pkern@utcs.UUCP (08/18/85)
Has anyone read "True North, not strong and free", by Peter C. Newman?
I have just finished reading it and I think
it raises some important issues,
especially in light of the recent debates on
Star wars, the passage of the Polar Sea, and not so recently, the
cruise missile tests.
P.Kern ..!{utzoo,utcsri}!utcs!pkern
UofT/Scarboroughshindman@utcs.UUCP (Paul Shindman) (08/20/85)
This is actually an interesting issue, and somewhat timely (well, a
little late is close enuff) with respect to the CF-18 fighter aircraft.
Whilst listening to Peter Gzowski one morning (oops...please, no CBC
flames!) he was interviewing some ex-armed forces officer who had
the following (abridged, of course) observation: For the several
billion dollars that the feds spent on re-equipping the CAF with
the CF-18s, they could have entirely re-equipped the ground forces
and militia with up to date equipment.
If you know anybody in the militia, you know how bad their equipment
is (ofter circa Korean War vintage). The other point this gent made
was that Canada's NATO committment could have been made with ground
air-defences, not with aircraft. Apparently the CAF has next to nothing
in the way of modern anti-aircraft weaponry.
So the $n billion spent on the CF-18 could have bought new trucks, and
jeeps, and bullets (so the guys don't have to yell "bang-bang" when
on manouvers...) to practice with. In time of emergency (earthquake,
tornado...pick your scenario) one of the local medical reserve
battalions here in Toronto would have a tough time getting more than
one or two vehicles rolling.
It seems to me that defence-wise we don't seem to get a good return
on the tax dollar spent on the CF-18.
Comments? Flames?
--
-----------------
Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878
USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman
BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoftacton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (08/20/85)
In article <835@utcs.UUCP> shindman@utcs.UUCP (Paul Shindman) writes: > >This is actually an interesting issue, and somewhat timely (well, a >little late is close enuff) with respect to the CF-18 fighter aircraft. > >If you know anybody in the militia, you know how bad their equipment >is (ofter circa Korean War vintage). This point is applicable to all three branches of our armed forces and is not limited to the militia. Prior to acquiring the CF-18s and Auroras the operational squadrons were flying aircraft that were often older than the pilots. Needless to say the weapons and targetting systems on these aircraft wouldn't be very potent in a combat situation. Similar problems hold true for Canada's Navy which spends most of its time in port and under repair. The acquisition of these new aircraft has hardly turned our air force into a lean mean fighting machine. We purchased 18 Auroras (P-3 Orions) and based four of them on the west coast. These planes are responsible for patrolling all the arctic and Canada's west coast. That is hardly a small piece of real estate and not the type of thing that can be done properly with four planes. If the U.S. hadn't told us the Polar Sea was going through the Northwest Passage I doubt if our air force would have discovered it. Who wants to be in the arctic in the summer time when you can be salmon fishing around Comox instead? As for interceptor squadrons, the nearest one is just outside Seattle. With the arrival of the CF-18s the fighter squadron at Comox was moved to Cold Lake Alberta. The original plans (1984) called for a contingent of four planes to be rotated through Comox to provide some method for intercepting and identifying aircraft that penetrated our air space. After the tories again lost the Comox-Powell River riding to the NDP this plan was scrapped. I guess if the locals weren't smart enough to recognize who would be filling the political feeding trough after the last election then they deserve what they got. The Navy out here is of course a joke. They probably couldn't pull over and board a Russian fishing trawler if their lives depended on it. I don't want to demean the men in our Navy but just to point out that the equipment they have to do their job with is totally inadequate. If anything good comes out of the Polar Sea voyage it might be that Canada is a maritime nation and has more than just the Atlantic to worry about. > The other point this gent made >was that Canada's NATO committment could have been made with ground >air-defences, not with aircraft. Apparently the CAF has next to nothing >in the way of modern anti-aircraft weaponry. > Such an approach may be fine for a land locked nation in Europe but it hardly suits a country like Canada. We are sparsely populated and have to assert our sovereignty over vast regions of land and this can be done more effectively by air than on the ground. Living on the inadequately defended west coast I rate the protection of Canada higher on my list of priorities than meeting our meager commitments to NATO. I am sure our allies would be just as happy if we really beefed up our defences in Canada and reneged a bit on our NATO duties for a while instead of making a token gesture to NATO. Part of our NATO duties call for us to send troops to Norway in a crisis so by being better prepared at home we would be more able to meet this promise. It is about time we started to defend ourselves instead of expecting some other countries to do it for us. I don't think we can trust other nations to respect our territorial claims if we don't have a big stick to wail on them with if they don't believe us. To this end we need to acquire a lot more CF-18s, fighting ships and patrol aircraft in addition to providing our army with new equipment. Donald Acton
dyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck) (08/20/85)
