# NORAD renewed indefinitely and to have maritime surveillance



## MarkOttawa (29 Apr 2006)

Somehow the other papers missed this, "Tories quietly expand NORAD":
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1146261012750&call_pageid=968332188492

Excerpts:

'Stephen Harper's government has quietly committed Canada to "indefinite" participation in NORAD and agreed to give the military alliance new responsibilities to watch for a terror attack by sea.

Fresh off his softwood lumber truce, Harper's government yesterday gave another boost to Canada-U.S. relations when it signed off on the renewal of the landmark North American Aerospace Defence Command treaty.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador in Canada, signed the new pact at a "ceremony in Ottawa," according to Janelle Hironimus, a spokesperson with the U.S. State Department.

Yet in Ottawa, officials with the Harper government tried to keep word of the renewal under wraps...

With Canadian officials saying nothing, it was left to U.S. officials to lay out the details of the renewal.

"The new agreement expands NORAD's mission by adding maritime warning to NORAD's aerospace defence mission," Hironimus said.

This will be a first for the joint Canada-United States defence agency, which in the past has been responsible only for guarding the skies over North America.

The new responsibility involves watching the coasts for suspicious vessels that could be used for a terror attack, a serious threat that has been a concern to both countries. But the vigilance also includes watching for drug traffickers and human smugglers too.

Unlike the current agreement, which will expire on May 12, this new deal will run indefinitely, "acknowledging the mature nature of the U.S.-Canadian defence partnership," Hironimus said...

While the Conservatives are sure to trumpet the deal as yet further proof of improving relations with the U.S., negotiations for the renewal were "largely completed" before they took office in February, Hironimus said...

In Canada, opposition politicians will get their own briefing on Monday in advance of a debate on the new pact on Wednesday.

And the Conservative government has relented and will allow a vote on the agreement on Thursday, Parliament Hill sources say...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## orange.paint (29 Apr 2006)

Funny thing is under the liberals we were trialing this in capebreton with the USA.The canadian army (armd school) navy (i believe the toronto?) rcmp ert teams and a large amount of scientist from DRDC.Along with the auoras and other sensors being tested.

there was a web page up on it but I cant seem to find it right now.


----------



## GAP (29 Apr 2006)

Good. Glad to hear it!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (30 Apr 2006)

ummm...we did this stuff in the late '60's and all thru the 70's...just had a different "name and flavour" back then.  Different PM and Opposition Party then too?

Same sh*t...different day.  Now let's watch the Canadian Public get all rowled up over this one too....sigh.

MRM


----------



## Bart Nikodem (30 Apr 2006)

I'm glad they added maritime surveillance to the pact. Remember when that boat full of illegal migrants arrived in northern BC a few years ago? Hopefully it won't happen again with this deal in place.
All the best,
Bart


----------



## aesop081 (30 Apr 2006)

WOW !!

Looking for drug boats, illigal immigrants on boats, watching suspicious merchant vessels........

Yeah thats a new one  :


----------



## paracowboy (30 Apr 2006)

sensationalism-mongering amongst the media carrion-feeders. This is the same thing that the Guv'mint has been doing since the formation of NORAD. Anti-Conservative bias at work? Or just keeping the new government under a microscope, and trying to appear relevent?


----------



## aesop081 (30 Apr 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> sensationalism-mongering amongst the media carrion-feeders. This is the same thing that the Guv'mint has been doing since the formation of NORAD. Anti-Conservative bias at work? Or just keeping the new government under a microscope, and trying to appear relevent?



A little from column A, a little from column B......


----------



## Bart Nikodem (30 Apr 2006)

> WOW !!
> 
> Looking for drug boats, illigal immigrants on boats, watching suspicious merchant vessels........
> 
> Yeah thats a new one  Roll Eyes


To answer the question in your profile box, yes I am confused. Are you saying NORAD already was doing maritime surveillance when the boatload of illegal migrants showed up?
If so, did they drop the ball by not intercepting it sooner? Or was the Canadian government kept in the dark about it to motivate it to beef up it's border security once the illegal migrants showed up? Either way, I think this deal is a step in the right direction.
IIRC the migrants showed up pre 9/11 so the response now might be a bit more robust regardless of wether there was a deal in place, whatever the case may be I don't think this deal is a bad idea.
All the best,
Bart


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Apr 2006)

Bart Nikodem said:
			
		

> Are you saying NORAD already was doing maritime surveillance when the boatload of illegal migrants showed up?
> If so, did they drop the ball by not intercepting it sooner? Or was the Canadian government kept in the dark about it to motivate it to beef up it's border security once the illegal migrants showed up?



