Oh, Can-a-da!

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Canada and the flight of fantasy

Thirty billion-ish dollars is a lot of money to lay out, just for the purpose of pleasing the neighbours. You’d think if you were going to spend that kind of cash for military equipment, at least it would be of some value to your own country. Not Canada, though.

...

Canada has some extraordinarily intelligent and capable people. But for some reason, those aren’t the ones who get elected.

axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_63365.shtml


...sound familiar?

[Virgil Showlion]

Also from the article:

So where’s the crying need for 65 new state-of-the-art flying killers?

The only possible answer can be to make the country look cooperative in the eyes of the United States. These planes are virtually useless for domestic matters, and Canada doesn’t get involved in wars abroad very often. But its closest neighbour does. In fact, the list of countries where the United States has not been involved militarily is almost longer than where they haven’t been.

So, again, can the purchase of these fighters be for any other reason than pleasing friends and neighbours?

Right or wrong, the author has a point. Canada's military will never be respected as a real threat, and fighter jets have no purpose other than to bomb the tar out of third-world backwaters.

Plus, to get an idea of the expenditure: $30 billion Canadian on a per capita basis would be $300 billion in the US. That's a mighty pricey deterrent. Especially since I have no idea who we're trying to deter.

[privateinvestor]

I think we need to bring Mr Burns back to investigate this issue about his beloved Oh Canada...

And as always his investigation will be completely unbiased of course....

[billisonboard]

It's proximity to the US puts it at risk should we get into an intercontinental pissing contests of the nuclear kind, for one thing.

"Thirty billion-ish dollars" for nuclear fallout protection just might make a little more sense than using it on fighter jets if the concern is for the neighbor getting nuked.

In addition, Canada and the US were not always best buddies. When I visited Halifax I toured fortifications that were designed for defense of the city against, guess who? Yup, the USA.

Isn't this like the US buying military planes from maybe someone like China? How much do you want your potential enemy to have complete knowledge of the technical capabilities of your fighter planes?

[Virgil Showlion]

The fortifications in Halifax were from the early 19th century, Bill.

[Deleted]

The only possible answer can be to make the country look cooperative in the eyes of the United States.

My first thought when I saw the above sentence was that Canada has picked up on the fact that American is talking more of isolationism. That would of course limit or lower American involvement in military action. Now true the odds are that Canada won't be attacked by anyone but they do still have a national interest & just might send troops to other countries (like they have in the past). If that were to happen then it would be nice to win rather than just sending troops as cannon fodder. The fighters just might be handy to have. To me that's the logic behind it. (If your neighbor is your main protection & they become weaker.....Then you need to become stronger so that you can better protect yourself).

[billisonboard]

Jul 8, 2011 9:47:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The fortifications in Halifax were from the early 19th century, Bill.

Now the Canadians are relying on Labatts to prevent being invaded and occupied by US troops.

[wyouser]

Isnt the fortification complex of Louisbourg even older Virgil?

[Virgil Showlion]

It could be. I just assumed it had something to do with the War of 1812, which was the only declared "war" between the provinces that would become Canada and the US. (We burned down the White House, BTW. )

Halifax was certainly around at the time of the revolutionary wars, and a destination for British loyalists fleeing the US. The fortifications might have had something to do with that.

Another possibility is that they had something to do with underground railroad. Slave hunters from the colonies would sometimes stray across the border to raid settlements and recapture slaves that had run to freedom. Fortifications needed to be set up to "dissuade" them.

At any rate, unless the F-35 fighter jets are for fighting off opportunistic slavers, the fortifications probably don't have much bearing on modern day foreign policy.

[Driftr]

All your base are belong to us.

We're coming for the water and the oil sands. You know it's just a matter of time. Beware Canada. Beware.

[Virgil Showlion]

What century are you living in?

We've been piping that stuff down to you guys since WWII. And the companies that do the extraction and shipping are all majority-owned by US shareholders (like 70% of our major corporations).

All our base are belong already to you.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...I hate to laugh at another's expense, but that was funny...

[Virgil Showlion]

It just the reality of numbers. The Canadian government can put foreign ownership limits on crown corporations, but they have limited control over who can own shares in privately-owned companies.

