# Citizen with questions, Does the Govt. Appreciate the Military?



## Trev (4 Oct 2004)

Hello I am curious about challenges to Canadian sovreignity and the status of our armed forces. As I said I don't know where to begin.

A few things:

I have read of military exercises staged on Canadian territory by Denmark without our permission, and Denmarks claims to the North Pole as their territory. I have also always read this information put together with the U.S proposed MIssile defense shield, as it will give us better surveillance of our North, and Military bases in the North. 

Are we a joke? I know our soldiers are some of the very best in the world. But with so little support for the force as a whole is it as effective as it can be? Do you know if Military spending is going to be beefed up in the VERY NEAR future?

how do you as soldiers feel about the support the government gives you, what is expected of you considering what you're given, and the force as a whole?

Sorry this post is so all over the place, hopefully someone here will have some answers.


Thanks alot
Kindest Regards

Trev


----------



## Trev (4 Oct 2004)

another important thing I am concerned about is the state of our armed forces in the not so distant future. As resources become scarcer and scarcer and the wrold population climbs wars will break out more and more frequently as a bid for resources. Canada being one of the most abundant n ation in resources (over half the worlds water, top 4 in fossil fuels,  #1 in diamonds, tons of forest and land for agriculture), it would of course be best to spread the wealth, and try and keep everyone healthy and well. But I somehow doubt this to be the case. If we did have to defend ourselves in such a future would we be able to?  I'm worried the people who can answer these questions are people who look over the long term of our forces. I really hope our forces get the support they need, before it's too late


----------



## pbi (6 Oct 2004)

Trev said:
			
		

> another important thing I am concerned about is the state of our armed forces in the not so distant future. As resources become scarcer and scarcer and the wrold population climbs wars will break out more and more frequently as a bid for resources. Canada being one of the most abundant n ation in resources (over half the worlds water, top 4 in fossil fuels, #1 in diamonds, tons of forest and land for agriculture), it would of course be best to spread the wealth, and try and keep everyone healthy and well. But I somehow doubt this to be the case. If we did have to defend ourselves in such a future would we be able to? I'm worried the people who can answer these questions are people who look over the long term of our forces. I really hope our forces get the support they need, before it's too late



Trev: welcome to Army.ca: you have definitely come to the right spot. Once you have finished reading this, I suggest you surf around the other threads under "Parade Square": these will answer many of your questions and give you quite a wide perspective of opinion from a broad spectrum of backgrounds (the great beauty of Army.ca) A couple of observations here:



> ...the wrold population climbs...



IIRC, the world's population is either static or in slight decline overall. Significant growth is limited to a few areas of the world. Shortage of resources could present a problem, but many of the worlds' resources have yet to be significantly tapped.



> If we did have to defend ourselves in such a future would we be able to?



It really depends on how you define the threat, but in general our abilities are very limited. However, it is extremely unlikely that we would ever have to defend North America on our own, since the US cannot permit the gaining of a foothold by hostile forces. This does not mean that we should leave it to the US--quite the contrary--but that we need to cooperate closely to produce a unified defense system that doesn't offer "seams" to enemies.



> I really hope our forces get the support they need, before it's too late



So do we, but the Speech from the Throne on Tuesday certainly offers some encouraging words-let's hope they've got some willpower and dollars behind them. Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2004)

Using KISS (Keep It Stupid Simple) to answer your initial questions:  Canada has some of the finest trained Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen in the world and they are highly respected by foreign militaries.  That being said, they are a joke militarily due to the Canadian Government and the way that it employs and equips its' Military.

GW


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Oct 2004)

pbi that is of course unless the U.S. decides to invade for lets say water.


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Oct 2004)

CFL has a point.  Unfortunately the idea of defending against the US hasn't had political support since Mackenzie-King fiired Colonel Brown for producing plans to fight (attack/defend against) the US in the event of hostilities from that area.  Most would laugh at the idea of the US invading Canada, but MGen Richard Rohmer made a few bucks writing novels about just such scenarios.  It is certainly prudent for General staffs to have plans for many eventualities.  The problem in this country is that the political will to treat National Defence seriously just doesn't seem to be there.  Threat identification is very important, and sometimes when the question gets asked, the answer isn't what people want to hear.


