Those are the two big items the media focuses on, but there’s the better part of a hundred bidding processes going on IIRC, and more that are awaiting delivery. For example, relevant to the asymmetric scenario, there’s a bunch of MANPADS coming from Sweden.
If you didn’t know, there is a civilian defence force coming online. Also, the land army is splitting into three parts. One for homeland defence, one for foreign defence like our base in Latvia, and one that does support tasks.
(And obviously attack submarines are more about defending our waters)
That’s interesting! I’m sure you know a lot more about it than me. And look, no pressure to respond, I’m saying a lot of shit here, but I really don’t get it.
I’m not invovled, I know very little about it…but am I wrong in thinking that every dollar that’s spent on anything other than asymmetric warfare is not actually defensive in any meaningful sense? Why isn’t the part of the army focused on homeland defense the only part? Or nearly the only part, I know we gotta participate in collective self-defense…but we shouldn’t be spending very much of our defense budget on assets that are only for that purpose…I assume we’re spending a lot more than half on that? If the other parts are paid for with Canadian taxpayer money, it’s fair to ask how those other parts make life for Canadians better. And maybe there’s a really good clear explanation for it, but I haven’t seen it. It might just be “the US expects it of us and we have to do what they want,” but if so, we should be constantly thinking about why and whether we can afford to roll it back. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t be in Latvia or whatever. Us being there deters Russian aggression and that’s a good thing. But I think if we’re gonna increase our military budgets, it doesn’t have to be on military hardware that’s primarily useful in us fighting other people’s wars.
Just going off your example with the submarines…what does “defending our waters” mean in this context? Defending against what from whom? If we had no military whatsoever, and the only challenge was getting enough boots on canadian soil, how many world powers could actually field an invasion of Canada? Russia, China, the USA, maybe India…anyone else? Would any of them have any trouble dealing with whatever “conventional warfare” defenses we can muster? Maybe that’s what I misunderstand, are these weapons that significant?
Maybe I’m wrong and these submarines or MANPADS or planes could actually make a difference in a conflict, idk. But dollar for dollar, i can’t imagine it does better than a larger number of armed and trained light infantry among the populace. Especially given all we’re learning about cheap drones from Ukraine and Iran.
Again, what do I know…I’m just saying from a lay person’s perspective, talking about this kind of spending looks like we’re focused on participating in conflict elsewhere. I’d be happy to hear otherwise. But I don’t like to see my town’s library closing on weekends for budgetary reasons while we spend 75 billion on fighter planes that we’re just going to use to help the US kill people who are not able or interested in attacking us. We shouldn’t have been in afghanistan or the gulf war.
Maybe I’m wrong and these submarines or MANPADS or planes could actually make a difference in a conflict, idk. But dollar for dollar, i can’t imagine it does better than a larger number of armed and trained light infantry among the populace. Especially given all we’re learning about cheap drones from Ukraine and Iran.
Okay, well if you care to say more, I’m interested. I’ve never heard of a country getting invaded by a vastly larger and better armed military and doing well except by asymmetric means, but like I said, I don’t claim to be an expert. Like, I don’t think a handful of tanks or planes in the hands of the Finnish or Vietnamese would have mattered, but maybe there’s a better analogue!
I didn’t say don’t fight asymmetrically I am saying don’t be convinced drones make traditional military power obsolete, you still need ships, artillery, armored vehicles etc…
A US attack was war gamed by CAF back in January and the conclusion was that Canada’s defense would have to be asymmetric because we wouldn’t have a chance at anything else.
Those are the two big items the media focuses on, but there’s the better part of a hundred bidding processes going on IIRC, and more that are awaiting delivery. For example, relevant to the asymmetric scenario, there’s a bunch of MANPADS coming from Sweden.
If you didn’t know, there is a civilian defence force coming online. Also, the land army is splitting into three parts. One for homeland defence, one for foreign defence like our base in Latvia, and one that does support tasks.
(And obviously attack submarines are more about defending our waters)
That’s interesting! I’m sure you know a lot more about it than me. And look, no pressure to respond, I’m saying a lot of shit here, but I really don’t get it.
I’m not invovled, I know very little about it…but am I wrong in thinking that every dollar that’s spent on anything other than asymmetric warfare is not actually defensive in any meaningful sense? Why isn’t the part of the army focused on homeland defense the only part? Or nearly the only part, I know we gotta participate in collective self-defense…but we shouldn’t be spending very much of our defense budget on assets that are only for that purpose…I assume we’re spending a lot more than half on that? If the other parts are paid for with Canadian taxpayer money, it’s fair to ask how those other parts make life for Canadians better. And maybe there’s a really good clear explanation for it, but I haven’t seen it. It might just be “the US expects it of us and we have to do what they want,” but if so, we should be constantly thinking about why and whether we can afford to roll it back. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t be in Latvia or whatever. Us being there deters Russian aggression and that’s a good thing. But I think if we’re gonna increase our military budgets, it doesn’t have to be on military hardware that’s primarily useful in us fighting other people’s wars.
Just going off your example with the submarines…what does “defending our waters” mean in this context? Defending against what from whom? If we had no military whatsoever, and the only challenge was getting enough boots on canadian soil, how many world powers could actually field an invasion of Canada? Russia, China, the USA, maybe India…anyone else? Would any of them have any trouble dealing with whatever “conventional warfare” defenses we can muster? Maybe that’s what I misunderstand, are these weapons that significant?
Maybe I’m wrong and these submarines or MANPADS or planes could actually make a difference in a conflict, idk. But dollar for dollar, i can’t imagine it does better than a larger number of armed and trained light infantry among the populace. Especially given all we’re learning about cheap drones from Ukraine and Iran.
Again, what do I know…I’m just saying from a lay person’s perspective, talking about this kind of spending looks like we’re focused on participating in conflict elsewhere. I’d be happy to hear otherwise. But I don’t like to see my town’s library closing on weekends for budgetary reasons while we spend 75 billion on fighter planes that we’re just going to use to help the US kill people who are not able or interested in attacking us. We shouldn’t have been in afghanistan or the gulf war.
You are very wrong about this.
Okay, well if you care to say more, I’m interested. I’ve never heard of a country getting invaded by a vastly larger and better armed military and doing well except by asymmetric means, but like I said, I don’t claim to be an expert. Like, I don’t think a handful of tanks or planes in the hands of the Finnish or Vietnamese would have mattered, but maybe there’s a better analogue!
I didn’t say don’t fight asymmetrically I am saying don’t be convinced drones make traditional military power obsolete, you still need ships, artillery, armored vehicles etc…
A US attack was war gamed by CAF back in January and the conclusion was that Canada’s defense would have to be asymmetric because we wouldn’t have a chance at anything else.