The US has ten times as many investors as Canada does, and Canadian entrepreneurs take venture capital where they can get it. If US investors are the ones ponying up the dough, then they get the shares. It's as simple as that.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...foreign investing wasn't the funny part... this was:

>>> All our base are belong already to you. <<<

...and Canadians may not lag 10x behind the US for long... the more IRT is watched, the more of us "southerners" will come emmigrating... your hockey's pretty good, too, despite our having just won the Stanley Cup... and if the NFL lockout doesn't unlock, what would keep me here?

...but don't mind me... I'm just waxing poetic...

[Driftr]

Jul 8, 2011 14:26:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What century are you living in?

We've been piping that stuff down to you guys since WWII. And the companies that do the extraction and shipping are all majority-owned by US shareholders (like 70% of our major corporations).

All our base are belong already to you.

touche

[rovo]

Someone mentioned bombing. F35 are fighter jet, not bombers, and are used for primarily border protection. I'll be the first to agree Canada does not have to worry about its southern border but Canada does have an extremely large northern border.

During the cold war the preferred path for Soviet bombers was over the pole, through Canada to the USA. Granted, the Soviet threat is history but any border left unprotected is a liability.

Is Canada prepared to allow the U.S. Air Force to protect the northern border? I don't think so.

The old planes they current have are most likely adequate for their border protection but it is Canada's decision to make.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

I guess I missed it - what is the current front-line RCAF fighter plane?

[rovo]

"Canada’s government has told its people that these planes are necessary. No, they aren’t. Admittedly, the current F-18s in service since the early 1990s might be getting a little long in the tooth, but given Canada’s traditional reluctance to use aircraft in combat (despite having a superb flying force), where is the need?"

[verrip1]

Oh, Can-a-da!

"In days of yore, from Britain's shore,
Wolfe, the dauntless hero came,
And planted firm Britannia's flag,
On Canada's fair domain.

Here may it wave, our boast, our pride,
And joined in love together,
The thistle, shamrock, rose entwine
The Maple Leaf forever!

The Maple Leaf, our emblem dear,
The Maple Leaf forever!
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless,
The Maple Leaf forever!"

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 8, 2011 9:14:33 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well I'm not Canadian, and am not overly familiar with their air force. However I find the main argument this guy makes to be somewhat specious:

Consider the military value of these planes to Canada. Since the end of World War 2, Canada has been involved in five conflicts, and its use of fighter planes during those conflicts goes like this:



Korea (1950-53) – none;

Gulf War (1991) – 24;

Kosovo (1999) – 18;

Afghanistan (2001-2011) – none;

Libya (2011) – 6.



So, in total, Canada has used 48 fighter planes in combat in the past 60 years – out of the 1,100 or so that it’s purchased or built.

I could well argue that the US hasn't used a single nuke since WWII, so we should get rid of them all. Just because something isn't used doesn't mean that a deterrent isn't a good thing to have.

I realise that Canada is in somewhat of an enviable position due to it's geographic location and lack of threatening neighbors, but that doesn't mean they wish to lay prostate and defenseless. And I could even posit another uncomfortable possibility or two. It's proximity to the US puts it at risk should we get into an intercontinental pissing contests of the nuclear kind, for one thing.

In addition, Canada and the US were not always best buddies. When I visited Halifax I toured fortifications that were designed for defense of the city against, guess who? Yup, the USA.

Yes, the threat seems absurd now. Competent military planning and foresight however, force the planners to anticipate any conceivable threat. I know the Pentagon has contingency plans for action against virtually every power on earth, persumably including Canada. I would be surprised if they did not have similar plans in place.

Let's be real: Canada relies primarily on the United States for its defense. It may be looking south and figuring its defense contractor is going bankrupt and will soon be out of business so they'd better make other arrangements...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 9, 2011 8:28:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 8, 2011 9:14:33 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well I'm not Canadian, and am not overly familiar with their air force. However I find the main argument this guy makes to be somewhat specious:

Consider the military value of these planes to Canada. Since the end of World War 2, Canada has been involved in five conflicts, and its use of fighter planes during those conflicts goes like this:



Korea (1950-53) – none;

Gulf War (1991) – 24;

Kosovo (1999) – 18;

Afghanistan (2001-2011) – none;

Libya (2011) – 6.



