fred@mnetor.UUCP (01/01/70)
Forgive me for butting in, guys, but I cannot resist. In article <2101@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <1377@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John hogg) writes: >>... Therefore, the first piece of mail >>I receive telling me to shut up will be gladly obeyed. > >I will too. > >>1) First, "peace-keeping forces" and Search And Rescue. > I have to agree with Chris on this but I can add another reason. The armed forces currently have this function and they are doing it adequately, and in most cases rather well...except for the Martin Hartwell incident. Basically I believe in the motto; If it ain't broke - don't fix it. Furthermore, in peacetime we really ought to get something back for our tax dollars. SAR would be very expensive if we had to start from scratch with a new government dept. DND, of coarse, could not be expected to take budget cuts, could they(:-)>. >>2) Next, NATO participation. > >I'm sorta ambivalent w.r.t. NATO too. But there'd hardly be any point >to us being there if our forces couldn't hold their own against equivalent >sized forces. If they couldn't, NATO should send us home as a liability >because we certainly wouldn't be an asset (we'd provide target practise >for the Russians). > Our forces stack up pretty well against forces of equivalent numbers. In manouvers we wipe up US forces consistantly! The secret is that our guys fight with the same attitude that our hockey players play hockey...who could beat us? >>4) Types of equipment. > >If the M1 is all that bad, then by all means lets stick with the M-60. > Actually we have the Leopard II main battle tank - the best in the world, (in my own humble opinion). I spent a year designing (lets say, 'accessories' ) for it, and simulating shot data. I was very impressed. >> diesel boats > >Now I get it - you meant diesel submarines (not ships)! (John'd would >rather be sailing) > It might be nice to have a couple more subs, and I agree that we should *not* go nuclear. Lets not say that we are going to use them to chase Soviet, (or American) nuclear subs out of the north though, that is a bit too much. > >Submerged listening gear and a consistent and effective air-patrol (even with >something as crummy as an Argus) with only a few aircraft capable of >"assault" would probably be perfectly sufficient, and a LOT cheaper >than nuclear or even diesel subs. > Yes! Agreed. Let me summarise what I feel we need in the 'true north, strong & whatever'. This is just a first rough cut without taking economic factors too seriously, although I'll try to stay within the bounds of reality - sort of. (ie. I'm not assuming totally unlimited resources.) 1. 2 all weather, all season ice breakers with some armament, say ship to ship rockets, ship to air rockets, and a 155mm deck cannon. Two heli-pads, of coarse, and lots of very sophisticated electronics!! The idea is- not terribly powerful, but really smart. This helps survivability in a way that gives us the most bang for the buck. 2. Stick with the F-18s because we're already stuck with them. But deploy them on runways where they are expected to be needed, because they are really short range craft when compared with the area we have to cover. 3. One of you guys suggested infantry strike forces that could be parachuted into an area where they are needed on very short notice. I really like this idea! The backbone of any military force is the infantry. 4. I also like the idea of long range, if slow, patrol aircraft. Obviously so does the current armed forces, they already have them. Again these should be very sophisticated in their electronics and integrable, (able to be integrated with), <see 5. below>. 5. A new radar defence line to replace the DEW line. This is already in the works, as I understand. OK guys, can you improve on this? Is everything feasable? What sort of time frame do you think we need to put each phase into effect? What impact will it have on the Canadian economy? Lets talk about it some more, I like the discussion, however like you people said, if there are objections to this topic I'll roll over and play dead too. Actually nobody else seems to be using the newsgroup at the moment so I dodn't see a reason for stopping. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) (09/05/85)
There has been considerable discussion in the past few weeks about what
Canada's defence needs are, and how many fighters/frigates/arctic-trained
battalions are needed. In particular, Donald Acton feels that we should
have more frigates on our coasts, because Soviet aircraft and surface vessels
approach our country with impunity. This, I suggest, is a slightly
skewed view of our requirements.
We are presently at peace with the entire world, including the USSR.
Should World War III break out (nuclear or otherwise) we would not be able
to do more than spit in the wind against Soviet military forces on our own.
The Big Stick would have to come from down south, and there is no
point in building up tin-pot fangs that will make no difference.
What we DO need to do is enforce our peace-time security by employing
peace-time levels of force. We need to know who is in and around our
waters and our airspace, and we need just enough muscle to tell them to
beat it. We don't need frigates; we need a large number of cheap patrol
boats, armed with a few depth charges and perhaps a token missile, but with
sufficient detection gear to locate foreign vessels. We need aircraft
backed up with radar that can spot intruders, and we need a small
air-droppable infantry unit that can stand on the ground and tell people
that This Land Is Ours.
None of these forces need "battle survivability", or whatever the
Pentagonese is. *We are at peace.* Depth-charging an unidentified sub in
our waters is an exercise of sovereignity; any response would be an act of
war, and no foreign commander is likely to be given licence to commit such
a faux pas. If you believe in protracted non-nuclear global war and the Easter
Bunny, you can argue that our sensors should remain intact for long enough
to call Uncle down on whatever we find, but I'd be happy with totally
defenceless units. When the shooting war breaks out, no defence
will be terribly effective; until that time, our purity of heart will be
sufficient.
The key point is to defend ourselves, so that our neighbours don't take
over the job themselves on the hallowed grounds of their own National
Security being at stake. Not defend ourselves from all-out war, but from
incursions and near-incursions. And to do this, we must have enough units
to cover the ground. Given the GNP of our country, this means that the
units, be they planes or ships, must be cheap and thus small and simple.
A wonderful bonus of this approach is that virtually all our hardware can
be "made in Canada"; large production runs of simple items do not require
billions of dollars of sunk costs due to development of complicated,
unreliable technology.
Thus, we don't need frigates; we need LOTS of patrol boats of perhaps 40m
in length. We don't need F-whatevers, but large numbers of aircraft with
little more fighting ability than a Lear Jet, and the ability to intercept
intruders simply by being very numerous on the ground. Our boys don't need
fancy toys; they need lots of them. Unfortunately, this view does not seem
to be very widely held.
OK Henry, give us the technical and quantitative analysis.