Since you would like to infer that the arrival of that vessel was a failure of sorts, please explain what radar or optical surveillance technology can positively identify that a particular ship carries illegal immigrants.


----------



## paracowboy (30 Apr 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Since you would like to infer that the arrival of that vessel was a failure of sorts, please explain what radar or optical surveillance technology can positively identify that a particular ship carries illegal immigrants.


Teslan Infra-Thermal-Fluoroscope, of course. Where you been? Then you engage with transporters and just beam 'em back to wherever.

Geez, man. Try to keep up.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Apr 2006)

Bart Nikodem said:
			
		

> To answer the question in your profile box, yes I am confused. Are you saying NORAD already was doing maritime surveillance when the boatload of illegal migrants showed up?
> If so, did they drop the ball by not intercepting it sooner? Or was the Canadian government kept in the dark about it to motivate it to beef up it's border security once the illegal migrants showed up? Either way, I think this deal is a step in the right direction.
> IIRC the migrants showed up pre 9/11 so the response now might be a bit more robust regardless of wether there was a deal in place, whatever the case may be I don't think this deal is a bad idea.
> All the best,
> Bart



The CP-140 comunity has been patroling canada's waters for over 25 years now. I canot dwell into the mechanics of our reporting system and our chain of command for maritime surveilance operations in Home waters.  But i will tell you this, nothing will change.  We will continue to patrol Canada's AOR on all 3 coasts as we have always done.  The US will do the same in their waters.

Now for your next point:

have you ever spent 10 hours in an Aurora over the pacific looking for illigal fishing, illegal immigration, illigal drugs, etc... ?  Do you have a clue how difficult it is to do ?  Do you know how many ships i see in those 10 hours ?  I dare you to come and see what i do and tell me which ships are doing something illegal and which ones arent.  That a ship slipped by is something thats going to happen.  If you have an objection to that, call your MP and tell him you want more maritime patrol planes and crews.

I see in your pic that you are a medic, stick to doing FA and patching up bullet wounds and dont critize how i do my job.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (30 Apr 2006)

And before the Aurora days, the Argus crews did it too...my dad was a FE on the Argus when VP 415 was in CFB Summerside (Sqn Snr FE and in Crew 1 "The Gropers").  I would bet if you could find some Neptune crews they too patrolled our waters.  Are the Liberals suggesting they didn't know our Air Force was doing this or that they "never thought of THAT one whoopsie!".  Come on.  Give me a break.

Just something else that the Liberals can use to whip up stupid stuff in the news...some people believe everything in the news (cause "The News" couldn't be wrong...) but if they stopped and thought about it...the Liberals didn't have our Air Force flying over our waters?  Hmmm.  Good call.   :


----------



## Centurian1985 (1 May 2006)

Having worked at the Canadian NORAD Region, I can say that none of those tasking are new... perhaps it was just never officially written down anywhere before and nobody told us?  ;D


----------



## CanuckTroop (1 May 2006)

I think this is crap. I'm watching Harper and he's going to get his ass kicked in the next election if we get too cozy with the US. In my opinion I can't believe we aren't playing hardball right now with our resources in order to get what we want as far as trade agreements go. Harper is a puppet. He's beefing up the military, which is good, but on with his other hand he's tying us into the defense plans os the US. I don't buy it. You should read "Continental integration by stealth" to get a more accurate view of what's going on here. If you guys start whining about "The Liberal Media" like all the right wing nuts in the US i'm really going to start getting worried....

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146174636411&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 May 2006)

Show me in the article where it says anything about the Harper Govt taking an interest in this.......


----------



## CanuckTroop (1 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Show me in the article where it says anything about the Harper Govt taking an interest in this.......



It's not in the article. It's my opinion of where this is heading. These groups are the "think tanks" that come up with government policy before the government itself tries to enact it on us. Just like the article explains: 

" Based at the headquarters of NORTHCOM and the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) in Colorado Springs, the planning group was intended to devise counterpoints to critics' concerns, while postponing formal decision-making until a more politically opportune moment". 