----------



## Sheerin (7 Oct 2004)

> IIRC, the world's population is either static or in slight decline overall.



I wouldn't say that at all, it is expected that by 2050 the world's population is going to just under 9.2 billion, thats a projected world increase of nearly 7 billion over 100 years (between 1950 and 2050).  The pop in 1950 was a mere 2.5 billion if you were curious.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html


----------



## foerestedwarrior (7 Oct 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> pbi that is of course unless the U.S. decides to invade for lets say water.



they attacked us once, and we were way undermanned, and we faiught them back into their country, we would do it again. i think that we should plan for every possibility. I have heard that the US has a plan for invading most efvery country in the world just because.


----------



## pbi (7 Oct 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that at all, it is expected that by 2050 the world's population is going to just under 9.2 billion, thats a projected world increase of nearly 7 billion over 100 years (between 1950 and 2050). The pop in 1950 was a mere 2.5 billion if you were curious.
> 
> http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html



Thanks for that correction-I wasn't sure. However, does this growth rate represent a crisis, or just a growth rate?



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> CFL has a point. Unfortunately the idea of defending against the US hasn't had political support since Mackenzie-King fiired Colonel Brown for producing plans to fight (attack/defend against) the US in the event of hostilities from that area. Most would laugh at the idea of the US invading Canada, but MGen Richard Rohmer made a few bucks writing novels about just such scenarios. It is certainly prudent for General staffs to have plans for many eventualities. The problem in this country is that the political will to treat National Defence seriously just doesn't seem to be there. Threat identification is very important, and sometimes when the question gets asked, the answer isn't what people want to hear.



Hold on a second here-are we seriously postulating a US invasion of Canada to seize resources? In what scenario? Why wouldn't they just increase the amount they buy from us, or buy out the exploitation companies? I mean, we have much more oil than Saudi Arabia-it's just a matter of exploitation costs versus return on investment. And, if we were to go so far as to imagine such a scenario, just how (pray tell...) might we mount a credible military resistance against them. Please-_please_-do not draw any ill-considered parallels with the War of 1812 unless you seriously believe that the US military of 2004 is as abysmally incompetent as it was in 1812. The only option I could see for us would be a protracted asymmetrical fight (ie: guerilla warfare) until such time as a) they got tired and left; or b) somebody came to help us. Mustering conventional forces against them would be utterly pointless, not to mention very being very difficult to achieve.

The only time I could ever imagine this happening is if we were to pose such a severe security threat to them that they would have no other choice but to act militarily.Given their long relationship with us, I think you would find that short of such a situation, there would be absolutely no significant US domestic political support for such a move: I further suggest that some of the resistance would actually come from within the US military itself.  I submit that it is up to us to ensure that we never, never sink to such a state, by carrying our proper share of the defence and security burden in North America, and by restraining ourselves from silly outbursts of thoughtless anti-Ameriicanism that some Canadians are so fond of. Americans may respect smaller powers that carry their share, not ones that do nothing then carp endlessly from an imagined moral pedestal. Intelligent, well-placed criticism of the US,yes; we are probably better able to do that than anybody else because we are closer to them than any other country, in several ways. Cheers.


----------



## Goober (7 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Thanks for that correction-I wasn't sure. However, does this growth rate represent a crisis, or just a growth rate?
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on a second here-are we seriously postulating a US invasion of Canada to seize resources? In what scenario?



Fresh water is a limited resource. There will come a day when Canada will stop exporting it because we will need it for ourselves. The US has a far greater consumption of fresh water than Canada, and they will need new supplies of fresh water before we will. If their citizens are dying of thirst, and we have some fresh water but are not exporting it, then invasion to seize resources would be a possibility.



> Why wouldn't they just increase the amount they buy from us, or buy out the exploitation companies?


Well, if we stop exporting because our resources are dangerously low, there would be none to buy.



> I mean, we have much more oil than Saudi Arabia-it's just a matter of exploitation costs versus return on investment.


I'd like to see your source on that.