--
John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hoggclewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/06/85)
In article <1371@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John &) writes: >There has been considerable discussion in the past few weeks about what >Canada's defence needs are, and how many fighters/frigates/arctic-trained >battalions are needed. >... >We are presently at peace with the entire world, including the USSR. We were in 1938 too. >Should World War III break out (nuclear or otherwise) we would not be able >to do more than spit in the wind against Soviet military forces on our own. We'd better be able to do better than that. Currently NATO strategies use Canadians as initial contact forces in a couple of theatres. >The Big Stick would have to come from down south, and there is no >point in building up tin-pot fangs that will make no difference. That's what Britain thought (with the "Big Stick" being nuclear retaliation) - so they were building down. Then the Falklands came along. That's what the USA thought (with the same "Big Stick"), without major and effective conventional forces, they were unable to have a military response to Iran. That's why they built the RDF and refit the USS New Jersey. And, the US military budget is hurting the US a lot more than ours is hurting us. Such things also imply that we withdraw from NATO (which I'd rather we didn't - we have to at least make an ATTEMPT to pull our own weight in our own defence, otherwise the US of A might just pack up its toys and go home). WW III is not the ONLY war we could get involved in. How about UN peace-keeping (eg, in particular, Korea)? How about evacuation cover support for Canadian civilians in other countries? Sure, the US of A helps, Britain helps, but I wouldn't want to stake my life on this always being the case. [ Some years ago the Prime Minister of Japan was asked about whether the US of A could be relied upon to help in either a conventional or nuclear invasion of Japan by the Soviets. He said "We have to assume that, don't we?" ] >What we DO need to do is enforce our peace-time security by employing >peace-time levels of force. How can we enforce our *war*-time security by employing peace-time levels of force? Remember, modern war would occur too swiftly to be able to build up anything. >We need to know who is in and around our >waters and our airspace, and we need just enough muscle to tell them to >beat it. Agreed. Plus we should contribute (somehow) to other defences of a more general nature (eg: NATO, NORAD etc.) >We don't need frigates; we need a large number of cheap patrol >boats, armed with a few depth charges and perhaps a token missile, but with >sufficient detection gear to locate foreign vessels. We need aircraft >backed up with radar that can spot intruders, and we need a small >air-droppable infantry unit that can stand on the ground and tell people >that This Land Is Ours. How is a virtually unarmed PT boat going to be able to keep Soviet warships out of our coastline limit? Or, how is one going to be able to ENFORCE fishing rights (eg: Iceland and the UK's game of chicken). Naval diplomacy is currently a game of chicken. With the occasional "whoops, I ran over you" thrown in for variety. I'd rather that our naval ships were at least effective enough to not be laughed out of the water. At present, our ships would be unable to fulfill their NATO commitments. >.. Depth-charging an unidentified sub in >our waters is an exercise of sovereignity; any response would be an act of >war, and no foreign commander is likely to be given licence to commit such >a faux pas. Yeah, but we got to have a ship capable of DOING that. A cheap patrol boat is not likely to be able to operate in the Arctic, let alone depth charge anything. >If you believe in protracted non-nuclear global war and the Easter >Bunny, you can argue that our sensors should remain intact for long enough >to call Uncle down on whatever we find, but I'd be happy with totally >defenceless units. Only if Uncle is accepting calls from us. Don't forget that the US was a hostile country for most of our history! Look what happened with the mutual defence pact with South American countries when Britain responded to the Falklands. The US *broke* the treaties! We cannot ALWAYS make the assumption that US policy coincides with ours. Nor can we assume that the US won't be the aggressor either. The possibility of a US armed response to a Canadian decision to withhold certain "in the national interest" resources is a definate possibility. Sure, we couldn't *win* a full-scale war, but we can make it unpalatable enough for the US to be less likely to respond in such a way. Nor, do we have to go overboard - remember, the USSR is having serious trouble in Afghanistan where the opponents are far worse equipped than we are currently, and I've seen analysis that showed that the USSR *almost* LOST the invasion of Czechoslovakia (that's got to be a wrong spelling, sorry,...) in '67. >When the shooting war breaks out, no defence >will be terribly effective; until that time, our purity of heart will be >sufficient. If it's WW III yes, not if it's Iceland trying to enforce land-claims in Newfoundland. Or St. Pierre invading PEI. Or, the Fenians trying again. >... Given the GNP of our country, this means that the >units, be they planes or ships, must be cheap and thus small and simple. >A wonderful bonus of this approach is that virtually all our hardware can >be "made in Canada"; large production runs of simple items do not require >billions of dollars of sunk costs due to development of complicated, >unreliable technology. A lot of it is already made in Canada (eg: the ships, major parts of the aircraft, ammunition, many vehicles, uniforms etc.). The major mistake was the choice of the F-16 (discussed in this newsgroup previously). Due to political inertia, the decision was *years* out of date. Several *proven*, *cheaper* and *better* alternatives existed at the time of the final decision itself or were dropped for reasons other than technical/economy (eg: pork-barreling). F-14, F-15 and even Toronado would have been far superior, and cheaper by the time the contracts were signed. >We don't need F-whatevers, but large numbers of aircraft with >little more fighting ability than a Lear Jet, and the ability to intercept >intruders simply by being very numerous on the ground. Our boys don't need >fancy toys; they need lots of them. Unfortunately, this view does not seem >to be very widely held. What good is anything less than a F-?? to air defence? You want to try escorting an errant Badger, Backfire, MIG-26 home with a Piper Cub or Lear Jet? Heavens, the stall speed of one of those is higher than the maximum speed of a Lear Jet (well, somewhat of an exaggeration), and a Lear Jet couldn't come close to the service ceiling of one of them. Ever try enforcing the Highway Traffic Act on a bicycle, also being handicapped by not being allowed on the highways? The Soviets send aircraft over Canada quite frequently. They also sometimes send aircraft over the USA too. The only difference is that the Soviets shoot down intruders over their own territory. There is very little cost difference between a F-?? with or without armaments. And, anything less than such a performance level would be almost totally useless except for putting more flight time into the Pilot's logbook. I do agree with you in one area though. I don't particularly think that building up the land-forces beyond current *size* is of much use. Modernization in the land-forces need not be all that expensive either - all we need do is ensure that our vehicles are in running condition and that a couple of the newer "cheap" infantry weapons are plentiful (TOW etc.), and we have ammunition left after target practise. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/07/85)
