- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Points
- 1,090
36/65 for NORAD
the other 12/23 for whatever if we are still committed to minimums. 88 might not be a lot, but many here were happy with just the 65 before
U.S. Annexing Canada (split fm Liberal Minority thread)
- Thread starter Lumber
- Start date
the other 12/23 for whatever if we are still committed to minimums. 88 might not be a lot, but many here were happy with just the 65 before
I agree. Any order for new fighters should have been at least double what we’re currently awaiting. Mind you, we don’t have the pilots to fly that many…but, hey, build it and they will come…well, more or less.
- Reaction score
- 1,994
- Points
- 1,260
For those better with numbers than I am, by my math, if readers substitute Wyoming for California, we would likely receive around 68.
Right. lol.
- Reaction score
- 5,078
- Points
- 1,260
Not sure I understand where you come up with 68.
I posted an addendum to my original as I was wrong that California has more people than us. We actually have just about 1m more than them. So, we'd be looking at most 1 more seat than California - 53 - or the same as them, 52.
- Reaction score
- 1,994
- Points
- 1,260
You're probably better with numbers than I am.
My calculation was 40,000,000 ( population Canada ) divided by 587,000 ( population Wyoming ).
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,511
- Points
- 1,260
That doesn't help us one bit. Buying something less capable just to 'stick it' to the US? Oh wow we sure showed them!
- Reaction score
- 5,078
- Points
- 1,260
Unfortunately its not the simple.
Reapportionment Act of 1929 - Wikipedia
The apportionment method currently used is the method of equal proportions, which minimizes the percentage differences in the number of people per representative among the different states.<a href="United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>43<span>]</span></a> The resulting apportionment is optimal in the sense that any additional transfer of a seat from one state to another would result in larger percentage differences.<a href="United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></a>
In this method, as a first step, each of the 50 states is given its one guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives, leaving 385 seats to assign. The remaining seats are allocated one at a time, to the state with the highest priority number. Thus, the 51st seat would go to the most populous state (currently California). The priority number is determined by the ratio of the state population to the geometric mean of the number of seats it currently holds in the assignment process, n (initially 1), and the number of seats it would hold if the seat were assigned to it, n+1. Symbolically, the priority number An is
An=Pn(n+1)
where P is the population of the state, and n is the number of seats it currently holds before the possible allocation of the next seat. An equivalent, recursive definition is
Am+1=mm+2 Am
where n is still the number of seats the state has before allocation of the next (in other words, for the mth allocation, n = m-1).
Consider the reapportionment following the 2010 U.S. census: beginning with all states initially being allocated one seat, the largest value of A1 corresponds to the largest state, California, which is allocated seat 51. After being allocated its 2nd seat, its priority value decreases to its A2 value, which is reordered to a position back in line. The 52nd seat goes to Texas, the 2nd largest state, because its A1 priority value is larger than the An of any other state. However, the 53rd seat goes back to California because its A2 priority value is larger than the An of any other state. The 54th seat goes to New York because its A1 priority value is larger than the An of any other state at this point. This process continues until all remaining seats are assigned. Each time a state is assigned a seat, n is incremented by 1, causing its priority value to be reduced and reordered among the states, whereupon another state normally rises to the top of the list.
Why less capable? F35s for NORAD keeps us interoperable with the US and something else (likely European) since the US is retreating in on itself from the world. Align our gear with the Brits for example for anything expeditionary. Anything domestic, align with the US.
So essentially a bunch of states will lose seats lol. Perfect.Unfortunately its not the simple.
