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!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!fred From: fred@mnetor.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Arming our Forces Message-ID: <2132@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2132 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 17:56:35 EDT References: <1371@utcsri.UUCP> <2043@mnetor.UUCP> <1373@utcsri.UUCP> <2053@mnetor.UUCP> <2058@mnetor.UUCP> <1377@utcsri.UUCP> <2101@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Distribution: can Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 102 Summary: Forgive me for butting in, guys, but I cannot resist. In article <2101@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <1377@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John hogg) writes: >>... Therefore, the first piece of mail >>I receive telling me to shut up will be gladly obeyed. > >I will too. > >>1) First, "peace-keeping forces" and Search And Rescue. > I have to agree with Chris on this but I can add another reason. The armed forces currently have this function and they are doing it adequately, and in most cases rather well...except for the Martin Hartwell incident. Basically I believe in the motto; If it ain't broke - don't fix it. Furthermore, in peacetime we really ought to get something back for our tax dollars. SAR would be very expensive if we had to start from scratch with a new government dept. DND, of coarse, could not be expected to take budget cuts, could they(:-)>. >>2) Next, NATO participation. > >I'm sorta ambivalent w.r.t. NATO too. But there'd hardly be any point >to us being there if our forces couldn't hold their own against equivalent >sized forces. If they couldn't, NATO should send us home as a liability >because we certainly wouldn't be an asset (we'd provide target practise >for the Russians). > Our forces stack up pretty well against forces of equivalent numbers. In manouvers we wipe up US forces consistantly! The secret is that our guys fight with the same attitude that our hockey players play hockey...who could beat us? >>4) Types of equipment. > >If the M1 is all that bad, then by all means lets stick with the M-60. > Actually we have the Leopard II main battle tank - the best in the world, (in my own humble opinion). I spent a year designing (lets say, 'accessories' ) for it, and simulating shot data. I was very impressed. >> diesel boats > >Now I get it - you meant diesel submarines (not ships)! (John'd would >rather be sailing) > It might be nice to have a couple more subs, and I agree that we should *not* go nuclear. Lets not say that we are going to use them to chase Soviet, (or American) nuclear subs out of the north though, that is a bit too much. > >Submerged listening gear and a consistent and effective air-patrol (even with >something as crummy as an Argus) with only a few aircraft capable of >"assault" would probably be perfectly sufficient, and a LOT cheaper >than nuclear or even diesel subs. > Yes! Agreed. Let me summarise what I feel we need in the 'true north, strong & whatever'. This is just a first rough cut without taking economic factors too seriously, although I'll try to stay within the bounds of reality - sort of. (ie. I'm not assuming totally unlimited resources.) 1. 2 all weather, all season ice breakers with some armament, say ship to ship rockets, ship to air rockets, and a 155mm deck cannon. Two heli-pads, of coarse, and lots of very sophisticated electronics!! The idea is- not terribly powerful, but really smart. This helps survivability in a way that gives us the most bang for the buck. 2. Stick with the F-18s because we're already stuck with them. But deploy them on runways where they are expected to be needed, because they are really short range craft when compared with the area we have to cover. 3. One of you guys suggested infantry strike forces that could be parachuted into an area where they are needed on very short notice. I really like this idea! The backbone of any military force is the infantry. 4. I also like the idea of long range, if slow, patrol aircraft. Obviously so does the current armed forces, they already have them. Again these should be very sophisticated in their electronics and integrable, (able to be integrated with), . 5. A new radar defence line to replace the DEW line. This is already in the works, as I understand. OK guys, can you improve on this? Is everything feasable? What sort of time frame do you think we need to put each phase into effect? What impact will it have on the Canadian economy? Lets talk about it some more, I like the discussion, however like you people said, if there are objections to this topic I'll roll over and play dead too. Actually nobody else seems to be using the newsgroup at the moment so I dodn't see a reason for stopping. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318