# Cadets on a Reg force exercise??



## Nobby (20 Jul 2006)

Being a CIC officer, I am well aware of the PRCI (in Pacific  region anyway) that prohibits any military "tactical" training. This PRCI specifically names "Capture the flag" as well. So imagine my surprise when the local news runs a story about Navy cadets getting run through cycles serving on HMCS Algonquin during the RIMPAC exercise. Not only that, but the cadets are not part of the Navy reserve but are doing bridge functions during simulated missile attacks in Hawaii. I may be opening up a box of something here, but does this not seem hypocrytical?? I haven't made up my mind, but your thoughts??


----------



## FredDaHead (21 Jul 2006)

Source?

Sounds unlikely...


----------



## Franko (21 Jul 2006)

I'm sure that everything is on the level here Nobby.     

But not having a source posted...I'll have to take it that this is nothing more than rumour....so here it goes.

The amount of staffing to get clearance for cadets to go on an ex with the Regs isn't something that is just signed off without some detail involved.

I have been working with cadets for over 18 years and have had many cadets come out on ex with my unit...albeit, not as involved as they would like it to be.

The staffing, clearances, paperwork is huge. When the cadets get out to the unit, the troops are briefed as to what they can and can't do with them and it goes from there.

I'm pretty sure that the ship the kids were on were not involved directly in any hazzardous portions of the manoevers.

It's really nothing more than a brief exposure to what their affilliated unit does.

My $0.02 worth.

Regards


----------



## Neill McKay (21 Jul 2006)

Nobby said:
			
		

> Being a CIC officer, I am well aware of the PRCI (in Pacific  region anyway) that prohibits any military "tactical" training. This PRCI specifically names "Capture the flag" as well. So imagine my surprise when the local news runs a story about Navy cadets getting run through cycles serving on HMCS Algonquin during the RIMPAC exercise. Not only that, but the cadets are not part of the Navy reserve but are doing bridge functions during simulated missile attacks in Hawaii. I may be opening up a box of something here, but does this not seem hypocrytical?? I haven't made up my mind, but your thoughts??



I suppose there's a difference between a cadet simulating an attack as an infanteer and a cadet serving in a ship, whatever the ship is doing.  I've known cadets to be deployed in ships and perfom watch-on-deck duties such as lookouts, etc.  There's nothing too "tactical" about that, in itself -- it's just normal ship operation, similar to what any other ship would do (someone always has to steer, and someone always has to watch where you're going, warship or cruise ship.)

But apart from that, unless the deployment is being conducted under the authority of RCSU (Pacific), PRCIs are irrelevant to it.


----------



## rwgill (21 Jul 2006)

It is the infantry's role that the general public has difficulty with.  It the "up, close and personal" killing, or illusion of killing.  Cadets have assisted in the firing of artillery pieces yesterday, today and tomorrow.  Cadets have assisted in bridge building and water purification.  Cadets have gone for "dog & pony" shows in the LAVs and AVGP line of vehicles.  The most difficult part and the banned part is the tactical, or warlike scenarios.

Having been on several exercises with the PRes and Cadets together I can assure you that there is a happy medium.  Previously affiliated with a Field Engineer Squadron, cadets were permitted to almost completely participate.  While laying a mine field, cadets participated in the recee, the mapping of the field and fencing the field.  The only problem the Det had was the actual laying of the mines (juice cans).  The cadets loved the recee and mapping portions as it improved their map and compass skills.  Throughout the FTXs, the cadets would rotate in HQ to get practical experience with the radios (under supervision).  They also learnt the importance of team work and good leadership.  They realized that everyone gets their hands dirty, not just the followers.  