> So the $n billion spent on the CF-18 could have bought new trucks, and > jeeps, and bullets (so the guys don't have to yell "bang-bang" when > on manouvers...) to practice with. In time of emergency (earthquake, > tornado...pick your scenario) one of the local medical reserve > battalions here in Toronto would have a tough time getting more than > one or two vehicles rolling. With the amount of area the Canadian military has to cover, and with limited funds, equipping the CAF was probably a good idea. BUT!!!! I do question the decision to purchase F-18's. The F-20 is far cheaper and about equal in capabilities. It also is capable of greater range. The F-16 is faster and more reliable and about the same price. The Super Entende(sp?) is cheaper,faster, greater range, and like the F-16, battle proven. I feel that the reason for purchacing the F-18 was not to update our military, not enough were bought to make much difference, but because the Americans were able to use political pressure on Canada to give their F-18 program a boost. At that time the plane was in trouble. The USMC wanted nothing to do with it and many analysts and politicians felt that there were far too many bucks for the bang. I am all in favour of modernising our military. It was sadly out of date when I was in and it has gotten even worse since then. But please, lets do it with effectivness (cost as well as battle) in mind. Having one good squadron of F-18 does not protect this country. Hell, it can't even patrol it. Terry Dyck University of Alberta ihnp4!alberta!dyck
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/20/85)
> ... For the several > billion dollars that the feds spent on re-equipping the CAF with > the CF-18s, they could have entirely re-equipped the ground forces > and militia with up to date equipment. > > If you know anybody in the militia, you know how bad their equipment > is (ofter circa Korean War vintage)... It is worth remembering that the fighters that the CF-18s replaced were also very nearly Korean War vintage. No joke: both the CF-101 and the CF-104 were in design during the Korean War, and in service not too long thereafter. The CAF needed new fighters fifteen years ago. > The other point this gent made > was that Canada's NATO committment could have been made with ground > air-defences, not with aircraft... A good point, although perhaps not entirely sufficient. Note also that Canada's NATO committment accounts for only about 40% (if I have the number right -- been a while since I looked at the details) of the CF-18 buy. The rest are for the air defence of Canada. This division of responsibility is quite explicit, since the US waived R&D-recovery charges on the CF-18s intended for North American air defence and not for the ones headed for NATO. > It seems to me that defence-wise we don't seem to get a good return > on the tax dollar spent on the CF-18. This is unfortunately true, but cancelling the CF-18 buy is not the way to solve it. The way to solve it would have been to buy more and better fighters ten years ago; if you think inflation has been bad for consumers, check out jet-fighter prices! The fact is, our armed forces pure and simple need more money. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) (08/21/85)
Solving our unemployment problem, building up our high-tech industry and defending ourselves. Why not adopt something like the Swiss system where everybody goes into the army, has a uniform and rifle at home and spends time every "n" years on manoeuvers? Or the Swedes, where military service can be substituted by working on environmental cleanup or whatever. The Swedes also have TWO companies which produce sophisticated jet fighters and cars. This is the kind of spin-off I like from military spending. (I do *not* support SDI because my experience with real-time programming leads me to believe that the *very* large, complex computer control system needed for SDI is impossible - at least if you want a reliable system.) With a well-trained citizenry, we could stop hiding under the American Nuclear skirts and become an effective neutral country. Does anyone have any comments based on experience with the two models I mentioned above? (general disclaimer: I don't fully agree with these views, but I wish to throw them out for discussion.) -- ludemann%ubc-vision@ubc-cs.uucp (ubc-cs!ludemann@ubc-vision.uucp) ludemann@cs.ubc.cdn ludemann@ubc-cs.csnet Peter_Ludemann@UBC.mailnet
pkern@utcs.UUCP (pkern) (08/21/85)
>> It seems to me that defence-wise we don't seem to get a good return >> on the tax dollar spent on the CF-18. > >This is unfortunately true, but cancelling the CF-18 buy is not the way >to solve it. The way to solve it would have been to buy more and better >fighters ten years ago; if you think inflation has been bad for consumers, >check out jet-fighter prices! It's too bad that you can't trade fighters in for something cheaper and get a refund for the difference. From what I've seen on "60 minutes" and from what's been printed in the papers, the F-20 is supposed to be a relatively inexpensive fighter with low maintenance costs. But that's another topic altogether. > >The fact is, our armed forces pure and simple need more money. >-- ... and they need to spend it wisely. What Peter Newman points out in "True North, not strong and free" is that Canada's defence capabilities have gone down the drain. If we seriously tried to meet all our NATO commitments there wouldn't be anyone left to "guard the fort". This situation came afrom a combination of public apathy and gov't neglect. Mr. Newman says that being "friends" with the US has given the Canadian public a false sense of security that in times of trouble, the US will come scrambling to our aid. Hence the apathy about our own forces. I think that the purchase of the CF-18's was a step in the right direction but they made such a big step that they ripped their pants (or something like that ...) But the CAF isn't the only branch which needs help. We haven't enough ships to patrol our own coastlines, let alone patrol 200-miles beyond that. It was mentioned in the book that during WW II, a german u-boat party landed on the Labrador coast to put up a weather station. The Canadian forces didn't find out about this until 1981 when one of the original members of the u-boat party contacted the authorities to find out what had happened to the station after the war. (!!!!) It's really sad when something like that on our coast can go unnoticed for at least THIRTY-FIVE YEARS! . Paul Kern ..!{decvax,ihnp4}!utcs!pkern ..!{allegra,linus}!utzoo! " ..!{uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri! "
