# Does Canada need a Military?



## Polish Mig-29 Pilot (29 Apr 2001)

Greetings!
I‘m new on this forum and hopefully won‘t be famed for this topic. But does Canada need a military? I‘ll post my reasons why not later! But lets see why you guys think. And not only from those people who like to handle firearms.


----------



## Gunner (29 Apr 2001)

Every nation must have a military, either it‘s own or someone else‘s.


----------



## Gunner (29 Apr 2001)

Every nation must have a military, either it‘s own or someone else‘s.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (30 Apr 2001)

Gunner-- that sums it up nicely! SHould be the end of this thread!!!!


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (30 Apr 2001)

I disagree with ending the thread here.  I‘d estimate that ninety percent of Canadians wonder the same thing. The general public hates the military, and we‘re portrayed as 1: Not a fighting force (clean-up after disasters) and 2: An embarrassment to Canada overseas (Somalia).  We have to justify our existence and hopefully growth because we do not want Canada to end up with another country‘s armed forces protecting us.

Canada needs its own armed forces because we never know when we will have to defend Canada from agressors as yet unknown.  We must patrol our skies and waters, and maintain a deterrent standing army with capable reserves so that greedy foreign powers won‘t be tempted to pull a fast one on Canada.  Since you tout yourself as Polish, I compel you to remember Poland‘s history just before the Second World War.  Poland had been seeking a deal with Hitler and at the last minute it was not reached.  Hitler‘s army--by all accounts not yet well re-armed and a force nobody until then expected to turn aggressive--invaded.  Poland‘s armed forces (which had been neglected just like Canada‘s are today) responded to the invasion with mounted cavalry and bayonet charges.  They were slaughtered.  It could happen to Canada.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (30 Apr 2001)

I think Canada should put some pride in their military, lets look back on all the good things that Canada‘s military has done. Maybe Canada can start by joining that missle defence with the states.


----------



## PTE Fader (30 Apr 2001)

I‘m new to the Canadian Army, the Reserves infact, but I take great pride in my work.  It‘s enjoyable, fun, challenging, and quite rewarding.  

I‘ve met some of the finest people I‘ve met in my life from being in the army for just a few short months, and I feel quite content with the fact that while other people of my stature are working part time at McD‘s for $6 an hour doing, flipping burgers and asking "uh... you want fries with that?" I‘m learning how to be a soldier.  A trade that I‘ve dreamt about being since I was a little kid.  Furthermore, as an added bonus, I get paid more than buddy at McDonalds.  

It is quite a shame that few people actually are in the army, or even the military in general.  From my short time in the military, I‘ve grown quite a loyalty and fondness towards it.  In fact, it just pisses me right off when people crap on it, and disrespect it.

The guy above (sorry to not recall your name) is right, though, about Canada‘s need for a strong military.  There may not be any immediate need for it now, but who knows what could lie ahead in the future?


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (1 May 2001)

Good attitude there, Fader.  I‘ve met too many unmotivated kids in the reserves (and the regs, too).  Welcome to the War Diary.  

I‘m still waiting for the original poser, Mr Polish Mig Pilot, to explain why we don‘t need a military...


----------



## Travis Silcox (2 May 2001)

funny how only canadians don‘t think canada has a "fighting force", we are in high praise for Britian, Germany and the states for our "well-rounded" soldiers.

for future refrence, we were at about this size military before WW2 and substantially less before WW1 

so ease up there guy

re-take that history course in school, mabey you forgot Passchendaele, Ypres, somme, vimy, hill 70, dieppe, normandy, Liri valley, Melfa Crossing, our whole little "liberating holland" thing   

this will be my only posting on this topic


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (2 May 2001)

errr... I meant poster, not poser, in my above response.


----------



## ender (2 May 2001)

If I didn‘t think Canada needed a military I wouldn‘t be in it.


----------



## Polish Mig-29 Pilot (4 May 2001)

The thing about this is. Canada has no clear danger or no clear enemy. We are not placed geographically in an area near enemy countries. We haven‘t been updating the Armed Forces and the equipment is old and useless. Maybe if the Armed forces were made smaller it would be more economical for the country.


----------



## RCA (5 May 2001)

if we were any smaller we‘d be a pimple on an elephants ass.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (5 May 2001)

Polish Mig---In reply to your last post, I refer you to A.J.P. Taylor‘s "Origins of the Second World War."  In it he explains how up until the very last minute Poland was a virtual ally of Nazi Germany.  Then an agreement was not reached between them and Hitler jumped the gun.  Poland‘s enemy was not distinctly so...the Poles were more scared of the Soviet Union.  The Poles were caught unprepared.  Canada should never be in such a position.  We need to deter hostile countries and to prepare for every possible threat against us and our allies pursuant to our NATO and UN committments.  I think we‘re the best, and we should start acting like it around the world.  

