Russian Planes Approach Canadian Airspace

[Machjo]

To Colpie:

But what's the purpose of a confrontational alliance? As for an open alliance, the idea would be that all nations simply agree that if any one nation attacks another, that all will destroy that government. This would be a quick way to peace. In a confrontational alliance, we're saying that we're more concerned with keeping country or alliance X at bay than with just protecting ourselves from attack. So which is it? Are we more concerned about defense or offense? If defense, then an open alliance woudl make more sense.

 

[lone wolf]

Are your Saturday cartoons over? Read up bumpkin and learn what "infrastructure" is and some geometry and come argue when you finish high school.

:lol: lick those wounds a little harder. That wasn't a hologram airplane, jerk....

 

[Liberalman]

This is good experience for Canada’s air force when they are deployed to Iraq when the Americans leave in 2010

 

[Tyr]

Are you then willing to take up military service? The Swiss have universal male military service, required. Not only that, Swiss men are required to keep a fully automatic assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition at home........(gasp), and to spend a significant amount of their time in training exercises.....and up until very recently, you had to qualify with your rifle before you were allowed to vote.

That is why women in Switzerland only got the vote in the 1970s.....because service to the nation was seen as a prerequisite to having a voice.....

Watch out what you wish for.....

It does work for the Swiss. The last time they fought was in the Napoleonic Wars, when Bonapart passed through on his way to Italy. That was 200 years ago......what other nation can say that? Especially one that has twice in the last 100 years been an island of peace in a sea of warring nations.....the Germans wanted to invade in WWII, but estimated it would cost them 800,000 casualties.....and dropped the idea.

Quoting Machjo Personally I think Canada should adopt the Swedish model of military neutrality. Works for them, why not us?

Tired Colpy? He's talking about Sweden...not Switzerland. nice discourse though...:roll:

After the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union, Sweden has continued to keep its neutrailty. However in 1994 Sweden did join the European Union and has since the mid 1990s kept on downsizing its armed forces and changed to more international missions in countrys like Bosnia and Afghanistan. The continued downsizing of its own national defence and the question if the country really could defend itself against an agressor has led to some critizm.

Very much like the current Canadian situation
​

 

[Machjo]

Quoting Machjo Personally I think Canada should adopt the Swedish model of military neutrality. Works for them, why not us?​

Tired Colpy? He's talking about Sweden...not Switzerland. nice discourse though...:roll:​

After the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union, Sweden has continued to keep its neutrailty. However in 1994 Sweden did join the European Union and has since the mid 1990s kept on downsizing its armed forces and changed to more international missions in countrys like Bosnia and Afghanistan. The continued downsizing of its own national defence and the question if the country really could defend itself against an agressor has led to some critizm.​

Very much like the current Canadian situation​

It's nice to see though that Sweden has not interpreted neutrality to mean isolationism. Sweden gives 1%of its GDP to developing countries and does engage in UN-led missions. That is something I like. Essentially, my preference would be for a world military force. Second to that, a world alliance or at least an open alliance, and third military isolation. A closed alliance, which is what we're in now, is my last option sinse it forces us to take sides, thus promoting a more confrontational approach to world issues.

 

[Colpy]

Quoting Machjo Personally I think Canada should adopt the Swedish model of military neutrality. Works for them, why not us?​

Tired Colpy? He's talking about Sweden...not Switzerland. nice discourse though...:roll:​

After the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union, Sweden has continued to keep its neutrailty. However in 1994 Sweden did join the European Union and has since the mid 1990s kept on downsizing its armed forces and changed to more international missions in countrys like Bosnia and Afghanistan. The continued downsizing of its own national defence and the question if the country really could defend itself against an agressor has led to some critizm.​

Very much like the current Canadian situation​

I did miss that.......big time.

trying to do three things at once......

breathe, look, think

 

[Machjo]

Also, unlike Switzerland, Sweden is an active member of the UN. So for Sweden, neutrality does not in any way equate with isolationism. Perhaps we could call it involved or active neutrality.

 

[Colpy]

To Colpie:

But what's the purpose of a confrontational alliance? As for an open alliance, the idea would be that all nations simply agree that if any one nation attacks another, that all will destroy that government. This would be a quick way to peace. In a confrontational alliance, we're saying that we're more concerned with keeping country or alliance X at bay than with just protecting ourselves from attack. So which is it? Are we more concerned about defense or offense? If defense, then an open alliance woudl make more sense.

What you are describing is the United Nations....

Need I say more?

 

[Tyr]

I did miss that.......big time.

trying to do three things at once......

breathe, look, think

Thank god you spit the gum out before hand:lol:

 

[Risus]

No.

Russia is probing, as they did constantly in the Cold War, testing our readiness, waiting for an opportunity to challenge our sovereignty in the Artic.....which contains an estimated 25% of the world's oil reserves.

Which is Okay, let them probe, as long as they stay out of our airspace, and as long as we constantly remain alert, and don't over-react......and as long as we stay in NORAD so we have our big brother down south looking over our shoulder........

I think Perter Mackay should have kept shut up, it is not a big deal.

I also think the reason he spoke of it is to produce a reaction......a willingness of Canadians to militarize to some extent our north so as to maintain our sovereignty.

I say damn good idea, but just do it, don't bother playing public games of diplomatic chicken with the Russians.

Things like this happen all the time. The only reason it became news was because this incident happened on the eve of Obama's visit....

 

[RanchHand]

Hey Juan, you're so isolated up there you mistake someone who can put facts in your face you don't like as a troll.
Canada spends 1.1% of it's GDP on it's military. Your tied with the Central African Republic and just ahead of Bhutan.