banner@ubc-vision.UUCP (Allen Banner) (08/22/85)
> I don't think we can trust other nations > to respect our territorial claims if we don't have a big stick to wail on > them with if they don't believe us. To this end we need to acquire a lot > more CF-18s, fighting ships and patrol aircraft in addition to providing > our army with new equipment. Don, do you really mean this? The notion that having "a big stick" is the only way to get other nations to respect us is part of what is keeping the arms race going. Now that we have reached the point that the "big stick" approach can lead to our extermination (in the case of the superpowers at least), perhaps we should be looking for another approach...the U.N.? Sure, its a toothless wonder but its also a joke for us to even think that we can (or even should try to) use the threat of force to get either of the superpowers to "respect" us. We should have the ability to monitor our territory effectively and completely (which we don't have right now) and we should have the capability to show our colours (enough to say "...caught you" but not to say "get the **** out or we'll blast you out". Perhaps we should be working towards strengthening the U.N. (or some other *international* mechanism) to settle these disputes. There is no effective mechanism in place...should we try to lead the way to establish something workable? Unless there is an effective alternative to the "big stick", I can't see much hope for bringing the arms race under control and if everyone arms themselves to the teeth because such a mechanism is not in place, then there never will be any hope for one. In short, we should concentrate our efforts on monitoring capability. Like it or not, we *do* rely on the Americans for our defence and like it or not if we have to defend ourselves (militarily) against the States we don't have a hope. So it seems to me we have the opportunity to focus resources, instead, on developing an alternative to the "big stick"...I don't know about you but I think our long-term survival as a species depends on it. -- Al Banner -- UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/22/85)
> The acquisition of these new aircraft has hardly turned our air force into > a lean mean fighting machine. We purchased 18 Auroras (P-3 Orions) ... It's not too surprising that the west coast gets skimped on as far as aircraft goes. We bought 18 Auroras, after the CAF had firmly stated that 22 was the absolute bare minimum needed to meet our obligations. We're buying 120-odd CF-18s, as compared to a bare-minimum-requirement of 150 quoted a few years ago. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/22/85)
> I do question the decision to purchase F-18's. It was probably the best aircraft available at the price our glorious government was willing to pay, unfortunately. > The F-20 is far cheaper and about equal in capabilities. It also is > capable of greater range. I haven't checked the range numbers, but you're probably right. Note however that the F-20 didn't exist at the time when we were buying. You can wait forever to get the best buy; we damn near did! The CAF's fighters were falling apart, and should have been replaced ten years ago. I'm afraid that F-18s today make me happier than F-20s three or four years down the road. > The F-16 is faster and more reliable and about the same price. They're both in the same speed range, last I heard. The F-16 can't, at the moment, carry medium-range air-to-air missiles, which is a significant loss for air defence. Yes, this will be fixed eventually, at the cost of greater complexity and hence lower reliability. It's also single-engined, which is the subject of perennial debates about safety; not a trivial issue for long-range operations in places like the Arctic. > The Super Entende(sp?) is cheaper,faster, greater range, and like the > F-16, battle proven. Are you sure you aren't confusing two different aircraft? The Super Etendard is basically a subsonic light bomber, not a fighter. The Mirage 2000 was actually a candidate in our new-fighter competition, but was withdrawn (I know not why). It's too new for any combat experience. Your comments about political motivations for the F-18 purchase are probably right. But missile capabilities and two engines made it the winner of the cheapie fighters, at the time anyway. As to what we *should* have had... The Panavia Tornado is built by a consortium originally organized by... Canada!?! We withdrew from it during the Trudeau years because there was no clear requirement for the aircraft (!). For our needs, it's a much better aircraft than any of the lightweights. If you want another example of lost opportunities, some years ago Grumman was interested in using a Canadian order to get a land-based variant of the F-14 going. They were keen enough on this that the price might well have been manageable. Then. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/22/85)