In article <2043@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <1371@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John &) writes: > >>Should World War III break out (nuclear or otherwise) we would not be able >>to do more than spit in the wind against Soviet military forces on our own. > >We'd better be able to do better than that. Currently NATO strategies use >Canadians as initial contact forces in a couple of theatres. > Canadian forces have vastly superior training than either Soviet or American troops. This doesn't mean we can beat them in a war, but it does mean we can effectively fight even when outnumbered. This is one reason why our troops are called upon to spearhead attacks. The other reason is that NATO commanders are likely to be American and they tend to use the troops of other nations in dangerous situations to protect their own "boys". At least this was the case in WWII when Canadian troops were used by Allied commanders as cannon fodder. >>The Big Stick would have to come from down south, and there is no >>point in building up tin-pot fangs that will make no difference. > >That's what Britain thought (with the "Big Stick" being nuclear >retaliation) - so they were building down. Then the Falklands came along. Defending Canada would be difficult, that is true, but so would attacking Canada be difficult!!! We have an advantage in size and this advantage can be multiplied many times over by smart tactics. All kinds of nasty tricks can be played: -hit & run , dig in & hide while the enemy goes by then pop out & disrupt supply lines , sabotage can be carried out with a minimum force agains fuel, ammo, etc. Taking and holding a country the size of Canada is a formidable task even if it is undefended. ---Now establishing an illegal base in a remot area of the north... that is a different story. We, (Canada), must have excellent surveilence & search capabilities to handle this problem in peace-time. Usually all that is required is to find the offenders and wave a flag as long as there are no overt hostilities going on. >>What we DO need to do is enforce our peace-time security by employing >>peace-time levels of force. > >How can we enforce our *war*-time security by employing peace-time >levels of force? Remember, modern war would occur too swiftly to be >able to build up anything. > Yes, Chris, you're right. >>We need to know who is in and around our >>waters and our airspace, and we need just enough muscle to tell them to >>beat it. > This would be a good first step. >>... >>boats, armed with a few depth charges and perhaps a token missile, but with >>sufficient detection gear to locate foreign vessels. We need aircraft >>backed up with radar that can spot intruders, and we need a small >>air-droppable infantry unit that can stand on the ground and tell people >>that This Land Is Ours. > >How is a virtually unarmed PT boat going to be able to keep Soviet >warships out of our coastline limit? Or, how is one going to be able >to ENFORCE fishing rights (eg: Iceland and the UK's game of chicken). >Naval diplomacy is currently a game of chicken. With the occasional >"whoops, I ran over you" thrown in for variety. I'd rather that our >naval ships were at least effective enough to not be laughed out of the >water. At present, our ships would be unable to fulfill their NATO >commitments. > How about reviving the hydro-foil?!!! Nothing less could keep up with the Soviet subs. Patrol boats would be useful against unlawful fishing, etc. I support the idea. We can make more of them and spread them wider to cover more territory, BUT, we still need frigates! and even destroyers, and yes...year round ice-breakers. Not to mention highly mobile paratroopers, good long range air support, and all of the systems need to be very smart, very computerized, and very accurate. We have the technical know how, right here in Canada to build extremely sophisticated military systems, probably even better than the Yanks', if we put our minds & budget towards it. >>... you can argue that our sensors should remain intact for long enough >>to call Uncle down on whatever we find, but I'd be happy with totally >>defenceless units. > >Only if Uncle is accepting calls from us. Don't forget that the US was >a hostile country for most of our history! Look what happened with the >mutual defence pact with South American countries when Britain responded >to the Falklands. The US *broke* the treaties! ... Exactly so! We cannot depend on anybody to do our dirty work for us. >>When the shooting war breaks out, no defence >>will be terribly effective; until that time, our purity of heart will be >>sufficient. > >If it's WW III yes, not if it's Iceland trying to enforce land-claims in >Newfoundland. Or St. Pierre invading PEI. Or, the Fenians trying again. Oh Yes!! The infamous Fenians!! ... Who the heck are the Fenians??? Is this something I should be worried about, Chris? (:-)> ^^^^^ bearded smily. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) (09/07/85)
Chris Lewis has disagreed with my posting which, in essence, stated that we need a somewhat larger but much less sophisticated and perhaps even cheaper armed forces, equipped with very little offensive armament but able to detect intruders. As I am a good friend of Chris', I can state that his head is in a warm but dark place, reachable only by considerable contortion. We do not need to be able to take on the rest of the world in WW III, as he implies. First, his 1938 analogy is inaccurate in that we are threatened only by the Soviet Union, and they are held in check by a massively bloated American Big Stick. If the Americans were to adopt an isolationist policy (!) I would finance Chalk River in a big way. However, they can't and wouldn't if they could. Apart from the USSR, nobody is physically threatening us. (We will leave the perils of excessive friendliness out of the picture for now.) We have no territory equivalent to the Falklands, and statements about Iceland claiming Newfoundland or St. Pierre claiming PEI merely show how hard it is to come up with a realistic brush-war danger to this country. World War, yes. "Incident", yes. But small war? No. My last posting may have given the impression that I feel Canada should withdraw from NATO. I don't. However, nothing in the NATO Charter says that we must do our bit by putting an insignificant amount of cannon fodder in Europe, and in fact we could probably do more by keeping Soviet subs out of our arctic. The real best reason for keeping our troops over there (apart from giving my brother-in-law an exciting chance to see the world) is to be able to speak with more authority on a political level. And we could arguably do that more effectively by specializing in peace-keeping forces and having our hands clean as an "honest broker". To actually quote Chris' greatest misunderstanding, >How is a virtually unarmed PT boat going to be able to keep Soviet >warships out of our coastline limit? Or, how is one going to be able >to ENFORCE fishing rights (eg: Iceland and the UK's game of chicken). >Naval diplomacy is currently a game of chicken. With the occasional >"whoops, I ran over you" thrown in for variety. WE DON'T HAVE BE BE ABLE TO SLUG IT OUT TOE-TO-TOE WITH ANYBODY! If the Soviets send a frigate into our waters, we escort them out with an MTB. If they won't go (after government-to-government threats) we plink away at them with a 30mm popgun or even a torpedo. They won't let things go that far; they can't afford to. Shooting back in Canadian waters would be an act of war, and would not further the long-term interests of the USSR. Really. Think about it. What would be the end result for the Soviet Union if they were to sink a Canadian warship in our waters? This act would not take place in a vacuum. I will concede, by the way, that for arctic work we need something more sophisticated and thus more expensive. Probably a few diesel boats with icebreaker mother ships strategically located. The same thing is true for interceptor aircraft: we don't need exceptionally sophisticated fighters able to pull many G's, and with avionics capable of tracking and firing (in theory, anyway) at many targets simultaneously. We need aircraft with, as I said, LITTLE more fighting ability than a Lear Jet. Sufficient speed to intercept is so obvious as not to need mentioning. Sufficient numbers to do something worthwhile should be obvious too, but apparently isn't to generals and politicians the world over. High tech is far more appealing. >>If you believe in protracted non-nuclear global war and the Easter >>Bunny, you can argue that our sensors should remain intact for long enough >>to call Uncle down on whatever we find, but I'd be happy with totally >>defenceless units. > >Only if Uncle is accepting calls from us... Like it or no, the US is extremely interested in protecting us from "Soviet aggression", and will be regardless of what we do. At the other "Red, White and Blue Dawn" end of the fantasy scale - well, even if I believed in a US invasion of Canada along the lines of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, let me point out that the Afghan Army is on the side of the Bad Guys. It wouldn't have helped that country to have had flashier tanks or F-18s. What I wanted to argue in my original posting is that we should think about what our armed forces are supposed to do, and supply them with the equipment they need. In general, this means more than what they have. However, it can also be much cheaper than what they'd like. We don't need to fight foreign wars, and we don't need to win state-of-the-art ship-on-ship or plane-on-plane duels. We need to be able, in extremis, to take unanswered potshots at single ships or planes that won't listen to sweet reason. -- John Hogg Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hogg
