[TheMonitor1867]

[WestViking]

[IanM]

In regards to the Military Bases, lots of reasons why they can't be used;


1 - They are Operational Bases or Training bases, that is their primary function.

2 - They are all in use. Where are you going to put all of these people at? Most Military bases have a critical shortage of accommodations, meaning you would need to put these people up in Hotels on the economy, going back again to the massive security considerations I outlined before....Unless you want to kick out people who are actually living there and paying for that accommodation. Or set everyone up in Modular Tents.....(Trust me, a few years back, we were in Gagetown 8 in a room designed for 4 due to the pick up in Summer training.....)

3 - Where are you going to host these Summits? Military Bases do what they say on the tin, which is support our armed forces. They do not have a Dearth of Conference or meeting spaces, without shutting down some of the operational staff, or kicking out training courses we need to maintain our forces.

4 - Where does the Support and security staff go? Where do you feed, clothe and house them without shutting down the base? They will need a lot of facilities. Unless you plan on using base personnel to do it, and that means you would have to move in equipment and or personnel....or shut down courses.....

5 - How do you plan on moving people to and from Conferences? Most bases are rather far from international airports......Again, a lot of the security costs will come with ensuring the airport they arrive / depart from is secure....

6 - Military Bases are not the most secured areas out there, they have secure areas, and very secure buildings, just anyone really can probably get on base somehow, so you would need to put up a lot of security infrastructure.

By the way West Viking, the Military does have some really nice Accommodations and Meal Services, I always found all of the food I had on different bases 4 star minimum, with some of the Officer's Messes 5 star or better. The accommodation is pretty simple. Normal Officer Accommodations is a large room (within a group of say 6 in an apartment style with laundry room and common areas), with attached bath, some cabinets, a bed, a desk or two, a nightstand....all the typical Corcan stuff so its not pretty, but it isn't bad. Its also well maintained. The huge problem is that unless you literally boot everyone out you don't have accommodation. Also, how do you draw what world leader gets the nice senior officer rooms and which guy ends up in the tent ;).

Other big thing. You would have to basically shut down the whole base activities for it to work......that would not be advisable.

I did in my head, a security plan based on Sydney NS.....I think the Conference could have been held here with a lot less disruption. I just did it as a fun little staff study, though through all of it, and well it could work. However the huge fixed costs for security, anywhere you would go would eat up around the same amount of money....as I'm sure the protesters would follow.

[bsenka]

Hosting these summits is a very good thing. Providing adequate security is a very important thing. Spending a BILLION dollars to do it is asinine.

The real mistake was hosting the summit in Toronto. They can't use the military for security or the Liberals will come out with "Soldiers. With Guns. In Our Cities. We are not making this up", so they have to pay through the nose for RCMP and private security. If they had the summits in an isolated rural setting it would be a lot cheaper, easier to protect, there'd be a lot less rent-a--protesters, and using the military would be no issue.

[don muntean]

We all know 'who' is to blame for such needed security and it's not the government...just keep letting anyone and everyone into Canada.

[FF_Canuck]

[Craig]

The tab for security alone is $350 million I believe. At this point I would just like to thank Islam and leftist socialists for hyper-inflating that number through the threat of terrorism and juvenilism.

Isn't it ironic that the left is complaining about costs when it is their baffoon "protesters" that cause the high cost in the first place.

[JDot]

[DavidK]

[IanM]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story.....70704.html

There's an even scarier thing for you, and we're not prepared for any sort of situation arising. That's why I started that civil defense thread a while back.

[infantry67]

[IanM]

[Daveeire]

As I think I mentioned somewhere, this thing could have been held at the Ex. Perimeters would have been much easier to control and downtown Toronto would not have been f'd up. Soldiers could have been used to guard the Ex since the Liberals would have whined if they had secured downtown Towonto.

[IanM]

I agree with you Daveeire. I really do. Of course, the liberals have no problems when they need the army to dig them out of downtown Toronto, when its a little bit of snow on the ground...

Personally, I think that Sydney NS would have made a better place to hold it, as it would have enough space, an easily defended route from the air port, an enclosed harbour, close enough for air support, off of the jet routes, all of the good important things. Plus, it would make it harder for protesters to go and disrupt the proceedings.....Of course, it also has lots of tourist attractions.


Personally, I think we needed to use more military troops in front line roles. I'm sure the black block wouldn't like facing down a LAV III and fully tooled up infantry section behind a baricade, let the police hold the outer cordon, and allow the military to be placed in direct support of the police, I'm sure that there would be a lot less problems on deterrence alone, of course again, its not shoveling snow, so we'd have problems with the liberals.

[cosmostein]