Without a well-armed, well trained, sufficiently manned Armed Forces, Canada is nothing.  Think of what was behind the fall of Rome.  How did the barbarian hordes eventually destroy the empire and sack the city of Rome?  If you know then you indeed know why Canada needs an Armed Forces.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (5 May 2001)

Also, from the post "in praise" It says 

""Canada is not in danger of invasion," they say.

The Russians, Spanish and American fishing fleets would love to find our coasts undefended. So would Chinese snakeheads."


----------



## pte feetham (10 May 2001)

i here people all the time saying that canada dosnt need a millitary, that there is no threat of an attack and if there was the US would defend us. they say that the millitarys to expensive and they dont do anything anyway,quiet frankly that sickns me i joined the reserves a year ago and alot of people look down on you and ask why do i even get payed the think the reserves is some kind of  joke that its like cadets or something ive had people say i should join the real army. 
 when people say that are soldiers dont do anything and that we are not needed its ignorance pure and simple, and the truth is that a soldier works harder and sacurfices more then the average joe. and for those who say that we should rely on other countrys to protect our freedom we would be little more then a puppet to our protectors and thats freedom by name only.


----------



## the patriot (11 May 2001)

This is probably the funniest post I‘ve ever seen.  Well here goes...  We all remember the American dream of "Manifest Destiny".  The concept of North America one day becoming the United States of America.  THAT IS WHY WE NEED A MILITARY!!!!  Sir Isaac Brock is rolling in his grave as we speak.  Canada isn‘t for sale or the 51st state of the U.S. either.

-the patriot-


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (11 May 2001)

...then again didn‘t wargames experts figure out that it would take the US a mere thirty-six hours if it used all available forces to completely rout any armed response and occupy the whole country?  Highly unlikely that it would ever happen that way, though.


----------



## Mud Crawler (12 May 2001)

Fortunecookie, this is only counting military forces.As of yet, i‘m still a civilian and i can tell you i‘d sit on my mont-st-hilaire and pop caps with hunting rifle at any invaders.I‘d die for my country if it was needed.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (12 May 2001)

Right.  The thrity-six hour estimation was from first shot until American flag being raised.  That certainly does not count preparations,  mobilising the mech inf and armd the Americans count on to hold ground--required before such an invasion would happen.  

It is also important to note that hypothetical situations are considered in military circles without implying an actual intent to invade militarily. Americans-invade-Grenovia scenarios are very common. 

We‘re already inundated with American culture anyway, and there‘s NAFTA so...

Mont St Hilaire eh?  Are you with 6R22eR?


----------



## Grunt031 (15 May 2001)

A state which can not protect its territorial sovereignty ceases to be a state and surrenders its freedoms and right to self-determination.
And thus, we must remain strong.  I am sick of the statement "We have the U.S."  No, we don‘t.  It is fortunate for us that the U.S. shares most of its security issues with us, but this can change in an instant, than who will defend us?  Like I said above, no state can preserve its rights and freedoms without being willing to defend them, and if we want to give this duty to the Americans, we might as well pull down the Maple Leaf and add another Star to the Red, White and Blue.
If you still don‘t believe me, look at our National Anthem (if anyone knows it these days...).  The True North *Strong and Free*.  We must remain vigilant, especially in these days, with the insecurities and shifts in the balance of power on the world stage.  Anyone who believes that peace for all time was secured with the fall of the Soviet Empire is either naive, dumb, or delusional.  History is cyclical and war is not an abberation, but a norm of human society.  If you think I am wrong, give me one year in recorded history in which humans did not fight with each other.  Here are just a few of the areas that could pose a threat to us in the near future.

- Certain factions within the Chinese Government are becoming increasingly hostile to Western Political actions.  The bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, the EP-3 incident, and the ongoing dispute with Taiwan only serve to add to these antogonisms.  And they are only going to want to make our toys and socks for so long....

- Sure, Russia is democratic, but so what.  Russia is often referred to as the "Second Weimar."  Its domestic and international situation is in some instances very similar to that of the Weimar Republic prior to its seizure by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1932.  Russia has a failing Ruble and economy, rising inflation, a military that has lost almost all stature, both to Russia and the rest of the world, corrupt politicians who consort (or are) gangsters, and a Western Alliance (NATO) encroching on their former "territories".  Who knows would could happen here....

-  Look to India to take a place among world powers in the next few decades.  A member of the nuclear "club", India is a country half the size of the United States with three times the people.  It also has old scores to settle with China and Pakistan.

-  Don‘t expect the Middle-East and the Balkans to calm down anytime soon; recent news makes this statement moot.  And anyone who believes that events here cannot affect us should go back to their history books and look up the origins of the First World War.