> Please-_please_-do not draw any ill-considered parallels with the War of 1812 unless you seriously believe that the US military of 2004 is as abysmally incompetent as it was in 1812. The only option I could see for us would be a protracted asymmetrical fight (ie: guerilla warfare) until such time as a) they got tired and left; or b) somebody came to help us. Mustering conventional forces against them would be utterly pointless, not to mention very being very difficult to achieve.



I agree with you on those 3 points.



> The only time I could ever imagine this happening is if we were to pose such a severe security threat to them that they would have no other choice but to act militarily.



That, and if their citizens are actually dying because of lack of fresh water. They would enter survival mode, and could begin hostile seizures. (one of many scenarios, another scenario being they could pump billions into research and find more efficient ways of turning salt water into fresh water, conservations, recycling used water etc...)



> Given their long relationship with us, I think you would find that short of such a situation, there would be absolutely no significant US domestic political support for such a move: I further suggest that some of the resistance would actually come from within the US military itself.   I submit that it is up to us to ensure that we never, never sink to such a state, by carrying our proper share of the defence and security burden in North America, and by restraining ourselves from silly outbursts of thoughtless anti-Ameriicanism that some Canadians are so fond of. Americans may respect smaller powers that carry their share, not ones that do nothing then carp endlessly from an imagined moral pedestal. Intelligent, well-placed criticism of the US,yes; we are probably better able to do that than anybody else because we are closer to them than any other country, in several ways. Cheers.



Agreed.


----------



## Goober (7 Oct 2004)

If this thread is go off topic like this, maybe it should be split, or a new thread started.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Oct 2004)

> Quote
> I mean, we have much more oil than Saudi Arabia-it's just a matter of exploitation costs versus return on investment.
> I'd like to see your source on that.



Maybe I can help out on that.   

Alberta Oil Reserves (including oilsands) = 1,600,000,000,000 barrels   


> Alberta: Still home to 1.6 tn barrels of oil


http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn32894.htm

Saudi Oil Reserves (including Kuwait's claims) = 261,900,000,000 barrels


> According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Saudi Arabia contains 259.4 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (plus another 2.5 billion barrels in the Saudi-Kuwaiti Neutral Zone),


http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html

In other words Alberta alone has more than 5x the amount of oil ready for extraction than Saudi Arabia.   

As to water we control way more water in our boundaries than we will ever need.   



Water Flows		cu.m./sec	         cu.m./hr	cu.m./day	                     l/cdn/day

Pacific			21,225	     76,410,000 	 1,833,840,000 	 57,308 
Arctic			15,491	     55,767,600 	 1,338,422,400 	 41,826 
Hudson's Bay		29,453	 106,030,800 	 2,544,739,200 	 79,523 
Atlantic			33,700	 121,320,000 	 2,911,680,000 	 90,990 
Total			99,869	 359,528,400	 8,628,681,600	269,646

These numbers come from my own data and I was careless in not writing down the source but IIRC it came from either a Phillips or Rand-McNally Atlas.

By comparison heavy industrial usage prompting Greenpeace spleen to be vented occurs at 500 l/cdn/day.     South Africans must pay for water if they use more than the 25 /S.Afr/day.

To decide to deny thirsty and/or freezing, immobile Americans oil or water, would not only be unneighbourly and unnecessary it would also be dumb.

In fact given that we have most of the world's underutilised fresh water a solid case could be made that we are being plain GREEDY in not making it available at discount prices.   Of course that ignores the intractable logistics but as we all know, in this world spin is everything.   Just ask Greenpeace.

Cheers.

And Goober, you are right, this does drift from the Question and probably deserves its own thread.

By the way can somebody explain to me how to copy a table into these posts so that they are legible.   ???


----------



## pbi (7 Oct 2004)

With respect to the oil issue, I believe that our tar sands hold more petroleum than the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia, which I think are projected to last a century at current consumption rates. Unfortunately, I don't recall exactly where I got the data, although it may have been CIA World Fact Book. The problem with the tar sands oil is that at the moment exploitation is very expensive and relatively slow, so it is not economical.