These exercises were also great training sessions for the CIC officers.  They were able to shadow the PRes Trp Comds and see how it is really done.  They are great training for everyone involved.  They are also great recruiting tools.  What cadets see in the movies and what they experience are two different things.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (21 Jul 2006)

Nobby said:
			
		

> Being a CIC officer, I am well aware of the PRCI (in Pacific  region anyway) that prohibits any military "tactical" training. This PRCI specifically names "Capture the flag" as well. So imagine my surprise when the local news runs a story about Navy cadets getting run through cycles serving on HMCS Algonquin during the RIMPAC exercise. Not only that, but the cadets are not part of the Navy reserve but are doing bridge functions during simulated missile attacks in Hawaii. I may be opening up a box of something here, but does this not seem hypocrytical?? I haven't made up my mind, but your thoughts??



Just a thought - could it not be possible that these are Naval Cadets (RMC OCdts) conducting their summer training with the Navy, vice Navy Cadets?  The functions they're quoted as performing would suggest that they are...


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jul 2006)

Back when I was posted to the RAA, we often had affiliated cadet corps out with us on the gunline, but as time progressed and the PC world came into effect, cadets had to be 100 metres back when our guns fired.

I see nothing wrong with cadets placed into sections but they should be more senior and of an age and build where they can share the labour etc.

After all, we feed from the cadets and the reserves as much as Canada does.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Jul 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Just a thought - could it not be possible that these are Naval Cadets (RMC OCdts) conducting their summer training with the Navy, vice Navy Cadets?  The functions they're quoted as performing would suggest that they are...



I'd say this is a likely answer.

Used to be lucky Army Cadets went to West Germany to act as infantrymen with 4 CMBG during summer exercises...and would have been on hand had the balloon gone up...times have certainly changed.


----------



## Black Watch (22 Jul 2006)

Well as a cadet, I went on few FTX with the regiment. Of course, those were the days (1999-2002). I fired C6, C7, C9, and lerned the drills on C-G.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jul 2006)

> Used to be lucky Army Cadets went to West Germany to act as infantrymen with 4 CMBG during summer exercises...and would have been on hand had the balloon gone up...times have certainly changed.



My brother did this - was attached to PPCLI as a cadet


----------



## Springroll (22 Jul 2006)

Both Nobby and I were in PPCLI cadets together..... ;D


----------



## Nobby (23 Jul 2006)

Just to clarify, these were Navy cadets and NOT memnbers of the CF. They ran a few part story on a local tv station. One of the parts happened to talk to these lucky young people. The station is called "A-channel" in Victoria, BC. I can't post proof because the station only arhives for a couple days. Also PRCI's apply to ALL cadet activities whether the regs are in charge or not. Tough luck......I'll guess you'll just have to use that thing called trust.


----------



## Franko (23 Jul 2006)

Nobby said:
			
		

> Tough luck......I'll guess you'll just have to use that thing called trust.



And also you'll have to trust that the CO of said Sea Cadet Corps staffed the paperwork properly and that the ACO gave the green light.

If not she / he's in a bit of poo right now, or soon will be.

Regards


----------



## Springroll (23 Jul 2006)

I think what he was getting at is that cadets nowadays, as an example, are no longer allowed to play capture the flag due to whatever reasons pac region has given, but they will allow sea cadets to go along on RIMPAC with the navy. 

That does seem quite hypocritical, doesn't it?


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Jul 2006)

Springroll said:
			
		

> That does seem quite hypocritical, doesn't it?



No.   There is a large difference in the perception among parents, other citizens, and those who might watch the cadet program with respect to identifying possible breaches of agreements on child soldiers between learning seamanship and learning "infantry combat/small unit tactics."


----------



## Springroll (23 Jul 2006)

I have played capture the flag in school, not only on cadet weekend ex's, so not sure how that stands up to it. 
Even my kids play that at school now.

As far as I am concerned, the game helps the children to build teamwork and problem solving strategies. I don't recall being taught infantry/combat tactics while playing capture the flag. 

We were put into teams of two and were to make it up the hill as quietly as possible and capture the flag. If you were caught, you were sent back to the bottom of the hill to try again. How is that teaching infantry/combat tactics?