And these are only icing on the cake.  Outside of the West, most of the would is a mess, like it has always been.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (17 May 2001)

First of all, Canada and the U.S. have some of the best relations in the world, and also, im sure Britain would not forget about us.


----------



## John Nayduk (18 May 2001)

Good relations are one thing but as the U.S. has demonstrated, they come first and foremost.  Britian has its own problems.  If we aren‘t willing to defend ourselves then we have no one else to blame if someone else‘s flag flies over Ottawa.


----------



## McG (18 May 2001)

> Originally posted by Pte. Silcox:
> [qb]. . . for future refrence, we were at about this size military before WW2 and substantially less before WW1
> 
> so ease up there guy
> ...



Let‘s not forget Hong Kong; it was before we lifted our pants up from around our ankles.  It takes time, and that is not always available in abundance.  6+ months to train a soldier is a long time.  Armoured vehicles come out at an even slower pace.  All these need to be in place before they are needed.  

There will not always be an English Channel to hide across until we are ready to play.


----------



## eddyfoubert@WEBTV.NET (18 May 2001)

I totally agree with some of you and then disagree with some,I served in the army from 1942 to 1975 27 years in the active and PF forces and the other in the reserve,Do not tellme we are not prepared,When the Korean war broke out within days more than 15 thousand new men joined up half were world war 2 vets,I know I joined the army on Dec 5th 1050 for Korea at about 8.30 am at 8PM the same day I left for the est cost for Korea with a short stop over in Fort Lewis before sailing for the Far East,Why soraidly? it,s beacause like the other odd thousand we were ols vets from years ago,It,s like riding a bike or swim one yo learn you never forget it.So I hat is off to all the ones now serving either in the Reserve or the active force May the Good Lord watch over all of you as he watched over me for 75 years during war and peace,


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Feb 2005)

Polish Mig-29 Pilot said:
			
		

> The thing about this is. Canada has no clear danger or no clear enemy. We are not placed geographically in an area near enemy countries. We haven't been updating the Armed Forces and the equipment is old and useless. Maybe if the Armed forces were made smaller it would be more economical for the country.


     There once was a nation that thought like this, and saved its money when its neighbors built tanks, secure in its alliance with great powers that would never let it come to harm, it slept its way into the grave.  One day, a wakeup call came as Uncle Joe and Cousin Adolf rolled their tanks acacrosshe plains and over the bodies of cavalrymen (on actual horses) who had been so betrayed by their nation as to be left practically unarmed in the face of aggression.  The great powers that had sworn its protection sent no troops, and while a phony war resulted, that was of little help to the conquored nation who would not draw a free breath for generations.  Polish Mig-29 pilot, can you guess what nation I'm speaking of?  Canada has seen what comes of relying on your historic allies to protect you, one day, someone will ask them to look away and it will be done.  Take a look at the Falkland Islands, sovereign British territory was taken by force of arms, and its cicitizensonquored.  The UK is a signatory of NATO, but that alliance was more than willing to let Britain swing (both the US and Canada can plead guilty to that one).  Alliances are nice, but in the end, it is only your own forces that can be counted on to defend you.  If your allies are forced to protect you, you will swiftly find life as a protectorate a far cry from independence


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (22 Feb 2005)

Whoa, way to resurrect a four-year old thread.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (22 Feb 2005)

Might be a reserection.

But the message in the Post should not be lost on any of the readers of the thread.

To truly have a sovereign nation you must be able to maintain that sovereignty independent of so called alliances and "friends".  Something this nation cannot do.  Rick Mercer said it perfectly it is like the kid in grade three not being worried about getting picked on because he has a brother in grade six who is 6 feet tall and weighs 200 lbs.  Our geographical closeness to the Americans has made us lazy when it comes to our defence spending.  "we don't have to worry the Americans will save us"  This should not  be so.  we should be able to protect our selves.


----------



## Inch (22 Feb 2005)

mainerjohnthomas, just a little info, when someone's username shows up in white with no link to a profile, that means that that person is no longer registered on the forum so posting a response to them is of no use since you won't get a reply.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (22 Feb 2005)

Maybe not but it was a good way to re activate this thread.

it might be best to not get a reply that way your opinion rules ;D ;D


----------



## Cpl.Banks (22 Feb 2005)

The Canadian army is here to stay, I for one dont think that the US will be our big brother for long either: 1. Their troops are over extended(Iraq,Afganistan....eventually Syria) and the Chinese invade or: 2. The Us runs out of ressources and look who has plenty, ill give you a hint its not Mexico... Canada then 36 hours later is raising the red white and blue in Ottawa, we need to build up our forces if not just for protction but also to raise a bit of clout and make us more than a medium power, I will soon be serving and I cant stand people who always say that the good ol' US of A can protect Canada...that Bs we shoudl fight our own battles and kick some ass!


