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!fred From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Arming our Forces Message-ID: <2050@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 17:03:18 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2050 Posted: Fri Sep 6 17:03:18 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 19:41:47 EDT References: <1371@utcsri.UUCP> <2043@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Distribution: can Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 109 Summary: 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