PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[Northern Light]

Hardly. I'm responding to your usual dismissive arguments by pointing out that your argument is backed by neither fact nor experience on your part.

How many people discussing this issue, in this thread, have experience as a submariner?

Right, there would be no discussion at all if that is the criteria.

***

There was nothing 'dismissive' in what I said. Your hatred of me, poisons you so badly as to read in what simply is not there.

I didn't reference any other poster, or specific argument, beyond suggesting I'm not sold on a huge investment in manned subs.

I outlined why that is..............in brief, that is all.

Further, I conceded that there may still be a case to retain manned craft; and that the tech isn't quite prime-time ready yet.

Find me a single country in the world that thinks it's a good idea to replace their submarine fleet with remotely piloted vessels.

As noted above, I qualified my argument to suggest merit in retaining some manned craft, and that the tech wasn't quite ready yet for fully-deployment.

That said, we're moving in the direction of remote subs as the future. Which was point; along w/the fact we neither can, nor will make the investment as a country to deploy manned subs at the scale that would arguably produce a desirable level of impact.

That last point really isn't arguable. No government in Canada, of any political stripe had demonstrated a willingness to shell out that kinda $$$

This is on par with those who have never sat in a jet arguing strenuously about why they think we should ditch our fighter fleet and buy drones.

No, that argument isn't at all comparable.

Informed, of course, by the same level of Wikipedia education, that makes them experts on everything from economics to pandemics.

Enough with the school yard insults please.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well asked. More likely in the balloon service, full of hot air.

Some folks are always an expert on every issue until they get called out? Then? "How many of us are experts? Why are you trying to shut down discussion?"

It's amazing how quickly we would call that out in other fields. But apparently it's okay to be a Doctor of Wikipedia in defence tech.

 

[kEiThZ]

@kEiThZ correct me otherwise, but it’s the Arctic where we have the greatest deficit in monitoring our territorial waters. That’s where AIP subs are needed, ideally SSNs. The ice free Pacific and Atlantic coasts can be covered by ASW-capable surface warships?

To be fair, we've got deficits in more than the Arctic. Our AOR for SAR in the Atlantic, for example, starts at 30°W. Look at a map to see where that is. When the folks in Greenwood get a SAR call that far, their recovery is to Ireland. We're a country the size of a continent with a military that is resourced closer to that of a midsized European state.

On the specific question, our capabilities are basically at an obligation level. By that, I mean, we have a handful of subs, because their mere existence forces some of our allies to disclose some of their operations, to avoid collisions. It's not a capability that is serious and meant to deter other forces. If we ever had an immediate threat in the Arctic, we'd just let in the Americans and then pat ourselves on the back for our token contribution to a NORAD operation.

Incidentally, I have sat through discussions in the US, where Americans have gamed out carrier and amphibious group operations in the Arctic, if it becomes ice free. When it comes to planning future operations in the Arctic, the Americans all but act like we don't exist. They really don't care what we think. And they won't let us leave the backdoor to their homeland unguarded.

On the actual tech and tactic. Think of it this way, you need a predator to catch a predator. The best counter to an SSN threat is your own SSN screen further out. ASW patrols and frigates can certainly deal with the threat. But there's limitations on the range of weapons and sensors, persistence of the asset and access (especially true for aircraft). This is why Australia, which doesn't have much sea ice to deal with, wants to field SSNs.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The US explicitly prevented us from acquiring SSN technology from the UK back in the 80s - one has to wonder how they feel about it now.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

The US explicitly prevented us from acquiring SSN technology from the UK back in the 80s - one has to wonder how they feel about it now.

AoD

If they're willing to let the Aussies in on the game, they might consider us too. They have a genuine need for allies to actually take up some of the burden of dealing with China.

That said, our reputation for protecting privileged information is somewhat poor among the Five Eyes. Especially with our more spectacular recent breaches. So who knows.

All moot though. We're a country that won't even buy enough diesel subs. The question of fielding SSNs is sort of laughable daydream for us.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If they're willing to let the Aussies in on the game, they might consider us too. They have a genuine need for allies to actually take up some of the burden of dealing with China.

That said, our reputation for protecting privileged information is somewhat poor among the Five Eyes. Especially with our more spectacular recent breaches. So who knows.

All moot though. We're a country that won't even buy enough diesel subs. The question of fielding SSNs is sort of laughable daydream for us.

No kidding (though I believe Australia has always been a closer partner in many ways that we were, proximity notwithstanding). Having said all that, I have some questions about the durability of the US as a fundamental ally given the volatility of their politics.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

I have some questions about the durability of the US as a fundamental ally given the volatility of their politics.

You and all of NATO. LOL.

But let's be clear. Canada is along for the ride. No questions asked. And broadly our citizens are just fine with it. Heck, our under-spending on defence is actually a point of pride and cultural differentiation for most Canadians. The concerns about the reliability of the Americans as allies and their imperialism end, where our wallets begin.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You and all of NATO. LOL.

But let's be clear. Canada is along for the ride. No questions asked. And broadly our citizens are just fine with it. Heck, our under-spending on defence is actually a point of pride and cultural differentiation for most Canadians. The concerns about the reliability of the Americans as allies and their imperialism end, where our wallets begin.

True, that's no excuse for not doing our work.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

True, that's no excuse for not doing our work.

AoD

Not saying it's excusable. Just that it's a sad reality.