----------



## Blue Max (22 Feb 2005)

I am firmly of the opinion that the root of many of our trade issues (softwood lumber, beef...) is due to our over reliance on the Americans. Of course they are going to want something in return for their so called protection, and the fact that we struggle to setup even a small expedition in our northern territories reinforces to the Americans that we are not serious about our sovereignty.

MHO


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (22 Feb 2005)

This is more of a no brainer question. Canada not only should have a military, it NEEDS its military. Over the years since WW2, many Canadians have set their mind on the thought that our big brothers to the south will protect us. Let's not forget that the Americans have had Manifest Destiny since the French-Indian war. If we allow our military to slip into disarry, then we will on longer be able to assert sovereignty over our own country. Unless Canadians want to be flying the red, white, and blue over their lawns, they better rethink the support they have for the men and women of our armed forces.  
Pro Canada 


Dan


----------



## pbi (23 Feb 2005)

I agree that we need to have a military (surpriiii-iiise!). However, I have read a statement that I will throw out here for discussion. While Canada should doubtlessly have "a" military, it is in fact impossible to state conclusively how big or how capable this military should be, since the threats to Canada cannot adequaetly be defined. So?

Cheers


----------



## Harris (23 Feb 2005)

The threats to Canada?

I suggest the following, in no particular order:

1.  I was informed a while ago that Canada was the only country mentioned specifically by Al-Queda who has not yet had an attack carried out on it's soil
2.  Sovereignty, especially in the North where there are vast untapped resources
3.  Internal security issues such as the PLQ crisis
4.  Numerous domestic aid to civil power events such as Ice storms, flooding, shovelling Toronto's sidewalks (sorry I couldn't resist)  A statistic: Natural disasters have accounted for 69.9 percent of all disasters in Canadian history. Flooding has been, by far, the greatest cause of disasters in Canada in the 20th century, followed by severe storms.
5.  I suspect that sooner, rather than later our fresh water supply will need to be protected as other parts of the world run out
6.  And of course another conventional war is bound to happen at some point given our past history

For the govt's take on threats to Infrastructure go here: http://www.ocipep.gc.ca/opsprods/other/TA03-001_e.asp

Anyone have anything to add?


----------



## pbi (23 Feb 2005)

OK, Roger that. Now, using your factors, state conclusively what size of military we must have, and why bigger or smaller would not work. It may not be as easy as we might think.

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> I agree that we need to have a military (surpriiii-iiise!). However, I have read a statement that I will throw out here for discussion. While Canada should doubtlessly have "a" military, it is in fact impossible to state conclusively how big or how capable this military should be, since the threats to Canada cannot adequaetly be defined. So?



Well, in tactics we are moving from "threat-based" planning to "effect-based" planning, so it follows that we might do the same for planning of defence policy.   The question then becomes: what *effect* do we want our military to be able to have?

Dave


----------



## Harris (23 Feb 2005)

I cannot list what fighting forces we need to have as I do not have the knowledge necessary to determine what size force goes with what type of task.  However I Will state my opinion on what the solders/seamen/airmen filling those roles need to be able to do as follows:

1.  The Military should break all of the forseen tasks into two scaled lists:  most likely to least likely to happen and highest amount of damage to least amount of damage caused if it does happen.
2.  Next they should then determine the amount of manpower/equipment needed to deal with the tasks that are above the %50 likely to happen list that also are above the %50 mark in amount of damage caused.  They should consider those tasks that are very unlikely to happen (say the bottom %10 or so) but which will cause a great deal of damage, if there are any.
3.  Next on the to do is then decide which of those forces can be multi tasked so that they are not simply available for the %10 least likely to happen but will cause a lot of damage list.
4.  Some things to consider in coming up with the above list will be:
     chrun (troops coming into the system and also leaving) as neither group will be effective in dealing with these tasks
     leave periods (the troops have to be given time to take leave)
     unforeseen tasks (maybe put in a %5 or so fudge factor)
     professional development periods (again troops on this are not avail for tasks)
     capital replacement/acquisition requirements
     and I'm sure a number of other things I have no knowledge about
5.  Once all the above is done I'm sure the military will come up with a number that our current fiscal situation just cannot handle.  Then they should start at the highest pri task and work downwards until the $ runs out.  Everything below that mark becomes unfunded and un-doable unless more $ comes our way.

