[Jabberwalker]

The RCN complied with her treaty obligations, sailed the Bonaventure and her escort fleet and took up position in her designated patrol area in the North Atlantic. I don't remember the exact number, but as I recall they flew hundreds of sorties and located Russian submarines all over the place.


.... all without government approval.


"In the end, between 23 October and 15 November 1962, some 136 and submarine “contacts” were made in the Atlantic in or near the Canadian zone."

http://canadasnavalmemorial.ca/wp-conte ... crisis.pdf

[saturn_656]

Well someone had to cover the northern end while the Americans were all tied up down south.

True act of leadership.

http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/ ... c6fcdc86a4

$1:

Our Navy played role in Cuban missile crisis
 
RON FREEMAN
The Gazette

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Little, if anything, is written or known about the role the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy played in the Cuban missile crisis. Most of the world doesn't even know we were there.

I was a young petty officer second class serving aboard the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure in October 1962 when the trouble started. We were in Portsmouth, England, at the time, enjoying some shore leave. I was at a party with a lovely young lady when I got orders to report to my ship immediately. The Shore Patrol was making the rounds of all clubs, taverns, pubs and movie houses to round up all personnel. There were no explanations: Just drop whatever you're doing and get back to your ship.

Once aboard, we were informed that the anti-submarine exercises we were supposed to participate in the North Atlantic were not to be exercises, at all, but the real thing. We would part of the blockade imposed by U.S. President John F. Kennedy to stop ships from the Soviet Union from delivering missiles to Cuba. No goodbyes to friends in Portsmouth as we were leaving immediately. Due to the urgency, some crew members who couldn't be found were left behind.

Little did we know that 22 RCN destroyers, two submarines and numerous Argus patrol aircraft had been deployed as well. This was the biggest deployment of ships since the Second World War. We were fully armed and ready to fight alongside our U.S. counterparts although we had no nuclear weapons and no capacity to shoot down missiles.

We were to spend more than five, fear-filled days tracking Soviet submarines and ships. We realized that nuclear war could break out at any time. Our aircraft were active day and night. The noise was loud and constant, but none of us gave much thought to sleep anyway. My duties as an electronic technician in charge of radar kept me from having time to entertain my fears.

It was a huge undertaking. The Americans wanted to establish a submarine barrier south of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland but, with many of their ships tied up with blockading Cuba, they couldn't do it without Canadian ships and planes.

In fact, at one point, as the submarine count in the western Atlantic continued to grow, the Canadian antisubmarine responsibilities extended far south. Ships and planes played a vital role in establishing and main-taining a submarine barrier as far south as the approaches to New York harbour. Soon, every available Canadian warship and maritime aircraft was at sea or flying over it, maintaining the submarine barrier.

After about six days, we were informed that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and Kennedy had reached some sort of agreement, and the Soviet ships were heading home. Still, we weren't allowed to stand down but were ordered to carry on with our sub-tracking duties as numerous sightings and contacts had to be followed up. So the wartime pace continued but without the major fear of immediate nuclear conflict.

What we didn't know is that our prime minister, John Diefenbaker, didn't even know we were there. In fact, Diefenbaker had responded to the growing crisis with indecision and hadn't allowed the navy to implement its defence plan. So it was left to Rear Admiral Kenneth Dyer, the commanding officer of the Atlantic fleet, to take the initiative. Quietly, and on the pretext that our activity was just part of a routine exercise, he and his maritime air deputy, Air Commodore John Clements, put the navy on a war footing. He put our lives - and his job - on the line.

But in the words of one his-torian, he had also "stretched the conventions of civil control over the military to the breaking point." He and his officers and men had acted in good faith and done what had to be done, but there could be no battle honours, no medals, no official recognition of our participation. To this day, our efforts remain unrewarded. We were just on an exercise. We weren't even a footnote.

The United States handed out certificates to all the countries that participated: Britain, Argentina, Dominica and Venezuela but could not acknowledge our efforts due to the political situation between the Canadian Forces and an indecisive prime minister. We are not even mentioned in the official U.S. history of the event, or in the movie Thirteen Days that was based on Robert Kennedy's book about the crisis.

As far as Americans were concerned, we'd let them down. There was nothing in the news about us being part of the blockade and we received no special welcome on our return to Halifax.

I know what transpired because I was there. So do thousands of Armed Forces members remember because they were there.

Byron Freeman served in the Royal Canadian Navy from 1954 to 1963.

[OnTheIce]

herbie herbie:

Or they appreciate a leader with common sense and a little wit. After years of a one dimensional lout.

Common sense and Justin Trudeau don't go together.

The guy is a sorry excuse for a leader...not because he's a Liberal but because the day before our MP's are going to talk about this in the House, he hasn't "made up his mind".

