Re: the on-going equipment procurement debate

[GUYBERUBE@AOL.COM]

I've spent the better part of a half hour here, following the debate over 
Canadian arms and equipment procurement policy. It's been really interesting. 
But please remember that an army is supposed to be built to combat likely 
threats to the nation in the near- to medium-term future. There are no likely 
situations in which the Canadian Armed Forces will have to fight a heavy 
armored threat force either on this continent or anywhere else in the 
foreseeable future. The fall of the Warsaw Pact settled that. The US, the 
Brit's and the French can fight a major war far better than we can, simply 
because they have the population size and the economies to match.
It seems to me that most of Canada's future military roles on the ground will 
involve peacekeeping (a la Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.), defense of the coast from 
unfriendly incursions, and supporting the civil power. So having good light 
infantry, mobile artillery, light-to-medium armor, good tactical airlift 
(i.e., helicopters and C-130's), and an adequate air- and sea-lift capacity 
are the ways to go. Let's not spend a fortune on M-1's and Apache's when the 
Leopard I and the lighter vehicles can meet these combat roles. Rather, let's 
recruit more men (and women) for infantry, art'y and armor.
Canada has some of the best troops in the world, easily a match for any the 
US can field, but there are too few of them. Let's correct that.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.