Senator Kenny says "our destroyers will also be on the beach "

[Crown-Loyal]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/10/10/pf-1992789.html


Prepare to fight

More tax money needed for military

By JOE WARMINGTON -- Toronto Sun

So the world is embroiled in another nuclear crisis!

Back to the future. Who said times change? At least now we'll see how much guts the world really has.

We've had treacherous dictators -- like North Korea's Kim Jong Il -- before with heinous plans. We don't need a blueprint to know where this could go next.

Will historians look back upon this time as the eve of what became the world's most devastating nuclear war?

Or should we just focus on getting to the gym, work off that extra turkey, discuss the latest Canadian Idol season and what went on with the Leafs and Panthers last night?

First there was suggestions of tea with the Taliban! Maybe coffee with Kim is next!

Thankfully, there is a senator in Ottawa who tunes all of that out and focuses on what's important.

It's a safe and peaceful life we have in Canada but we didn't have it granted to us. Our lifestyle is not guaranteed and Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the senate committee of national security and defence, asks the real questions on the issue of what we would do if we ever had to defend it.

Are we ready? Should we be getting ready?

No is the answer to the first one and yes to the second.

Meanwhile, as North Korea continues with its nuclear weapons-testing program, one has to wonder where are all the anti-nuke protesters? This would be a good time for someone other than just the few Greenpeace activists, who held a rally at Nathan Phillips Square yesterday, to dust off those peace signs that might be lying around from the 1980s.

Or is an anti-nuclear rally only appropriate when it's anti-American? Kenny feels it's time for Canada to stop playing the "anti-American" card. "Who would you rather have as a neighbour?" he asked in an interview. "Can you think of someone else? The United States has always been square with us."

And it's a good thing because our defence capability is in shambles, leaving many wondering if it can remain this way with so much saber rattling in the troubled world.

Kenny doesn't think so. And the senator recommends this country's taxpayers start thinking about doubling our defence investment.

Right now, it's at about $343 a year per taxpayer -- compared to the $640 a Dutch person pays and the $920 a British citizen pays. "I don't even mention the Americans because it's $2,000 per person," Kenny said.

But getting out of our "cheapskate" approach and contributing will help in future conflicts with someone like Kim Jong Il, who, for some reason, doesn't seem to face scrutiny from the likes of Alec Baldwin and the Dixie Chicks and has yet to have Bono or Bob Geldof sing protest over North Korea's starving children.

But there are people who understand the threat and that one day Canada may have to play a role in dismantling this lunatic's agenda. It's a very important point since, as shown with Afghanistan, we do honour our NATO commitment with our brave soldiers while the rest of us stay back and eat some more pancakes.

"In three years, our frigates will be rusted out and we will have no command and control capability," Kenny said, adding emphatically "our destroyers will also be on the beach in three years."

In other words, Canada needs new ones. Now.

"You have to do your best to look ahead ... you have to make a reasonable judgement," Kenny said.

That judgment, he believes, should be to focus on naval vessels and submarines aimed toward the Pacific Rim now and in the decades ahead.

Or we can pass the maple syrup and not acknowledge there is a crazy man in the world testing nuclear weapons.


I know you probably all read it alot, but I thought I would contribute this peace anyway.

 

[exsemjingo]

Is this being posted ironically? 
Freedom isn't free.

 

[Thugmuncher]

Point taken! I have known this for a long time, and am worried that Canada has gone past the point of no return in re-establishing ourselves as a key military player. Thank goodness the new PM and MND are taking this seriously, and new investment is under way. I hope that the procurement process will allow the MND and CDS to acquire future ships, planes and tanks in a timely manner, and that purchases are made that are in the best interest of the CF. Opposition parties whine about economic spin-off, which is a reality regardless of where the manufacturing takes place. When it comes time to take action in the defence of Canada from external or asymmetric threats, these complaints about economic spin-off become moot! Because the Senate has no direct say in the expenditure of money, Senator Kenny's comments are only that, comments, and his influence is limited. However, I appreciate the fact that he does appear to know what he is talking about, and is at least admitting there are problems, and appears willing to work on solutions! Will the Liberals in the House of Commons see it that way too? Recent history says otherwise!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well since there has been no war where nukes where exchanged, the first time it happens, it will be the most devastating nuclear war ever!  :

 

[Baloo]

In as much as I agree with the Senator about there being a need for an increased budget, I grow weary of hearing how much of a 'shambles' or 'rusted out' our Forces apparently are.

 

[sirex1]

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but hasn't the navy been on a 10 year program of the sort to launching a bunch of new warships to take on defence and deployment?  Last I heard we had some of the most technological advanced and most versatile ships on the planet. May not be numbered in the hundreds, but what we got is good.
I also keep hearing from many people that CF are weak and puny compared to the US blah blah... Everyone seems to forget that the US has a population 10X that of ours.