He needs Harper to "sell him". I guess the non-stop beheadings and genocide just don't make the cut for this genius.

Perhaps Justin can try to think for himself, view the evidence that's right in front of his face and make a big boy decision.

[redhatmamma]

Goober911 Goober911:

uwish uwish:

and this ass clown actually has support.

what a wind bag.

Why do you think people support Trudeau?
Myself I do not, but he has lead in the polls for approx 20 months now.
Why is that?

There`s a piece here asking the same question Canada is booming so why is Harper unpopular. The headline is a 'wife beater' question as in "When did you stop beating your wife?". The implied guilt overrides any answer given.

I suspect that Harper is not unpopular except amongst the chattering classes at Rabble,Lead now et al hard left groups, groups who are more active on the net IMO. I also believe that the relentless negative press (rightly or wrongly) is part of it. I think it is likely that he is not concerned about being popular either, he is just concerned about governing. Popularity means very little right now, but it will count a lot more when the voters are paying attention, and that is when Harper will hit on the themes that really matter to Canadians. Hopefully Canadian voters will vote substance over style when push comes to shove


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... unpopular/

[herbie]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

herbie herbie:

Or they appreciate a leader with common sense and a little wit. After years of a one dimensional lout.

Common sense and Justin Trudeau don't go together.

The guy is a sorry excuse for a leader...not because he's a Liberal but because the day before our MP's are going to talk about this in the House, he hasn't "made up his mind".

He needs Harper to "sell him". I guess the non-stop beheadings and genocide just don't make the cut for this genius.

Perhaps Justin can try to think for himself, view the evidence that's right in front of his face and make a big boy decision.

So first of all it is up to Tories to reveal the plan because they are the gov't. And you want Trudeau to support it before they've even revealed what the plan is. And he's the one lacking common sense?
The mission is not sanctioned by either the UN or NATO. Neither is it a traditional peacekeeping or humanitarian role.
Harper contacted the USA and asked if he could get more involved. Of course they said yes and told him how. And then he announced it as a request by the USA.
You are free to run off to war due for noble causes like King and Country or the Burden of Power. I'm free to want the facts first like rushing off attacking one side (a la intervention in Russia 1919-1920) without even a side to actually support.

[OnTheIce]

herbie herbie:

So first of all it is up to Tories to reveal the plan because they are the gov't. And you want Trudeau to support it before they've even revealed what the plan is. And he's the one lacking common sense?
The mission is not sanctioned by either the UN or NATO. Neither is it a traditional peacekeeping or humanitarian role.
Harper contacted the USA and asked if he could get more involved. Of course they said yes and told him how. And then he announced it as a request by the USA.
You are free to run off to war due for noble causes like King and Country or the Burden of Power. I'm free to want the facts first like rushing off attacking one side (a la intervention in Russia 1919-1920) without even a side to actually support.

Harper doesn't need Justin's support. He's the leader of the 3rd party. What he wants is irrelevant.

Does the lack of a plan from Harper prevent JT from having an opinion on whether or not we should have a combat mission? Does Harper need to hold his hand and walk him to the big boy potty? Seems like it.

Details of the mission shouldn't be made public. Current and former military Generals have come out and said the same.

Finally, Harper doesn't have to make a case for this. The case has already been made by ISIS and is in full view of the Canadian public. Do we sit on our hands while this genocide goes on or do we play politics in the hopes to win a few votes during the next election?

You play politics and let our brave men and women step up and do what's right.

[herbie]

Mainly because "our brave men" do what the government tells them too, not vice versa.
The Generals said this, so that's what we need to do. Are you fucking nuts? That's for after we're in a war and even then still subject to review.
We're sending a handful of F18s and some advisors (non combat roles) for up to six months. That's what we were waiting for Harper to say.
All three oppositions are against the plan, all because they think we could play a bigger role doing something other than dropping bombs.
They'll vote and Harper's got the majority. We go there under proper procedure, not because someone's beating the goddam drum.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

Make sure you aim for the door, not the wall. It's much softer.

Pretty easy to get in these days, too, if you run fast enough.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

herbie herbie:

Or they appreciate a leader with common sense and a little wit. After years of a one dimensional lout.

Common sense and Justin Trudeau don't go together.

The guy is a sorry excuse for a leader...not because he's a Liberal but because the day before our MP's are going to talk about this in the House, he hasn't "made up his mind".

He needs Harper to "sell him". I guess the non-stop beheadings and genocide just don't make the cut for this genius.

Perhaps Justin can try to think for himself, view the evidence that's right in front of his face and make a big boy decision.

What genocide?