As I said, everyone should not be buying into the "Harper is great for the military, therefore, he's great for Canada" crap. All I'm saying is watch what he's doing. We as Canadians DO NOT NEED closer ties to US foreign policy! If you think that you're out of your tree IMO. We need to stay at arms lenghth from their crazy policies and start flexing a little more of our own muscle. Canada needs a stronger armed forces to maintain our sovereignty from the US as well as defend against other foreign aggression. If you believe closer ties to US foreign policy is a good thing, please explain why?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2006)

> As I said, everyone should not be buying into the "Harper is great for the military, therefore, he's great for Canada" crap. All I'm saying is watch what he's doing. We as Canadians DO NOT NEED closer ties to US foreign policy! If you think that you're out of your tree IMO. We need to stay at arms lenghth from their crazy policies and start flexing a little more of our own muscle. Canada needs a stronger armed forces to maintain our sovereignty from the US as well as defend against other foreign aggression. If you believe closer ties to US foreign policy is a good thing, please explain why?



So...not much of a fan of the United States?


----------



## aesop081 (1 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I think this is crap. I'm watching Harper and he's going to get his *** kicked in the next election if we get too cozy with the US. In my opinion I can't believe we aren't playing hardball right now with our resources in order to get what we want as far as trade agreements go. Harper is a puppet. He's beefing up the military, which is good, but on with his other hand he's tying us into the defense plans os the US. I don't buy it. You should read "Continental integration by stealth" to get a more accurate view of what's going on here. If you guys start whining about "The Liberal Media" like all the right wing nuts in the US i'm really going to start getting worried....
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146174636411&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795



 Explain to me how NORAD doing maritime surveillance hurts our sovereinty ?


----------



## CanuckTroop (1 May 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So...not much of a fan of the United States?



I'm a big fan of the US as a  geographical landmass, and it'd be nice to have it in our inventory. I'm not a fan of the government that now occupies the White House (and Middle East).


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2006)

CanuckTroop: The Star piece is paranoid fantasty.

I suggest you read Prof. Byers' bio:
http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/about/index.cfm?fuseaction=bio&peopleID=24

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CanuckTroop (1 May 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Explain to me how NORAD doing maritime surveillance hurts our sovereinty ?



It's tying us in to US foreign policy that worries me, not whether we are "joining forces" to do maritime surveillance. You guys are missing the point. Norad is fine for the time being. It's one ocean so it doesn't make sense  to not be "somewhat" integrated. What I 'm saying is that's as far as this better go. The point I was trying to consider is that what this group that's coming up with "complete integration of our military and foreign policy with the US" is trying to do. I tried to start a thread discussing them and their ideas, as its own conversation, but the moderators who apparently are Harper/US puppets as well locked it! There's  some democracy for ya!


----------



## CanuckTroop (1 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CanuckTroop: The Star piece is paranoid fantasty.
> 
> I suggest you read Prof. Byers' bio:
> http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/about/index.cfm?fuseaction=bio&peopleID=24
> ...



Okay I read it. He's a smart guy with lots of time on his hands to think about the issues. What's your point? Or are you completely anti-acedemia (ie smart people are dumb)
It's short enough so here's the whole thing....



> Dr. Michael Byers holds a Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, where he also serves as Academic Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues. Prior to July 2004, he was a tenured Professor of Law and Director of Canadian Studies at Duke University. From 1996-1999, he was a Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University. His work focuses on the interaction of international law and international politics, especially with regard to international organizations, the use of military force, the law of the sea, human rights and Canada-United States relations. He is a regular contributor to the London Review of Books and Toronto Globe and Mail, and is the author, most recently, of War Law (London: Atlantic Books, 2005; Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2005).


----------



## Screw (1 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> It's tying us in to US foreign policy that worries me, not whether we are "joining forces" to do maritime surveillance. You guys are missing the point. Norad is fine for the time being. It's one ocean so it doesn't make sense  to not be "somewhat" integrated. What I 'm saying is that's as far as this better go. The point I was trying to consider is that what this group that's coming up with "complete integration of our military and foreign policy with the US" is trying to do. I tried to start a thread discussing them and their ideas, as its own conversation, but the moderators who apparently are Harper/US puppets as well locked it! There's  some democracy for ya!



