Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!hogg From: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Arming our Forces Message-ID: <1377@utcsri.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 15:59:00 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsri.1377 Posted: Mon Sep 9 15:59:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 16:23:01 EDT References: <1371@utcsri.UUCP> <2043@mnetor.UUCP> <1373@utcsri.UUCP> <2053@mnetor.UUCP> <2058@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John hogg) Distribution: can Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 76 Summary: This may be getting a mite repetitious to those reading this group who couldn't care less about our military. Therefore, the first piece of mail I receive telling me to shut up will be gladly obeyed. Until that time, I would like to clarify some misunderstandings that Chris has regarding my views on military preparedness: 1) First, "peace-keeping forces" and Search And Rescue. These duties are both handled by the Forces. They needn't be; neither requires more than a paramilitary force. However, they are (and I believe should be) and therefore should be funded as required. NOTE THAT PEACE-KEEPING FORCES NEED NOT BE HEAVILY ARMED! They are only invited in at the request of BOTH feuding parties, and when things blow up, they are pulled out PDQ. "Local initiative" (to put it politely) makes it necessary for our UN forces to carry sidearms and fortify their observation posts. However, a weapon that can't be carried in one hand is overkill for UN duty, and therefore calls to overequip the Forces on the grounds that they need guns for Cyprus are highly questionable. Also note that we'll never be drawn into a war through peacekeeping force participation. In fact, the popularity of Canadians for this duty is an indication that we are still regarded as "honest brokers". Any country that invites us in, from Viet Nam to Cyprus, clearly feels that we can stand back from the US or the UK and perform our task fairly. 2) Next, NATO participation. Others have suggested that we could in fact fulfil our NATO obligations by defending our north alone, and pull our presence in Europe, which isn't large enough to make a difference anyway. I'm ambivalent about this; either we should do it well, or not at all. In either case, my comments on sophistication of weaponry stand. 3) Type of defence required. Until a REALISTIC scenario is presented to me which has us getting involved in a non-nuclear war, I will reiterate my opinion that we need simple (but omnipresent) weapons which will allow us to detect intruders and repel them by moral right, not larger calibre. This requires large numbers of units in operation, which dictates that they be simple or that we shell out an order of magnitude more cash. Not more than we're spending now; more than we need to. 4) Types of equipment. That "order of magnitude" as a rule of thumb came from multiplying three by three. For instance, the US M-1 tank cost (last time I saw any figures) about three times as much as the M-60 it replaces, yet breaks down so frequently that it is available for a third of the time. Given the same money, I'd rather be on the side with the nine tanks. Especially when M-1 crews prefer to switch off their automatic gun-layer because they get better results shooting by eye and hand. The same is true in other areas. A good fighter example is the Tigershark, which was designed as a cheap fighter for US export use only. It has stacked up well against the sophisticated planes that the US forces fly, but hasn't sold well as it is lacking in glamour. I can find quantitative details if requested to. Patrolling our arctic is the one area where we must get fairly sophisticated. The high-tech route is to use nuclear subs. Using diesel boats is bound to be cheaper, and as a bonus, they're quieter and can detect intruders better. As they'll need to surface occasionally, icebreaker mother ships will be required. Again, the flashy route is to go nuclear. But I seriously doubt that the fuel savings will ever pay for the development and additional down-time costs - and I am strongly pro-nuke. In summary - yes, we need to protect ourselves against all realistic threats against our territory that can be protected against. We must do this to avoid others doing it for us. But there is no conventional threat on the horizon (where "the horizon" is the time required to buildup to a war footing) and there is no reason to get sophisticated weapons where numerous cheap ones will be far more effective. -- John Hogg Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hogg