> ... The Swedes also have TWO companies which produce sophisticated > jet fighters ... I can think of only one offhand, Saab, which builds all the Swedish AF fighters. But you may be right. We USED to have a couple of those... -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (08/23/85)
In article <833@utcs.UUCP> pkern@utcs.UUCP (pkern) writes: >Has anyone read "True North, not strong and free", by Peter C. Newman? >I have just finished reading it and I think >it raises some important issues, >especially in light of the recent debates on >Star wars, the passage of the Polar Sea, and not so recently, the >cruise missile tests. > >P.Kern ..!{utzoo,utcsri}!utcs!pkern >UofT/Scarborough The polar sea question is of some interest to me. Would you have tried to stop the US from invading our territory? Should we sink the next ship they send through? Was Mulroney really the biggest patsy in Canadian history? After being so chummy with Reagan, this certainly shows how much respect he generated in the US mind. I wonder what Trudeau would have done? -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/23/85)
> In short, we should concentrate our efforts on monitoring capability. Like > it or not, we *do* rely on the Americans for our defence... The problem here is that the Americans are increasingly unhappy about defending people who won't make any effort to defend themselves. This doesn't mean they'll stop, since Canada is of some strategic importance to them, but it does mean that they'll make decisions that affect us without consulting us or considering our interests. This seems undesirable. (Case in point: recent uproar about claimed American plans to base nuclear weapons in Canada in the event of war. If we don't like this, it behooves us to retain some voice in such decisions.) Long-term efforts to render military forces unnecessary are not inconsistent with short-term realization that the ability to defend oneself by force is a practical necessity right now. *Defend*, please note. There is NOTHING morally reprehensible about defending oneself, although the necessity for it is annoying and regrettable. Threatening to murder your opponent if he steps out of line is different; that is offence, even if it is billed as "deterrence". The two are morally and ethically very different. A world armed exclusively with defensive weaponry would be a considerably better place to live than what we have now, and may be a more realistic hope than a world without weapons. What's defensive? ICBMs are not. Antitank missiles are (and are probably a much better investment than tanks, by the way). Long-range bombers are not. Air-defence interceptors are. Many types of weapon are ambivalent, capable of being used for either purpose; the intent matters. Aircraft carriers being used to hunt for submarines are probably defensive; aircraft carriers being used to bomb land targets probably are not. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/23/85)
> The polar sea question is of some interest to me. ... > ... I wonder what Trudeau would have done? Considering what Trudeau did to our armed forces, probably nothing. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (08/26/85)
In article <5902@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> I do question the decision to purchase F-18's. >It was probably the best aircraft available at the price our glorious >government was willing to pay, unfortunately. > >> The F-20 is far cheaper and about equal in capabilities. It also is >> capable of greater range. > >I haven't checked the range numbers, but you're probably right. Note >however that the F-20 didn't exist at the time when we were buying. >You can wait forever to get the best buy; we damn near did! The CAF's >fighters were falling apart, and should have been replaced ten years ago. >I'm afraid that F-18s today make me happier than F-20s three or four >years down the road. And, given the history of the F-18's disappointments during development, the F-20 isn't likely to be much better. >> The F-16 is faster and more reliable and about the same price. > >They're both in the same speed range, last I heard. The F-16 can't, at >the moment, carry medium-range air-to-air missiles, which is a significant >loss for air defence. Yes, this will be fixed eventually, at the cost of >greater complexity and hence lower reliability. It's also single-engined, >which is the subject of perennial debates about safety; not a trivial >issue for long-range operations in places like the Arctic. That was one of the few demands that the CAF placed upon the aircraft that the Govt. respected (dual engines). Particularly given the history of the F104, I wouldn't like to be flying over the arctic with only one engine. An interesting point can be found. I seem to remember, that given their druthers, the CAF would have loved to get F-15's (somewhat combat proven, better performance and longer reliability history). The main problem at the beginning of the selection process was that the F-15 cost almost twice as much as the F-18 did. At the first "cut-off" they dropped the F-15 due to cost. By the time the final selection was made, interestingly enough, the F-15 was no longer more expensive than the F-18 - in fact it was cheaper! >As to what we *should* have had... The Panavia Tornado is built by a >consortium originally organized by... Canada!?! We withdrew from it >during the Trudeau years because there was no clear requirement for >the aircraft (!). For our needs, it's a much better aircraft than any >of the lightweights. Agreed. Or, the F-15 or F-14. Toronados would have made a big difference in the Falklands if only the British could have maintained them there. >If you want another example of lost opportunities, some years ago >Grumman was interested in using a Canadian order to get a land-based >variant of the F-14 going. They were keen enough on this that the price >might well have been manageable. Then. Goes back even farther - to the Avro Arrow of course! BTW: some people have been commenting about the agedness and supposed ineffectiveness of the Canadian Navy. You may be interested in knowing, though the papers haven't picked it up yet, that the Navy is embarking (and the Govt. is now committed to) a MAJOR destroyer rebuild program. I understand that over the next 5 or so years every one of our destroyers is going to be completely replaced EXCEPT for the good-ol' WWII-type steel hull (and probably most of the superstructure) itself. In this, they expect to have destroyers technologically at least as good as any others in the world, and with hulls that will stand up somewhat better than the Brit's did in the Falklands. They're supposed to last until the end of the century. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
ludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) (08/28/85)
In article <1887@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <5902@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>> I do question the decision to purchase F-18's. From arguing political and defense philosophy, this discussion has degenerated to arguing the merits of various pieces of hardware. Whilst hardware is important, the intention behind it is much more important. As long as technical/scientific people continue arguing how many jet engines can dance on the head of a pin, the people who make the decisions will (correctly) ignore us. -- -- Peter Ludemann ludemann@ubc-cs.uucp (ubc-vision!ubc-cs!ludemann) ludemann@cs.ubc.cdn (ludemann@cs.ubc.cdn@ubc.mailnet) ludemann@ubc.csnet (ludemann%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA)
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (08/31/85)
In article <5906@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> The polar sea question is of some interest to me. ... >> ... I wonder what Trudeau would have done? > >Considering what Trudeau did to our armed forces, probably nothing. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry I don't know about that. Trudeau was quick on the draw to pull the War Measures Act out of the mothballs. He was clearly the most concerned Prime Minister we've ever had regarding our independence from the U.S. I think he, at least could have 'found' our Navy. Apparently Mulroney lost it somewhere. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/03/85)
In article <774@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >In article <5906@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>> The polar sea question is of some interest to me. ... >>> ... I wonder what Trudeau would have done? >> >>Considering what Trudeau did to our armed forces, probably nothing. > > I don't know about that. Trudeau was quick on the draw to >pull the War Measures Act out of the mothballs. He was clearly >the most concerned Prime Minister we've ever had regarding our >independence from the U.S. I think he, at least could have 'found' >our Navy. Apparently Mulroney lost it somewhere. Mulroney lost nothing! What we have to work with is what was left by the liberals, and that is not much. Not even Ronald Reagan could rebuild a nations armed forces in a year. Furthermore, there was no need to do much. The US gave us a letter, according to Macleans, that states that the voyage in no way affects Canada's claims on the area. Then our only concern would have been with pollution. It was determined that this was no problem either. The only problem was that the press blew everything out of proportion in order to improve their ratings. Cheers, Fred Williams
robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) (09/04/85)
In article <1952@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: . . . > > Furthermore, there was no need to do much. The US gave us a >letter, according to Macleans, that states that the voyage in no >way affects Canada's claims on the area. . . . >.... The only problem was that the press blew >everything out of proportion in order to improve their ratings. > >Cheers, Fred Williams ****** Here we go: let's shoot the messenger. I mean like wow how can we doubt our American FRIENDS I mean like they gave us this neat little note saying that would be nice people and not rub our noses in the Polar Sea four or five years from now. These people in the press are so icky poo to point out that our FRIEND the US doesn't recognize our claim up there in that there Artic and that they are never going to recognize our claim unless Canada kicks up a stink. ******** Sorry for the sarcasm above but those were my feelings upon reading Mr. Williams note. The Polar Sea incident aside the United States does not recognize our claim to the NorthWest Passage and does show every intention of forcing the issue soon. If it won't be for economic reasons ( LNG ) it will be for military reasons. A note of the nature sent by Washington has no binding force under International Law and it quite clearly cannot be construed as a acceptance of our rights in the region as a request for permission to enter would be. What the note promises is that if the case ever comes to court in one way or another the US will not use the Polar Sea voyage as a piece of evidence. I really don't think that is acceptable from a friend with whom we have now had a `special relationship' with for a bit over a year. This does not absolve the Liberal Administration of blame in the matter. The Trudeau Government chose to use rhetoric and publicity as weapons in the matter but neglected the obvious necessity of ice breakers or submarines capable of working in the Artic year round regardless of the thickness of the ice. It is interesting to note that from time of the Manhattan Incident to the time of the Polar Sea Incident no ( American ) ships passed through the NW Passage. This could mean either one of three things: 1) The Americans have adopted a policy of "showing the flag" within the first year of every Canadian Adminstration ( Clark and Turner didn't last long enough ). 