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/08/85)
In article <1373@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John hogg) writes: >... As I am a good friend of Chris', I can state that his >head is in a warm but dark place, reachable only by considerable >contortion. Hi John. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that comment. It's suggestive enough that Pat might belt you. >We do not need to be able to take on the rest of the world in >WW III, as he implies. I was *not* trying to imply that. In fact, stated in another way, I firmly believe that we may have more than enough people in our Armed Forces. We would be much better served by striving towards quality, flexibility, and effectiveness than quantity. As Switzerland does. Any conflict that is possible to survive will be conventional, and will probably NOT include the super-powers. And, it may just include us. Situations change - wierd things happen overnight. Iran went, in not very many months, from the US's greatest friend in the middle east, to the US's bitterest enemy. >First, his 1938 analogy is inaccurate in that we are threatened only by the >Soviet Union, and they are held in check by a massively bloated American >Big Stick. If the Americans were to adopt an isolationist policy (!) I >would finance Chalk River in a big way. However, they can't and wouldn't >if they could. They certainly can adopt an isolationist policy on certain things. We weren't threatened by *anybody* in the early 30's. The world was rosy (except for the depression) and the pacifists had free rein (turning rifles into social services and soup lines). Most of the Western world was dismantling their forces. Except for a few people who took Hitler seriously, and fought tooth and nail for the maintaining of an effective force, Britain, France and the rest of Europe would have been a lot worse off in 1938 - eg: probably the UK would have fallen in '39 or '40 and at least all of Western Europe would still be under German control. "Big stick"? There was a "big stick" in '38 that the West firmly believed in - the Royal Navy, the French forces, the Maginot line etc. Besides, according to the Versailles treaty the Germans weren't supposed to have any military to speak of. Germany didn't have an airforce in '35! They had a well equipped airline! The *main* thing I'm worried about is "peace-time-complacency". Where, the primary goal of many is to build-down forces in either the belief that "war is too horrible to contemplate - so why bother preparing" (which they thought it was in '35 - the gas of WW1 was a pretty good stick, and the British had developed some pretty spectacular CBW agents), or "there isn't anybody threatening us" - true for TODAY. Tomorrow? Maybe not. In fact, PROBABLY NOT! >Apart from the USSR, nobody is physically threatening us. AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME! In 1937 nobody was physically threatening us EITHER! And, if we wait until someone DOES physically threaten us, it is FAR TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. We won't have anything to shoot with. In fact, this may also bring up another point. What if we decide to help someone else out? As we did in '39. We declared war on Germany to help Britain. Germany did not initially declare war on us. We weren't an enemy (particularly) of Germany. Lot's of our "friends" have enemies even if *we* don't. > We have >no territory equivalent to the Falklands, and statements about Iceland >claiming Newfoundland or St. Pierre claiming PEI merely show how hard it is >to come up with a realistic brush-war danger to this country. World War, >yes. "Incident", yes. But small war? No. What about Korea? We had ships, planes, troops there. It was a full-scale war. How about Cyprus? The Middle East? What about any other major UN peacekeeping operation? >>How is a virtually unarmed PT boat going to be able to keep Soviet >>warships out of our coastline limit? > >WE DON'T HAVE BE BE ABLE TO SLUG IT OUT TOE-TO-TOE WITH ANYBODY! If the >Soviets send a frigate into our waters, we escort them out with an MTB. If I understood that part. I know that they probably wouldn't shoot. Probably - given the current political situation they probably wouldn't. But, naval diplomacy is frequently not with guns, it's with near collisions etc. Not too long ago the US practically sunk a Russian submarine. "Whoops, we didn't see you". The Russians have run over several fishing boats. I just hope our ships are big enough to survive the bow wave. Maybe just maybe, the excuse'll be: "sorry, but with all of the corks flying around, the deck crew ducked and couldn't see where they were going" >I will concede, by the way, that for arctic work we need something more >sophisticated and thus more expensive. Probably a few diesel boats with >icebreaker mother ships strategically located. A "few diesel boats"? Come on John, you're a sailor, you MUST know better than that. Do you have any idea what it takes to operate all-weather in the Arctic ocean? The "Lenin" is at least 15,000 tons, nuclear, and over 7 million Hp! The only way your plan would work is if the number of icebreaker mother ships == the number of "diesel boats". (Provided that we can figure out a way to keep the diesel fuel from freezing!) >The same thing is true for interceptor aircraft: we don't need exceptionally >sophisticated fighters able to pull many G's, and with avionics capable of >tracking and firing (in theory, anyway) at many targets simultaneously. We >need aircraft with, as I said, LITTLE more fighting ability than a Lear >Jet. Sufficient speed to intercept is so obvious as not to need >mentioning. Name one aircraft cheaper than a F-?? capable of reaching Mach 1, let alone Mach 3. How many can you think of that aren't full-blown fighters that can go that fast that are in service? There are only two: Concorde and TU-144 (a little pricy, both). And without the avionics, how do you expect our planes to even find any intruders? You do have sort of a point, considering what our air-force is likely to ever have to do, we could make do with just getting new F101's with somewhat newer electronics. Unfortunately, they aren't made anymore, and getting the lines tooled up again would probably cost more than the F-18's do. >>Only if Uncle is accepting calls from us... > >Like it or no, the US is extremely interested in protecting us from "Soviet >aggression", and will be regardless of what we do. Now yes. 5 years from now? (How long do you think it takes to build a ship?) Maybe not. Maybe it won't be the Russians. I'm sure that Argentina thought just that when they invaded the Falklands, after all, the US had even gone to the extent of promising *in writing* to aid them in case of aggression. It would depend on *who* tried to invade us, and under what conditions. There are situations, not all-together fantasy, where the US might just look the other way ("President X, we won't release these filthy pictures of your daughter to the Washington Post if you let us take Baffin Island" (that was a fantasy one for your amusement)). Read "Fail-Safe" for a plausible one. >What I wanted to argue in my original posting is that we should think about >what our armed forces are supposed to do, and supply them with the >equipment they need. In general, this means more than what they have. >However, it can also be much cheaper than what they'd like. We don't need >to fight foreign wars, and we don't need to win state-of-the-art >ship-on-ship or plane-on-plane duels. We need to be able, in extremis, to >take unanswered potshots at single ships or planes that won't listen to >sweet reason. That's extremis? Unfortunately not. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/09/85)
