CanPol: Thread of the Year Edition

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki
What scenario can you envision where we would need a major mobilization of heavy armour?

Things like WW1 or WW2, Korea etc-- They might not be on the immediate horizon ( but can you say with certainty what the world will look like 20 years from now?? Would you have predicted somewhat friendly relations between a somewhat democratic Russia and China 20 years ago??)but I would hate for our military to completely foreclose having tanks. The concept is to have enough of a core number of tanks and tank experts to serve as a core for the first units and training officers for more.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kontiki
What scenario can you envision where we would need a major mobilization of heavy armour?

World War III?

The nearsightedness of such a statement is depressing.

[Seeker]

I don't see anything wrong with ethnically based regiments. If we can have Irish, Scottish, and Welsh regiments, why not vietnamese or somalian based ones?

[Kontiki]

Should we maintain a core battleship fleet too? It doesn't matter what the geopolitical landscape will be 20 years from now - the battlefield has changed since the early to mid twentieth century. We simply aren't going to be going armour-on-armour with anyone who wouldn't kick our asses anyway.

Think about it - tanks are heavy, land-based weapons. Unless we're going to have at it with the US, we'd have to ship any tanks overseas for them to engage in combat. Who are we going to be at war with where our armoured force, even after taking a long time to ramp-up, is going to make a difference? China? Russia? North Korea? If we aren't going to be part of a coalition with members much, much more powerful than us, I don't think we're going into major combat at all.

[Seeker]

And besides, as we saw during the virtual play-by-play of the Iraq Operation Bomb Iraq, a Bradley APC is just as effective as a tank against old third world tanks. Just get GM here in London Ontario to churn out more APCs (actually they've expanded a lot here recently and put on a big job fair for their subsidiary, but they most export them back to the states...maybe 'Bradley' is licensed or something only for the americans? I dunno).

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Should we maintain a core battleship fleet too?

Nope -- Battleships appear to be obsolete-most navies don't seem to build them anymore. Plus smaller missile cruisers can perform much of the same functions

Tanks still seem to be a necessary part of a ground force. Bottom line is that last I checked a tankless infantry group gets pounded by Infantry with tanks. When this changes, I can see us dropping tanks . . . But for now I understand tanks are still a part of the modern battlefield.

Originally posted by Kontiki
It doesn't matter what the geopolitical landscape will be 20 years from now - the battlefield has changed since the early to mid twentieth century. We simply aren't going to be going armour-on-armour with anyone who wouldn't kick our asses anyway.

Accurate for now but who's to say that North America won't be made up of a half dozen fractured nation-states 20 years from now and some of them have territorial ambitions. I want us to have a a bit more than a token military. I'm not militaristic but I think we should have a force reflective of the size and economic might of our nation

Originally posted by Kontiki

Think about it - tanks are heavy, land-based weapons. Unless we're going to have at it with the US, we'd have to ship any tanks overseas for them to engage in combat. Who are we going to be at war with where our armoured force, even after taking a long time to ramp-up, is going to make a difference? China? Russia? North Korea? If we aren't going to be part of a coalition with members much, much more powerful than us, I don't think we're going into major combat at all.

If we do go somewhere as a coalition member wouldn't it be appropriate that our group could be self-protecting. Do we want it to be " The Canadians are coming . . . Who will protect them?"


And yes I know that tanks are not as terrifying as they once were since small mobile antitank weapons allow even light infantry to destroy a tank.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Seeker
And besides, as we saw during the virtual play-by-play of the Iraq Operation Bomb Iraq, a Bradley APC is just as effective as a tank against old third world tanks. Just get GM here in London Ontario to churn out more APCs (actually they've expanded a lot here recently and put on a big job fair for their subsidiary, but they most export them back to the states...maybe 'Bradley' is licensed or something only for the americans? I dunno).

Well I do see a top flight APC as being a higher priority than tanks

[Seeker]

"And yes I know that tanks are not as terrifying as they once were since small mobile antitank weapons allow even light infantry to destroy a tank."

You know how difficult it must be for a bunch of guys with RPGs to kill an infantry-supported Abrams?? The answer is very. With it's different compartments and fire prevention system, it's still quite in the tanks favour.

If you're thinking of the modern fancy dancy ATM systems that infantry can use...well modern countries aren't likely to fight with people who have armies equipped with those on a large scale.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber


Nope -- Battleships appear to be obsolete-most navies don't seem to build them anymore. Plus smaller missile cruisers can perform much of the same functions

Tanks still seem to be a necessary part of a ground force. Bottom line is that last I checked a tankless infantry group gets pounded by Infantry with tanks. When this changes, I can see us dropping tanks . . . But for now I understand tanks are still a part of the modern battlefield.