Personally if I had to make a guess at the manpower needs we currently have today I'd say we need the fol (Please consider I am Infantry so don't beat me up too bad if I miss some things   )

4 Full Strength Combat Teams including MBT's and all the other goodies that go with them.  One for each Reg Force Regiment and one that contains the kit but which is mainly dedicated to trg Reserve force troops only so that they can provide replacements/augmentation on relatively short notice.  And 4 organizations of all of the various support trades that are needed to actually run and maintain these organizations.  Again, the 4th one could be used as a training aid for Reserves to use.  If a Regular Force Unit gets tasked with a mission, they take the equipment they need from their own stores.  If more of a specific type is needed then that is drawn from a central reserve (not the 4th Combat Team)  I think we also need the Airborne back as a quick reaction force.

A reserve force that is twice as large ar the Regular Force component above manpower wise so that there will be sufficient replacements/augmentation available if/when it is needed.  And as part of that ALL (just an opinion, please don't bomb my car) Reserve units should be aligned to mate with one of the Reg force units.  What I mean is, if there are for example 3 small units in an armoury, and the nearest Reg force Unit is 2 RCR, then all 3 Units become Inf and are combined into one unit.  There are a number of armouries out there where there are 2-3 different small units that could combine to be 1 large Unit.  The savings in support staff and leadership would be significant I suspect.  Care would have to be taken that the Reserve units eventually boil down to roughly the same ratio as the Reg force ones.

We require enough heavy air lift to move a Combat Team in one go anywhere in the world.  That includes in-flight refuelling, and fighter escort.  Another duty for those same fighters would be home defence and ground attack.  Therefore I see 4 Sqns of these as well.  On per Cbt Team.  Perhaps rotating them through the 4th (Reserve Cbt Team( as a bit of a break.  We also need a Sqn of ground atk helos for both obs and support for the Inf.  We require heavy lift helos (again 4 Sqn) that can be used for troop tpt and resupply.  We need to be able to move at least a company in one lift as a min.  And we should keep our maritime patroll aircraft and expand their role to include more northern patrols.

On the Navy side I think we require 2 platforms that can tpt a Cbt team in one go, including acting as a flight deck for the heavy lift helos and acting as a resupply/hospital ship.  We of course will also need the necessary protection (I'm a little fuzzy here on what is needed) but I'm guessing a C&C ship and 3-4 axillary frigates/destroyers?  Honestly I don't think we require submarines unless we go nuclear.  They need to be able to operate for extend times below the surface and in the North under the ice and our current batch obviously cannot.

What we don't need is the outrageous numbers of HQ's that we have today.  Take the organization above, form it into manageable organizations and assign a field HQ and add a Garrison HQ to deal with the day to day stuff.  No "Area" HQ's.  Make a Brigade HQ a real Brigade HQ.  Then have a Div HQ or 2 and finally a streamlined NDHQ.  Make all of these organizations have the proper number of troops under them, otherwise they are not needed.  Do the same with the Navy and Air Force.

OK.  I've killed way to many brain cells just thinking about this stuff.  Please note this is all my own opinion and hey if you disagree please feel free to do so.  But at least have a better idea and explain why you disagree.


----------



## Blue Max (23 Feb 2005)

Harris, I like your thoughts on the subject. ;D
There may be two area's to strengthen to greater degree, Engineering and Medical support.

The West coast is geologically overdue for a large earthquake that would probably compare to the SE Tsunami in destruction, and I am not convinced Canada is ready to deal with such an event.

Canadians are perhaps overly PC and thus will always prefer to help with such expeditions as DART for which we probably gather most resources from said groups ENG and MED.

My $0.02, 
B M.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (23 Feb 2005)

Harris hit the nail on the head for most of the post, I would make a few observations though.  Firstly, I don't see MBT coming soon. I would rather concentrate on getting a modern integrated combat force using tools that we can get, than dreaming of kit we won't be permitted.  Likewise the attack helo's are not coming.  Canadian politicians have a problem putting guns, missiles, torpedoes, or dipping sonar on our helo's, regardless of their mission.  
     Since our CF18 fleet is being downsized in modernization, we should be looking at what new craft should be added to make our air force commitments.  For a minimum I think we need new modern patrol craft, a bomber or ground attack platform, refueling aircraft, and heavy airlift sufficient to deploy and support a combat team overseas.  If the airforce are going to be relegated to bus drivers, get them a new bloody bus.....
     For the army, if we do not have local reserves able to handle disaster relief in each region, at a bare minimum we need the heavy airlift ability to deploy a batallion worth of troops and equipment from our nodal locations to the widely distributed cities that would require assistance.  We need sufficient strength to honour our current peacekeeping commitments, with a battlegroup in reserve for emergency local or foreign deployment, a second working up for deployment, while the battlegroup back from peacekeeping duties stands down for recovery and regular training and resupply.


----------



## c_canuk (23 Feb 2005)

One thing that blows my mind is the attitude "The US will protect Canada"

That may be true, but it won't be because we are friends, it will be because there is something for them to gain for themselves. IE siezing Canada as a territory of the US for our protection, discarding our laws and sucking us dry of natural resources while US 50 state corporations get richer.

