Maybe I’m wrong and these submarines or MANPADS or planes could actually make a difference in a conflict, idk. But dollar for dollar, i can’t imagine it does better than a larger number of armed and trained light infantry among the populace. Especially given all we’re learning about cheap drones from Ukraine and Iran.
Okay, well if you care to say more, I’m interested. I’ve never heard of a country getting invaded by a vastly larger and better armed military and doing well except by asymmetric means, but like I said, I don’t claim to be an expert. Like, I don’t think a handful of tanks or planes in the hands of the Finnish or Vietnamese would have mattered, but maybe there’s a better analogue!
A US attack was war gamed by CAF back in January and the conclusion was that Canada’s defense would have to be asymmetric because we wouldn’t have a chance at anything else.
Makes sense; maybe I’m wrong but I suspect that’d be true of any adversary with the ability to get significant boots on the ground here, not just the USA (although maybe in reality it is just the USA? I don’t know).
I didn’t say don’t fight asymmetrically I am saying don’t be convinced drones make traditional military power obsolete, you still need ships, artillery, armored vehicles etc…
Oh I totally don’t think traditional military power is obsolete, I think it’s still a goddamn nightmare for anyone who doesn’t have it…i just think we don’t have it and could never get enough of it to matter! And if that’s the case, we’re presumably intending to use those weapons elsewhere. Which, look, maybe is fine, but I don’t think that should come at the expense of what I’d consider way more important stuff at home.
That said, CanadaPlus set me straight on some of that. He or she pointed out a lot of interesting points about how these tools do fit more into an asymmetric defense than I understood. I’d be interested if you have any thoughts about that thread!
Yeah I guess my point is what Canada needs isn’t necessarily an entire nation of militarized decentralized militias, what “asymmetric” means here is relative. Submarines, long range truck mounted anti-ship missiles, HIMARS type weapons that kind of thing.
You are very wrong about this.
Okay, well if you care to say more, I’m interested. I’ve never heard of a country getting invaded by a vastly larger and better armed military and doing well except by asymmetric means, but like I said, I don’t claim to be an expert. Like, I don’t think a handful of tanks or planes in the hands of the Finnish or Vietnamese would have mattered, but maybe there’s a better analogue!
A US attack was war gamed by CAF back in January and the conclusion was that Canada’s defense would have to be asymmetric because we wouldn’t have a chance at anything else.
Makes sense; maybe I’m wrong but I suspect that’d be true of any adversary with the ability to get significant boots on the ground here, not just the USA (although maybe in reality it is just the USA? I don’t know).
I didn’t say don’t fight asymmetrically I am saying don’t be convinced drones make traditional military power obsolete, you still need ships, artillery, armored vehicles etc…
Oh I totally don’t think traditional military power is obsolete, I think it’s still a goddamn nightmare for anyone who doesn’t have it…i just think we don’t have it and could never get enough of it to matter! And if that’s the case, we’re presumably intending to use those weapons elsewhere. Which, look, maybe is fine, but I don’t think that should come at the expense of what I’d consider way more important stuff at home.
That said, CanadaPlus set me straight on some of that. He or she pointed out a lot of interesting points about how these tools do fit more into an asymmetric defense than I understood. I’d be interested if you have any thoughts about that thread!
Yeah I guess my point is what Canada needs isn’t necessarily an entire nation of militarized decentralized militias, what “asymmetric” means here is relative. Submarines, long range truck mounted anti-ship missiles, HIMARS type weapons that kind of thing.