Everyone who disagrees with you is a puppet, Whacko, out of their tree, or right wing-wing nuts. Why should anyone listen to you? Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy by the way. If you want democracy head south.  ;D

Think for yourself. We occupy the same continent- we have to be integrated to a certain degree. Picking fights with your neighbour and trading partner over some teenage douchebags "my view is right screw everyone else" opinion is not constructive.

If you dont like Harpers direction- next election vote against him. If the rest of the country disagrees with you dont tell them they are puppets or whacko. Just be glad you got to vote- since you are such a democratic enthusist you should be glad the majority got its way.

Screw


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2006)

I'd argue in this thread, but really, what's the point?  I'm just a puppet...


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> ....., but the moderators who apparently are Harper/US puppets .....



Is your tin foil hat too tight?


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2006)

CanuckTroop: 





> Dr. Michael Byers...is a regular contributor to the London Review of Books...



The London Review of Books is a rather leftish publication.  I should know as I subscribe to it--know your enemy!
http://www.lrb.co.uk/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CanuckTroop (1 May 2006)

Screw said:
			
		

> Everyone who disagrees with you is a puppet, Whacko, out of their tree, or right wing-wing nuts. Why should anyone listen to you? Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy by the way. If you want democracy head south.  ;D
> 
> Think for yourself. We occupy the same continent- we have to be integrated to a certain degree. Picking fights with your neighbour and trading partner over some teenage douchebags "my view is right screw everyone else" opinion is not constructive.
> 
> ...



Hey I never said EVERYONE IS A PUPPET. Don't mis-quote me. This is what I said....



> We as Canadians DO NOT NEED closer ties to US foreign policy! If you think that you're out of your tree IMO.



Are you saying that we should incorporate US foreign policy into our own? If you say yes, then I'm saying you're a whacko, or out of your tree, unless you can come up with any good reason.


----------



## CanuckTroop (1 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Is your tin foil hat too tight?



It's not a tin foil hat, bub, it's my interplanitary electrocapacitor.


----------



## prom (1 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I tried to start a thread discussing them and their ideas, as its own conversation, but the moderators who apparently are Harper/US puppets as well locked it! There's  some democracy for ya!



mis quote was it you say?



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> It's not a tin foil hat, bub, it's my interplanitary electrocapacitor.



do you even know what an electrocapacitor is?


----------



## CanuckTroop (1 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CanuckTroop:
> The London Review of Books is a rather leftish publication.  I should know as I subscribe to it--know your enemy!
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/
> 
> ...



No offense intended here. I believe that "left" and "right" are political slogans intended to divide and conquer the populace, so I don't subscribe to any such generality and do not look at ANYTHING as being one or the other. That's for politicians. If I were forced to characterize myself, as one or the other on a spectrum, I'd be closer to the right, since i think:

1) gun control is stupid
2) small government is better than large
3) well funded military= better international credability

That being said, I also believe in doing what's best for the country, and so far, other than increasing funding to the military, I haven't been impressed by what Harper's up to. He's giving nuclear tech to India (not a member of the non - proliferation treaty) he's not showing us the dead coming home from Afghanistan and having lots of cozy photo ops with Bush. Oh and then there's the crappy soft wood lumber agreement that basically says no tariffs as long as lumber prices remain high.......we all know that the housing thing will crash soon....so that brings back the tariffs.........thanks Harper. ALL I'M SAYING IS WATCH THE MAN. If you believe in doing what's in Canada's best interests, and if you're in the military I'm assuming you do, then you won't take sides based on outdated US models like "left and right" and make up your own mind on things. I like what Harper is doing(mostly) for the military, but that's just one issues of many many others. If he gets too close to the US I'm saying we give him the boot. And common, honor the dead for fuggs sake! We in Canada aren't that wimpy that we'll "give up" if we see our dead returning in caskets. He's not giving us much credit there.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2006)

> That being said, I also believe in doing what's best for the country, and so far, other than increasing funding to the military, I haven't been impressed by what Harper's up to. He's giving nuclear tech to India (not a member of the non - proliferation treaty) he's not showing us the dead coming home from Afghanistan and having lots of cozy photo ops with Bush. Oh and then there's the crappy soft wood lumber agreement that basically says no tariffs as long as lumber prices remain high.......we all know that the housing thing will crash soon....so that brings back the tariffs.........thanks Harper. ALL I'M SAYING IS WATCH THE MAN. If you believe in doing what's in Canada's best interests, and if you're in the military I'm assuming you do, then you won't take sides based on outdated US models like "left and right" and make up your own mind on things. I like what Harper is doing(mostly) for the military, but that's just one issues of many many others. If he gets too close to the US I'm saying we give him the boot. And common, honor the dead for fuggs sake! We in Canada aren't that wimpy that we'll "give up" if we see our dead returning in caskets. He's not giving us much credit there.



Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm convinced.  Let's march on Ottawa immediately and unshackle ourselves!!!!

Ok- I might be kidding...

Canuck, buddy- most of this has been argued to death for the past week in about 6 other threads.  I think you are going to find it difficult to get many of us terribly worked up over your rant.  



> It's not a tin foil hat, bub, it's my interplanitary electrocapacitor.



Hey, at least you have a sense of humour (boy, I hope you were kidding...)


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2006)

CanuckTroop:



> I haven't been impressed by what Harper's up to. He's giving nuclear tech to India


.

Are you not confusing PM Harper with President Bush?  
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-05-riceindia_x.htm

Perhaps in more than this way?

You might also look at this guest-post at "Daimnation!":

"Why the US/India nuclear agreement is a Good Thing" (March 2)
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005915.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## paracowboy (1 May 2006)

is it in the water lately?

Why is it the loons with the weirdest agendas are always the ones least capable of making sense, but most capable of finding this site?


----------



## Bart Nikodem (1 May 2006)

> I see in your pic that you are a medic, stick to doing FA and patching up bullet wounds and dont criticize how i do my job.


Remember, I'm a _reserve_ medic, I've never been near a real bullet wound in my life. I have done FA though. 
Seriously though, I didn't mean to criticize your job. What I was trying to say is that with this new agreement there will be more cooperation with on the maritime surveillance front, which is good, since Canada doesn't have a series of bases strung throughout the Pacific like the US, making maritime interdiction more likely, at least on the west coast.

I did more research on  the ships carrying the illegal migrants, it was in 99, there were four boats, the first one arriving on July 20th in Nootka sound, the last on Sep 9th in Nootka sound, all intercepted by the coast guard once they crossed into Canadian waters. I think I was a bit hasty in saying that a ball was dropped in regards to these incidents, though since there has not been, to my knowledge another case like this in almost 7 years I would say everybody is doing a great job in stopping this, wether stopping it in China or intercepting the boats sooner.

Also, I don't know if this agreement will mean that the US can help patrol just outside Canadian waters or even Canadian waters, I wouldn't mind since NAS Whidbey has 4 Patrol, 2 Fleet Air Reconnaissance squadrons, while Comox has 1 Patrol squadron. I think BC has more coastline than Washington state, but I could stand to be corrected.
All the best,
Bart
P.S. I have just written my MP to say I want more maritime patrol planes and crews.
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E sure comes in handy.


----------



## Centurian1985 (1 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CanuckTroop:
> Are you not confusing PM Harper with President Bush?
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-05-riceindia_x.htm
> "Why the US/India nuclear agreement is a Good Thing" (March 2)
> ...



Food for thought; did you know that the first Indian reactors were based on the Canadian CANDU?  What does that suggest to you?


----------



## Screw (1 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Food for thought; did you know that the first Indian reactors were based on the Canadian CANDU?  What does that suggest to you?



espionage?


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Food for thought; did you know that the first Indian reactors were based on the Canadian CANDU?  What does that suggest to you?



It suggests they quite likely used a taxi meter for the countdown to light her up?


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2006)

Screw: No Indian espionage.  See:

"The Canadian contribution to India's nuclear weapons"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006304.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Screw (1 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Screw: No Indian espionage.  See:
> 
> "The Canadian contribution to India's nuclear weapons"
> http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006304.html
> ...



Thanks for the link- I was a little confused because he said "based on".  However now I understand.



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Thye used a taxi meter for the countdown to light her up?



 ;D

Screw


----------



## aesop081 (2 May 2006)

Bart Nikodem said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind since NAS Whidbey has 4 Patrol, 2 Fleet Air Reconnaissance squadrons, while Comox has 1 Patrol squadron. I think BC has more coastline than Washington state, but I could stand to be corrected.



