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: <2058@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 17:48:46 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2058 Posted: Sun Sep 8 17:48:46 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 19:16:04 EDT References: <1371@utcsri.UUCP> <2043@mnetor.UUCP> <1373@utcsri.UUCP> <2053@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Distribution: can Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 162 Summary: 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