Canada and the World

[kEiThZ]

It must take significant training to effectively manage all that information that is, quite literally, in your face.

I've heard it said that the F-35 is "boring" to fly. Having it compared to going from driving stick to automatic. Instead, the focus is very much on information management with the guy at the controls becoming more of a tactician and less of a pilot.

I had heard that, early on in the F-35 roll-out, pilots were complaining about the sheer mass of the helmets and the impact on their neck and spine. I don't know if or how things have improved.

It wasn't on the F-35. It's a much bigger problem on the older fleets, with the older helmets. It's particularly bad with helicopter pilots and the weights of older night vision goggle sets.

I was vaguely aware of Baie du Nord and one I think there are a few others in the pipeline (?) but didn't realize it had much of a gas component.

It might have a small gas component. And there are LNG proposals in Nova Scotia, Quebec and New Brunswick. But that's beside the point. If we want to help out our allies, we should recognize that this might be one of the best ways for us to help.

Quite frankly, Russia likely had the capacity to conventionally pound all or parts Ukraine into dust - but chose not to.

Debatable. First off, they deployed a huge chunk of their active forces to Ukraine (something like 75% of ground forces). Next, we have plenty of reports that their reserves are completely rotten due to corruption leaving all that equipment unmaintained. Finally, their plan was based on a scaled down version of the 60s invasion of Czechoslovakia (Operation Danube), where the Soviets seized airfields near the capital, made a mad dash in, and imposed a new regime. The Ukrainians saw this plan coming a mile away and waited to ambush.

All they have to do is 'own' or sterilize a sufficient beachhead and control the strait and, as mentioned, their logistical tail is shorter and better developed. They have been working towards expanding and maintaining their China Sea area of control and influence for quite some time.

There's some other lessons for China too. Russia has largely failed because of logistics and incompetence of their troops, driven massively by corruption. Officers at every rank and in every organization seem to be pilfering budgets for personnel, training, supplies, etc. Turns out their units were 25% below nominal strength at the time of invasion, a lot of their equipment was unmaintained, and the troops don't seem to have done a lot of the elementary training we do in NATO militaries. They also don't have a strong professional NCO corps, so you have Junior officers doing double duty and senior officers going closer to the front than they should. China will learn from all of this. I guarantee you, if they haven't started a massive inventory check in China yet, they will. And I expect they'll be doing a lot more checks on whether training is actually being conducted or budgets are getting stolen.

Fundamentally though, China is not Russia. In China, the CCP has a real bureaucracy that makes decisions with substantial alignment between party and state interests. In Russia, the state bureaucracy exists solely to facilitate Kleptocracy. Bill Browder points out that Putin and the 500 people around him own 99.8% of Russia's wealth. As such, their military does not exist to defend national interests. It's another vehicle for corruption. I'd be surprised if China is anywhere close to this bad. And that is bad news for Taiwan.

China just isn't going to make the same mistakes. Consider for example the fact that it's still possible to communicate with Ukrainians. This has cost Russia the information war. I expect, China would work a lot harder to shut down information in/out of Taiwan. Or the basics like troops not using jam resistant radios, or not stocking enough rations. I don't expect China to make mistakes like that.

If Taiwan isn't ready to fight alone for a few weeks, till intervention reaches, they'll be in trouble.

 

[kEiThZ]

AUKUS deal expands to hypersonic weapons and electronic warfare. Five eyes slowly becoming three eyes and locking Canada out.

Trilateral AUKUS defence pact expands to hypersonic missiles and electronic warfare

The AUKUS defence pact between the U.S., Britain and Australia still excludes Canada

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If Taiwan isn't ready to fight alone for a few weeks, till intervention reaches, they'll be in trouble.

Unless they have WMD-based deterrents which changes the equation completely. Doubtful they had it - but having it changes the equation significantly.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Or they have WMD-based deterrents.

AoD

Which Taiwan has voluntarily given up. Also, China has air defences set up for a US attack. I imagine, Taiwan would need more than a handful for deterrence. If ever the decision is made to invade, it's because the CCP really believes it's in their best interest, regardless of the costs.

 

[lenaitch]

AUKUS deal expands to hypersonic weapons and electronic warfare. Five eyes slowly becoming three eyes and locking Canada out.

Trilateral AUKUS defence pact expands to hypersonic missiles and electronic warfare

The AUKUS defence pact between the U.S., Britain and Australia still excludes Canada

www.theglobeandmail.com

The group of clubs that we are still seen as active and meaningful member of is shrinking.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Which Taiwan has voluntarily given up. Also, China has air defences set up for a US attack. I imagine, Taiwan would need more than a handful for deterrence. If ever the decision is made to invade, it's because the CCP really believes it's in their best interest, regardless of the costs.