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Jul 2006)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I have played capture the flag in school, not only on cadet weekend ex's, so not sure how that stands up to it.
> Even my kids play that at school now.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, the game helps the children to build teamwork and problem solving strategies. I don't recall being taught infantry/combat tactics while playing capture the flag.
> ...



Springroll,

I rather doubt anyone confused your SCHOOL for a government sponsored para-military (or military imitating) organization either.  And I suppose you could guarantee that no reporter would ever come up with a picture of Cadets "playing" Capture the Flag without wearing camouflage combats, cam paint, and imitating section tactics?

Under what definition do you not consider "stalking" an infantry activity?

Suck back, reload and open your mind to the broader potential interpretations of what gets done by the Cadet movement. All you are doing is muddying the waters and promoting the confusion among Cadets who need it explained again and again why their program does not now do some of the things it once did..

Why don't you put your powers of deduction to proposing what sports and activities the cadets could be doing instead of those that can be interpreted as contravening internationally agreed conventions.   Perhaps you could find things that would meet the objectives of the program without being "warlike" if you actually worked at it.


----------



## Franko (23 Jul 2006)

Topic re-opened for buisness.

Please keep it on track troops.

Regards


----------



## Nobby (24 Jul 2006)

Many of you have seemingly missed the point. PRCI 309 para 13 states that no activities that "Simulate war-like situations or tactics" are to be undertaken. I see no difference between a cadet performing bridge duties during simulated missile strikes and a cadet performing a RECCE patrol. At first glance one may be in green and face paint and the like.....while another is learning a very sterile action of war, but still an action of war none the less (a very destructive one too). As for capture the flag.....stalking involves following people not flags. The fact is that even though the rule (PRCI) is ridiculous, I expect a cadet region to damn well abide by the rules that they themselves create. As for that child soldier hoo hah.....tell me what exactly is the difference between a 16 year old cadet Sgt. and a 16 year old Infantry Reserve? Perhaps that deserves another discussion completely. Or maybe its safer to just press a button from afar..........fire and forget? Pacific Region's PC adherence to their rules seems to favour that sort of thing.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jul 2006)

Nobby said:
			
		

> Many of you have seemingly missed the point. PRCI 309 para 13 states that no activities that "Simulate war-like situations or tactics" are to be undertaken. I see no difference between a cadet performing bridge duties during simulated missile strikes and a cadet performing a RECCE patrol. At first glance one may be in green and face paint and the like.....while another is learning a very sterile action of war, but still an action of war none the less (a very destructive one too). As for capture the flag.....stalking involves following people not flags. *The fact is that even though the rule (PRCI) is ridiculous, I expect a cadet region to damn well abide by the rules that they themselves create.* As for that child soldier hoo hah.....tell me what exactly is the difference between a 16 year old cadet Sgt. and a 16 year old Infantry Reserve? *Perhaps that deserves another discussion completely.* Or maybe its safer to just press a button from afar..........fire and forget? Pacific Region's PC adherence to their rules seems to favour that sort of thing.



Perhaps the discussion that it needs is within YOUR chain of command.  Not here, which only serves to confuse the issue of requirement to follow published orders and regulations.

As a CIC officer, if you have such a deep concern for this issue, then you are trying to discuss it in the wrong arena.


----------



## Burrows (24 Jul 2006)

PRCIs apply to Pac Region only.  If one is dead set upon having cadets participating in activities such as this, and has a valid justification for it, then I'm sure DCdts would give either the thumbs up or down over the regional COs.


----------



## Nobby (24 Jul 2006)

I will make this brief. If any body of authority creates a rule or rules, that they say will stand as the official word, then they must follow those rules as well. Not just in a military or para-military organization but any body of authority. I'm not saying that common sense should not also be used as well, as most know by now that rules are guidleines for the wise, and law to the idiot. But clearly not following one's own directions can potentialy cause one to appear hypocritical and bring the system around the organization into disrepute.