2) they didn't want or need to send any ships through 3) Trudeau kicked up to much of a fuss the last time and this Mulroney fellow seems like a bit more of a pushover. I suspect that 2) and 3) are the most probable reasons with 3) being the most likely one for the truly paranoid 1) would have it hands down. Perhaps this is an approriate time to re-evaluate Canada's role in NATO and move towards a more Northern oriented viewpoint. we can serve NATO and ourselves by securing the North from the Soviets ( serves NATO and ourselves ) and the Americans ( serves ourselves ). This would probably entail cancelling he construction of those frigates which have not yet begun construction and building a few Polar x class icebreakers as well as redeploying troops in Europe in the North ( with the proper retraining of course ). In the end though I feel that it is disgraceful that the Prime Minister had no comment to nake on the matter until the voyage was over and its only fair to expect the press both conservative and liberal to make an issue out of it. cheers Robert Janes
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (09/05/85)
In article <1952@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > Mulroney lost nothing! What we have to work with is what was >left by the liberals, and that is not much. Not even Ronald Reagan Oh , quit blaming the Liberals for doing *exactly* what popular opinion of the day (what the majority of Canadians at that time) wanted. In not funding the military properly, they merely reflected *accurately* the priority of the people. Or have you forgotten? I haven't. I seemed to have lived through that period of time with my eyes open. Even today the priority of the majority of Canadians is peace related jobs. If you have any doubt, then look at the statistics for volunteers for our armed forces. In fact, even during the worst periods of unemployment over the last couple of years, e rush to join the army? If you put the choice directly in the hands of the people to put money into arms or to put it into job creation, you know darned well which one the people would vote for. That doesn't mean I think their making the right choice, (I believe in some kind of balance, although it's never easy to pin down where to put the fulcrum), but the Tories *clearly* would not have done much substantially different. Both parties, you see, are made up of people with some degree of respect for the principles of democracy. > Furthermore, there was no need to do much. The US gave us a >letter, according to Macleans, that states that the voyage in no >way affects Canada's claims on the area. Then our only concern >would have been with pollution. It was determined that this was >no problem either. The only problem was that the press blew >everything out of proportion in order to improve their ratings. > >Cheers, Fred Williams How 'bout that. I should have known better. I haven't really trusted the press that much in years and yet I figured that they had there facts straight this time. Oh well. Does this mean that the US sent the letter before the ship went through? If not, then it looks to me like somebody down there either goofed (impossible) or they were testing the political water more than the arctic. Now if we can just settle the Grand Banks problems... Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (09/05/85)
In article <3501@garfield.UUCP> robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) claims: >we can serve NATO and ourselves by securing the North from the >Soviets ( serves NATO and ourselves ) and the Americans ( serves >ourselves ). This would probably entail cancelling he construction of >those frigates which have not yet begun construction and building a >few Polar x class icebreakers as well as redeploying troops in Europe >in the North ( with the proper retraining of course ). > The basic problem with this proposal is that it just reallocates where we spend our money and does not address the fact that we are incapable of patrolling or defending any of our coastlines. Switching money from frigates to icebreakers would only moderately improve our position in the north at the expense of the east and west coasts. With such an approach we would continue to be applying typical Trudeau type band-aid solutions to real problems. In keeping with my previous postings of advocating a strong defence for Canada I would suggest that we build both the icebreakers and frigates. Additionally our air force should be expanded so that it can properly patrol and monitor our coasts and the high arctic. As for where we would get the money for this, I refer you to my network response to John Hogg's article of a couple of weeks ago asking just this question. For those of you in central Canada, far from the frontiers, who think I am being hysterical about this I would just like to point out that it is not your neck the Soviets are busy breathing down. At this very moment, according to a Canadian Armed Forces spokesman and reported in the Vancouver Sun, there sits a 4,000 tonne friendly Soviet warship carrying a crew of 200 and armed with surface-to-air missiles just over 30 kilometres off our coast. Its purpose, along with Russian and Polish fishing vessels, is to monitor Canadian and American military radio communications. I have no idea how long this ship was off our coast before being detected, but given the size and readiness of the Canadian Navy on the West coast it would be my guess that it was first spotted by some commercial fisherman and not our Navy. This however is not an isolated incident, according to the Globe and Wail fighters were scrambled from Bagotville on August 20th to intercept two Soviet bombers off the Newfoundland Coast. The military claimed that this was a relatively common occurrence as the Soviets test their equipment and our reaction times. For both the people of the Atlantic provinces and BC, it certainly isn't a very nice feeling knowing that if someone wants to they can just waltz into our air space because all our fighters are based well away from the coasts. Donald Acton
