Well in theory, while I think the F-18 airframe is fine and dandy, it doesnt have the range necessary to run off the Russians as necessary. Keep in mind it was designed for fleet operations. This of course is coupled with the limited aerial refueling capability of the Canadian Air Force.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Nations compete for a stake in the Arctic
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Well in theory, while I think the F-18 airframe is fine and dandy, it doesnt have the range necessary to run off the Russians as necessary. Keep in mind it was designed for fleet operations. This of course is coupled with the limited aerial refueling capability of the Canadian Air Force.
Werbung:
Well dont sell the Canadian forces as they stand so short. But I think he was referring to your military being as strong as ours because when it came to an invasion of Canada, you would be using our military.
Again, there are smaller and less well equipped NATO forces than Canada. Granted they are much smaller European countries, but Canada could take Iceland
I am fully aware of the resource extraction steps that have taken place in Canada, From what I understand, there is still not a way to realistically clean up an oil spill in ice conditions. If you know of something please do share.
That has been one of the major hurdles for offshore specialists like Shell from not making much progress in developing in the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas.
A war between Canada and Russia could end very badly for Canada, don't you think?
Also, the biggest war games in Alaska history is going on(or well wrapping up). Known as Northern Edge, it has made for some great airplane watching lately. Not only the normal Air Force staple based up here with F-15s, F-16s, and F-22s, but also Navy F-18s, Harriers, and something that looked an awful like a Panavia Tornado(I saw it from probably 5,000ft, so tough to tell.)
http://www.adn.com/news/military/story/830260.html
While it certainly is a show of force for the Russians, this is also directed at the NKoreans.
http://www.adn.com/news/military/story/830260.html
While it certainly is a show of force for the Russians, this is also directed at the NKoreans.
You will never have the means either. Canada will always buck pass military spending to the US with the tacit understanding that major encroachments in the area are going to be dealt with by the United States.
If you can have someone else do it, why spend the money to do it on your own?
Check the demographics of the area. The recent border treaty that was just signed had a sunset clause included (by China) after 20 years. One of the major reasons for this is that in 20 years the area will be majority Chinese, and at that point they will have a much better position in the ongoing border dispute between the two.
Hardly. Russia has a negative population growth, an economy that is in the dumps, an aging military, etc etc. Their economy is so tied to oil, they have little chance of a real turn around economically. A shrinking workforce and Chinese immigration is not helping their cause either.
Further, based on what do you define the US as a declining power? Economy? Hardly. Military? Hardly. Population growth? Not really. What exactly is your determination of a declining power to argue that the US is one as well?
A war between Russia and China over the Arctic (or anything else) would be a doozy, wouldn't it?
Of course, both nations would lose such a war, but which one do you think would lose the least and so call itself the winner?
Of course, both nations would lose such a war, but which one do you think would lose the least and so call itself the winner?
The Russians have encroached our airspace. WE have been escorting them out with our CF-18s. Even though we have NORAD, American fighters are not allowed into our airspace without our explicit permission. We take care of the encroachments on our own.
How do we 'pass the buck' as it were? We are not an economic giant in the class of the USA. We are a nation of 31 million people, having built a massive infrastructure in the second-largest nation on earth, in some of the worst climates imaginable. This alone costs us a fortune, yet you want us to spend more in comparison to you? I'll tell you what. Collect taxes from only 31 million of your 350 million plus population, maintain from that 31 million taxpayer system your infrastructure and your military. Never going to happen. I would ask that you remain silent regarding subjects you know nothing when it comes to my country.
Yes, the Russians would win quite handily. Your point? The Chinese, in their entire history, have never proven adept at war. The Soviets have much experience here. Their equipment is better, far better. When will you people understand a simple fact? Learn about Russian 'monkey' models of their military hardware. They do NOT sell the same equipment to the rest of the world that they have. This is why, when they were the Soviet Union, they were LAUGHING when people noticed the clear advantage in the kill ratio of Israeli US military hardware against the Soviet Arabic hardware. The hardware used by the Arabs had NEVER been used by the Red Army. These were dumbed-down versions of their own hardware, for the Soviets were smart and paranoid. They did not want their technology getting into the hands of the West. So, the sold to the Arab states their garbage, their 'export models' as it were. The Chinese have those same 'export models'. The russians know this, and the Chinese themselves know it. No contest. The Russians win.