They supposedly gave up on their program under pressure, but did they really? If CCP really decided to invade at all costs, it doesn't matter how much of it Taiwan has access to because it would never be "enough" - but my gut feeling is that China is more rational than that. It is one thing to be cut off from international trade; it is another to have parts of the motherland reduced to smouldering rubble - and unlike the way it was before, I can't imagine that level of devastation is acceptable now when lives of the citizens aren't as "cheap" as they used to be.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

The group of clubs that we are still seen as active and meaningful member of is shrinking.

Five Eyes is foundational to our national security. The hierarchy is something like this:

NORAD/CANUS > Five Eyes > NATO

If we've dropped to the level of New Zealand inside the Five Eyes, that middle level is effectively deprecated and we become even more of an American colony basically transacting mostly with the US and a tiny bit with NATO.

And that is aside from the massive industrial implications of our aerospace, computing and defence sectors basically being locked out.

It's unfortunate that most Canadians will neither understand nor care. But this is huge. And not good for us.

 

[kEiThZ]

They supposedly gave up on their program under pressure, but did they really?

They had a very nascent program. But there's no way to really know how far they got given that they never tested. Nor do they have the delivery systems really. This is very different from say Israel who have reportedly developed delivery systems and have tested nukes.

Ideally, a country in Taiwan's situation should have a nuclear deterrent. But they seem to have accepted their status as an American protectorate.

If CCP really decided to invade at all costs, it doesn't matter how much of it Taiwan has access to because it would never be "enough" - but my gut feeling is that China is more rational than that.

I agree that China is far more rational, than say Russia. But there's no telling how that can change. And there's immense pressure on the CCP internally to solve the Taiwan problem. Both because the window is closing, as Taiwanese increasingly globalize and westernize, and because they need Taiwan to break out of the First Island Chain.

 

[afransen]

The crossing is much longer than the english channel.

Successfully Invading Taiwan is Militarily Impossible | NextBigFuture.com

Discourse Magazine has a summary of some of problems which make a military invasion of Taiwan impossible. I personally lived in Taiwan in 1995 and rode a bus

www.nextbigfuture.com

Would it really make sense for China to reduce Taiwan to ashes to reincorporate the territory? They would need to if they wanted to take Taiwan by amphibious invasion. I could see maybe a blockade of some sort, but Taiwan could make that very costly as well.

 

[Lennox970]

They had a very nascent program. But there's no way to really know how far they got given that they never tested. Nor do they have the delivery systems really. This is very different from say Israel who have reportedly developed delivery systems and have tested nukes.

Ideally, a country in Taiwan's situation should have a nuclear deterrent. But they seem to have accepted their status as an American protectorate.



I agree that China is far more rational, than say Russia. But there's no telling how that can change. And there's immense pressure on the CCP internally to solve the Taiwan problem. Both because the window is closing, as Taiwanese increasingly globalize and westernize, and because they need Taiwan to break out of the First Island Chain.

I think there is a lot to be said for deterrence. How many people think chemical weapons weren't used 1939-45 because of goodwill?

But analysis is fundamentally correct. That said, I am 2/3 way through 'The Chinese Invasion Threat' by Ian Easton and invasion is a hugely technically challenging task. The greatest risk for failure is that of a hugely complex that can/will go wrong in a myriad of ways. And as we have seen in Ukraine, an armed forces that doesn't have adequate C3, realistic training or dynamic planning capability will suffer when things go wrong. Because the problems are then cumulative. Unlike Russia, China cannot take a bite from Taiwan and declare victory. It will be thrown into the sea and those in situ will die or surrender. That will not result in a military defeat, it will be a political defeat for the CCP. And with that calculation in mind, perhaps rhetoric and sabre rattling are better options.

As for island defence, survivable IADS, high capacity anti-ship capability and enough HE to saturate whole grid squares (beaches inland to 5 km). And America can help with the really valuable capabilities that are unseen.

 

[Lennox970]

It's unfortunate that most Canadians will neither understand nor care. But this is huge. And not good for us.

Yes, it is a massive blow and we are none the wiser. To be put into the same bowl as NZ (who only re-joined in 2000) is hugely damning for us. The Five Eyes network is most noteworthy for intelligence, but there are many other projects that we have or potentially could have privileged access and this is wasted. Shame.

On the other hand, look what a country whose population is one-third of that of Ontario can field. I worked with the Danes in Iraq, and they are absolutely nails. As long as they are on our side!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1511949987223121922

 

[Northern Light]

From the Federal Budget:

So, annualized net new spending is just over 2B per year, vs status quo, over the next 5 years.