The USN's Maritime patrol force has, in recent years, suffered from large cuts as well as the accelerating retirement of P-3C airframes.  On the west Coast, *NAS Whidbey Island* stands alone as an LRPA base, as there is no longer a permanent VP presenve at NAS North Island (Coronado, California).  Therefore the VP units at Whidbey Island patrol the entire West coast of the US.  They have their work cout out for them just as much as we do.

http://www.naswi.navy.mil/pao/index.htm


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> We in Canada aren't that wimpy that we'll "give up" if we see our dead returning in caskets. He's not giving us much credit there.



Disagree and agree. 

Disagree- in my view, the large majority of Canadians are by and large over-comfortable, disrespectful, sanctimonious wimps too lazy and chicken shit to shut their mouths, pick up a rifle and man a post.   

Agree- he's not giving credit. Canadians haven't earned it. The politicians haven't earned it. The press certainly hasn't earned it. The soldiers did. God knows the families are owed heaps of credit- lets give them a little leeway to alter tradition, but I'll be damned if the media should have the influence they think they are "entitled" to. 

Would Canadians, the press and the liberal party be demanding the flag be half masted and ceremony's be carried live if a soldier died at Oka, Ipperwash or Caledon while carrying out the orders of Parliament? Not likely. Hypocrites, I say.

Anyway, way off topic here ...


----------



## CanuckTroop (2 May 2006)

> in my view, the large majority of Canadians are by and large over-comfortable, disrespectful, sanctimonious wimps too lazy and chicken crap to shut their mouths, pick up a rifle and man a post.



Do you really think that? What happened in WW1 and WW2 then? Alot of lazy over-comfotable, disrespectful wimps did a pretty good job then hey. Can't believe a military member just said that. 

I think that as far as the dead go, it should be up to the families to decide what they want to do- end of story. What I don't like about it is that Harper is doing it for political reasons, and taking another page outta Bushies book. It's not a big deal, but one more point against him.


----------



## CanuckTroop (2 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> is it in the water lately?
> 
> Why is it the loons with the weirdest agendas are always the ones least capable of making sense, but most capable of finding this site?



Have you ever asked yourself that question? lol


----------



## Centurian1985 (2 May 2006)

Sounds like his thread is about done if we are bashing trollers again....definately off-topic.   ;D


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (2 May 2006)

Just for the record CanuukTroop...whats your credentials?  I usually take an empty profile as "none".  My profile is there...I grew up in an ASW family.  Lets see you put your cards on the table so we know what kind of expertise you have, real life experience, or if you are just spitting out garbage like you know something?

Oh, I will assume you aren't a sniper, cause you sure are not staying on target.  Lots of Harper-bashing going on, not alot of discussion on the pro's and con's on the topic of the thread.

Maybe you should listen to AesOP and folks like him...do you know "what" as AesOp even is??????  If not find out I suggest.  He earns his pay over the places this "new" maritime surveillance is taking place...sheesh.  I guess when my Dad was flying over them when I was growing up (his Sqn is identifiable by the Swordfish), they were looking for fluffy white bunnies or pink elephants.  I will call him and tell him he was mis-informed the 28 1/2 years he spent in the Air Force or his 10,000 flying hours doing "maritime patrol" (potentially when you were still crappin' in diapers).  I am sure he would like to know that.

My suggestion is...go to the shower...turn it on "reality" and jump in...rinse twice.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (2 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> It's tying us in to US foreign policy that worries me, not whether we are "joining forces" to do maritime surveillance. You guys are missing the point. Norad is fine for the time being. It's one ocean so it doesn't make sense  to not be "somewhat" integrated. What I 'm saying is that's as far as this better go. The point I was trying to consider is that what this group that's coming up with "complete integration of our military and foreign policy with the US" is trying to do. I tried to start a thread discussing them and their ideas, as its own conversation, but the moderators who apparently are Harper/US puppets as well locked it! There's  some democracy for ya!



Jesus.  And all these years I thought we had more than one ocean.  Sheesh.  I get what you are saying.  Despite the fact that Canada and the US have been under the NORAD protective umbrella for "how many" years...we should not improve it because Bush is a dumb dumb, Harper is a puppet AND the experienced, dedicated professionals in both country Armed Forces who have "included" this is the "new" NORAD agreement are all a bunch of fools who don't know what they are doing.  

Wow.  Its clear now... :boring: Ok well I am bored of this thread now that it is off the rails...can we bring it back on to the original topic????


