Recent content by Baz

Rush-Bagot: An Old Treaty Gets Dusted Off I was at the Bi-National Planning Group 2005-06, in Colorado Springs. We had connections at both State and Foreign.

The agreement says "that the Naval Force to be maintained upon the American Lakes." It has always been interpreted to not mean vessels being constructed, or conducting things like summer cruises. Everybody that I met that was involved in Rush-Bagot understood it's purpose. It was a symbolic...

Fortunately, that's not a decision either the RCN or NTOG gets to make. That decision is made by the Government on behalf of the People of Canada. As one of those "people," I'd prefer that was left to the RCMP and CBSA, given that is literally their job. I don't beleive the current situation...

During the war Canada turned a blind eye to that and training, including weapons. After the war the Permanent Joint Board discussed the issue and decided that doing training, including with weapons, and constructing, met the intent of the agreement. It wasn’t that long ago it was being held up...

I'm not talking about incivility. I find that there is a lot of shooting from the hip, not taking the time to do the background work, not knowing how to use a staff, not knowing how to state a position in a forum other than social media, and the like, are making us dumber. To the point that...

Completely agree, that's not my point. He should not of brought into the conversation the word "patrol" unless it was well thought out. How he wants to train the Navy is in his lanes. Randomly thinking out loud about changing the status quo of an international boundary is not. Therefore, I hope...

But you know full well that is not what I'm talking about. To be clear, as a Canadian citizen I would be none to happy if an Admiral poked the US Administration without: a. thinking it through; b. engaging with them before hand, through the structures that have existed for literally decades; and...

I read the article you provided and only saw references to the RCMP and USCG. I did not see any references to the RCN or USN.

I guess, but persumably when floating these types of ideas in an environment where the US administration is seemingly looking for any reason to have at us it would be prudent to be clear about these things? I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the issue has already...

OK… how does the RC Navy stationing vessels on the Great Lakes for Training and Patrol equal a constabulary role?

OK, someone is going to have to help me out. Rush-Bagot explicitely calls out limiting vessels to 100 tons or less... the Orcas are more than this. According to wikipedia the Permament Joint Board of Defence agreed that this would no longer apply to training vessels as long as each side informed...

No disagreement. I was just trying to use an example of “limited mobilization” that, in my mind, should still start to use “reserve type” forces. I do think it’s important to understand that a plan is a starting point. The plan might be: RegF forces in being, including deployments like Latvia...

Agreed legally it was neither “The” Regular or “The” Reserve force. However, for the purposes of what I was trying to suggest, it was in effect like a reserve force. Semantics maybe?

Agreed, but creating a Reserve force which is not "a Militia in name only" is going to be expensive, both politically and economically. I agree with what many have said here: it needs to be equiped like it will fight. Others have already said it: Corps '86 anybody?

Again agree, but what I'm referring to here is that conditions have deterioted to the point that a partial mobilization is taking place, but not to the point of "total" war. I would consider this to be comparable to the creation of the "Special Force" for the Korean War. It was for all intents...