 

[warspite]

I'm not qualified to tell you about our navy but I'm sure someone will be along any second now ;D

I also keep hearing from many people that CF are weak and puny compared to the US blah blah... Everyone seems to forget that the US has a population 10X that of ours.

And with that 10X population comes 10X the tax revenue and hence why the U.S. can afford to have such a huge military. Historically contries demobilized most of their army, etc in peacetime. The U.S. ended that after WWII.
It drives me up the wall when people compare our armed forces to the U.S. :threat:

 

[Torlyn]

I'm not qualified to tell you about our navy but I'm sure someone will be along any second now ;DAnd with that 10X population comes 10X the tax revenue and hence why the U.S. can afford to have such a huge military.

10X the tax revenue yes, but they also spend twice as much per capita on their military.

T

 

[GAP]

Actually they spend $2000/person vs $340/person (?) in Canada. Australia is about $600/person

 

[warspite]

Ahhhhhhh............
So to sum it up
-Australia spends two times more than us per person
-Britain spends three times more than us per person( read it's $900 per person some where on the forum)
-And the United States spends six times more than us per person

 

[jollyjacktar]

In as much as I agree with the Senator about there being a need for an increased budget, I grow weary of hearing how much of a 'shambles' or 'rusted out' our Forces apparently are.

You should try to keep some of these old worn out bastards running sometime.  As much as it seems to be the same old song again and again, it is still a valid song in some parts.  We ARE HURTING equipment wise out here in some cases, and he is not too far off the mark.  Thank the Liberals overall for the shape we are in.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

We are hurting for equipment but I think the good senator is crying wolf..the 280s will last another 5-8 years and the CPFs are not even close to rust out as he alludes.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Seeing as the procurement process is slower than the Second Coming, 5 - 8 years for the 280's is a problem.  Yes, the CPFs are not as near going down for the count as yet..... but there have been some serious issues with metal fatigue on some of them to date.  They are going into their mid-life refit process now, and you have to agree that they will in no way last as long as the Steamers did for us.  There should be some agressive moves made towards concrete plans for the replacement of these platforms now, or we will indeed be on the beach in the not too distant future.

 

[Torlyn]

There should be some agressive moves made towards concrete plans for the replacement of these platforms now, or we will indeed be on the beach in the not too distant future.

They have...  The process for replacing the destroyers and CPF's with a SSC has already begun.  If I remember correctly, replacements will be hitting the water in the 2020's.

T

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

They have...  The process for replacing the destroyers and CPF's with a SSC has already begun.  If I remember correctly, replacements will be hitting the water in the 2020's.

T

Until the hulls are ordered and in a shipyard being built then the process really has not begun. We are just going through the motions right now...

gravyboat: got your pm, just can't respond at the moment,

 

[Torlyn]

Until the hulls are ordered and in a shipyard being built then the process really has not begun.

The process spends more time on a drawing board than it does after the orders are made.  The process to determine what will be used to replace the CPF's/Destroyers has begun.  Ordering hulls won't occur for quite some time.

T

 

[dglad]

Ahhhhhhh............
So to sum it up
-Australia spends two times more than us per person
-Britain spends three times more than us per person( read it's $900 per person some where on the forum)
-And the United States spends six times more than us per person

Which they cannot afford. 

I've been "fortunate" enough to see some of the more recent data respecting the US economy and the direction it's heading (it gives me the creeps, frankly).  To put it in black and white terms, the Chief Economist of Citibank (no slouch when it comes to reading the economic tea leaves), speaking at a conference I attended a couple of years ago, stated quite bluntly that the biggest global security threat in the 21st century is not religious extremism, not nuclear/WMD proliferation, not environmental damage or climate change.  It's the US national debt (or, more correctly, the combined effects of the US public debt as a percentage of the US GDP, which is increasing; the increasing foreign ownership of US public debt, with 44% of it already held overseas; and the growing US trade deficit.)  In short, if (or, at this point, perhaps, when) the growth in the US debt causes its economy to simply shudder to a halt, not only does the US implode, but massive dislocation roars through the global economy.  At this point, ALL bets about the state of global security are off.

Of course, long before it gets to the point, projected by the US federal government itself in its 2006 budget to occur in 2075, when US public debt reaches 250% of GDP (quadruple what it currently is), the country will be forced to make some excuciating choices about where to cut spending.  I seriously doubt that the current level of defence spending will survive that exercise.  The alternative--somehow increasing GDP by a factor of 4 to simply maintain today's ratio--probably isn't feasible.

So I agree, we shouldn't be comparing the Canadian military to the US, but likewise, we can't look at US defence spending as a desirable end-state.  Something in the per capita range of Australia's or the UK's is probably much more sustainable.