We weren't going to do it before...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber


Well we kinda rely on them and NATO to be there and protect us if anyone every got frisky with us. IN a crazy scenario-- Say China decided to invade Canada to grab the oilsands, do you think we are protecting ourselves.

a) No, I think China's lack of naval transport capabilities are protecting us

b) Even if we assume that there was a remote possibility that some outside party would attempt to attack us, and that in this case NATO would save our asses, it doesn't mean that the US is currently devoting any assets to protecting us. It's not costing them anything. They aren't running patrols off our coast to look for the Chinese invasion fleet (or, rather, they aren't running any more patrols than they would be in any case). The reason the US wants our military bigger is not to relieve them the burden of "protecting" us, but so that we can take a greater role in operations far from our borders. Any money we spend on coastal defense etc. simply does not figure into their equation. They want us to spend our money on transport aircraft, a blue water fleet etc.

[MrFun]

Of course it would have to be a blue water fleet -- would it be any other color?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber


Well we kinda rely on them and NATO to be there and protect us if anyone every got frisky with us. IN a crazy scenario-- Say China decided to invade Canada to grab the oilsands, do you think we are protecting ourselves.

Note that this scenarion is ludicrous mainly BECAUSE everyone knows the US would not allow it.

I'll echo KH on this one. This whole line of thinking is rediculous. Canada is more than able to defend itself, except against the US and/or nuclear attack which are lost causes anyway.

[Seeker]

"Of course it would have to be a blue water fleet -- would it be any other color? "

Mr. Fun.........I've always wanted to know....do you by any chance look and sound exactly like that tall, bald, flamboyant fellow from the Airplane! movies??

A close relative perhaps?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I'll echo KH on this one. This whole line of thinking is rediculous. .

You guys need to read more Tom Clancy -- you just don't have a taste for far fetched scenarios-- have a little fun with it.

Obviously the Chinese could land a dozen 747s at Vancouver simultaneously with large cargo ships arriving with armour in the port. Some air support from their revamped Russian aircraft carrier (LOL) and some tankered fighters until they control the port and airport. Then reinforcements by air

Vancouver is taken in a day and then they begin the air transport while at the same time paradropping to take Fort Mcmurray.



----------------------------------------------------------------

On a more serious note I am glad we have the alliances we do. Our oil and gas resources would be pretty tempting and currently , standing alone, our only real defense would be distance.

[KrazyHorse]

a) The distances we're talking about are a fairly serious deterrent, especially when we have a capable air force which would rape anybody who tried to airlift **** across the ****ing Pacific Ocean

b) Even if we weren't in any sort of formal alliance no first world nation has an economic interest in starting a war with us. The cost would far, far, far outweigh any resource benefit they would gain

c) Our armed forces are quite adequate to defend us against any non-first world nation's attempt to attack us, especially when combined with a)

[Krill]

First thought: what is up there that is worth protecting?

If oil and gas, then I would say it is probably worth it, depending on the quantities. As said, there is no point building up an army, navy, air force, there is no chance you would be able to defend yourselves from the US or China short of Nukes...(BTW, what would happen if someone declared war on Canada, with regard to the Common Wealth and Britain?)

If there are Civilians up there, other than scientists, then you probably ought to have provisions for there removal due to adverse condidtions...that or accept that you may have to let them freeze to death...

But that is just from logic. If you get to piss off the average American, do it

[Last Conformist]

The number of first-world countries that could launch a credible invasion of Canada can be counted one one hand that's had a close encounter with a chainsaw.

[Asher]

For b) -- I'm wondering if the increasing value of the Alberta Oilsands makes that less true today.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber

I just believe generally, the US likes to see its allies increasing their military competence. The fact that its aimed at asserting some claims they reject is mildly annoying to them but I frankly can't see them getting too fussed.

QFT

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


b) Even if we weren't in any sort of formal alliance no first world nation has an economic interest in starting a war with us. The cost would far, far, far outweigh any resource benefit they would gain

While that is probably true of first world nations . . . a more autocratic nation like China could see Canada as a treasure trove. Not only oil but iron, gold, timber, water etc etc. We ARE a resource rich country.

In the Tom Clancey novels , China makes their play for a chunk of Russia They succeed for while until Russian resolve and an American expeditionary force crush them

Hey he also wrote about flying a plane into a building BEFORE 911

[Kontiki]

I've read all those Tom Clancy novels and their far-fetched military scenarios. But remember in that book where China invades Russia, he outlines the diffculty the US has in responding (of course, their ulitmate performance is completely flawless, just like in all his other novels) and relies heavily on using an ally (Russia) as a staging point. I don't think even Mr. Clancy would postulate that China could put everything on planes and boats and cross the entire width of the Pacific, with absolutely nowhere to stop between mainland China and Canada, and launch a massive takeover. Of course, on top of mere transport, they'd have to take out our entire defense network en route so that we'd have no way of stopping them once they got near the coast.

[Garth Vader]

Yeah, China can't cross like 70 miles of water and invade Taiwan, but suddenly they can do the whole Pacific?!?

[Kontiki]

Or maybe they'd invade the US first. Then, having conquered the lower 48 states, they drive north for the Alberta oil sands.

Ye gods! We'd better start ramping up for that!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I've read all those Tom Clancy novels and their far-fetched military scenarios. But remember in that book where China invades Russia, he outlines the diffculty the US has in responding (of course, their ulitmate performance is completely flawless, just like in all his other novels) and relies heavily on using an ally (Russia) as a staging point. I don't think even Mr. Clancy would postulate that China could put everything on planes and boats and cross the entire width of the Pacific, with absolutely nowhere to stop between mainland China and Canada, and launch a massive takeover. Of course, on top of mere transport, they'd have to take out our entire defense network en route so that we'd have no way of stopping them once they got near the coast.

Actually I was thinking of the one where Japan took out a bunch of US owned islands by having troops pour out of the 747s which had landed routinely there. We were just talking about different novels


Oh and what defense network?? Are you talking Auroras out of Comox? Or the 68 CF18s out of Slave Lake? Or maybe 3-4 frigates?