In article <2053@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <1373@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John hogg) writes: Guys, please, please forgive me for doing this again. But it has been bugging me all day, particularly because John has been (and is) such a good friend of mine (he was an usher at my wedding) for many years, and that I find the attitude he displays in this area shows a frightening lack of understanding of history and current politics. So, I'm going to try a different tack this time, with some considerably more real concerns. John is totally right. Chances are that all we'll ever have to do is take unanswered potshots at the occasional trespassers who won't take polite warnings. However, do you want to stake the future of this country on an %90 (say) probability? Consider a very real possibility - somebody decides to contest our fishing zones with force. After all, if someone were going to contest them, they don't believe that we have the right to be there, so a "shot cross the bows" would be an act of war on *our* part. With ships of the size John suggests for our coastal patrol, they could practically be ignored by many other seafaring nations - including Iceland. (Who'da thought that they'd actually *fire* at Royal Navy warships over fishing rights? They really did!) And would the US help in all occasions? Probably not - would YOU risk starting WWIII over fishing rights in a country other than your own, where you yourself would like to contest the rights too? Especially, when the aggressor tells them "hands off or we push the button?" How about extremely bad weather ocean rescues? About Richard (Laura's brother is Richard right?), how do you think he would feel, realizing that even in a conventional confrontation in Europe he and his fellow Canadians would be completely wiped out in the first couple of hours because they have not got the tools to do the job (even if the rest of NATO manages to win). Either equip 'em, or pull 'em out I say! Be that as it may. There are many far more important reasons than possible armed confrontations that we may get ourselves into. And these reasons should be of particular interest to the pacifist types (not John necessarily): 1) Total reliance on the US for territorial defence of Canada implies *total* agreement with *all* US foreign policy. Maybe not to us, but certainly the Iron curtain countries and probably the 3rd world countries would feel that way. We wouldn't have any choice either. 2) Given (1), how the hell can we be an "honest power broker"? (God I hate that term from people who don't know what it implies) 3) If we rely totally on the "big stick" (nuclear deterence), it makes it *harder* to get rid of the bomb. Because, without it, what other defences would we have? 4) Total reliance on the "big stick" makes it completely impossible to respond with anything less. Both the US and Britain have just learned their painful lessons for the n'th time. 5) Total reliance on the "big stick" makes us, as far as everybody else is concerned, part of the nuclear "problem", not the "solution". (Does anybody take an Iron curtain country seriously when they propose nuclear "solutions"?) 6) Total reliance on the US for territorial defence puts us completely at their mercy with respect to defence policy. We couldn't make any overtures on our own without the US considering it treason. We would have Balkanized ourselves. Well on the way to becoming the 51st thru 61st states. 7) Total reliance on US military defences implies considerably enhanced, US-only military presence in this country. (If we aren't going to seriously defend ourselves, then the US would *have* to step in and man northern airbases and radar stations by themselves. They'd have no choice because we weren't going to do it for ourselves, and our country is *very* important to US strategic defence: **** with or, if neccessary, WITHOUT Canadians in it! **** An Anti-Nuke person should be completely opposed to basing our security on the US military. We'd be totally dependent upon the latest moron that the US has elected president. No, in order to be an "honest power broker" to the rest of the world, we would *HAVE TO* cut the US apron strings, and say "Thanks, but no thanks" to the nuclear umbrella. We would *HAVE TO* withdraw from NATO, and do our OWN defence. Not only that, but to be taken seriously, we would have to put our money and our lives on the line - we'd have to put peace-keeping forces in even the worst of trouble-spots, and they'd have to be able to fight against Soviet, British, West German, French and US made high-technology weapons in small confrontations. Otherwise "honest power broker"ship would be a complete joke. Nobody would take us seriously. And I, for one, am not sure that we really want to do that anyways! Even Switzerland, which has universal military service, probably spends more money per-capita on the military than we do, and is totally unaligned, has little real peace-making effect on the world. Because they don't get much involved in peace either, other than by providing a nice view of Lake Geneva. John, I hate to say this because of our many years of friendship, but some of your comments leave me frightened. What history did UTS teach you anyways? People who refuse to learn history's mistakes (eg: the pacifism leading to the serious western weakness just prior to WWI and WWII) are condemned to repeat them. Who would have believed that Argentina would be so stupid to actually invade the Falklands? (Or that anybody would invade us?) And, not many believed that the UK would have retaliated. Or, that the US would actively support the UK and violate it's treaty with Argentina? Your attitude is very similar to the nuclear proponents - "why do we need conventional weapons when nuclear ones are handy and a lot cheaper?" That's what got us into the nuclear mess in the first place! Nuclear "security" (ha ha!) is cheap. True security is more expensive. In the 30's, Hitler was a big joke to most - France and the UK built-down because of extreme social pressure. Nobody actually believed, they didn't want to believe, that he would actually start something. War was too horrible to contemplate (they remembered WWI's trenches all too well). Fortunately a couple (barely enough) took him seriously. There wouldn't have been a Royal Navy in WWI, unless Montbatten's father had point-blank refused to demobilize and moth-ball it in 1913. He put 'em out on manuevers in 1913 and kept them there because he *knew* (despite the politicians and civilians refusing to believe their own eyes) that something *might* happen over the silly squabbling in Europe. No. When you live between the Hatfields and the McCoys, it's a lot safer to have your OWN gun. Not necessarily a BIG gun, or LOTS of them, just enough to make 'em *both* (and everybody else on the block) respect you as an individual rather than a free-fire-zone or the Hatfield's pet dog (aka "running dog lackey" in McCoy terms). I'm not suggesting we go back to the days of 1946, when we had the third largest navy in the world (they're all down in the Brooklyn Naval yards or have been cut up). I'm not suggesting either that we become a super-power, or go overboard like Iran, or Saudi Arabia (they have more trucks than they have personnel in their army!) did with military spending while they were the best of friends with the US. I am suggesting that we have sufficient forces to be on par with any other equivalent sized force. One squadron of our own should be just as good as anybody else's squadron. And we should have enough to do a reasonable job of defending our own borders PLUS (if we want to stay in NATO rather than becoming a "honest broker") enough to pay our own way in NATO, in the (god help us, hopefully) unlikely event that they'll ever be needed. God I wish the schools would teach something about the wars in this century! -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) (09/09/85)