But you're talking about WWI, WWII and Korea as if we'd ever fight a war like that again. If we ever get to another global conflict where there's large, set-piece armies going at it, don't you think Canada might be better off contributing things like building high-tech aircraft/drones/helicopters/other weapons systems rather than seeing how quickly we can throw together a thousand tanks?

Accurate for now but who's to say that North America won't be made up of a half dozen fractured nation-states 20 years from now and some of them have territorial ambitions. I want us to have a a bit more than a token military. I'm not militaristic but I think we should have a force reflective of the size and economic might of our nation

Tell you what - why don't we bet thousand dollars right now that that won't be the case, and then we can discuss if this is the kind of probability we should be structuring our military around?

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for spending more money on the military, but be realistic. We're not a big enough country to have a completely rounded, first-rate military. What we can do is focus on certain areas and do them well, just as we have ever since the end of WWII.

If we do go somewhere as a coalition member wouldn't it be appropriate that our group could be self-protecting. Do we want it to be " The Canadians are coming . . . Who will protect them?"

We're already self-protecting in limited conflicts. We sent our military to assist in the '91 Gulf War, Bosnia and Afghanistan. In a huge conflict, whatever little armour we're going to send isn't going to make a difference anyway.

And yes I know that tanks are not as terrifying as they once were since small mobile antitank weapons allow even light infantry to destroy a tank.

It's not a question of being terrifying, it's an issue of cost effectiveness. We don't need a heavy armoured force. Better to spend that money on APCs that we can use on a regular and somewhat predictable basis.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Seeker
"And yes I know that tanks are not as terrifying as they once were since small mobile antitank weapons allow even light infantry to destroy a tank."

You know how difficult it must be for a bunch of guys with RPGs to kill an infantry-supported Abrams?? The answer is very. With it's different compartments and fire prevention system, it's still quite in the tanks favour.

If you're thinking of the modern fancy dancy ATM systems that infantry can use...well modern countries aren't likely to fight with people who have armies equipped with those on a large scale.

BUt it is still more possible than say infantry against a Tiger in WW2. I was watching a History Channel special and they were talking about even a Sherman had to score multiple hits or hit the thing in a more vulnerable spt and that infantry was largely ineffective.

Today, it may be difficult but there are a number of smaller weapons that can kill a tank.

I won't argue this point since it was MY point that infantry loses against tank supported infantry. My comment that tanks are not QUITE as terrifying was to refelct the fact that they are a bit more vulnerable than they were at some other point in history

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki




Don't get me wrong - I'm all for spending more money on the military, but be realistic. We're not a big enough country to have a completely rounded, first-rate military. What we can do is focus on certain areas and do them well, just as we have ever since the end of WWII.
.

So we give up entirely on piece of military hardware which is still a huge and integral part of ground forces.?We essentially say that we are certain that our forces will never fight battles against an enemy with somewhat modern forces or our troops will never be in a situation where tank support is desirable??

For my part, I see no reason why Canada could not have a well rounded first rate military, if on the smallish side to reflect our geographic situation.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki




Tell you what - why don't we bet thousand dollars right now that that won't be the case, and then we can discuss if this is the kind of probability we should be structuring our military around?

The scenario is remote, although we regularly debate the possibilities of Canada fracturing into 2-4 pieces in the CanPol threads.

The question for me is what do you want your military to be able to do? If you want it to be able to fight on the ground, you pretty much need tanks. Maybe you don't care if our military can fight-- If we don't want a land figting force maybe we should reformulate them as a peacekeeping brigade

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber


So we give up entirely on piece of military hardware which is still a huge and integral part of ground forces.?We essentially say that we are certain that our forces will never fight battles against an enemy with somewhat modern forces or our troops will never be in a situation where tank support is desirable??

For my part, I see no reason why Canada could not have a well rounded first rate military, if on the smallish side to reflect our geographic situation.

It's only a huge and integral part of ground forces in a large set piece battle, and even then it's debateable. We've sent forces around the world since Korea, including Bosnia and Afghanistan - if tanks were so necessary, why didn't we sent them along?