To most Canadians, the idea that Canada would have an amphibious or aircraft carrier on two coasts, a dozen nuclear subs, a hundred combat aircraft and maybe two dozen attack helicopters would sound utterly insane.

The rest of the world looks at us and knows the only reason we don't have all that (and the $30B defence budget required for that), is because we're next door to the US. Countries of our size and economic strength would never skimp this much on defence anywhere else. And Australia is a good example of this. Hawaii is days away from them. And they have China in their neighbourhood and Indonesia next door. They need a credible deterrent.

By the way. Not just the military. Our diplomatic service, intelligence agencies and aid agency are in worse shape. I would argue that we should have an intelligence budget that is double the size and an aid budget that is 50% larger.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not saying it's excusable. Just that it's a sad reality.

To most Canadians, the idea that Canada would an amphibious or aircraft carrier on two coasts, a dozen nuclear subs, a hundred combat aircraft and maybe two dozen attack helicopters would sound utterly insane.

The rest of the world looks at us and knows the only reason we don't have that (and the $30B defence budget required for that), is because we're next door to the US. Countries of our size and economic strength would never skimp this much on defence anywhere else. And Australia is a good example of this. Hawaii is days away from them. And they have China in their neighbourhood and Indonesia next door. They need a credible deterrent.

Geography and distance help reinforce that notion - out of sight, out of mind.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Geography and distance help reinforce that notion - out of sight, out of mind.

AoD

Yep. The average Canuck doesn't understand this. I didn't until I joined the CAF. Alert is actually closer to Moscow than it is to Ottawa. Defending the Arctic would normally mean serious power projection capabilities.

But in my experience, most Canadians have more of a romantic idea of the Arctic than an understanding of the reality that it is distant Canadian territory that we need to protect. Contrast this view to the way the Russians view the Arctic.

 

[lenaitch]

Not directly at the feet of the current PM, because in my opinion they have all been wanting in regards to national security and defence, but it seems that Five Eyes maybe shifting to Three Eyes And a Couple of Hangers-On.

Canada caught off guard by new security pact between U.S., Australia and Britain

Three officials, representing Canada’s foreign affairs, intelligence and defence departments, say Ottawa was not consulted about the deal

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[kEiThZ]

Not directly at the feet of the current PM, because in my opinion they have all been wanting in regards to national security and defence, but it seems that Five Eyes maybe shifting to Three Eyes And a Couple of Hangers-On.

Canada caught off guard by new security pact between U.S., Australia and Britain

Three officials, representing Canada’s foreign affairs, intelligence and defence departments, say Ottawa was not consulted about the deal

www.theglobeandmail.com

Media is stupidly portraying our exclusion as a consequence of the Huawei non-policy. That's wrong. Australia actually brings resources to the table. Canada doesn't.

It'll be interesting when Canada is eventually pushed out of the G7 and Five Eyes and reduced to solely participating in NORAD, NATO and the OECD. Just like other medium sized European countries (like say Poland, a country of similar population).

 

[Richard White]

Media is stupidly portraying our exclusion as a consequence of the Huawei non-policy. That's wrong. Australia actually brings resources to the table. Canada doesn't.

It'll be interesting when Canada is eventually pushed out of the G7 and Five Eyes and reduced to solely participating in NORAD, NATO and the OECD. Just like other medium sized European countries (like say Poland, a country of similar population).

I hate to say it but it would us right. To be honest though, I'd be ok with leaving NATO and NORAD.

NATO is a European focused organization while NORAD was designed as an early warning system for a Soviet attack.

I doubt Russia will be launching an invasion of Canada or launching ICBMs at us so let the US fund and control it out of Alaska.

As for NATO, we really have no business being involved in foreign conflicts. We have an "army" with woefully outdated equipment and aren't really up to task at the moment.

Thanks to Article 5 if there is an issue in Europe, we could get dragged into a war that has nothing to do with us. There is no upside to joining NATO from North America.

IMO Canada's standing on the global stage has diminished significantly since the Second World War. We are that country everyone knows exists but pushes aside in favor or the UK, US and EU.

Our global clout is almost non-existant anymore and quite frankly nobody wants to deal with us. If not for the commonwealth, there is a good chance we wouldn't be of any global significance. Why deal with us when you can deal with the US, EU and UK?

The days of countries needing our peacekeepers, our wheat and our natural resources are gone and they aren't coming back. Now people want the rare earth metals from China, Smartphone parts from Korea and diplomacy from the EU.

Over the past 30 years, the focus has gone from North America to the EU and Asia as I said. Canada has been left behind in favor of Pacific Rim countries like Australia and New Zealand which can protect their interests in Asia.

Canada will never get its influence back on the global stage and I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 5 years we were out of the G7 and 5 eyes.

 

[kEiThZ]

I hate to say it but it would us right. To be honest though, I'd be ok with leaving NATO and NORAD.

NATO is a European focused organization while NORAD was designed as an early warning system for a Soviet attack.

I doubt Russia will be launching an invasion of Canada or launching ICBMs at us so let the US fund and control it out of Alaska.

There's an assumption here that organizations don't evolve. NORAD today is about about a lot more than watching for ICBMs coming from Russia.

Thanks to Article 5 if there is an issue in Europe, we could get dragged into a war that has nothing to do with us. There is no upside to joining NATO from North America.

If you think Canada would not be dragged into a war in Europe, I don't know what to say...