Don't forget the only country to ever attempt to invade Canada has been the US.

You want lower taxes? perhaps patrolling the North West Passage when it opens up will allow us to maintain our claim on that territory and charge a passage fee making us billions in revenue, if we do not patroll that area we cannot claim it belongs to us, we would be absolute fools not to do this, the economic gain to Canada we would loose from that alone would be a major loss.

Should Canada fall under attack the only reason that ANY country will come to our aid is because it benifits that country. 

If the invading party agrees to provide the US with more natural resources at a cheaper price there is no reason for them to help us out, except the NATO treaties, which we would be violating by not having a military... 

the NATO treaties are has basicly a deal that stipulates that we need to be able to provide certain military support should aany other NATO treaty country need help, we are slightly in violation of these treaties already because of our military budgets being slashed. if we do not have a force capable of defending ourselves we are not allowed to be a part of NATO and THEREFORE we are not subject to aid from other NATO countries... 

The US is certainly going to take a dim view of us not providing for our own defense... what kind of lazy slob attitude is "We don't need a military the US will help us" why should they they spend trillions a year on their defense and protect us if we won't spend any money on our own defense? Why would we think they should help us out if we are too lazy and cheap to spend any of our money on defense?

For example if I lived next to you and I struck up a deal with you that in the event of one of us going on vacation the other would mow their lawn until they got back,

would you think it was fair if I stopped mowing my larger lawn, and left my mower to rust in the ditch and expect you to fertilize and mow my lawn out of your own pocket, just because you spend more and take pride in your lawn just because I'm too cheap and lazy to hold up my side of the deal?

Is this what canada is to become? a nation of deadbeats?



> What I mean is, if there are for example 3 small units in an armoury, and the nearest Reg force Unit is 2 RCR, then all 3 Units become Inf and are combined into one unit.   There are a number of armouries out there where there are 2-3 different small units that could combine to be 1 large Unit.



that seems like a bad idea to me, there are reserve sigs units scattered accross canada, instead of concentrated in a few areas like Reg force units, that's becuase our role will be to provide comms in under 24 hours in the event of a crisis... ie, 722 can provide an HF net accross NB, 728 accross NFLD, 721 accross NS, and 723 accross PEI all in under 12 hours all of these nets can link giving us a blanket coverage of the maritimes in less than 12 hours.

If you combine us into what ever largest or closest supporting unit is there, all of the maritimes will be without that support. Also in the case of 722 we share the armouries with 31 SVC btln RNBR, and 3rd Field Arty... all three units have a Reg force counterpart in CFB Gagetown. 

Also seeing as if you did this you'd loose a lot of augmentation to overseas as at the moment 72 Comm group has 30% deployed at all times.

I think keeping as much diversity in the reserves is a good thing, and keeping the trades dispersed greatly increases response time for a given requirement.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (23 Feb 2005)

First off i totally agree with your "streamling of HQ"  Harris, you have to make sure it is representative of the force it is commanding.  No need for 20 generals and 20 admirals when you only have 10'000 troops.(not true but you know what i mean).  

Secondly eliminate all of this fictitious units and HQ's that are around (kingston comes to mind)  Make sure that we have an accurate count of what capabilities we have and can use.  

Thirdly fix the procurement process for getting new equipment.  It makes no sense to spend 200 million studying a 80 million dollar purchase.

Fourthly make all the Bats full strength no more of this partially strengthened crap top them up then look at creating a new Brigade.

Fifth get the kit that is needed, not what may be politically acceptable.  If we need strategic heavy lift get it.  If we need MBT's get them..... and the list goes on.

By streamlining our HQ and eliminating fictitious units and fixing the procurement process the savings would probably be enough to buy the heavy lift choppers without an increase in budget.

And my last point is that if we decide to do this then we must continue to fund it or it all becomes a waste of time as it was a bandage on busted artery, instead of an actual fix.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Feb 2005)

> On the Navy side I think we require 2 platforms that can tpt a Cbt team in one go, including acting as a flight deck for the heavy lift helos and acting as a resupply/hospital ship.  We of course will also need the necessary protection (I'm a little fuzzy here on what is needed) but I'm guessing a C&C ship and 3-4 axillary frigates/destroyers?  Honestly I don't think we require submarines unless we go nuclear.  They need to be able to operate for extend times below the surface and in the North under the ice and our current batch obviously cannot.