With respect to water, I would say that if you want to project a nightmare scenario such as that, you could justify anything. Take a look at the amount of fresh water in North America, much of which has yet to be tapped, and I think that you have to agree that it is extremely far-fetched. Economic exploitation and ownership is a much easier way to go.   And anyway, why _wouldn't _ we sell it?   Cheers.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Oct 2004)

Trev said:
			
		

> As resources become scarcer and scarcer and the wrold population climbs wars will break out more and more frequently as a bid for resources.


Yada, yada, yada ... Chicken Littles have been saying this since the time of Thomas Malthus: they've scared the crap out of a lot of people, but have been proven time and time again to be completely wrong as the theory violates the basics of resource economics, specifically that as resources become more scarce, prices increase (thus alternatives become more viable), technology allows more efficient allocation (or utilization), etc., etc.: in effect, every resource is infinite.

You may have heard of the latest most famous of these, Paul Ehrlich, who wrote "The Population Bomb," in which the world was supposed to end at various times during the 70's, 80's and 90's due to overpopulation and lack of food/water/oil/etc. (and yet people still eat this stuff up).


----------



## Jungle (7 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> With respect to water, I would say that if you want to project a nightmare scenario such as that, you could justify anything. Take a look at the amount of fresh water in North America, much of which has yet to be tapped, and I think that you have to agree that it is extremely far-fetched. Economic exploitation and ownership is a much easier way to go.   And anyway, why _wouldn't _ we sell it?   Cheers.


Here's a very good article, taken from a reliable source (if you consider the BBC reliable). 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3686106.stm
An extract:


> *Water*: By 2025, two-thirds of the world's people are likely to be living in areas of acute water stress.


There will be a lot of thirsty people in 20 years, and a lot of fresh water here... No matter how big our reserves, will we be able to provide the rest of the planet with fresh water ?


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Oct 2004)

> Quote
> Water: By 2025, two-thirds of the world's people are likely to be living in areas of acute water stress.
> There will be a lot of thirsty people in 20 years, and a lot of fresh water here... No matter how big our reserves, will we be able to provide the rest of the planet with fresh water ?



If you take the Total Daily Outflow of water that I remember (8,628,681,600 cu m/day) and divide that amongst 9,000,000,000 planetary inhabitants (up from today's 6,000,000,000) that means that Canada alone could supply every projected inhabitant on the planet with 958 l of water per day or about twice as much as those Water Hogs over in N. Vancouver (no offence Nick   ;D).      However we would probably eat up all of Alberta's oilsands getting the water to market.   It would probably be cheaper just to use the oil just to boil sea water on site.

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/5thedition/environment/water/mcr4178#download

This links to Environment Canada's assessment of Streamflow. That is just the annual runoff, it does not include groundwater, surface water held in lakes or glaciers.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Oct 2004)

They are called "reverse-osmosis desalinators" and (I understand) are found on most decent-sized life rafts: http://www.katadyn.com/site/us/home/marine/ou_products/

They can be made for much larger capacities: http://www.searecovery.com/Text/reverse_osmosis/products.html (I'm guessing for ships and oil rigs).

And I'm sure that if the need arose, someone would invent a MUCH larger version (such is the beauty of capitalism).

The earth's surface is 2/3s water.  Even if you discount or look past Kirkhill's numbers (above), to say that we are going to run out of water is absolutely ridiculous (but I suppose inconveniences like reason and fact have never stopped the BBC from a really good left-wing story)!


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Oct 2004)

I take it that was support John  ;D.

As far as I know desalinators are used on all vessels at sea, including, I am sure the CPFs, as well as the Queen Mary 2.   They come in 2 basic styles - condensers and reverse osmosis plants.   The condensers use heat to boil water and collect the steam which condenses as pure water.   The RO plants use high pressures generated by pumps to squeeze pure water through a filter or membrane.   Some states in the Persian Gulf have been using desalination plants for decades.


http://www.alfalaval.com/ecoreJava/WebObjects/ecoreJava.woa/wa/showNode?siteNodeID=7050&contentID=26943&languageID=1

Here's a link for a system that uses waste heat from an engine room (or virgin heat) to generate up to 55,000 l of fresh water per 24 h.

Other companies make systems that are much larger.