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/05/85)
In article <3501@garfield.UUCP> robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) writes: >In article <1952@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >> Furthermore, there was no need to do much. The US gave us a >>letter, according to Macleans, that states that the voyage in no >>way affects Canada's claims on the area. >>.... The only problem was that the press blew >>everything out of proportion in order to improve their ratings. > >****** > Here we go: let's shoot the messenger. I mean like wow how >can we doubt our American FRIENDS I mean like they gave us this neat >little note saying that would be nice people and not rub our noses >in the Polar Sea four or five years from now. These people in the >press are so icky poo to point out that our FRIEND the US doesn't >recognize our claim up there in that there Artic and that they >are never going to recognize our claim unless Canada kicks up >a stink. >******** > > Sorry for the sarcasm above but those were my feelings >upon reading Mr. Williams note. Apology accepted. I realise it is difficult to communicate over the net when body signals & facial expressions are absent. "Shoot the messenger" was not the message I was trying to convey. Yes, our sovereinty in the north *is* important and I am strongly in favour of building a couple of year round ice breakers, (even at the cost of $450 million each, which has been quoted). Yes, I would even go as far to arm them with rocket launchers or some such system. (Anti-sub weapons as well)! In addition, I am not ignorant of the fact that our relationship with the US tends to be a bit one sided to say the least. Having said all that, I just want to point out that all this fuss over the Polar Sea seemed to lead many people to think that our claims to that area had been sucessfully challanged. With the exception of Macleans, I saw no mention of letters exchanged between the US and Canada stating that the voyage in no way affected the validity of our claim. This was *somewhat* irresponsible in my opinion, but that is not to say that the press in general in no good, etc. I have seen the members of the fifth estate do excellent work on occasion. Cheers, Fred Williams
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/05/85)
In article <781@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >In article <1952@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >> Mulroney lost nothing! What we have to work with is what was >>left by the liberals, and that is not much. Not even Ronald Reagan > > Oh , quit blaming the Liberals for doing *exactly* what popular >opinion of the day (what the majority of Canadians at that time) There is a time to follow and a time to lead. True, political leaders are responsible to the people, (or should be), but they also have the job of examining issues and situations in greater detail than the average citizen. Ideally, they would have some skill in analyzing decisions in the political forum. Therefore there are times when unpopular decisions should be taken. We have an excellent example with the issue of the 200 mile limit, and national defence. Yes it may have been popular to let defence spending slide and put more money into social programs, but I look upon this as *close* to trying to buy votes. It is also not terribly good for the economy in the long run when one uses deficit financing to pay for it, but that is another story. Now as a result we have something like 30% of our tax dollars going to pay the interest on the national debt, high unemployment due to inflated interest rates, (ie businesses can't afford to finance new projects -yes I know this is a simplification but I'm trying to save space-), and the *only* good thing to come of it: low inflation! Actually I would prefer a little more inflation myself so that some of my holdings would appreciate a little faster, but this is really a false economy, so I won't insist on it. >(I believe in some kind of balance, although it's never easy to pin >down where to put the fulcrum), but the Tories *clearly* would not >have done much substantially different. > Three cheers for the balance!! Lets not condemn the tories for what we think they might have done, (I am a PC member myself). The party admittedly does make mistakes, (in my view, expanding Petro- Can was one), so there is enough to criticize without dredging up hypothetical mistakes. > Both parties, you see, are made up of people with some degree >of respect for the principles of democracy. > As a party member I thank-you. > How 'bout that. I should have known better. I haven't really >trusted the press that much in years and yet I figured that they >had there facts straight this time. Oh well. Does this mean that >the US sent the letter before the ship went through? If not, then >it looks to me like somebody down there either goofed (impossible) >or they were testing the political water more than the arctic. >Now if we can just settle the Grand Banks problems... I think they had their facts straight, they just weren't reporting all of them. It is my understanding that the letter was in our hands before the ship entered Canadian waters. Whether it was before the Polar Sea set sail I don't know. I don't think they goofed either. Jim, as a lawyer I thought you would know: the Grand Banks dispute was settled by the international court, wasn't it? I was disappointed with the ruling, but I think we have to accept it. Cheers, Fred Williams
