Canada and the World

[kEiThZ]

Does Canada needs carriers on our own coasts? Aren't they more useful for power projection, which is not really the business we're in...?

Given the size of our country and coast lines we probably should have them. It should be noted that Canada is the only G7 country or country of any significant size without some kind of flat top. Not included on this list is Japan and South Korea pursuing their own carrier and amphibious programs.

When it comes to the question of power projection, at some point, we have to ask whether Canada intends to act like a middle power and major global economy. Our turn away from the kind of power projection we engaged in during the Cold War (with bases in Europe and Caribbean), is why we're being left out of emerging alliances (like AUKUS). The end result of our current trends, is that we accept our fate as an American dependency. Including future deployments in the Arctic:

New missions in the high north are taking US and British aircraft carriers closer to a frigid frontline with Russia

The US Navy is "in an upward trajectory with respect to the Arctic, and I don't think we're going to turn back," the Navy's top officer said in May.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[afransen]

I dunno, it wouldn't be a high priority for me while we have major gaps in more basic capability.

 

[kEiThZ]

I dunno, it wouldn't be a high priority for me while we have major gaps in more basic capability.

We have plenty of gaps. This is one of them. It's just further down the list. For example, it's pretty hard to really control the maritime domain without a flat top of some kind. Even hunting subs is easier and more effective with a flat top. It's also hard to deploy our forces in an emergency (like the recent requests to bolster NATO in Europe) without proper sealift of our own. But yes, having an actually functional military might be a pre-requisite.

Australia is what we should aspire to:

Canberra-class landing helicopter dock - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[kEiThZ]

Exactly what I've been saying for a while......

“The fact is that (nuclear submarine) technology has existed for a while, so the sharing of that is not a big deal,” he said.

“The issue is when you start talking about advanced technology in terms of the artificial-intelligence domain, machine learning, quantum, all of these things that really matter moving forward. Those are conversations we need to be in on. And the issue is: Why are we not included in this? Is it resistance to get involved? Is it policy restrictions that we have? Or are we just not going to invest? That's the question. So it is a significant concern.”

Military concerned by Canada's absence from American-British-Australian security pact

There are concerns at the highest levels of the Canadian Armed Forces that this country won't have access to the same cutting-edge military technology as its closest allies because it is not part of a security pact between Australia, Britain and the United States.

www.ctvnews.ca

The government is being rather disingenuous pretending that this is just a tech sharing deal and not a major change in the geopolitical positioning of Canada, with some potentially serious consequences.

 

[kEiThZ]

If this is what the Americans (with a Democratic administration no less) think of the UK, imagine what they think of Canada....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1619828221729705984

 

[Northern Light]

A column from the Star's Martin Regg Cohn opposing Canadian military intervention in Haiti and suggesting it would be a futile effort and end badly.

Martin Regg Cohn: Americans think Canadian soldiers can save Haiti. They’re wrong

Haiti is in our hemisphere and on our doorstep but on the ground, there is too much history — and hostility — to justify sending in another foreign force, Martin Regg Cohn writes.

www.thestar.com

Given the history of such interventions, I think that's probably not an unreasonable conclusion.

However, it does lay out a couple of conundrums. One is what are we (or anyone else) ever going to do about Haiti, which seems an unending basketcase?

The second is that the Americans and U.N. are both regularly pushing us to 'lead' some sort of exercise to do 'something'. Again, I'm not sure that's a wise idea; on the other hand, in the world of real politik; the decision to go may be
less about Haiti's welfare or our effectiveness than being seen to be cooperative with our ally...

 

[lenaitch]

A column from the Star's Martin Regg Cohn opposing Canadian military intervention in Haiti and suggesting it would be a futile effort and end badly.

Martin Regg Cohn: Americans think Canadian soldiers can save Haiti. They’re wrong

Haiti is in our hemisphere and on our doorstep but on the ground, there is too much history — and hostility — to justify sending in another foreign force, Martin Regg Cohn writes.

www.thestar.com

Given the history of such interventions, I think that's probably not an unreasonable conclusion.