In article <2043@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >>... >>We are presently at peace with the entire world, including the USSR. > >We were in 1938 too. > I have a 65 year old friend who was talking about how he volunteered to be a U.S. Navy officer in 1936 or so (to avoid being drafted into a branch of the forces that he didn't want). He told me that it was obvious that there would be a war. So far, he sees no evidence of a war coming, and if it were serious enough to involve Canada, I doubt that that anyone would survive anyway (nuclear winter and all that). If the Yankees and Russkies want to slug it out, there's nothing we can do (except try to talk gently to them). As for the rest, let's try to remain at peace with everyone. I don't need to carry a shotgun whenever I go over to my neighbour's to discuss the state of our mutual fence.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/09/85)
In article <1265@ubc-cs.UUCP> ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) writes: >In article <2043@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >>>... >>>We are presently at peace with the entire world, including the USSR. >> >>We were in 1938 too. >> >I have a 65 year old friend who was talking about how he volunteered >to be a U.S. Navy officer in 1936 or so (to avoid being drafted into >a branch of the forces that he didn't want). He told me that it was >obvious that there would be a war. It was obvious to a lot of people who read the news. However, most politicians, and probably the vast majority of the people refused to believe that one was coming (at least in the years before 1936, say). Though, in 1938 it was getting obvious enough that even the politicians noticed. >So far, he sees no evidence of >a war coming, and if it were serious enough to involve Canada, I >doubt that that anyone would survive anyway (nuclear winter and all that). IF it were nuclear. Why should it be nuclear? There have been hundreds of non-nuclear wars since 1945. We HAVE been involved in a quite a few too, some in a very big way (eg: Korea) - though not as (primary) antagonists. We are FAR more likely to be involved in a conventional war - just going by recent history. As far as "no evidence of a war coming", well, I'm not so sure about that. With the middle-east continuously brewing, and sucking more into the mire, along with the latest couple of airline bombings, I start getting a little worried. Think about it for a while - isn't the current situation, w.r.t. actual conflict, WORSE than it was in, say, 1936? (Eg: Isn't Afghanistan and/or Nicarauga/El Salvador sort of equivalent to the revolution in Spain and/or takeover of Austria?) What would have happened if we had sent peace-keepers to Lebanon as had been suggested? We might have ended up at war with the Shi'ites just like the US of A and France. Maybe not a "country-to-country" war, but, why not "country-to-terrorist"? With the terrorists getting high-technology weapons (up to and including the odd fighter aircraft), and state-supported terrorism (eg: Libya or Iran) you can't be sure that we won't get into a head-to-head engagement with well-equipped terrorist organizations. Maybe BECAUSE we try to be nice to everybody. Just like most police casualities occur during attempts to break up domestic disturbances. >If the Yankees and Russkies want to slug it out, there's >nothing we can do (except try to talk gently to them). I agree totally. But that's not the only way we could be presented with a war. >As for the rest, let's try to remain at peace with everyone. Certainly. I'm hardly a warmonger. A realist maybe. Things that have happened before frequently happen again. I, for one, would like to be prepared for such a event. Okay, I'll admit "unlikely event". After all, we were at peace with Germany until we declared war on them. We didn't really have to. Several of King's aides resigned because they were so strongly recommending that we stay out. The article I read (sorry, cannot remember where I saw it) on the leadup to King's decision is quite interesting. >I don't need to carry a shotgun whenever I go over to my neighbour's >to discuss the state of our mutual fence. No, not normally. But if he's occasionally shooting across my property at my other neighbor's windows, prudence suggests.... Either that, or call the cops. But if your neighbor IS the local sheriff, and the other is the sheriff for the next county over...? And the rest of your neighbors occasionally throw garbage cans at each other? I'd move, but the cost of moving out the neighborhood is skyhigh! :-) Maybe I'll have to stow-away on one of my neighbors vacation trips. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) (09/09/85)
This may be getting a mite repetitious to those reading this group who
couldn't care less about our military. Therefore, the first piece of mail
I receive telling me to shut up will be gladly obeyed. Until that time, I
would like to clarify some misunderstandings that Chris has regarding my
views on military preparedness:
1) First, "peace-keeping forces" and Search And Rescue. These duties are
both handled by the Forces. They needn't be; neither requires more
than a paramilitary force. However, they are (and I believe should be)
and therefore should be funded as required.
NOTE THAT PEACE-KEEPING FORCES NEED NOT BE HEAVILY ARMED! They are
only invited in at the request of BOTH feuding parties, and when things
blow up, they are pulled out PDQ. "Local initiative" (to put it
politely) makes it necessary for our UN forces to carry sidearms and
fortify their observation posts. However, a weapon that can't be
carried in one hand is overkill for UN duty, and therefore calls to
overequip the Forces on the grounds that they need guns for Cyprus are
highly questionable.
Also note that we'll never be drawn into a war through peacekeeping
force participation. In fact, the popularity of Canadians for this
duty is an indication that we are still regarded as "honest brokers".
Any country that invites us in, from Viet Nam to Cyprus, clearly feels
that we can stand back from the US or the UK and perform our task
fairly.
2) Next, NATO participation. Others have suggested that we could in fact
fulfil our NATO obligations by defending our north alone, and pull our
presence in Europe, which isn't large enough to make a difference
anyway. I'm ambivalent about this; either we should do it well, or not
at all. In either case, my comments on sophistication of weaponry
stand.
3) Type of defence required. Until a REALISTIC scenario is presented to me
which has us getting involved in a non-nuclear war, I will reiterate my
opinion that we need simple (but omnipresent) weapons which will allow
us to detect intruders and repel them by moral right, not larger
calibre. This requires large numbers of units in operation, which
dictates that they be simple or that we shell out an order of magnitude more
cash. Not more than we're spending now; more than we need to.
4) Types of equipment. That "order of magnitude" as a rule of thumb came
from multiplying three by three. For instance, the US M-1 tank cost (last
time I saw any figures) about three times as much as the M-60 it replaces,
yet breaks down so frequently that it is available for a third of the time.
Given the same money, I'd rather be on the side with the nine tanks.
Especially when M-1 crews prefer to switch off their automatic
gun-layer because they get better results shooting by eye and hand.
The same is true in other areas. A good fighter example is the
Tigershark, which was designed as a cheap fighter for US export use
only. It has stacked up well against the sophisticated planes that the
US forces fly, but hasn't sold well as it is lacking in glamour. I can
find quantitative details if requested to.
Patrolling our arctic is the one area where we must get fairly
sophisticated. The high-tech route is to use nuclear subs. Using
diesel boats is bound to be cheaper, and as a bonus, they're quieter
and can detect intruders better. As they'll need to surface
occasionally, icebreaker mother ships will be required. Again, the
flashy route is to go nuclear. But I seriously doubt that the fuel
savings will ever pay for the development and additional down-time
costs - and I am strongly pro-nuke.