----------



## GGboy (7 Oct 2004)

Not to flog a dead horse, but the U.S. invaded us twice (not counting the Fenians or assorted odd-ball raids after the 1837 rebellions): once in 1812, but also in 1776 under General Benedict Arnold. They captured Montreal but ran out of food while laying siege to Quebec ... 
And it's worth noting that the reason the Yanks got nowhere in 1812 wasn't just their generals' astonishing stupidity. Canada was being defended by the best army in the world (at the time), the British army  led by a core of impressively competent senior and junior officers.
History aside, I think what we have to worry about nowadays is "sovereignty slip" ie: if we don't defend our half of the continent the U.S. will quietly start doing it for us. Whether we like it or not. As the boys in dark blue say: "There will be a navy in Canadian waters. The only question is, who's navy will it be?"
 I hope ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I take it that was support John  ;D


100%   :threat:


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Oct 2004)

"Every country has an army their own, or someone else's." 
 I would point out that MGen Brock's victory at Queenston Heights was also aided by the refusal of the American reservists to go into another country.  As fencibles they were only legally contracted to fight on American soil.  That factor combined with Brock's brilliant leadership, courageous personal example and the help of his Iroquois allies was a big help in keeping Canada out of the USA.


----------



## Scratch_043 (7 Oct 2004)

all this talk about US invasion is giving me flashbacks of       _wait for it_.......

'Canadian Bacon'


----------



## Torlyn (8 Oct 2004)

GGboy said:
			
		

> And it's worth noting that the reason the Yanks got nowhere in 1812 wasn't just their generals' astonishing stupidity. Canada was being defended by the best army in the world (at the time), the British army  led by a core of impressively competent senior and junior officers.
> History aside, I think what we have to worry about nowadays is "sovereignty slip" ie: if we don't defend our half of the continent the U.S. will quietly start doing it for us. Whether we like it or not. As the boys in dark blue say: "There will be a navy in Canadian waters. The only question is, who's navy will it be?"
> I hope ...



Hate to break it to you, but the Brits were busy in France at the time.  The cunning of a few British generals and (more to the point) an indian by the name of Tecumseh is the only reason we were able to repel their attacks in 1812.  We won that war, but lost at the conference table after...  Not really related to the thread, but right is right, after all.  

T


----------



## Jungle (8 Oct 2004)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> They are called "reverse-osmosis desalinators" and (I understand) are found on most decent-sized life rafts: http://www.katadyn.com/site/us/home/marine/ou_products/
> 
> They can be made for much larger capacities: http://www.searecovery.com/Text/reverse_osmosis/products.html (I'm guessing for ships and oil rigs).
> 
> ...


We also have these: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/LF/english/2_0_5.asp?FlashEnabled=-1&uSubSection=5&uSection=5 We use them on most ops.
I've had first-hand experience of a country that had it's water supply infrastructures destroyed and it's wells contaminated. We were supplied at first with a mix of bottled and filtered/ heavily chlorinated water, then later water from our own ROWPU. 
The locals had no source of potable water, they had no other choice but to get water from wells contaminated with bodies (animal or human) or from brown-water rivers. People were dying from water-borne diseases.
It's easy to use some numbers to prove this wrong, from the comfort of North America. But it's also easy to understand that the growing populations in 3rd world countries are tapping more and more on the same water sources, and they eventually won't be able to support the local populations.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2004)

Since we are now capable of moving oil in massive amounts by tanker vessel, why could we not do that for water? Cheers.


----------



## Jungle (8 Oct 2004)

Good question... why are we not doing it for drought-stricken regions now ?


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2004)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Good question... why are we not doing it for drought-stricken regions now ?



My guess would be that there really isn't the money in it. Most water demands in the world today can probably be met by varoius hydraulic engineering works, water conservation, etc. When the demand really begins to peak, I am pretty sure you will see water tanker vessels hauling to ports equipped in a manner similar to oil ports. A solution like this was proposed for Cyprus years ago.

