Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
Here is where I disagree, the reality is all we need jets for is so that our political masters can curry favour with the US's political masters by agreeing to take part in whatever hare brained scheme they have come up with, and realistically there will be few of these for the next decade or more, the US is broke and sick of wars.
We can just as easily be good allies by developing something of use to us, like a really well equiped armoured strike force and a decent air sea rescue and patrol capabilities. The latest jets and submarines are little more than vanity projects so our military doesn't feel embarressed when we go on excercises with the yanks.
We arn't going to 'need' these jets militarily, and we don't need the fully loaded options to fufill the political functions.
|
You don't build your national defense policy around specialization and then hand the rest of your defense interests off to another nation.
The theory that we should focus on armored cave and search and rescue and then leave air and naval defense to the Americans makes absolutely no sense.
Specialization doesn't work militarily either, the methods of combat change in every war and every action.
Having at least the ability to respond on all three planes of the battlefield is more based around the possibility of having to fight on those three levels on your own then some jaded political theory.
Canada has to be able to defend their airspace and waters, in a lot of way America's North American Policy in those two areas runs counter to our own interests.
AFC, I'd recommend that you read some of the Jack Granenstien (Probably spelt it wrong but I'm half hammered) you will get a way better sense of Canada's Defense Policy and responsibilities.