Can Canada be depended on in a crisis? (Page 3/9)
Patrick JAN 25, 07:46 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

You quoted that one thing... I don't know if you intended to take it out of context, but I was talking about their military readiness.



Todd, we aren't mind readers. After a full paragraph of nothing but talk about tanks, you come out with... "All of that said, Canada is a mess." You often brag about how fast you can type. All you had to do was add one extra word to clarify what you apparently meant, as in... "All of that said, Canada's military is a mess."


quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

As it stands, more than half the world's armies could invade Canada right now, and they wouldn't be able to repel an attack.



I'd like to think that Canada as a sovereign nation strives to give little reason for an "attack" from whomever, but having said that, I would prefer we at least had more of a naval presence along our extensive coastlines.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-26-2023).]

maryjane JAN 25, 08:11 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


I mean, I get it... I absolutely see a use for something like that (what you posted above)... just as I would an MRAP. Very useful for combat because it's nimble and not huge.






MRAP Is are heavy at 24 tons and MRAP IIs are heavier (30tons) and BIG. There's lots of bridges they can't travel on and a C-130 can't load them.

They are mostly surplus US inventory now. Replaced by the lighter JLTVs. 12 tons with the same survivability of the MRAPs.
maryjane JAN 25, 10:41 PM
I see lots of ironic parallels in the Russo/Ukraine war..
Both China and Russia heavily supported first N. Korea in 1950 and again supplied N. Vietnam all during that long war. We had lots of Chinese and Russian 7.62x39 sent our way. Now, the shoe is on the other foot.
I know the Pentagon wanted badly to bomb Russian freighters coming into Haiphong harbor but were prevented from it by 'policy'.
I do have to wonder how long before Putin says to hell with it and hits back directly at nearby NATO nations that are supplying arms to Ukraine...
Patrick JAN 25, 10:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

I do have to wonder how long before Putin says to hell with it and hits back directly at nearby NATO nations that are supplying arms to Ukraine...



Is that a viable threat? Russia seems to be struggling on one front. Do they really want to stretch themselves any thinner?
maryjane JAN 25, 11:29 PM
It doesn't need to be a physical incursion into real estate. Corner a stray dawg and see what he does.........

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-26-2023).]

Patrick JAN 25, 11:46 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

Corner a stray dawg and see what he does.........



The "stray dawg" in this case is hardly cornered. If anything, he's already wandered too far from his home turf.
Patrick JAN 26, 02:30 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Can Canada be depended on in a crisis?



To answer your question, Ron... yes, I believe so. Even the Aussies appreciated what Canadians did back on that awful day in 2001.
blackrams JAN 26, 05:43 AM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

To answer your question, Ron... yes, I believe so. Even the Aussies appreciated what Canadians did back on that awful day in 2001.




Patrick,
I was never in doubt about Canadians spirt or willingness to help. The question is more about Canada's ability to defend itself and it's NATO partners. It's military equipment is questionable at best according to the author of that article and based on information about military budgeting. Inoperable weapons and vehicles do little to thwart an advancing enemy regardless of the operator's intent to defend.

Rams
rinselberg JAN 26, 07:05 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
I do have to wonder how long before Putin says to hell with it and hits back directly at nearby NATO nations that are supplying arms to Ukraine...




"Somebody had to do it."

"Channeling" another forum member. Do you know which one?


What's a good ending for the war? Here's my thinking.

The U.S., NATO and Ukraine formally agree to accept Russia's right to have Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula as a military and particularly, a naval base. The entire Crimean Peninsula belongs to Russia. Russia has sovereignty over the city of Mariupol and a continuous land corridor connecting Russia to the Crimean Peninsula through Mariupol. Russia has sovereignty over all of the coastline surrounding the Sea of Azov, including what has been the long stretch of Ukrainian coastline. All of this comprises the land corridor connecting Russia with the Crimean Peninsula.

That's quite a lot for Zelenskyy to have to "swallow". But in return, Ukraine, having ceded all of this territory, is guaranteed full membership in NATO and the European Union.

?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-26-2023).]

maryjane JAN 26, 07:47 AM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

I'd like to think that Canada as a sovereign nation strives to give little reason for an "attack" from whomever, but having said that, I would prefer we at least had more of a naval presence along our extensive coastlines.




In the context of NATO tho, it doesn't matter if Canada (or any other particular member nation) gives a foe reason to attack. These organizations exist pretty much under the 'attack one of us, you attack all of us" protocol. BUT, again, Ukraine is not a NATO member.

But having said that, what, of Canadian's (in this case) heavy armor, would be their 'fair share' to contribute to Ukraine? Who decides this? The writer of that article Adam Zivo? Do some research on him and you'll see he's been an opportunist writer, flitting from one high visibility topic to the next.
By most accounts Canada has 82 Leopard2 tanks, with about 15 being training vehicles or tank retrieval vehicles.

So what, is their 'fair share' of heavy hardware?