I have to ask, though: is the problem in these areas that there is actually NO water at all, or that there is inadequate potable water? The former might be hard to fix, but the latter could be improved by building modern sewage disposal and water purification systems, teaching different farming and sanitation procedures, etc. As well, if an area is actually desperately short of water, how likely is the population in that area to keep growing? Won't the water shortage drive migration, or just simply limit growth? Finally, it seems that for much of the world's population, the standard of living is slowly but perceptibly improving (China and India come to mind....) As standards of living increase, is it not true that birth rates (and thus population growth) gradually come down? Cheers


----------



## Bograt (8 Oct 2004)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Good question... why are we not doing it for drought-stricken regions now ?


My apologies for potentially hijacking the title of this thread. My understanding is the federal and provincial governments are hesitant to support bulk transfer of water. There is fear that under certain provisions of the FTA in NAFTA, transfer of bulk water will open the resource to international interests and trade regulations.

I have attached a Time article for your review.

http://www.time.com/time/global/august/hotcom.html

Here is a press release on a Newfoundland proposal (2-3 years ago). 

National ban on bulk water exports

Environment and Labour Minister Oliver Landgon today announced that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will endorse, and fully supports, a permanent national ban on new bulk water export projects.

"The federal government has called for a national moratorium on bulk water exports, and the province is already participating in a temporary moratorium on new projects," said Minister Langdon. "As well, at this fall's meeting of environment ministers, I intend to press for an early conclusion to negotiations and speedy implementation of a national accord banning the export of bulk water."

Minister Langdon said the national debate on bulk water export has been intense. "The debate has been highlighted in this province because of a proposed project to export water in bulk from Gisborne Lake."

"We must apply the existing rules and regulatory process fairly to the Gisborne Lake project and its proponent, the McCurdy Group," explained the minister. "This project was registered under the provincial EA process three years ago, consistent with the policies of the day, and well before the call for a national moratorium was made by the federal government in February of this year."

"Following thorough assessment, the province has concluded it must conditionally discharge the Gisborne Lake project from the provincial environmental review process, but this does not mean project approval," said Minister Langdon.

While the provincial environmental review has not identified any technical or environmental grounds to prohibit the project, Minister Langdon said the Gisborne Lake project cannot be considered simply on a stand alone basis.

"This government has significant questions about the implications of the project on Canada's trade and national environmental policies. These are federal responsibilities that can't be dealt with under the provincial review process."

Minister Langdon has written to the federal Minister of Environment calling on the federal government to comprehensively address the trade and national policy impacts of this project as part of its own ongoing review of the Gisborne Lake project.

"This government believes that it is the federal government's responsibility to decisively assess the implications of the Gisborne Lake project from a national perspective," said the minister. "The issues which are most pressing relate to federal responsibilities like trade, and national and international environmental issues like global water shortages and climate change. It is our opinion that the federal government is the only government which can assess whether this project creates a precedent which could impact on Canada's sovereign right to control its resources."

Minister Langdon said government's decision effectively prohibits the Gisborne Lake project from proceeding without federal consent.

Now back to the original topic.

Cheers,


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2004)

Jungle and pbi

The reason for not doing it now, does, as pbi suggests boil down to numbers.  

On of the Ultra Large oil tankers carries about 250,000 tonnes of oil.  That would be roughly equivalent to 250,000,000 litres of water (+/- 10%).

The South African government, as noted previously tries to supply everbody with a minimum of 25 l per person per day of clean, potable water for free.

If that "free" water were supplied by tanker from Halifax then one tanker could supply the needs of 10,000,000 S. Africans for one day.

South Africa has just over 40,000,000 inhabitants.  Therefore they need 4 Ultra Large Super Tankers per day to achieve their 25 litre target.

Round trip from Halifax at a 15 knot cruising speed is about 36 days.  Therefore, to maintain the conveyor of water they need 4x36 or 144 Utra Large tankers either on the high seas loaded with water or returning empty.

In addition some vessels will be out of service at any one time.  Lets say they maintain an in service rate of 90%.

The South Africans alone would require a fleet of 160 vessels.

If they wanted to come up to the usage required to maintain a western industrial life-style, even after Greenpeace style usage controls, they would need something on the order of 200 l/person/day.

Or a fleet of 1280 Super Tankers.

If they wanted to reach the "wasteful" levels of us folks in rain-soaked Vancouver, or about 400 l / person / day they would need 2560 Super Tankers.

That is the reason that transporting water doesnt work.