So, in total, Canada has used 48 fighter planes in combat in the past 60 years – out of the 1,100 or so that it’s purchased or built.

I could well argue that the US hasn't used a single nuke since WWII, so we should get rid of them all. Just because something isn't used doesn't mean that a deterrent isn't a good thing to have.

I realise that Canada is in somewhat of an enviable position due to it's geographic location and lack of threatening neighbors, but that doesn't mean they wish to lay prostate and defenseless. And I could even posit another uncomfortable possibility or two. It's proximity to the US puts it at risk should we get into an intercontinental pissing contests of the nuclear kind, for one thing.

In addition, Canada and the US were not always best buddies. When I visited Halifax I toured fortifications that were designed for defense of the city against, guess who? Yup, the USA.

Yes, the threat seems absurd now. Competent military planning and foresight however, force the planners to anticipate any conceivable threat. I know the Pentagon has contingency plans for action against virtually every power on earth, persumably including Canada. I would be surprised if they did not have similar plans in place.

Let's be real: Canada relies primarily on the United States for its defense. It may be looking south and figuring its defense contractor is going bankrupt and will soon be out of business so they'd better make other arrangements...

...which makes perfect sense, actually...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...but since I haven't emmigrated north yet,

[verrip1]

I've been waiting for someone to browse around the link provided in the OP. It's obvious now that nobody bothered.

The blog that posted the article in the OP has a certain ... slant ... on things. Here is another gem of an article:

"The ICC issues warrants against Col. Qaddafi and his son while US/NATO bombs civilians and their 'rebels' force cannibalism on captured Libyan soldiers"

and:

"Right-wing Unleashes Campaign Against Democracy in Latin America"

let's not let this one go unnoticed:

"Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Democracy – fair and square"

Viva Chavez! Long live Ghaddafi! Let freedom ring! Credibility is for wussies!

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...fwiw, I saw it on www.newsnow.co.uk...

[billisonboard]

Jul 9, 2011 10:41:51 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

I've been waiting for someone to browse around the link provided in the OP. It's obvious now that nobody bothered.

The blog that posted the article in the OP has a certain ... slant ... on things ...

Which would be incredibly important if we were discussing the article in the OP, which we really aren't. Without regard to the bias of the article that reports it, Canada is buying the planes. Good use of their funds or not? That is the question.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 9, 2011 10:58:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 9, 2011 10:41:51 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

I've been waiting for someone to browse around the link provided in the OP. It's obvious now that nobody bothered.

The blog that posted the article in the OP has a certain ... slant ... on things ...

Which would be incredibly important if we were discussing the article in the OP, which we really aren't. Without regard to the bias of the article that reports it, Canada is buying the planes. Good use of their funds or not? That is the question.

...while I agree with you... as the OP, my question was if it sounded familiar that "Canada has some extraordinarily intelligent and capable people. But for some reason, those aren’t the ones who get elected."

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...having said that, I'm perfectly happy to discuss the common defense...

[billisonboard]

Jul 9, 2011 11:01:44 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 9, 2011 10:58:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Which would be incredibly important if we were discussing the article in the OP, which we really aren't. Without regard to the bias of the article that reports it, Canada is buying the planes. Good use of their funds or not? That is the question.

...while I agree with you... as the OP, my question was if it sounded familiar that "Canada has some extraordinarily intelligent and capable people. But for some reason, those aren’t the ones who get elected."

I suggest that it has "sounded familiar" to people since there was first an election.

[Deleted]

Let's be real: Canada relies primarily on the United States for its defense.

Speaking of getting real, Canada spent 50 years between the US and Russia during the cold war. We had great self defense. If either of you had looked at us wrong the other would have nuked 'em. Don't be hating cause we were cost effective.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 9, 2011 11:08:36 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Let's be real: Canada relies primarily on the United States for its defense.

Speaking of getting real, Canada spent 50 years between the US and Russia during the cold war. We had great self defense. If either of you had looked at us wrong the other would have nuked 'em. Don't be hating cause we were cost effective.

...what do you mean, 'were'?