Calling all Canadians...how would you fix our military?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Question: Why does Canada need a more effective military?

To be able to honour international commitments.

[KrazyHorse]

To invade the United St....



What NYE said.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Frogger
To invade the United St....



What NYE said.

try it kittyhorse. just TRY it.

maybe to protect "the largest undefended border" in the world we should move some rednecks up there.

[KrazyHorse]

You already did. Remember Minnesota?

[KrazyHorse]

Anyhoo, we don't really want the US. Too dity and overpopulated. You're to us what India is to you.

[notyoueither]

We don't need to invade with force. We'll take over through TV... The CBS evening news, with Harvey Kirck.

[KrazyHorse]

Meet the Press with Don Newman...

[notyoueither]

Crossfire! With Dalton Camp from the right and Barbara Frum from the left...

[KrazyHorse]

That might not be very lively...

[notyoueither]

You've caught on...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, since the Atlantic Charter, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand almost act as one on military issues. We should continue the close relationship.

This implies that the four of us coordinate on equipping our armed services so that we do not duplicate efforts and have the same ammo, etc.

What are you talking about Ned?

The only Atlantic Charter I know is the one signed during WWII, but that certainly didn't extend past the war or require Canada and the US to act as one on military issues, let alone use the same logistics.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You've caught on...

I'd forgotten that poor old harvey was dead.

[notyoueither]

[notyoueither]

BTW, I just saw Dutch on CTV doing a week in sports round up... Beats 'em like a rented mule!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What are you talking about Ned?

The only Atlantic Charter I know is the one signed during WWII, but that certainly didn't extend past the war or require Canada and the US to act as one on military issues, let alone use the same logistics.

I'm not saying the Atlantic charter is still in force. But since that date, the UK and the US have largely been on the same page. The "special relationship" between Roosevelt and Churchill endures.

It also seems that Australia, more than not, fights side by side with the US. I also believe Canada and the United State cooperated extensively during the cold war.

I'm just suggest that we build on these many decades of close cooperation and take it to the next level and try to standardize equipment, etc.

[KrazyHorse]

As I understand it, most of the equipment which it is important to standardize (ground-based forces) is already standardized. I don't know if it's important that everyone flies the same fighters as long as all the grunts are able to use the same ammunition...

[notyoueither]

Right. Send us a 100 Abrams. We'll use 'em.

Better yet, 5 Los Angeles class attack subs.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Right. Send us a 100 Abrams. We'll use 'em.

Better yet, 5 Los Angeles class attack subs.

And a couple of nuclear aircraft carriers while you're at it...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
As I understand it, most of the equipment which it is important to standardize (ground-based forces) is already standardized. I don't know if it's important that everyone flies the same fighters as long as all the grunts are able to use the same ammunition...

Actually, some variety is desirable.

The USAF did not want to pursue VTOL. Result, the USMC adopted the Harrier for that role.

It can be 'little' things too. The Canadian snipers in Afghanistan and their equipment are another example.

We are probably better off to not leave things to a single set of bureaucrats. Competition is a good thing.

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah...but it would be nice if there are standardized sizes for, for instance, artillery, no?

That way if you've only got British shells and American guns you can still fight...

The high-tech stuff is good to have a spectrum...but basic equipment needs to be readily usable by everybody on your team.

[notyoueither]

Yes. Small arms are supposed to be like that within NATO. I'm not sure about artillery or tank munitions though. I'd have to check.

[Ned]

It could also mean that we are all using the same command and control equipment so that units could mix and match on the battlefield. Imagine a Canadian commander calling in a high precision B-52 strike?

[KrazyHorse]

Imagine a Canadian commander ordering the launch of hundreds of American nuclear warheads...

http://www.norad.mil/

High-precision B-52 strikes...sounds like an oxymoron to me, dear...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frogger
Imagine a Canadian commander ordering the launch of hundreds of American nuclear warheads...

http://www.norad.mil/

High-precision B-52 strikes...sounds like an oxymoron to me, dear...

I understand they have GPS-guided bombs. A spotter uses his laser to find the target. GPS location data of the target is sent to a sattlelite and then to the plane, which encodes it in the bombs.

[VetLegion]

I didnt read the thread.

Just dropping in to say, something you may or may not know.

Current trouble in Croatia is directly related to canadian military.

Yes, canadians have fought in croatia what was "their largest involvement in combat since koran war"

here are the links to articles in canadian papers (excerpts from a book)

http://www.balkanpeace.org/wcs/wct/wctc/wctc14.html
http://www.balkanpeace.org/wcs/wct/wctc/wctc13.html

and readers impresions (on amazonu):

 

[St Leo]

Step 1 to a more effective military: vote out the Liberals.

I am voting NDP.

[Tingkai]

Everyone in NATO has long talked about how great it would be if we all used the same ammo. The problem is no one can agree on what that ammo should be. Edit: there is some coordination. For example, the Canadians basically use the same light arms as the Americans.

As for communications, there are already NATO standards that allow troops from different countries to communicate to each other (provided they speak the same language).

In overall CCC, the Americans are so far ahead of the game that I doubt they want to share all of their technology and even if they did, I doubt that other NATO countries would be willing to spend the money to upgrade their abilities.

[Drake Tungsten]

High-precision B-52 strikes...sounds like an oxymoron to me, dear...

I understand they have GPS-guided bombs. A spotter uses his laser to find the target. GPS location data of the target is sent to a sattlelite and then to the plane, which encodes it in the bombs.

Ned 1 - Frogger 0

Seems someone's knowledge of military technology is equal to Ned's knowledge of economics...

[private hudson]

Originally posted by Ned


I understand they have GPS-guided bombs. A spotter uses his laser to find the target. GPS location data of the target is sent to a sattlelite and then to the plane, which encodes it in the bombs.

Pity that doesn't stop you guys from dropping them on the chinese embassy then...............

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

High-precision B-52 strikes...sounds like an oxymoron to me, dear...

Quote:

I understand they have GPS-guided bombs. A spotter uses his laser to find the target. GPS location data of the target is sent to a sattlelite and then to the plane, which encodes it in the bombs.

Ned 1 - Frogger 0

Seems someone's knowledge of military technology is equal to Ned's knowledge of economics...

Really? I doubt you understand the meaning of the word "oxymoron" then.

Jumbo shrimps exist...it's just that their name is contradictory.