By contrast, 1 tanker load of oil per day (250,000 tonnes) could be used to create 500 l /person/day by boiling sea water, or enough water to turn them all into Vancouverites. 

36 Tankers of Oil instead of 2560 Tankers of Water.

Allowing for rounding and order of magnitude estimates.

pbi's second point about the quality of available water is much more valid.  Often the problem is not the asolute lack of water but rather its quality.  And in some parts of the world the problem is that the water is available but the temperature is too high, all the water is held in the air.  If only they could cool adequate volumes of air they would have significant quantities of pure water.

As to Bograt's point about water exports, he is right. It is government policy.  But that doesn't necessarily make the policy a good policy.  If we were to supply all 250,000,000 Americans with a Vancouverian 500l/day each, we would still only be taking 1.5% of the amount of water that Canadian rivers discharge to the oceans every day.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

Wow that was a solid post.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2004)

> Wow that was a solid post.  I question though.



Thanks.  And please, feel free to check the numbers.  I really enjoy, rational well-founded debate.  Happy (well, not distressed) to be proven wrong. ;D

Cheers.


----------



## Spr.Earl (8 Oct 2004)

As to water,the Great Lakes States are right now discussing diverting water from the Great Lakes.


----------



## Scratch_043 (8 Oct 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> As to water,the Great Lakes States are right now discussing diverting water from the Great Lakes.


I wouldn't drink it


----------



## Scratch_043 (8 Oct 2004)

I feel really bad, we hijcked this poor fellow's thread.

does anyone want to contribute to the original question?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2004)

Your right ToRN.   

Apologies Trev.


----------



## pbi (9 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill: thanks for that. I guess my idea of the tankers is not too useful, at least for water. Following on with the issue of desalination in South Africa, I believe this is a process that uses large amounts of electricity (perhaps I am thinking of electrolytic desalination..I don't know...) but at any rate, RSA has access to the huge hydroelectric facility at Cabora Bassa on the River Zambezi in Mozambique. When I was in Moz in 93, I was told that Cabora Bassa was supplying most of RSA's power needs on less than 50% of its generating capacity. If that is correct, then RSA should have ample power to engage in desalination of seawater. Southern Africa is generally well supplied with major watercourses that can be (or already are being..)used to generate power. There may be  more capacity in Third World areas (or at least, more potential capacity...) than we realize. Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2004)

pbi: thanks for the info on RSA, I wasn't aware that they had that much Hydro potential.  I guess their 25l problem has more to do with the water they have not being in the same place as the people,  pretty much as we were talking about.

On the high electrical demand, Reverse Osmosis systems, like ROWPU are real power hogs.  If you have a cheap power source it could be a viable alternative, but if you have to burn fossil fuels to create the electricity to purify the water then the old fashioned thermal desalination systems are probably a better bet.

Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2004)

Let's try bring this back to Trev's original question. I found this quote that seems to fit.

The vast majority of citizens, as well as most of their civil servants and cabinet ministers do not believe that their own armies are relevant to their lives or to the life of their society. They neither feel responsible for the armies their taxes support nor do they hate them. Most people are simply indifferent.

But no civilization can afford to turn its back on the mechanisms of violence. . . . The refusal to address the question of force because we do not wish to use it merely leaves us naked before those who may wish to use it against us.

- John Ralston Saul, Voltaire's Bastards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Oct 2004)

I would say that the Brits, Russians, Australians, Americans, Polish, Japanese, S. Korean citizens all feel they need a military


----------



## Scratch_043 (9 Oct 2004)

Brilliant Quote, hope more people get the message.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's try bring this back to Trev's original question. I found this quote that seems to fit.
> 
> The vast majority of citizens, as well as most of their civil servants and cabinet ministers do not believe that their own armies are relevant to their lives or to the life of their society. They neither feel responsible for the armies their taxes support nor do they hate them. Most people are simply indifferent.
> 
> ...



I just noticed the author's name and would never have thought of him as having those kind of thoughts.

GW


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2004)

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=112f3648-8bf9-45a9-814f-29e06562fc96

I was surprised and impressed too George.

The link above caused me to think twice as well.

Cheers, Chris.


----------