Military expenditures - percent of GDP - Country Comparison

Anyone find it a bit remarkable for a 'first world country' with over 2 million barrels of oil exported a day would be a hair above Tonga in military expenditure?
Who wouldn't want to be free of military alliance responsibilities and have no military budget? But what do you think brought down the Berlin wall or broke up the Soviet Union? Norway's military budget as a ratio of GDP is much higher than Canada's. I wonder why that is?
Rather than be called a troll again in the same thread, I will bite my tongue on the concept of Canadian conscription.

 

[Spade]

Look, the F18s were 2200 km from the interception point when scrambled. The Russians must have been at least 1600 km from that point. 2200+1600=3800 km.
So, to argue that we Canadians weren't informed prior just doesn't make sense!
As Petros said, "We're being played."

 

[lone wolf]

Look, the F18s were 2200 km from the interception point when scrambled. The Russians must have been at least 1600 km from that point. 2200+1600=3800 km.
So, to argue that we Canadians weren't informed prior just doesn't make sense!
As Petros said, "We're being played."

It doesn't take a lot of time to cover 2200 km in an F-18. How long from detection to intercept?

Fence testing isn't just a thing penned cattle do.

...and yeah, I think McKay doesn't have a clue....

 

[Spade]

...and yeah, I think McKay doesn't have a clue....

At maximum (Mach 1.6), an F-18 would take over an hour and a quarter to travel that distance. But it couldn't maintain that speed all the way!

 

[MHz]

Hey Juan, you're so isolated up there you mistake someone who can put facts in your face you don't like as a troll.
Canada spends 1.1% of it's GDP on it's military. Your tied with the Central African Republic and just ahead of Bhutan.

Military expenditures - percent of GDP - Country Comparison

Anyone find it a bit remarkable for a 'first world country' with over 2 million barrels of oil exported a day would be a hair above Tonga in military expenditure?
Who wouldn't want to be free of military alliance responsibilities and have no military budget? But what do you think brought down the Berlin wall or broke up the Soviet Union? Norway's military budget as a ratio of GDP is much higher than Canada's. I wonder why that is?
Rather than be called a troll again in the same thread, I will bite my tongue on the concept of Canadian conscription.

You could also change your flag over to a USA one so we know you know who you are.
A large military is only necessary if you are expecting to invade somebody or are expecting to be invaded by somebody. That explains a lot of the spending, invading expenses for the US and defensive expenses for the rest of the world. Without the US's (and Israel's) booga-booga military expenses would be way down. The US has to keep it up because that is the only viable industry they have left, even then it benefits only a very few.

Who cares about Russian planes, we had them doing mapping runs for us over Ottawa a few years ago. Nobody said boo when the US was flying combat missions over Iraq when they didn't have UN approval for such flights. I don't see anybody threatening to take the keys to the fighters away from Israel when they illegally overfly Lebanon or Gaza or the West Bank.

 

[MHz]

At maximum (Mach 1.6), an F-18 would take over an hour and a quarter to travel that distance. But it couldn't maintain that speed all the way!

Afterburners chew up a lot of gas, no fighter is not known for great fuel economy.

Combat Radius: 500+ nm (900+ km)

To be effective in actual combat they would have to wait for the enemy to cross the southern border of the Territories.

 

[Spade]

Afterburners chew up a lot of gas, no fighter is not known for great fuel economy.

Combat Radius: 500+ nm (900+ km)

To be effective in actual combat they would have to wait for the enemy to cross the southern border of the Territories.

You're right. The whole story seems a "little contrived" to say the least!

 

[petros]

Look, the F18s were 2200 km from the interception point when scrambled. The Russians must have been at least 1600 km from that point. 2200+1600=3800 km.
So, to argue that we Canadians weren't informed prior just doesn't make sense!
As Petros said, "We're being played."

We are indeed being played. We can't run a digital military without an uplink can we? There is nothing hard to grasp about that at all. Until there is a satellite to guide predators there will be malarky F-18 and Bear encounters. Canada is the elbow in the "joint" space command mission and we need a military sattelite to cover the far north. It is common sense to have that as part of the "infrastructure" but I'll wager that a Russian Proton D-1-e launches the damn thing for us.

 

[Tyr]

It doesn't take a lot of time to cover 2200 km in an F-18. How long from detection to intercept?

Fence testing isn't just a thing penned cattle do.

...and yeah, I think McKay doesn't have a clue....

It doesn't have that kind of range

Combat radius: 330 mi (290 nmi, 537 km) on hi-lo-lo-hi mission

 

[Tyr]

Hey Juan, you're so isolated up there you mistake someone who can put facts in your face you don't like as a troll.
Canada spends 1.1% of it's GDP on it's military. Your tied with the Central African Republic and just ahead of Bhutan.

Military expenditures - percent of GDP - Country Comparison

Anyone find it a bit remarkable for a 'first world country' with over 2 million barrels of oil exported a day would be a hair above Tonga in military expenditure?
Who wouldn't want to be free of military alliance responsibilities and have no military budget? But what do you think brought down the Berlin wall or broke up the Soviet Union? Norway's military budget as a ratio of GDP is much higher than Canada's. I wonder why that is?
Rather than be called a troll again in the same thread, I will bite my tongue on the concept of Canadian conscription.

Anyone find it a bit remarkable for a 'first world country' with over 2 million barrels of oil exported a day would be a hair above Tonga in military expenditure?

No.


Hmm.. Possibly because countries with a higher expenditure to GDP have a higher percieved threat....

Who does Canada percieve as a threat? Nobody today. 8-9 yrs from today - United States is the only real threat on the horizon

But what do you think brought down the Berlin wall

a backhoe?