In summary - yes, we need to protect ourselves against all realistic
threats against our territory that can be protected against. We must do
this to avoid others doing it for us. But there is no conventional threat
on the horizon (where "the horizon" is the time required to buildup to a
war footing) and there is no reason to get sophisticated weapons where
numerous cheap ones will be far more effective.
--
John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hoggclewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/10/85)
In article <1377@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John hogg) writes: >This may be getting a mite repetitious to those reading this group who >couldn't care less about our military. Therefore, the first piece of mail >I receive telling me to shut up will be gladly obeyed. I will too. I'm pretty sure that I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with some of your assertions. The majority of the points are pretty unnecessary because we are basically in agreement (in terms of efficiency of specific equipment and requirements). Because of this, there isn't much point in responding unless you respond DIRECTLY to the last point (after the *****). >1) First, "peace-keeping forces" and Search And Rescue. Sometimes S&R requires some pretty heavy equipment. (eg: Time restricted and severe weather ocean rescues sometimes requires something as big as a destroyer, and, since we already got 'em, we might as well keep 'em) > Also note that we'll never be drawn into a war through peacekeeping > force participation. You have entirely forgotten Korea. Even though I've raised it several times. That was a full-scale war and we were in it in a big way. >2) Next, NATO participation. I'm sorta ambivalent w.r.t. NATO too. But there'd hardly be any point to us being there if our forces couldn't hold their own against equivalent sized forces. If they couldn't, NATO should send us home as a liability because we certainly wouldn't be an asset (we'd provide target practise for the Russians). >3) Type of defence required. Until a REALISTIC scenario is presented to me > which has us getting involved in a non-nuclear war. I have given a better scenario for one in a later posting. Also, again, you've forgotten Korea. >4) Types of equipment. If the M1 is all that bad, then by all means lets stick with the M-60. > Tigershark, John, do you remember the specs off-hand? (send 'em by mail - and I might agree with you) > diesel boats Now I get it - you meant diesel submarines (not ships)! (John'd would rather be sailing) > As they'll need to surface occasionally, "Occasionally"? You mean "very frequently" (eg: every 12 hours) - not very useful if you're trying to chase nuclear submarines under the icecap. >Again, the flashy route is to go nuclear [with subs]. I'd be the last to suggest that we get into the nuclear submarine business. Submerged listening gear and a consistent and effective air-patrol (even with something as crummy as an Argus) with only a few aircraft capable of "assault" would probably be perfectly sufficient, and a LOT cheaper than nuclear or even diesel subs. At present we lack the listening gear and any air-patrol up there more frequent than weekly. The planes would have to be big and have sophisticated electronics. (more Orions) We'd only need two or three relatively lightly armed, but large (to be able to get through the ice at all), ice-breakers. ********* >But there is no conventional threat >on the horizon (where "the horizon" is the time required to buildup to a >war footing) and there is no reason to get sophisticated weapons where >numerous cheap ones will be far more effective. This is the one thing where you seem to refuse to understand what I'm trying to say. I totally agree with you in that there are no VISIBLE or PROBABLE threats on the horizon (which is, minimum, 3 years). but, Just because we cannot see any, doesn't mean that there aren't any! We didn't know, 3 years ahead of time, that we'd be in WWII. We didn't know, 3 years ahead of time, that we'd be in Korea. Britain didn't know, 3 years ahead of time, that Argentina would invade the Falklands. And, because Britain didn't see ANY conventional threats within their horizon, they started conversion to NATO-only military requirements. And, Britain damn nearly screwed themselves! The US didn't know, 3 years ahead of time that the Shah would fall. Etc, etc, etc. People buy insurance for that very reason - because they don't know ahead of time what'll happen or what is likely to happen. Life Insurance is a bet with the Insurance company that you will die BEFORE they think you will. What are the chances on that? Less than %50. Please, John, before you reply (or followup), reread that last point. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) (09/11/85)
In article <2101@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > >You have entirely forgotten Korea. Even though I've raised it several >times. That was a full-scale war and we were in it in a big way. So, why were "we" in Korea (I wasn't born when the war started)? The Americans think it was their own war anyway (just like they forget the War of 1812 when they claim that Vietnam was the first war they'd lost). The results of "winning" the war are unclear. North Korea is certainly not a nice place. But neither is South Korea. I've been there - the police/army are everywhere, there is much poverty and very little freedom (letters to and from were routinely opened). Lots of corruption too. The government gets away with this because everyone is afraid of the Communists to the north. So, why did we get involved in the war?
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/11/85)
In article <1280@ubc-cs.UUCP> ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) writes: >In article <2101@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >> >>You have entirely forgotten Korea. Even though I've raised it several >>times. That was a full-scale war and we were in it in a big way. > >So, why were "we" in Korea (I wasn't born when the war started)? The Russians got peeved in the UN over something or other, and they stomped out. Then, the situation in Korea got bad enough (frankly, I'm not quite sure what the situation was) that the UN decided to send peace-keepers in, to help South Korea because it appeared to the UN that the North were the aggressors. Since Russia was not in the UN at the time, they were not present to veto aid to the opponents of the North (which were friends of China, and sorta to Russia at the time. China of course wasn't in the UN either.). So, then we have a multi-national UN force in South Korea, which included Australia, Belgium, Canada, the US, UK etc, etc, etc. (even Luxembourg if I recall correctly). This is probably the only occasion where the UN managed to produce a peace-keeping force with teeth, according to the original idea of the UN (neglecting, for the time being, the issue whether it was right thing to do under the circumstances) The UN forces managed to push the North Korean forces well back into North Korea. Then all hell broke loose - China sent WAVES of troops in... The UN forces were then pushed back thru South Korea and almost off the continent. Finally they rallied and after very hard slogging managed to push things back up to the current DMZ. >The Americans think it was their own war anyway (just like they >forget the War of 1812 when they claim that Vietnam was the >first war they'd lost). So what? We know they're wrong. The US just happened to be the biggest participants in Korea, but hardly the only ones. >The results of "winning" the war are unclear. >North Korea is certainly not a nice place. But neither is >South Korea. I've been there - the police/army are everywhere, >there is much poverty and very little freedom (letters to >and from were routinely opened). Lots of corruption too. >The government gets away with this because everyone is afraid >of the Communists to the north. This has nothing to do with the original reason for our being there. Nor does it have anything to do with the original topic (level of military preparedness desirable in Canada) >So, why did we get involved in the war? Like I said, because the UN thought it was a good idea, and Canada (and lots of other countries) decided to participate. I mainly brought Korea up as an example of where we were heavily involved in a major conflict, even when we weren't threatened by the conflict and weren't attacked or part of the original combatants. People should realize, that with the Middle East as it is, if every country in the world became really fed-up and worried about the situation spreading, that, maybe, just maybe, the UN (with Russia and/or China concurring) will try it again, and place a serious peace-keeping force in the Middle East rather than just a couple of rifle-carrying platoons. By serious, I mean "keep the peace at all costs" ("stop the current conflict"). That probably means lots of heavy equipment and lots of troops. If such were to come to pass, I'd like Canada to participate - if only to prevent the US and USSR from screwing it up - and they would if they were given free rein. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) (09/14/85)