I think you're really underestimating the cost of having a well-rounded first rate military. We rank 13th in the world in military expenditure at about $11 billion US. For comparison, Japan, Britain and France clock in at around or over $50 billion, Germany at about $35 billion and Italy at about $30 billion. No matter who gets elected, we aren't even going to double our military budget. You just don't get everything when you're not even going to spend $20 billion. You have to focus your resources.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber


The scenario is remote, although we regularly debate the possibilities of Canada fracturing into 2-4 pieces in the CanPol threads.

The more grounded of us certainly don't. But that's a moot point anyway - you're talking about the US disintegrating, since Canada breaking apart kind of throws a monkey wrench into what the Canadian military should be capable of.

The question for me is what do you want your military to be able to do? If you want it to be able to fight on the ground, you pretty much need tanks. Maybe you don't care if our military can fight-- If we don't want a land figting force maybe we should reformulate them as a peacekeeping brigade

We haven't been more than a peacekeeping and limited engagement force since WWII. Even during the Cold War, we were tasked primarily with anti-submarine warfare and maintained a token military presence in Europe which wasn't much more able to defend itself than we are now. We've never had serious strategic lift capability and always relied on the rest of NATO (primarily the US) for things like intelligence, air support in the form of attack helicopters, AWACS etc.

We can be an effective light land fighting force without tanks. We fought alongside the Americans in Afghanistan as such. And realistically, that's where our strength lies. So increase our manpower and get them top-flight tools for what they do. Keep up or improve our fighters so that we can contribute to air combat operations like we did in the Gulf and Bosnia. Increase our ability to keep our troops supplied by added airlift and other logisical capacity. Maintain or improve our navy so we can continue to contribute to task force operations like blockades. But keeping and/or improving a 115-strong tank force that never gets deployed just seems rediculous.

[notyoueither]

On a different subject...

The big mo, and what ensues from polls.

http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_poll_060104/20060104?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

Tories in statistical tie with Grits in Ontario
Updated Wed. Jan. 4 2006 11:01 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Conservatives and Liberals are in an actual tie nationally and a statistical one in Ontario, a new poll shows.

"It's very significant. It would mean, at this point, a tremendous loss of seats for the Liberals (in Ontario)," Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of The Strategic Counsel, told CTV.ca on Wednesday about the Ontario numbers.

Both events come as the Conservatives enjoy a big surge in momentum.

Here are the national numbers in the poll prepared by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail on how people would intend to vote (percentage change from a Dec. 20-22 poll in brackets):

Liberals: 32 per cent (-4)
Conservatives: 32 per cent (+3)
NDP: 17 per cent (unchanged)
Bloc Quebecois: 13 per cent (unchanged)
Greens: 6 per cent (+1)
The momentum surge for the Conservatives comes after the RCMP announced last week that it was conducting a criminal investigation to see if there was a leak of a Nov. 23 announcement on income trusts that allowed some insiders to profit.

Here are the numbers (percentage change from a Dec. 20-22 poll in brackets):

Liberals: 23 per cent (-10)
Conservatives: 34 per cent (+11)
NDP: 9 per cent (-1)
Bloc Quebecois: 8 per cent (-1)
Greens: 3 per cent (+1)
Those numbers are largely comparable to a poll conducted Dec. 31 and Jan. 1.

The Conservatives have also overtaken the Liberals in terms of momentum in the crucial province of Ontario, where 106 of 308 seats are at stake.

Thirty-three per cent of respondents say the Tories have momentum there, compared to 28 per cent for the Liberals.

Here is how Ontarians would vote (percentage change from a Dec. 20-22 poll in brackets):

Liberals: 37 per cent (-10)
Conservatives: 34 per cent (+1)
NDP: 21 per cent (+5)
Greens: 8 per cent (+4)
The Liberal number is the lowest support that party has enjoyed in Ontario, their stronghold for the past 12 years, since the campaign started. They also dropped to that level in the wake of the Gomery report on the sponsorship scandal in early November.

In a tracking poll conducted Dec. 8-11, the Liberals held a 47-29 lead over the Tories, a spread of 18 points.

Their current lead is only three points.

However, Woolstencroft noted despite the Liberals' woes, the Conservative number in Ontario didn't really rise that much, with the NDP and Greens showing better growth.

The Conservatives are showing some growth in Quebec. Here's how voters there would allocate support (percentage change from a Dec. 20-22 poll in brackets):

Bloc Quebecois: 52 per cent (unchanged)
Liberals: 26 per cent (-3)
Conservatives: 13 per cent (+5)
NDP: 5 per cent (-3)
Greens: 4 per cent (+1)
The Strategic Counsel asked two questions about change: Whether now is the right time or wrong time to make a change.

