Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Arming our Forces Message-ID: <2043@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 13:36:24 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2043 Posted: Fri Sep 6 13:36:24 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 15:18:24 EDT References: <1371@utcsri.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Distribution: can Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 155 Summary: 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