.irpp.org
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top