----------



## Roy Harding (24 Jul 2006)

Nobby said:
			
		

> .....tell me what exactly is the difference between a 16 year old cadet Sgt. and a 16 year old Infantry Reserve? Perhaps that deserves another discussion completely. ...



The former is a member of a youth organization.  The latter a member of an Army.  

And you're wrong - it DOESN'T deserve another discussion completely - the Cadets (Army, Sea, and Air), although supported by the CF, are NOT "CF Lite for Kids" - they are an extremely valuable and worthwhile Youth Organization, period.


----------



## Burrows (24 Jul 2006)

At the same time, greater powers can go over a lower one.  This happens in the judicial system as well.  Appeals may be made to the higher court.  PRCIs are just that;  they aren't QR&Os or CATOs, and they apply to Pacific Region only.  I'm not too sure where they rank on the official scale, but a region can't override the national authority...the opposite can.

I can understand why cadets want to play capture the flag and other games, and IMO as long as its controlled then I don't see anything wrong with it.  Sure they might be "confused for real members of the military" but IMO that just seems like its taking safety too far.  I'm not advocating for letting cadets run around with guns and tag eachother, but there are more potentially harmful things that we are allowed to do that are less fun.  

Kids join cadets to have fun the "army way" for lack of a better term.  Kids are kids and I see no reason to stop them from playing capture the flag in a remote location on an exercise....at least until Bloggins falls on the flag and impales himself, but thats another reason entirely.

It may seem that I'm advocating for more "warlike activities" in cadets, and while part of me would like to see some added, I can understand why we have guidelines.  Let the kids have their fun, let them play capture the flag that they play in gym class; let them play hide and go seek; and let them practice the camoflauge and concealment and field signals in the handbook.  Personally, as a civvie I'd be more scared of that than a bunch of kids playing something they can do in gym class.


----------



## Nobby (24 Jul 2006)

Roy Harding, perhaps I should have been more clear and said the PHYSICAL difference between the two 16 year olds. I was attempting make a point about a previous reference to "international conventions" mentioned by another member, which I believe he was speaking of the "Child Soldier Act." So please, before you dismiss my opinion as wrong, remember that it is my opinion and as such, no reasonable person can call an opinion wrong as it is not a matter of fact. Who is wrong, who is right? This does not concern me.


----------



## Roy Harding (24 Jul 2006)

Nobby said:
			
		

> Roy Harding, perhaps I should have been more clear and said the PHYSICAL difference between the two 16 year olds. I was attempting make a point about a previous reference to "international conventions" mentioned by another member, which I believe he was speaking of the "Child Soldier Act." So please, before you dismiss my opinion as wrong, remember that it is my opinion and as such, no reasonable person can call an opinion wrong as it is not a matter of fact. Who is wrong, who is right? This does not concern me.



Fair enough - perhaps you _should_ have been more clear.

As far as the "Child Soldier Act" goes - it doesn't apply to our Cadets - they are NOT/NOT a "part" of the CF.  They are a youth organization - sponsored and supported by the CF.

I believe the rules as they stand are well thought out - as much as Cadets themselves may disagree with them (two of my sons were Cadets - one Air, one Sea - so I know whereof I speak.)  Cadets should NOT be involved in "warlike" training - they SHOULD (and ARE) involved in extremely vigorous and rigorous physical, mental, and personal challenges, which enable them to become the leaders of their peer group.  This is, in my opinion, as it should be.

I did NOT "dismiss your opinion as wrong" - I took issue with it.  You've clarified it, I've clarified mine - all is well with the world.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2006)

We've been down this Cadet / Military road to many times before. They are not military period.  If they were, they would have the QR&O's to follow, not CATOs. Like, their CIC, who are Reservists. As to the type of training, they can do anything boy scouts can do. If you want to stalk, do it to a deer instead of each other. And as been stated, Nobby, your barking up the wrong tree here. Go harangue your proper chain. And while I've got your attention, reel in your neck. Your post are absolutley dripping with vindictiveness and nose in the air psuedo superiority. I don't like stepping on Kyle's toes, but if it doesn't come back on track schnell, it'll be locked.