----------



## CanuckTroop (3 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Just for the record CanuukTroop...whats your credentials?  I usually take an empty profile as "none".  My profile is there...I grew up in an ASW family.  Lets see you put your cards on the table so we know what kind of expertise you have, real life experience, or if you are just spitting out garbage like you know something?
> 
> Oh, I will assume you aren't a sniper, cause you sure are not staying on target.  Lots of Harper-bashing going on, not alot of discussion on the pro's and con's on the topic of the thread.
> 
> ...



Ooookay...you haven't addressed anything I've been saying; you just started ranting about my credentials and about NORAD being great. You missed the fact that I said there was nothing wrong with NORAD as it is now. It's the future and where it may head that I'm talking about. Do you want to be 100% integrated into US foreign policy or not? That's what I'm asking. And as far as my credentials I'm a former member of the Reserve Infantry. You can ask me some skill testing questions if you're that concerned, however, for the purposes of anonymity I will not give you my former rank or unit. Ask me how much of a bitch it is to clean a C-9 or something. 

PS nice metaphor....  :


> Oh, I will assume you aren't a sniper, cause you sure are not staying on target.


 LAME


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 May 2006)

Again, sorry but... :boring:

Do I want to be 100% integrated into US Foreign Policy?  I live in Halifax...still part of Canada no?  I guess I will have to check to make sure some sneaky CIA agent didn't replace the Canadian flag on my uniform to the American one...

Thanks for coming out though.

PS - Asking you questions about your credentials in not "ranting".  What are you doing on here about the PCs, US Foreign Policy being adapted by Canada, etc etc would much more closely qualify as ranting.  My 2 cents.   :blotto:


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 May 2006)

Oh, I thought you might find this piece alittle interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Zone

Air Defense Identification Zone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North America is surrounded by an area called the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which is jointly administered by the United States and Canada. This area, _*which is almost exclusively over water*_, serves as a national defense boundary for air traffic. Any aircraft that wishes to fly in or through the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan before crossing the ADIZ. The pilot must have a transponder and a two-way radio while approaching and crossing the ADIZ. In the U.S., the FAA handles these requests; Transport Canada handles Canadian requests. Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as enemy military aircraft. This has not yet occurred, although even civilian aircraft making a simple mistake will be intercepted by military fighter aircraft and forced to land.


----------



## LIKELY (3 May 2006)

I know Aesop...he wrote fables. >


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 May 2006)

oh jesus...he's not one of 'you' is he Rob??


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> PS - Asking you questions about your credentials in not "ranting".  What are you doing on here about the PCs, US Foreign Policy being adapted by Canada, etc etc would much more closely qualify as ranting.  My 2 cents.   :blotto:



No, Mud.  You are not ranting.  Want to see some ranting?



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> People need to get their heads outta their asses. If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should also be able to have nuclear weapons to balance things out. Until such time as Iran gets its hands on the nukes, there will deffinately not be peace in the middle east. Israel has no reason to talk when they are the dominant power. I think the US has been sucking up to that god-aweful creation for far too long now anyway. Israel should be moved somewhere far away from the Arabs, like Russia or something. Hell we could donate somewhere in Northern Ontario for their new home. Then everybody wins. We could use more people here anyway, and they'd bring their army too so we 'd have apaches! If not we should let them deal with each other. Both sides become a glass parking lot and the rest of us can go on with business as usual.
> 
> This whole affair smells rotten. The double standard is plain for everyone to see, except the US policy makers, who are in the pocket of the big arms dealers. Can't have world peace...oh hell no, that would be bad for business. Must keep the war with Eurasia or East Asia or wherever going to support my Haliburton shares and Lockheed.  So many are ignorant out there ...they just dont' have a clue.
> 
> GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD (mutually assured destruction)



So really, this kid is working his way around to saying that NORAD is going to be very usefull in the future, because if he had his way, everyone would have nukes.  
"When you make nuclear bombs criminal, only criminals will have nuclear bombs".


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 May 2006)

Hey Zip,

Hmm I think you are right.  that IS a good example of ranting.  "let's give Iran nukes"...god I hope CSIS is reading THAT one...

 :rofl:

Ok, CanuukTroop.  You convinced me.  What is the name of the cult or foundation I can donate all my pay to the "Nukes for Iran" program?  Or does their commercial play just following the ones on TV about all the starving and poor kids in our world?