As always when the Navy is brought up I will add my 2 cents. Harris, the problem I see with your naval outlook is this. We need more then 2 ships that provide both sealift and resupply needs. If one of these ships is engaged in sealift it won't be able to carry that much in stores and fuel for itself and its escorting units or any other unit that may require a RAS (Replenishment at Sea) vice versa if one of these ships are configured for RAS and not sealift. 3 JSS is still too few but its a start. With one JSS ideally you will have a AAD destroyer (which will also be your command and control unit) plus 2-3 frigates, 3 being preferred with an SSK as well. Naval warfare is 3 dimensional and as I stated in previous posts for the need of submarines you take away the below the water participant and you lose probably the most powerful weapon in your arsenal. The three dimensions being on. above or below the surface. Having submarines also means that we tend to know more about the movements of other nations submarines to avoid that possibility of an underwater collision. Without that knowledge and without submarines we give up a part of our sovereignty, that being underwater.


----------



## Acorn (23 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Secondly eliminate all of this fictitious units and HQ's that are around (kingston comes to mind)   Make sure that we have an accurate count of what capabilities we have and can use.



What fictitious units or HQs in Kingston?



> Fourthly make all the Bats full strength no more of this partially strengthened crap top them up then look at creating a new Brigade.



What bns are understrength?

Acorn


----------



## Stirling N6123 (24 Feb 2005)

Why does Canada need a military? 

If I may be allowed to add the following link:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/kcic3/peacekeepers.html

I think I will refrain from adding anything to this post. A worthy question in this day and age?




 I don't think so.


----------



## oyaguy (24 Feb 2005)

Fascinating forum.

Just out of curiosity, if everyone here is so worried about protecting Canadian sovereignty, why don't we have nuclear weapons?

Afterall, nuclear weapons seems to be the only conceivable defense against our biggest defense threat, the United States. 
All of the conventional forces that Canada could muster together would never be enough against the United States. Almost any scenario a person can think of, the US still outweighs Canada.

Everything else could be dealt with by a beefed up constabulary, like the RCMP on rabies, and we could get a real coast guard, though I suppose we will probably need to keep the airforce.


----------



## Blue Max (24 Feb 2005)

Oyaguy, the chasam between RCMP on rabies and nuclear weapons is larger then the Grand Canyon. It is just that sort of rationalisation that has left Canada standing in a position that if another Korean conflict arose or a massive natural disaster (more than just shoveling snow in Toronto) occured we would have to go begging for help. That would be a shame for all that Canada has but refuses to use to most advantage.

What is wrong with meeting ones commitments to NATO or controlling ones own wilderness frontiers and borders?  

Be carefull in assuming that a great number of people are worried that the US would invade us, some people in Canada swear after recent federal elections that worst things could happen then to be part of US.

Personally I would prefer to make Canada a better country, coast to coast. 

B M.


----------



## winchable (24 Feb 2005)

You sparked something in my mind there Blue Max.

Let's say there were another conflict similar to the Korean war..how would Canada react?


----------



## Blue Max (24 Feb 2005)

Lets take a shot at this scenario... ;D

1. Canada would dither on what to do internationally until majority of UN agreed to intercede, and then we would be last to voice our support.

2. Initially we would send only a small team (as little as 2 personnel) to observe, until the political heat in Ottawa became too embarrassing.

3. The PQ and NDP would argue as to why we are getting involved in someone else's war.

4. Without a large pool of veterans to sign up quickly, Canada would be forced to look in all corners to put together 1,600 troops 
(vs 27,000 in 1950) for a strained 1 year commitment.

5. UN forces would eventually prevail with Canadian troops showing great courage and resourcefulness for not having proper kit.

6. Upon returning home veterans would have trouble for years with Fed Gov regarding disability and acceptance of sacrifices made. 
Probably will be argued in Parliament whether it was a real war thus denying vets full benefits.

7. 40 years later veterans would be remembered by PM of day laying wreath at memorial initially built by vets themselves. :'(

B M


----------



## foerestedwarrior (24 Feb 2005)

Blue Max, that is sad, but unfortunatly probably realistic


----------



## karl28 (24 Feb 2005)

Canada most definitely needs a military .   The wars  of the future will be fought over Reasources . Canada as a  nation has a large supply of fresh water something all humans needs .It may be in short supply some day so we  need to protect what we have . Hopefully where are long way off from it being in short supply but we still need to protect are selves and the military is the best option for that .


----------



## pbi (24 Feb 2005)

Wow-did I ever provoke something! Maybe I should be more careful next time!.

