|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-22 12:33:01
..."Last year our deployments cost us more than 400 million $...
I would like to investigate that a bit further, is that extra money for the state of deployment? Or is that money that would have been spent even if the troops were in Canada? How much of that cost is for simply moving stuff from Canada to the trouble spot and back again? (How much of that cost is transportation, logistics, fuel, manpower, Transport Aircraft maintenace, etc)
First off my thoughts below are off the cuff and probably off base, but I thought it is worth asking. So here we go...
The other questions I have, if sending equipment to the other side of the world costs so much and our transport aircraft are in such disrepair. Wouldn’t it be useful to have an East European NATO equipment depot that could quickly deploy equipment via rail, cargo, or ship to the nearest safe zone near the trouble spot? Then commercially fly our fellows in to that safe zone for deployment to the trouble spot? The British seem to be able to deploy this way rather quickly, no?
(I say East European such as Poland because it would be cheaper and appreciated, Poland is a member of NATO, and probably closer to any trouble spots, I can't see war around France, Spain, or Germany that Canada would have to respond to anymore now that the Cold war is over)
As far as the depot, if we need to do major updates or repairs, instead of flying equipment back to Canada, just ship it back cargo? Yes there are security concerns here, and others I probably haven’t thought off, but the U.S. does it, why can’t we fully incorporate this?
It is not like we are going to have to react to the RED army dismantling Europe. If a problem gets that bad in Europe then the Europeans today are more then capable to deal first with it.
I realize that we may need self contained rapid reaction forces for Canada, JTF2, DART, etc, but that would be a different category, not peacekeeping/making and I can't see them needing 40 transport aircraft, battle tanks and artillery, deployment of those resources have never been rapid.
Again, I am probably far off on this as we would need more transparency as to track and understand the current processes and which ones are still relevant and which should be removed or adjusted. I have been hearing this resounding from the fellows I talk with, "that a lot of waste is still in ‘Procedures for countering the Soviet Union’ mentality."
Anyhow, have a good day fellows.
Répondre à ce message
|
