With that kind of attitude any price is unassailable. Edit: why not 6.8 million per vehicle, why not 15.8 million per vehicle, did you ever buy one?
Look, that 1 billion is being taken away from my public services and climate change adaptation programs. At the very least, I get to demand my tax dollars are not being wasted the way the Estadounidenses throw money down the military industrial complex money pit.
Stfu like does every one just copy and paste their bullshit from each other with loaded shit statements .
“down the military industrial complex money pit.” Just say army you fuck. Save every one the time.
Also, we have a lot of shit to defend in the Arctic. The conditions are so rough up north. If an engine shuts down, good luck getting it started again.
Spending 1bill on on what isn’t just a veichle but a means of survival, eh but you know best with all your years of practical experience in field work.
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.
When was the last time you bought an armoured arctic capable vehicle?
With that kind of attitude any price is unassailable. Edit: why not 6.8 million per vehicle, why not 15.8 million per vehicle, did you ever buy one?
Look, that 1 billion is being taken away from my public services and climate change adaptation programs. At the very least, I get to demand my tax dollars are not being wasted the way the Estadounidenses throw money down the military industrial complex money pit.
Stfu like does every one just copy and paste their bullshit from each other with loaded shit statements . “down the military industrial complex money pit.” Just say army you fuck. Save every one the time.
Also, we have a lot of shit to defend in the Arctic. The conditions are so rough up north. If an engine shuts down, good luck getting it started again.
Spending 1bill on on what isn’t just a veichle but a means of survival, eh but you know best with all your years of practical experience in field work.
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.
Maybe you should start learning Russian then.
What a lazy, stereotypical response.
Ok, then how much should they cost?
Ой, извини, я больше не заинтересован в общении с тобой.
Well hooray for that.
You can’t piss in my tea and expect good faith engagement afterwards.