In article <2135@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <1280@ubc-cs.UUCP> ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) writes: >>In article <2101@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >>> >>>You have entirely forgotten Korea. Even though I've raised it several >>>times. That was a full-scale war and we were in it in a big way. >> >>So, why were "we" in Korea (I wasn't born when the war started)? > >The Russians got peeved in the UN over something or other, and they >stomped out. Then, the situation in Korea got bad enough (frankly, >I'm not quite sure what the situation was) ... > >>The results of "winning" the war are unclear. > >This has nothing to do with the original reason for our being there. >Nor does it have anything to do with the original topic (level of >military preparedness desirable in Canada) Sorry, it has everything to do with the original topic. First, you don't seem to dispute my claim the the results of "winning" are unclear. And you don't seem to even have a very clear view of why the war started. That war ended some thirty years ago. Already, the reasons are partly forgotten and the results seem unclear. Every action has a result and that result is usually not what was expected. If you don't know the results of your action, you should probably think very carefully before doing something. If you have lots of muscles, there's a strong temptation to use them. Politicians are not very good at thinking through the consequences of their actions, so let's give them the minimum amount of muscles. (I suggest reading Bertrand Russel's defense of his pacifist opinions during World War I.) I am advocating the minimum military necessary to defend Canada or at least demonstrate its sovereignty. Other countries will get themselves into trouble with or without our help. I'd rather be the citizen of a country which doesn't interfere in other countries affairs - the Americans are not well liked because they interfere in just about everyone's affairs. Exporting capitalism is just as undesirable as exporting communist revolution. And before we condemn South African apartheid, let's treat our aboriginal people properly. (BTW, before you write me off as a pinko-commie pacifist, I should tell you that I have been a member of our "glorious" armed forces and have seen how badly equipped they are. We probably should improve them, but without a clear idea of what we want to do with them, we will not be able to decide how they should be built up.)
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/16/85)
In article <1281@ubc-cs.UUCP> ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) writes: >In article <2135@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >>In article <1280@ubc-cs.UUCP> ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) writes: >>>In article <2101@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >>>> >>>>You have entirely forgotten Korea. Even though I've raised it several >>>>times. That was a full-scale war and we were in it in a big way. >Sorry, it has everything to do with the original topic. First, >you don't seem to dispute my claim the the results of "winning" >are unclear. And you don't seem to even have a very clear view >of why the war started. I can't disagree with either point. But I don't think that the details of Korea (beyond "involvement" itself) has much bearing upon peace-keeping missions that we may get involved in in future. Korea may be an example of where we shouldn't have gotten involved, but what about when we should? As I feel our involvement in WWII was. In a way, our involvement in WWII was "peace-keeping" - we weren't primary combatants. And I hope you'll agree with me on the appropriateness of our involvement there. >That war ended some thirty years ago. Already, the reasons are >partly forgotten and the results seem unclear. Every action has >a result and that result is usually not what was expected. If you >don't know the results of your action, you should probably think >very carefully before doing something. I would assume that the UN did. If you always had to know exactly what the results were before you acted, then probably nothing would ever get done. The peace-keeping forces tried - and the current situation is probably better than what would have happened without intervention. >If you have lots of muscles, >there's a strong temptation to use them. Politicians are not very >good at thinking through the consequences of their actions, so >let's give them the minimum amount of muscles. I agree - I've never trusted politicians either. However, no matter what Canada was able to do, we could probably not build-up enough to be a serious threat (as an "aggressor") to anybody. Particularly with the super-powers peering over our shoulders. >I am advocating the minimum military necessary to defend Canada >or at least demonstrate its sovereignty. Generally I am advocating the same thing too - it's just that I think we should be able to do somewhat more (though not necessarily a lot more) than just "demonstrate". Most of our border defence (other than those areas which we cannot afford, or that we don't want to do - eg: nuclear retaliation) should be borne by us, rather than depending on someone else. Without that sort of independence I think that "sovereignity" is a joke. How can you have sovereignity if your major policy decisions w.r.t. defence are being made by someone else? >Other countries will >get themselves into trouble with or without our help. I'd rather >be the citizen of a country which doesn't interfere in other countries >affairs - the Americans are not well liked because they interfere >in just about everyone's affairs. I agree completely. But, a distinction should be made between "interference" and "assistance" - at least when that's possible. I'd like to be a citizen of a country which doesn't interfere in other countries affairs too - provided that we can help them when they need it. >Exporting capitalism is just as undesirable as exporting communist >revolution. Provided we make a distinction between "exporting capitalism" and "exporting freedom of choice". >And before we condemn South African apartheid, let's treat our >aboriginal people properly. I agree again (this is getting monotonous). But (this is also getting monotonous), what is "properly"? I personally believe "properly" is treating everybody equally. That appears to be what South African aboriginals want. However, that seems to be the opposite of what our aboriginal people want. I don't mind saying that it results in me being totally confused - that's why I try to remain neutral in both issues. >(BTW, before you write me off as a pinko-commie pacifist, I should >tell you that I have been a member of our "glorious" armed forces (BTW: I didn't, and I was a member too - sorta >and have seen how badly equipped they are. We probably should >improve them, but without a clear idea of what we want to do with >them, we will not be able to decide how they should be built up.) I'm just not sure that such a "clear idea" is possible, unless we enshrine some restrictions in the constitution (as Japan or Germany has). I believe that there are certain things that we can do now, without such certainty though. Without major revision of the country's course, we can assume that our commitments to NATO will remain relatively stable, and that our border defence requirements will too. Then, we can build to that level. And indeed, if we were, though some miracle, to come up with a "clear idea", we'd probably find, via Murphy's law, that it would be wrong or become outdated really quickly. History is littered with such mistakes. ) BTW: John Hogg and I had a chat over the weekend. It was interesting. We still sorta disagreed in some of the theory, but, interestingly enough, the levels of military effectiveness we considered desirable were very close (John's were sometimes a little higher than mine). In fact, we agreed that the current policy was about what we both wanted. The major problem was the implementation - eg: Arctic surveillance is currently a joke. I can't give any further details, because, you see, it was during a stag (and the movie was starting etc. etc. etc.) ... Ahem. Never mind. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321