However, it does lay out a couple of conundrums. One is what are we (or anyone else) ever going to do about Haiti, which seems an unending basketcase?

The second is that the Americans and U.N. are both regularly pushing us to 'lead' some sort of exercise to do 'something'. Again, I'm not sure that's a wise idea; on the other hand, in the world real politik; the decision to go may be
less about Haiti's welfare or our effectiveness than being seen to be cooperative with our ally...

The article starts off with the term "peacekeeping", which too many Canadian nostalgically think of when they think of the military (if they think about it at all). A deployment to Haiti would be anything but a blue-helmeted, lightly armed, operationally constrained 'wave-and-smile' mission. He later correctly calls it "peacemaking". Many Canadians, politicians and academics might support it, until personnel start coming home in body bags and/or images of white soldiers killing black citizens start appearing. The absolute worst situation would be for us to send a contingent, the government and public lose their stomach and interest, but leave the troops there so as to not look like we are cutting and running. I also have no faith in the UN's ability to lead foreign military missions.

 

[afransen]

I don't feel like the right answer is for us to turn a blind eye to Haiti's present circumstances. I'm not sure that we are willing to commit what it would take to try to re-establish a functioning state there.

 

[lenaitch]

I don't feel like the right answer is for us to turn a blind eye to Haiti's present circumstances. I'm not sure that we are willing to commit what it would take to try to re-establish a functioning state there.

Haiti has been an independent nation since 1804; before that it was a French colony. I'm not convinced "us" has any obligation. There is virtually no functioning civil infrastructure or institutions nor apparently much desire to create and maintain them. Any commitment to turn that place around would take probably two generations of running it like a colony.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

In case anyone wants some history on Haiti and how it became to such a state:

 

[kEiThZ]

For all those who think North America is untouchable.....

Chinese spy balloon: US tracks suspected surveillance device

Officials decided against shooting it down due to the danger of falling debris from the "sizeable" device.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

For all those who think North America is untouchable.....

Chinese spy balloon: US tracks suspected surveillance device

Officials decided against shooting it down due to the danger of falling debris from the "sizeable" device.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Japanese attempted this (as an offensive weapon) during the Second World War - it wasn't a very effective avenue for generalized destruction (slow, generally unpredictable path - it might be hard to detect but also rather vulnerable). I do have to wonder what this particular balloon is carrying. Would be interesting to take it down for a close look.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

The Japanese attempted this (as an offensive weapon) during the Second World War - it wasn't a very effective avenue for generalized destruction (slow, generally unpredictable path - it might be hard to detect but also rather vulnerable). I do have to wonder what this particular balloon is carrying. Would be interesting to take it down for a close look.

AoD

Different implication here than Japanese WWII terror balloons.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1544527308282896385

 

[lenaitch]

Here we go again:

Bombardier CEO calls for Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft tender to consider ‘Canadian-built option’ - Skies Mag

Bombardier’s CEO is concerned that Canada is considering awarding a sole-source contract to Boeing for the Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft project.

skiesmag.com

My first question to BBD would be 'how many missiles/torpedoes can your version carry.?'. By the time government fuddles around with this, the P-8 line could well be shut down, so win for Quebec..

 

[kEiThZ]

If we were going to develop a maritime patrol aircraft, the best solution would be to team up with the Europeans and use the A220. The Global is too small to compete with the P8. The Europeans are still early in development:

ATL2 successor scoping work throws further doubt on French backing for MAWS programme

France has awarded contracts, each worth €10.9 million ($11.8 million), to Airbus Defence & Space and Dassault for early-stage development work on a new maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) based on their respective A320neo and Falcon 10X platforms.

www.flightglobal.com

We're likely getting the P-8 though and the E-7A for AWACS as part of NORAD modernization.