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/05/85)
In article <2005@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >In article <3501@garfield.UUCP> robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) writes: >>In article <1952@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >>> Furthermore, there was no need to do much. The US gave us a >>>letter, according to Macleans, that states that the voyage in no >>>way affects Canada's claims on the area. >>>.... The only problem was that the press blew >>>everything out of proportion in order to improve their ratings. >..... > Having said all that, I just want to point out that all this fuss >over the Polar Sea seemed to lead many people to think that our >claims to that area had been sucessfully challanged. With the exception >of Macleans, I saw no mention of letters exchanged between the US >and Canada stating that the voyage in no way affected the validity >of our claim. Though I think that the Polar Sea incident was mainly a Media blow-up, you should consider one thing about Canadian Common Law (I'm sure that the lawyers out there will correct the precise details) that may have a bearing. If a person has some property, and someone else decides to create a thoroughfare [eg: footpath at a cottage] or make use of some of the property, where that use has not been contested [eg: cease-and-desist order, calling in the cops etc., kicking said person off] for a period of time [I seem to remember that it is 10 years], the owner of the property loses at least part (if not all) of his property rights to that section used. This came up at my Grandfather's cottage. Some years ago we had the occasional person cut a corner through his property. We didn't mind it much, but we had been advised that we should prevent such use, because after the time period has expired, unless some contract exists to the contrary, he'd lose ownership of part of his property. Partially related to some sort of "squatter's" right legislation I expect. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/05/85)
> ... [Trudeau] was clearly > the most concerned Prime Minister we've ever had regarding our > independence from the U.S. ... And possibly the least concerned we've ever had regarding the capabilities and preparedness of our armed forces. The Canadian Armed Forces have a long history of public neglect, but the rot got a lot worse during the Trudeau administration. It's true that underfunding for the armed forces somewhat reflects the low priority given to this issue by the public, but the government in power still has a lot of say in the matter. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/05/85)
> Oh , quit blaming the Liberals for doing *exactly* what popular > opinion of the day (what the majority of Canadians at that time) > wanted. ... Leaders are supposed to lead, and not just in the sense that the carved figurehead leads a ship. > ... If you have any doubt, then look at the > statistics for volunteers for our armed forces. In fact, even during > the worst periods of unemployment over the last couple of years... Have you looked at the (low) salaries our armed forces are paying lately? And the (minimal) chances of getting one of the more interesting jobs? > ... If you put the choice directly > in the hands of the people to put money into arms or to put it > into job creation, you know darned well which one the people would > vote for.... If you put it as an either-or choice, of course. But that's a biased question. Most people, if asked, would probably prefer plentiful jobs *and* competent defence. > Both parties, you see, are made up of people with some degree > of respect for the principles of democracy. Note that one principle of *representative* *constitutional* democracy is that the people don't necessarily get to have their own way when they're being stupid. Both parties are made up largely of people who care more about the next election than about the health of the nation. Hence their idea of what's right is taken from opinion polls. Principles? Hah. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/07/85)
In article <2007@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >In article <781@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > >>Now if we can just settle the Grand Banks problems... > > I think they had their facts straight, they just weren't reporting >all of them. > It is my understanding that the letter was in our hands before >the ship entered Canadian waters. Whether it was before the Polar >Sea set sail I don't know. I don't think they goofed either. > Jim, as a lawyer I thought you would know: the Grand Banks >dispute was settled by the international court, wasn't it? I was >disappointed with the ruling, but I think we have to accept it. > >Cheers, Fred Williams I haven't read the judgement. Unfortunately, as a former student of International Law, I rarely get a chance to keep up with the topic (sigh--too busy trying to make a living). I'll caution you, however, that little is ever necessarily solved in the international courts. The real solution occurs if and when the parties involved decide to abide by the ruling, and more practically, whether they can come to some kind of compromise which is advantageous to both parties. The 'winner' of an international dispute would be very foolish to leave the court laughing and with the intention of 'sticking it' to the loser. I don't think I have to go into the 'why's about that. I think you know that the US wouldn't really want to rub our noses in a bad decision too much. Their biggest trading partner and all that stuff. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura