The "Big One"

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You know very little about them if you think what you do about it all. You insult the reservists in uniform.

There is nothing personal about this. If the reserves were capable of handling disaster response, we wouldn't be deploying the regular force as often as we have. If reservists on the lower mainland can handle this, there's no need to airlift helicopters from Valcartier and fly in troops from Edmonton and put comms, logistics and medical units on alert all over the country.

And the title of this thread is "the big one". What we're doing now is peanuts compared to what would be required for a massive earthquake in the Lower Mainland. I would hope we can train and equip reserve units across the country to be able to mount more of a response than they are capable of today. If not, when the "Big one" comes, the Lower Mainland can live with whatever logistics constraints the regular force has in its mobilizations.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There is nothing personal about this. If the reserves were capable of handling disaster response, we wouldn't be deploying the regular force as often as we have. If reservists on the lower mainland can handle this, there's no need to airlift helicopters from Valcartier and fly in troops from Edmonton and put comms, logistics and medical units on alert all over the country.

If you think that the reason regular forces are being brought in due to lack of training, then you really don't understand what is going on. There aren't enough reserves in the Lower Mainland to take this on. The other thing, unless you want to see your taxes skyrocket, having stuff come from across the country, as apposed to having enough equipment in each regular force and reserve force base, is the way it is.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And the title of this thread is "the big one". What we're doing now is peanuts compared to what would be required for a massive earthquake in the Lower Mainland. I would hope we can train and equip reserve units across the country to be able to mount more of a response than they are capable of today. If not, when the "Big one" comes, the Lower Mainland can live with whatever logistics constraints the regular force has in its mobilizations.

You might be surprised what would happen. One could expect a flat chunk of land to be used as a FOB that aircraft fly in supplies and troops. I wouldn't doubt that within a week, as many of the East Coast ships would be docked in Vancouver. In short, the Big One hits, the mobilization would surprise most citizens of Canada.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

The Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa Triangle won't ever need or have an aircraft carrier nearby, emergency or not.

I'm not sure Canada needs an aircraft carrier but one major function of the navy is to ensure that Canada can't get pushed around as easily in global trade, and to generally keep global shipping running smoothly (currently we rely on the US to do this for us). So it actually is relevant even to people in Toronto or Montreal. They would notice quickly if a foreign power started blocking shipments somewhere.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure Canada needs an aircraft carrier but one major function of the navy is to ensure that Canada can't get pushed around as easily in global trade, and to generally keep global shipping running smoothly (currently we rely on the US to do this for us). So it actually is relevant even to people in Toronto or Montreal. They would notice quickly if a foreign power started blocking shipments somewhere.

This is why the launch of the first Arctic Patrol Vessel, the HMCS Harry DeWolf is important. Without them, securing our sovereign land in the Arctic is a challenge.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure Canada needs an aircraft carrier but one major function of the navy is to ensure that Canada can't get pushed around as easily in global trade, and to generally keep global shipping running smoothly (currently we rely on the US to do this for us). So it actually is relevant even to people in Toronto or Montreal. They would notice quickly if a foreign power started blocking shipments somewhere.

Indeed. I wonder if the Chinese would take Canadians hostage if we had the ability to do this independently.

Realistically, our maritime approaches are mostly covered by the USN. 12 major combatants and 4 submarines really isn't much, given the area needed to be covered. Whatever we field is about making a credible contribution to that partnership. Though, these days, it's more tokenism than anything.

But on topic, the question really is about how much preparedness we (as a society) think is necessary and how much self-reliance we expect to have in any large emergency. This flood isn't going to be atypical going forward. But it's already a large commitment for the CAF. We can't expect future incidents to be singular or have low casualties or provide the luxury of time to mobilize. This is also happening in a global threat environment where climate change is acting as a threat multiplier and conflict accelerant.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indeed. I wonder if the Chinese would take Canadians hostage if we had the ability to do this independently.

Realistically, our maritime approaches are mostly covered by the USN. 12 major combatants and 4 submarines really isn't much, given the area needed to be covered. Whatever we field is about making a credible contribution to that partnership. Though, these days, it's more tokenism than anything.

We don't need to defend our borders because we don't usually stick our noses where it doesn't belong. Also, no one wants to mess with Canada. The rest of the world would come and push them back to the stone age. However, that does not mean we should ignore places like the NW Passage.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But on topic, the question really is about how much preparedness we (as a society) think is necessary and how much self-reliance we expect to have in any large emergency. This flood isn't going to be atypical going forward. But it's already a large commitment for the CAF. We can't expect future incidents to be singular or have low casualties or provide the luxury of time to mobilize. This is also happening in a global threat environment where climate change is acting as a threat multiplier and conflict accelerant.

So, your answer is give guns to the Canadian Coast Guard.
A better answer is to start now and start mitigating and preventing climate change. That means letting some parts of nature, like the Sumas Lake, go back to nature. It also means the beginning of the end of the tar sands.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

thats cause no one relizes how big canada realy is its nuts

yes my bf a few weeks ago said we should go on a road trip to montreal one weekend

[O-tacular]

The hoarding is beginning in Calgary. Went by Costco yesterday and they were completely out of all chicken. I asked an employee if it was connected to Vancouver and he said that there's a plant that processes everything in Calgary. He had no idea why people were clearing it out. Also, being celiac I eat certain brands of GF bread and unfortunately one if produced in Vancouver (Northern Bakehouse). I bought a bunch that I could find at Sobey's since there was nothing available at Costco.

[MolsonExport]

I think that militarily wise, we badly need to establish a deep water port in the arctic to maintain our sovereignty from foes (e.g., China, Russia) as well as from allies (USA, Denmark, etc.). Use it or lose it.

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

bast away more of that mountain..

Yup, the port could totally be expanded, just would require more funding for blasting. Anything can be built with enough money.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I think that militarily wise, we badly need to establish a deep water port in the arctic to maintain our sovereignty from foes (e.g., China, Russia) as well as from allies (USA, Denmark, etc.). Use it or lose it.

The one thing I will give the CPC is that they would likely be the only political party to spend the money to build that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I think that militarily wise, we badly need to establish a deep water port in the arctic to maintain our sovereignty from foes (e.g., China, Russia) as well as from allies (USA, Denmark, etc.). Use it or lose it.

It's sort of being worked on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

PR has pretty much reached max capacity due to the limited amount of developable shoreline.

Then we need to dredge up more shoreline and expand the port, just as almost every other country on the planet has done.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's sort of being worked on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility

Yeah they really reduced the capacity of the Nanisivik job though. Like from something respectable (a base capable of regional command and control operations) to essentially being a joke (an anchorage for refuelling and restocking).

The deepwater port under construction at Iqaluit should be expanded to include specific support for naval operations.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

yes my bf a few weeks ago said we should go on a road trip to montreal one weekend

Not sure about Montreal, but right now round-trips tickets from to YOW-YVR are about 160$ with Flair. Then, Montreal is only 2 hrs away. At this price I am seriously considering going to Vancouver for a few days only, something I wouldn’t do if the airfare was 1,200$ (I’d feel compelled to stay at least 10 days to maximize my trip and would visit the surroundings areas as well).

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Then we need to dredge up more shoreline and expand the port, just as almost every other country on the planet has done.

PR is expanding.

https://www.rupertport.com/future-growth/

[Chadillaccc]

Good stuff. Going from 1.15 to 1.8 million TEUs should help a fair amount. Not soon enough though… two years is a long time.

I wonder if there are any talks of accelerating the pace of development of part of the project to maybe expand capacity to 1.5 million by late spring or so. I mean, I doubt that's possible. But whatever

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by le calmar

Not sure about Montreal, but right now round-trips tickets from to YOW-YVR are about 160$ with Flair. Then, Montreal is only 2 hrs away. At this price I am seriously considering going to Vancouver for a few days only, something I wouldn’t do if the airfare was 1,200$ (I’d feel compelled to stay at least 10 days to maximize my trip and would visit the surroundings areas as well).

Now you’ve got me thinking about it too if the airfare’s still around that price during Christmas.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Now you’ve got me thinking about it too if the airfare’s still around that price during Christmas.

You will be paying much more than that if you go around Christmas though. But after Jan 15, it’s 160-180$ from YOW and YYZ, and about double that from YUL.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Good stuff. Going from 1.15 to 1.8 million TEUs should help a fair amount. Not soon enough though… two years is a long time.

I wonder if there are any talks of accelerating the pace of development of part of the project to maybe expand capacity to 1.5 million by late spring or so. I mean, I doubt that's possible. But whatever

Their numbers to date are down so they can take on more.