Reapportionment Act of 1929 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The apportionment method currently used is the method of equal proportions, which minimizes the percentage differences in the number of people per representative among the different states.<a href="United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>43<span>]</span></a> The resulting apportionment is optimal in the sense that any additional transfer of a seat from one state to another would result in larger percentage differences.<a href="United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></a>
In this method, as a first step, each of the 50 states is given its one guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives, leaving 385 seats to assign. The remaining seats are allocated one at a time, to the state with the highest priority number. Thus, the 51st seat would go to the most populous state (currently California). The priority number is determined by the ratio of the state population to the geometric mean of the number of seats it currently holds in the assignment process, n (initially 1), and the number of seats it would hold if the seat were assigned to it, n+1. Symbolically, the priority number An is
An=Pn(n+1)
where P is the population of the state, and n is the number of seats it currently holds before the possible allocation of the next seat. An equivalent, recursive definition is
Am+1=mm+2 AmAn=n−1n+1 An−1
where n is still the number of seats the state has before allocation of the next (in other words, for the mth allocation, n = m-1).
Consider the reapportionment following the 2010 U.S. census: beginning with all states initially being allocated one seat, the largest value of A1 corresponds to the largest state, California, which is allocated seat 51. After being allocated its 2nd seat, its priority value decreases to its A2 value, which is reordered to a position back in line. The 52nd seat goes to Texas, the 2nd largest state, because its A1 priority value is larger than the An of any other state. However, the 53rd seat goes back to California because its A2 priority value is larger than the An of any other state. The 54th seat goes to New York because its A1 priority value is larger than the An of any other state at this point. This process continues until all remaining seats are assigned. Each time a state is assigned a seat, n is incremented by 1, causing its priority value to be reduced and reordered among the states, whereupon another state normally rises to the top of the list.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,511
- Points
- 1,260
Anything less than 5th Gen for expeditionary in todays environment is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The Brits also have F-35s.....
- Reaction score
- 10,707
- Points
- 1,160
Canadians brought knives to gun fights in trenches. It's in our DNA.
Sure. Like I said though align with a European centric approach for anything expeditionary. If that means F35s cool. If it means something else cool as well.
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Points
- 1,090
We already committed to the F35. Its the best out there. But it doesnt stop us from looking elsewhere for some of our other purchases. The Trump presidency is only 4 yrs. Everyone especially the Americans are just going to have to tough it out
- Reaction score
- 5,078
- Points
- 1,260
That's what I said earlier, lol.
- Reaction score
- 3,011
- Points
- 1,040
Time for Canada to get serious and propose a Commonwealth alliance, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Standardize equipment between the 4 of us possibly even standardize training. Make it so a British troop is trained the same as a Canadian, as a Kiwi, as a Aussi.
The good news for Canada is we are in such a poor state equipment wise we basically would be starting at the bottom anyways along with the complete restructuring that would be needed to be a serious player and make us too prickly a target for the US or anyone else to consider invading (Switzerland style, not necessarily their exact methods, just the concept of you likely will win the battle but your going to hurt so much it will not be worth the squeeze).
With the current political climate there might actually be the public support for such measures as they seem to now be aware of a need to have a military now. When we were guaranteed by the largest military on earth it takes the wind out of those sails, now that they might be our biggest threat the public is recognizing a need.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,616
- Points
- 1,040
Anyone thinking like this shouldn't be allowed anywhere near decision making space. Particularly after the passive handwaving or blissful ignorance of the last decade and much longer of the real threats (CCP) to our country.
Sorry QV but he’s right.
The US is our biggest economic threat. The damage that can and will be done makes what the CCP is doing pale in comparison. Millions of jobs are at stake.
Deals with the US arent worth the paper they are written on. Time to look elsewhere and reduce our vulnerability.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,616
- Points
- 1,040
What I think a number of people fail to consider here is that in America's eyes Canada via negligence has become a security threat to the US. If we can't look in the mirror we are doomed.
Canada will not be able to replace the US market.
Kirkhill's two posts are informative.
Just about everyone on this forum is aware of our security and defence failings and the need to address that. But that is an excuse of convenience for Trump. We see the goal posts shifting constantly. It’s time to ignore those goal posts as they will just keep moving. And now this rapprochement with Russia is making the US even more of an unstable ally.
Not replace. Reduce. That can be done. But it’s a long game and it’s time to play it. Make Canada less American.
Similar threads