And no, plse don't answer me.  Unless, well, ya, after a day at the HQ...I could use a good chuckle.

I AM interested in hearing from any folks out there from VPs or the like if they see this changing anything in their day to day CONOPs though...

Mud


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> You can ask me some skill testing questions if you're that concerned...



Well, there IS only one skill testing question that matters...

What...is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?  (insert best Bridgekeeper's voice here...)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Well, there IS only one skill testing question that matters...
> 
> What...is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?  (insert best Bridgekeeper's voice here...)




OOOO...I hope he says "I don't know".   :dontpanic:


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 May 2006)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (4 May 2006)

Hey CanuukTroop...another link for you...

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/19wing/squadron/407_e.asp

Free info is avail on the Internet.  The Air Force website is useful to find out what Wings/Sqn's do what and where.  

 ;D


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (5 May 2006)

Canuuk

Come on buddy,

YOU wanted  to get your 2 cents on a "Maritime Warfare and NORAD" thread...yappin' @ Aesop081 an got caught with a bit of actual factual info and bailed??


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (5 May 2006)

;D


----------



## foerestedwarrior (5 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Well, there IS only one skill testing question that matters...
> 
> What...is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?  (insert best Bridgekeeper's voice here...)



African or european?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2006)

This is from this evening’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060508.wnorad0508/BNStory/National/home 


> Commons backs NORAD pact 257-30
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 May 2006)

Ok...I have NEVER understood the NDPs "anti-missle" defence posture.  They would rather let them thru?  Lets give the coordinates of their backyards and cottages to the "bad guys" so they know where to send 'em then.


Next question...who are the 30 ding-bats that voted against??   :brickwall:


----------



## GAP (8 May 2006)

ndp :


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 May 2006)

Thank god for "majorities" and CDF (common dog fu.....er...sense)


----------



## Gayson (8 May 2006)

I'm currently enrolled at RMC through DCS and am working on Defence management.

On our course discussion board we have been discussing the renewal of NORAD.  In my responce to the professors question of wether or not I believe parliament should be involved in the approval process I said yes.

My argument was that I see a possible sovereignty issue by allowing a country to patrol our northern waters when they themselves do not recognize those waters as being "Canadian".

After posting my responce, I thought that this would be an interesting topic of discussion at Army.ca .


What are all of your thoughts on this matter?

[EDIT]  I see there has already been a thread made on the subject.  My apologies.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Feb 2011)

Speculating about the future from John Ivison of the _National Post_ (one way to deal with any possible maritime patrol aircraft shortfall?):

NORAD could be expanded to land and sea
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/11/john-ivison-norad-could-be-expanded-to-land-and-sea/



> Sources suggest the North American perimeter security talks announced last week will include an intriguing proposal: expanding NORAD to cover land and sea operations. In this scenario, Canadian and U.S. navies and land forces would integrate their command structures, headquarters and operations when it comes to continental security.
> 
> George Macdonald, a retired lieutenant-general in the Canadian Forces and a former deputy commander of NORAD, said the structure is in place to expand NORAD’s role beyond the air. “Trusted relationships have been built up over the past 50 years….There is no reason we couldn’t have a maritime NORAD of the North,” he said.
> 
> ...



More on specialization, pooling from the NATO SecGen:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/94602/post-1016681.html#msg1016681

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Feb 2011)

And LGen (Ret’d) George Macdonald himself at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute's _3Ds Blog_:  

Expand NORAD
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=102



> ...The NORAD Agreement renewal in 2006 expanded the NORAD mission to include a role in maritime domain awareness, in recognition of the need in our two countries that the more formal sharing of this information was in our mutual security interests.
> 
> With global warning and the increasing level of interest and traffic in the North, there exists an opportunity to exploit the close, integrated relationship extant in NORAD to greater use.  Why not consider a ‘NORAD of the maritime North” arrangement whereby we share information and assess movements of interest bilaterally?  This does not mean that the US Navy will have unimpeded access the Northwest Passage, but it could mean that we have an arrangement whereby we deploy the nearest asset to investigate a vessel of interest, provide assistance to a ship in distress, or patrol a specific area.  Protocols to identify ‘unknowns’ or threats to our respective sovereign territory could be developed, much as is done every day in NORAD...



Mark
Ottawa


----------