[OnTheIce]

herbie herbie:

Mainly because "our brave men" do what the government tells them too, not vice versa.
The Generals said this, so that's what we need to do. Are you fucking nuts? That's for after we're in a war and even then still subject to review.

Are you a fucking idiot? The generals said not to release the combat plan to appease the little brains of Justin and Tommy The Beard. No mention of whether or not we should go...just not to tell the World our plans.

$1:

All three oppositions are against the plan, all because they think we could play a bigger role doing something other than dropping bombs.

Maybe we can go over and sew people's heads back on as a measure of peace keeping? Or maybe we can give them a stern talking to?

How about we go stop the massacre first?

herbie herbie:

They'll vote and Harper's got the majority. We go there under proper procedure, not because someone's beating the goddam drum.

We're going there because it's the right thing to do. Procedure aside, it's a done deal and JT and the Beard will get their 2 seconds to belly ache and play politics while people are having their heads cut off.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What genocide?

Have you been ignoring the news or ignorant to the definition?

[jj2424]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

jj2424 jj2424:

If you believe that lie...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weston- ... -1.1062501

http://www.globalresearch.ca/canada-s-s ... -iraq/8110

We were there.

Yes, I'm sure Canada offered the US all assistance short of help, as we usually do. That's what we did in Nam, that's what we did in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

There may have been some non-combat assistancee, maybe even some secret special forces kind of stuff involving Canadian "trainers" on the ground in Iraq. But for all intents and purposes we sat that one out.

The primary reason I think we need to stay out of the MIddle ast (apaert from the fact we're not going to do any god in the long term) is that we need to be looking after our North (because Putin will probably move on it soon) and keeping an eye on Putin in the Baltic states.

I didn't watch this interview with Trudeau, but weren't the Liberals in favour of intervention of ISIS a couple of days ago?

Keep dodging the truth.

[herbie]

Going there might be the right thing to do, dropping bombs might not be the best thing we could do.
But of course the typical fanboy supporters can't even comprehend something like that. The knee didn't jerk, the gut didn't twitch so the brain can't engage.
Shit - they CALLED the Yanks and asked "Can we get in on it? What can we do? Huh? Huh? What can WE do? Huh? Huh?" and then play it like they asked us...
he's sending SIX fucking planes, almost as many as the Cornhole Kentucky Air National Guard could round up - as little a response as is possible - and most likely because in spite of all the years of drumbeating and military flag waving he's run down the Forces so bad that's probably all we can send.
Tokenism. Who is playing politics with war? The minds were made up beforehand, there will be no listening, no reasoning, no questioning.
I'm sure Elizabeth May could come up with a more effective contribution all by herself.

[Canadian_Mind]

herbie herbie:

as little a response as is possible - and most likely because in spite of all the years of drumbeating and military flag waving he's run down the Forces so bad that's probably all we can send.

With the 6 in the Baltics and the 6 here, that's a quarter of our combat force. That's about as steep of an op tempo as you can run in peacetime, not to mention the domestic ops the rest have to take care of.

Looking at the way this is panning out, intentional or not, it could be building up to an argument for more combat aircraft and pilots. I get the cons dumbed it down to 65, but this could be what's needed to get us enough for 3 combat squadrons, not 1 and a half.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What genocide?

Have you been ignoring the news or ignorant to the definition?

There's no genocide. You're the one who hasn't been paying attention. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic mass extermination of a certain race or culture. This is an upheaval that is primarily between various Muslim factions, mostly Shia and Sunni, and also rival rebel factions fighting each other. Although the news back here focuses on the barbaric beheadings of westerners, that is pretty much a sideshow to the whole thing. Few westerners are impacted. It's primarily Muslims killing Muslims, and not in any particularly organized fashion. It's a result, in the short term, of the fall of Iraq and the various "Arab springs" that devolved into factional fighting and Islamist militancy. In the medium term, it;s the result of clueless Europeans dividing up the Ottoman empire after WWI. In the long term, it's the continuation of sectarian violence dating back to the assassination of Mohammed's son-in-law Ali around the 7th century (the Sunni/Shi'ite schism).

The west has no plan other than the degradation of ISIS through airpower, which has never been very successful in the past and is unlikely to successful this time, as there is no firm objective, not even a clear enemy (as the Islamic State is one of several Islamist factions in the area).

I don't see a clear endgame here at all. The main failure in Iraq was a focus on military supremacy (which was easily achieved by US and British forces). Unfortuantely they had no idea what to do after that.

Arm the Kurds. Maintain ties with Turkey and Israel. Provide humantarian aid. Intervene if there is genocide or use of WMD. Otherwise, Putin is more of a concern than this long-festering convulsion of barbarity in far away lands.