Russia's economy is in the dumps, but this is changing. Theirs is one of the fastest growing economies on the planet, to the point that they are now part of the G8 group of nations. Their economy is tied to oil, so is ours. What is your point? Our economy grows even faster than yours. Hmm? Doesn't YOUR country have a shrinking workforce? Yours is shrinking faster than theirs. Your economy is in the dumps also. They also have the largest cache of natural gas in the world. Their economy is tied to oil and natural gas, and you are suggesting these are good reasons why it will fail. So, the entire Mideast shall collapse too? The entire economy of the Mideast is based solely upon oil. Yet, I see you saying nothing about them, and Russia has more. As for the negative population growth, what state, other than the Muslim states, does NOT have population growth with negative numbers?
The US is indeed a declining power. Your military expenditures, however still by far the greatest in the world, are dropping when it comes to equipment. Your greatest expense in your military is your current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fear not, for this is draining OUR treasury as well. I have read where Canada's military expenditures place us in 6th overall in the world. This would be due to our presence in Afghanistan. We are not 6th overall in terms of purchasing new hardware, enlarging our forces. It is the cost of our war in Afghanistan itself that places us there. Our military budgets have been amongst the lowest in all of NATO for years, to the point the USA has been *****ing at us about it. The USA has been for years now building and maintaining their military ON BORROWED MONEY. You cannot keep this up, as the Soviets so sorely learned. People think the Soviets were run out of Aghanistan by the Mujahadeen, which is utter bull****. They were recalled by their masters in Moscow because THEY HAD RUN OUT OF MONEY. They could no longer afford to make the Mujahadeen their *****es. It was just too costly, and the government coffers were bare. This is the USAs fate, and the Russians find it amusing.
Do tell what exactly your plan is if Russia decides to ignore your claims of airspace encroachment?
I personally do not care what you spend on your military. Fact is your current spending is insufficient to address your rising challengers. Hence, should a war break out, you will in all practicality turn to the US for help.
You not spending to keep up with threats and should a war occur turning to the US is the very definition of "buck passing."
It is not my fault that your government picks and chooses what it wants to do based on other indicators. If you wanted to spend on a better military you could. No one is expecting you to match the US in size or strength, but the fact that your nation proves incapable of matching a clear challenger should be a concern to you.
Werbung:
The World Bank has predicted a decline in the Russian economy of 7.9% for 2009. That is your definition of one of the fastest growing economies on the planet? Interesting.
No, our workforce is not shrinking, nor do we have negative population rates. Our economy has slowed, but nothing like large portions of the rest of the world, as our economy slowed remains more than double the size of our closest rival.
As pointed out numerous other states included the USA do not have negative population growth rates. As for my comment about the economy being tied to oil, with oil prices what they are, Russia has little real chance for growth, especially with the price changes we are seeing.
As for the Middle East, they will eventually fall when oil becomes a less needed commodity yes, but they are not exactly out pretending to be a superpower either.
Both wars combined have a total cost of around $1 trillion dollars. That hardly "drained" our treasury. We remain with good access to debt, and continue (sadly) to blow multiple trillions on a misguided attempt to "fix" the economy. $1 trillion did not bankrupt the US, if anything the $12 trillion in bailouts and assurances played a larger role.
Your military spending has been around 7th overall in NATO. Canadian currently has about 2500 (by the last measure I saw) soldiers in Afghanistan. Let us hope that such a deployment did not do in your country.
Borrowing money is not a problem in my view. We do have a lot of debt, but it has not put us on nearly the same path as the Soviets.
No one really thinks the Russians lost because the Mujahadeen just beat them. There are multiple reasons they lost in Afghanistan and left, but in terms of money spent on the campaign, I would dispute that that is the sole reason they lost.
Also, as for the border...
They about started a large war over it in 1969. Just look at the Amur River area and you will see a China with a booming population and little land, while on the Russian side there is really no population and tons of arable land. I can easily see Chinese expansion into contested areas to take the land.