****

A bit opaque on the details of how that money will be spent:

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not enough to do anything major other than NORAD modernization. But it is enough to help stop the slow rust out happening now and to ramp up training.

We'll see what a new defence policy brings, with a more long term plan.

 

[Lennox970]

It's not enough to do anything major other than NORAD modernization. But it is enough to help stop the slow rust out happening now and to ramp up training.

We'll see what a new defence policy brings, with a more long term plan.

And 'rust out', that of not modernising or replacing existing capabilities, has been Canada's bete noir in the late 20th Century. Although most exemplified by the Sea King debacle (but add M113 too), it demonstrates our inability to even maintain a given capability level.

A integrated review along the lines of UK or Australia, that examines our foreign policy, trade, aid and security (DIME) as a coherent whole - and provides realistic capability recommendations, fully funded and have cross-bench Parliamentary support would be ideal. I think the past two years has been an inflection point for the West both in terms of necessity of economic and logistic security, as well as the emerging (Kissenger-esque?) nature of the world. A realist would say nothing has changed, only our misperceptions have deluded us into thinking otherwise. I wonder how long it will take academia to realise we're not the bad guys.

It would be good to get on the front foot of defence for once.

 

[kEiThZ]

A integrated review along the lines of UK or Australia, that examines our foreign policy, trade, aid and security (DIME) as a coherent whole - and provides realistic capability recommendations, fully funded and have cross-bench Parliamentary support would be ideal.

Yes! I've been banging this drum forever. We have no coordinated national security strategy with foreign and defence policies coming from those. Instead, our defence policies are these weird documents that restate our commitments and provide a pledged shopping list for the arms bazaar. And we look set to repeat that mistake again with pledged rapid review of defence policy now.

And 'rust out', that of not modernising or replacing existing capabilities, has been Canada's bete noir in the late 20th Century. Although most exemplified by the Sea King debacle (but add M113 too), it demonstrates our inability to even maintain a given capability level.

Yep. People don't get how bad it is. It's arguably worse today than the 90s. We had younger equipment and more personnel in the 90s. Today we have aging kit, aging personnel (a good chunk of him are burned out from war and deployments) and basically everything is coming to end of life at once. The pledged money doesn't do much.

Not surprised that we weren't even invited to AUKUS. We have nothing to offer. And that deal, initially dismissed by Trudeau as just about nuclear submarines, has grown to cover artificial intelligence, cyber, electronic warfare, underwater sensing and quantum computing. It's not just a weapons deal. It's basically the premiere technology sharing agreement in the world. And our allies decided we aren't worthy.

I think the past two years has been an inflection point for the West both in terms of necessity of economic and logistic security, as well as the emerging (Kissenger-esque?) nature of the world. A realist would say nothing has changed, only our misperceptions have deluded us into thinking otherwise.

The crazy part here is that there's not even a suggestion of going to Cold War level defence spending for most countries. 2% is below Cold War levels for most. It's roughly the historical mean for Canada across the Cold War. Heck, getting to the 1.8-1.9% range would get us plenty of capability. At least to the point that we aren't a joke.

More interesting is watching the American reaction to our apathy. Unlike Canadian talk they are actually starting to take the Arctic seriously with major exercises and a slow build up over there. They have been watching Russia militarize the Arctic for the last decade with little to no reaction from Canada. And even the Chinese are trying to get in there.

With Eyes on Russia, the U.S. Military Prepares for an Arctic Future (Published 2022)

As climate change opens up the Arctic for transit and exploration, Russia has increasingly militarized the region. The U.S. is preparing a more aggressive presence of its own.

www.nytimes.com

I'm curious what the reaction in Canada will be, for the now inevitable deployment of an American flat top of some kind to the Arctic over the next decade or so. Will we shriek and do nothing but whine about those Americans? Or shrug and do nothing but whine about those Americans?

I wonder how long it will take academia to realise we're not the bad guys.

The same academia the have been carrying water for the Russians for nearly two decades? The amount of Western academics who have been apologists for Russian expansionism (cough "sphere of influence") has been the most interesting revelation of this whole saga. This piece by John Mearsheimer in the Economist, blaming the West for the invasion of Ukraine comes to mind:

John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis

The political scientist believes the reckless expansion of NATO provoked Russia

www.economist.com

It would be good to get on the front foot of defence for once.

In typical Canadian fashion, our actions don't match our rhetoric and others have noticed.

Canada's plan to boost military spending ‘falls flat’ amid high hopes

The increase doesn't meet NATO's target for its members to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense.

www.politico.com