----------



## Gunner (24 Jul 2006)

Res/Reg who join prior to 18 are allowed to under a clause in the "Child Soldier Act", however, they are not allowed to deploy operationally.

See that attached link outlining Canadian safeguard put in place to meet our international obligations.

http://www.child-soldiers.org/document_get.php?id=813

I've had an eight year old point an AK47 at me...one of the sadest things I've ever seen.


----------



## Neill McKay (24 Jul 2006)

Nobby said:
			
		

> I will make this brief. If any body of authority creates a rule or rules, that they say will stand as the official word, then they must follow those rules as well.



Why do you think RCSU (Pacific) is in charge of this deployment?  Without having any first-hand information, I'm inclined to believe that it's probably DCdts' show, in which case PRCIs would be irrelevant.

But apart from that, if PRCIs were applicable here, mightn't it simply be a case of someone in HQ interpreting the applicable order differently from you?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2006)

......and I dare say, has more experience and knowledge on the subject (read - is in a legal position, with i's dotted and t's crossed) than a 2Lt CIC officer.


----------



## armyguygreg (24 Jul 2006)

Wow 

You ex and current Reg Force folks on here, really have it hard for the CIC.  I believed this forum was for anyone to post a subject/concern without being critized from everyone who thinks are KNOW ALL to every regulation in writing.  Just because the one guy who started this topic is only a 2LT doesn't make him stupid or less intelligent as a certain Reg Force Capt in this discussion or other EX reg force members.   Alot of CIC are EX/Previous Reg and PRes members. OR have more experience in Civi world dealing youth than any of you Reg/PRes guys, so give it up and let everyone have word in here.  

PEACE


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Jul 2006)

armyguygreg said:
			
		

> Wow
> 
> You ex and current Reg Force folks on here, really have it hard for the CIC.  I believed this forum was for anyone to post a subject/concern without being critized from everyone who thinks are KNOW ALL to every regulation in writing.  Just because the one guy who started this topic is only a 2LT doesn't make him stupid or less intelligent as a certain Reg Force Capt in this discussion or other EX reg force members.   Alot of CIC are EX/Previous Reg and PRes members. OR have more experience in Civi world dealing youth than any of you Reg/PRes guys, so give it up and let everyone have word in here.
> 
> PEACE



Cheers, 

And Welcome to army.ca.

You make a sound argument, that there are CICs' who were previously serving memebers of the REgular or primary reserve.  However,  their posts would show their experience, and if not,  _certain Reg Force Capt in this discussion or other EX reg force members_ would be able to suss this out, wouldn't you agree?

Again welcome,

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Jul 2006)

armyguygreg said:
			
		

> PEACE



DONE.

Cadets/CIC FAQ and Related Websites - UPDATED
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21472.0.html

*The DEAD END Topics. *

While most FAQ lists focus on helpful topics answering legitimate recurring questions, there has also been unfortunate recurrences of less desirable topics in the Cadet Forum. The following threads provide some of these discussions, and should be read thoroughly by any cadets thinking about opening threads on weapons training, combat training or that openly question the intent and purpose of the Cadet program by confusing its intents with those of Reserve or Regular Force training. Note that all of these threads were locked for very good reasons, as will similar threads.

Why Can't we Fire C-7's or Better?

This is Cadets not Boy Scouts

Combat Training in the Cadet Program

Should RCAC Allow Combat Training?

DND Making Cadets Less Military Every Year

Cadets Becoming Less and Less Interesting

Cadets Becoming Too Much Like Boy Scouts

Military Games for Cadets

Cadets Taking Things Too Far

Cadets on a Reg force exercise??


----------

