EDIT: Like if you hadn’t written in such a rude and abrasive way, I might have responded with something like: yes we need an update, no we shouldn’t do it in a dumb way. We are notoriously bad at using military budgets, so we should not be accepting anything at any price, we should be doing it in ways that create investment in our industrial base and create economies of scale to benefit the civilian economy. But, when I’m being told to “stfu you fuck you have no field experience”, I’m going to respond in kind. So pipe the fuck down.
Did I debate the need of any of that capability? Like, I literally wrote “yes we need an update”. The point is “we should not be accepting anything at any price”. I can’t understand how that simple common sense statement is a “bad take”. The point of military procurement, or of any procurement really, is to maximize utility while minimizing cost. Ukraine has already shown us that the drone revolution means that modern wars are now back to being wars of attrition. And in wars of attrition, cost is a strategic resource.
Dual use technology and infrastructure is an entirely uncontroversial topic in the defense procurement sector, so I don’t know what exactly you’re trolling for here.
I just need an example of something, that addresses the concerns from the article
There has been renewed focus on Canadian defence in the Arctic, with that initially being fuelled by increased interest from Russia and China in the resource-rich region.
But, with U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, there has been a shift in the view that the Americans are also be an emerging threat to Canadian sovereignty.
I’m drawing a blank on what we could spend the money on.
Removed by mod
Rough morning? Pipe down bud.
EDIT: Like if you hadn’t written in such a rude and abrasive way, I might have responded with something like: yes we need an update, no we shouldn’t do it in a dumb way. We are notoriously bad at using military budgets, so we should not be accepting anything at any price, we should be doing it in ways that create investment in our industrial base and create economies of scale to benefit the civilian economy. But, when I’m being told to “stfu you fuck you have no field experience”, I’m going to respond in kind. So pipe the fuck down.
That’s a bad take.
These should be amphibious, and capable of operating 72hrs without resupply, capable of ambulance fitout…
There’s obvious utility, and our existing vehicles are 40 years old
Did I debate the need of any of that capability? Like, I literally wrote “yes we need an update”. The point is “we should not be accepting anything at any price”. I can’t understand how that simple common sense statement is a “bad take”. The point of military procurement, or of any procurement really, is to maximize utility while minimizing cost. Ukraine has already shown us that the drone revolution means that modern wars are now back to being wars of attrition. And in wars of attrition, cost is a strategic resource.
I don’t think you have an idea of what civilian economy we could invest in that would match the utility of these.
Dual use technology and infrastructure is an entirely uncontroversial topic in the defense procurement sector, so I don’t know what exactly you’re trolling for here.
I just need an example of something, that addresses the concerns from the article
I’m drawing a blank on what we could spend the money on.
At this point I don’t know what we’re disagreeing about.
I don’t think there’s a clearly better use of this money for up north, and you think there obviously is and won’t say what that is?