# Observations on Offensive Weapons and the Canadian Public



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Sep 2005)

Infanteers post here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34761.0.html really got me thinking. Why are certain _Offensive weapons _ more palatable to the Canadian public then others? Look at the Halifax class frigates with their Harpoon missiles or the CF18s with their variety of weapon loads. The only thing that gets the public upset are the possible missions the Hornet might be involved in, yet their ordnance does little to raise an eyebrow. Now you mention armed helicopter or gunship and Joe Canuck gets rabid in his condemnation for such weapons. I don't get it. Anyone have any insight?


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Sep 2005)

Because them greasy civvies can't tell the difference between a Leopard and a water buffalo if one ran them over?  

If you take into account how much the average civillian knows, and consider that half of them are even dumber than that, and that the really dumb ones end up working for the gummint, the world will actually start to make sense.


----------



## Joe Blow (19 Sep 2005)

My guess would be that 'airforce planes' and 'navy boats' are the kind of thing that are expected to be armed.  But when you talk about arming something new it perks up peoples ears.

People are familiar with helicopters ..but *armed* helicopters are a new thing for them.  Anytime that you consider arming something that was not previously expected to be armed many Canadians will recoil ..at least the Canadians that I think we are talking about here.  Which is to say, those of us who slavishly suckle at the teat of the Mother Corp (CBC   ) and vote Liberal even though we know they steal our $ ..because the other guys are "too scary"

..and don't even mention 'gunships'!  That would be as big a mistake as Harper using the term 'mini carrier' in the last election.  :  (The public should be better informed, but given that they are not, that was a stupid mistake.)

Wow ..feeling pretty cynical tonight.

EDIT:  ..I'll bet you would get the same kind of reaction if it were suggested that the airforce should have "bombers".  To address your question more directly; I don't think it's a matter of offensive vs. defensive weapons or roles..  to suppose so would assume that the public is better informed than they are.  I think it's really a question of language and associations ..coupled with a general dislike of things that go boom and make owchies.


----------



## Sf2 (19 Sep 2005)

I'm not really sure what this post is about...but hell, I'm just a pilot.......


----------



## Joe Blow (20 Sep 2005)

whew..  Yeah, that one wandered a bit..  Sorry.   ;D


----------



## TCBF (20 Sep 2005)

"Because them greasy civvies can't tell the difference between a Leopard and a water buffalo if one ran them over?  "

- Water Buffalo are easier to maimtain than agony wagons.

Weapons are not offensive or defensive, they are just weapons. 

Though I did think for awhile in the nineties, someone at DLR or GMDD would say the Bison had a DMG They already used the term, I was waiting for it to become official when they abreviated it (that's when everything becomes official).

DMG -  Does that mean you can only fire it when backing up?

We suck.

Tom


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Sep 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Infanteers post here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34761.0.html really got me thinking. Why are certain _Offensive weapons _ more palatable to the Canadian public then others? Look at the Halifax class frigates with their Harpoon missiles or the CF18s with their variety of weapon loads. The only thing that gets the public upset are the possible missions the Hornet might be involved in, yet their ordnance does little to raise an eyebrow. Now you mention armed helicopter or gunship and Joe Canuck gets rabid in his condemnation for such weapons. I don't get it. Anyone have any insight?



....because film of tanks in war situations has in the last decade in particular generally followed by footage of bloody wounded and dead (in particular footage from the Palestinian territories), whilst film from aircraft and ships firing weapons is generally followed by a press conference talking about the mission success.  

In essence, through the TV, warplanes and ships bring a more a cerebral, palatable, less in your face view of destroying "things" as opposed to raw, nasty view of wounding and maiming "people".

It's not reality, but it's reality through a TV.....




Matthew.


----------



## Old Ranger (20 Sep 2005)

It could also be the Camoflage of the Weapons systems.

That's an extra fuel tank....


----------