Nationally, here are the numbers (percentage change from a Dec. 20-22 poll in brackets):

Time for a change: 58 per cent (+4)
Not time for change: 31 per cent (-7)
DK/NA/Ref: 11 per cent (+3)
Woolstencroft said the 31 per cent saying it's not time for a change is significant, because that question measures how risky people find it to change governments.

A lower number is better for the Tories, and the 31 per cent figure is the lowest since the campaign started. In Ontario, the number is 34 per cent, also a campaign low.

Technical notes:

Results are based on nightly tracking among a proportionate national sample of Canadians 18 years of age or older.

Findings have been rolled up and analyzed over a three-day period. Interviews were conducted Dec. 30, 31 and Jan. 3.

Here are the questions asked:

Q. (momentum) From what you can tell, which party, if any, is gaining the most popularity and momentum leading up to the election. Is it the ...?
Q. (change) Some people have been saying it's time for a change and that a new government should be voted in. Other people have said that now would be the wrong time to make a change and we should return the Liberals to power. Which one of these two views best represents your own?
Q. (party support) If the election was being held tomorrow, do you think you'd be supporting the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
Q. (party support) In that case, which party's candidate in your local area would you be leaning towards at this time? Would it be the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
The sample size and margin of error (with the margin of error in brackets) for each region are as follows:

Canada: 1,500 (2.5)
Quebec: 370 (5.1)
Ontario: 568 (4.1)
To obtain a written copy of the poll, contact The Strategic Counsel, 21 St. Clair Ave. E., Ste. 2100, Toronto, ON, M4T 1L9.

http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_libs_education_060104/20060104?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

Liberals to announce massive education plan: CP
Updated Wed. Jan. 4 2006 7:59 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Thousands of low-income students would get virtually free university and college educations under a multibillion-dollar plan to be unveiled Thursday by Prime Minister Paul Martin, The Canadian Press has learned.

The plan, aimed at ensuring Canada will be able to compete with emerging economic superpowers like China and India, includes the promise of at least $2.75 billion in new post-secondary tuition assistance.

Sources said every student, regardless of income, would get some new financial help to defray tuition fees, but low-income students would be the biggest beneficiaries of the new plan, receiving up to $3,000 a year for four years.

As well, Martin is expected to announce an additional $1 billion to help universities and colleges build new infrastructure.

And he is expected to simultaneously unveil a workplace skills strategy, promising to pump $3.5 billion into programs aimed at boosting apprenticeships, skills development and literacy, as well as encouraging increased participation in the workforce by aboriginals, immigrants and the disabled.

http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_layton_tories_060104/20060104?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

Layton turns his campaign focus on Conservatives
Updated Wed. Jan. 4 2006 10:35 PM ET

CTV.ca News

NDP leader Jack Layton focused his campaign attack on Stephen Harper Wednesday night by warning about the dangers of a minority Conservative government.

It was the first time Layton's ever spoken about the possibility of such a government.

"The Conservatives want to dismantle the Canadian state and so does the Bloc," Layton said on the NDP campaign plane while on the way to Winnipeg.

Layton went on to discuss the possibility of the Conservative party then working with the Bloc Quebecois to write a budget, said CTV's Rosemary Thompson.

"It would mean a massive transfer of tax points to Quebec," Layton said, suggesting the Tories would play into the hands of separatists.

"He went on to say that Gilles Duceppe would be carried over the border and into Quebec like a hero," Thompson said.

Layton's latest attacks on the Conservatives come after he previously said that he can work with a minority Liberal or Conservative government.

Thompson believes the NDP's strategy is to hit hard against the Conservative party as Layton campaigns in Western Canada. Layton acknowledged that Harper's run a good election campaign so far.

"Perhaps he thinks it's time to turn up the heat on Stephen Harper," Thompson said.

The NDP also released two negative ads against the Liberals and Conservatives Wednesday.

One ad accused the Tories of "ignoring issues and playing political games" for 18 months. The other ad accused the Liberals of corruption, doing favours for friends and broken promises. Both ads encourage voters to send a message to both parties while showing the picture of a boot.

However CTV's David Akin, who is following the Conservative campaign, said the party is pleased with the NDP's campaign. The Conservatives believe Layton's warnings to not vote for the Liberals may help the Conservatives.

My sense is that Harper is winning, barely. Let's see if he, and his party, can avoid blowing it.