We’ve shared our displeasure at the government’s intended $30 billion purchase of stealth fighters. Some are critical that the government wants to buy the fighters through a sole-source bid, with no competition allowed. It`s not a good way to do business. In this case it’s a natural result of Canada being a partner since 1997 in funding and developing components for the “Joint Strike Fighter”, through a contract given to Lockheed-Martin. The F35 we’ve been part of building comes from only one company, and we committed to buying it in 2006. So the real question is not whether we should deal with a single supplier, but whether it’s in the country’s best interests to continue with the program at all?
I believe our military money should be focused on more obvious needs, and our job-creation spending on more useful and peaceable products.
Wikipedia says:
“The F-35 is required to be . . . effective . . . in air-to-air combat, . . . air-to-ground combat, andThat makes a fine offensive weapon, but it’s little help for anything else. I believe our defence should be oriented to the coasts, and focused on the north. Climate change is opening up the Arctic: to protect our environment and reinforce our sovereignty, we need ice-breaking capacity and long-range patrol aircraft. Internationally, we’re still short on heavy-lift capability to rapidly deploy our people and resources. Our personnel are some of the best in the world at combat, peacekeeping and disaster relief – they need a better ability to get to the scene. Our business is to provide support for their useful activities, not for tactical air combat and suppression of air defences. We can provide better help to the military without the fighter program.
. . . suppression of air defenses . “
As for jobs, an industrial strategy based on the offensive arms trade doesn’t fit with the Canada I want to work towards. Building fighters is a very high-tech but very old-fashioned way to support industry. We could use the government’s buying power to encourage development and manufacture of helpful peaceful tools with better effect. If the government were to commit anything like this $30 billion to buying advanced environmental technologies, imagine the critical demand for industry and entrepreneurs, and the new economic activity and useful innovation that would result. The fine scientists and technicians who now work on the fighter project would be wonderful resources for science, technology, and management. We’d make great strides towards reducing waste and pollution, and fossil fuel dependency and carbon loading. We’d be working to solve the most pressing problems of the world. We’d be doing good Canadian work.
I would find it helpful to hear your thoughts about this. If you’d like to, please comment here or on Facebook.
An airplane known as a fighter jet is as it says: a weapon used in a fight. In other words Harper is saying we need airplanes to fight with. Is this the Canadian way and is this required in the year 2011?
ReplyDeleteAs for the Canadian way, absolutely not. Not because we have never entered fights but because of the nature of the stealth fighter jets. Canada has never in the over 30 wars and conflicts we have been part of been the attacker or aggressor. By definition stealth fighters are weapons of first aggression not defense. They attack without warning and use cowardly tactics. That has never been the Canadian way.
Since Sept 11th, hotel bombings in Bali, commuter trains in Spain buses and subways in London we are faced with a new enemy that fights in new ways. How do you stop a lone person leaving a bomb inside a backpack on a crowded bus using a fighter jet? Anthrax sent inside an envelope has nothing to do with stealth tactics. The true answer to our new war of terrorism is done with an age old Liberal way for peace. By way of engaging all sides in negotiation that look to solve the root causes. Then we could use the 30 billion dollars to support preventions not revenge.
John I was an Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy and I appreciate your view. Good luck