Anyway: a few observations:

a) while this thread (as usual) contains much excellent thought, it is interesting to note that nobody, as far as I can tell, has been able to answer the question I originally threw out. As well, it is interesting (and perhaps indicative...) that much of the discourse below has not much to do with the forces required for the direct territorial defence of Canada, and lots to do with the idea of overseas force projection. Has our military focus shifted completely away from "doorstep defence"? Again not a judgement merely an observation;

b) we were once a nuclear power, under the Liberals. Subject to a double-key system with the US, Canada had the Genie air-to-air missile, the Bomarc SAM, and the Honest John artillery missile. All were nuclear systems for which warheads were stored, including some on Canadians soil ('nuff said...). I suggest that politically nukes would be a non-starter today;   and

c) for those who so aggressively trash the Area HQs, I would ask that you explain what you think an Area HQ actually does, and why all of those functions would be better shifted upwards or downwards. I used to feel the same way about Area HQ until I served in one and realized what it does, and realized that many other countries have similar Army regional commands in order to do similar things. If you scrub the Area HQ, you will release a whole bunch of spiders that are now kept in one bag under one chain of command. My suggestion is not to remove or weaken the Area system, but to strengthen or expand it such that all Army units are fully embraced by it, and we get away from this wretched cross-command support system. In 38 CBG, for example, of our 16 integral and OPCON units in ten armouries, one unit in one armoury is actually supported by 1 ASG-the rest by the Air Force. Supporters should be owned by and answerable to the Ops chain of command.

Otherwise great debate going on, as per SOP.

Cheers


----------



## Rick_Donald (24 Feb 2005)

Why is it that ever since the Iron Curtain has fallen, the scenario of Canada being used as a staging area for the invasion of the US, has been thrown out with the Communist bathwater? Are we as Canadians so naive as to believe that everyone on this big blue marble loves us so much and would never wish any harm on those laidback, peace keeping Canadians? Wouldn't some foreign cultures see these values as weaknesses to exploit or are they already being exploited? 
 The US has done a good job of throwing the evil axis off balance for the last 5 years or so but they too are stretching their resources too the point of breaking. They couldn't enter into any other conflicts now in Iran, Korea, China if needed so that leaves it in our's and the rest of the free world's hands.
 Yes we need an army. I don't see the rest of the world holding hands and singing Kumbaya in the near future so we best be prepared for any thing.


----------



## c_canuk (24 Feb 2005)

Awsome point! China and North Korea have a good buddie system worked out and aren't that far geographically from where we feared the Soviets might have advanced from


----------



## oyaguy (24 Feb 2005)

Does anyone here actually believe any nation in the world {other than the states} could pull off a invasion of Canada?


----------



## big bad john (24 Feb 2005)

As for the defense of Canada, is there any plans by our NATO allies, aside from our southern neigbours, of reinforcing Canada in the event of foreign invasion? I don't know, but I sincerely doubt it. 

There are plans to reinforce Canada in the event of an emergency.  Please remember that other NATO nations have Troops stationed in Canada now.

When it comes to invasion, Canada has no worries. Anyone else has to cross an ocean to do so, and that has never been done.

I don't know, gee, Invasions in the Pacific and North Africa come to mind.

Please do your research before ranting and use the spell check.


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Feb 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Does anyone here actually believe any nation in the world {other than the states} could pull off a invasion of Canada?



You kidding?   The only thing that might concievably stop them is the US navy.   China has a pretty decent fleet though, and using the element of surprise it's quite possible they could land enough troops to overwhelm our defenses before the US had a chance to position their own ships.   If it wasn't for the yanks being worried about their own soverignty, we'd be utterly defenceless.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (24 Feb 2005)

The thread has turned interesting, so I think I would like to contribute, contrary to my earlier thread.

With the instability presently sweeping the globe, the national defence of any country, should be left up to the individual country. Our reliance on an American response to the invasion threat of Canadian soil has dictated the way we govern our military. On the cheap. While most of our land is barren, forrest or mountainous, they are packing them in three deep in parts of Asia. The population is expanding at an enormous rate, and with that, we all know, consumable resources, lumbar, wood, and yes, the black gold, Oil takes on a new luster. But of more importance is, are we as a nation going to allow a marauding army the ability to attack us in our land, on their terms? 

I do not like to keep referring to this date, but, it is a major turning point in our history. September 11 showed everyone that it is better to deal with an enemy in a barren dessert, jungle or ocean, thousands of miles away from your homeland, on your terms, than it does around the corner from your house on theirs.

And I think it is ashame that the political steam rollers in Ottawa take on a wait and see attitude with everything they do. Lets wait and see if anybody catches us wasting money on a sponsorship program. Lets wait and see what Americans do with the potential Health risk from Avian FLU. Lets wait and see how many people complain about our health care system before spending our surplus on it. Lets wait and see what happens to our military when the subs catch fire, the choppers fall from the sky, and the troops have to go to a food bank to feed the family because we do not pay them enough for risking their lives.

We need a military to defend my 2 year old daughter, my wife, my family, friends, my job, my way of live, and my Charter of Rights and Freedoms, from Dictators, Murderers and thugs like KIM Chong-il, Mohammad Khatami, Osama Bin-Laden, and many others who lurk just below the pond scum.

That is why we need a military


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (24 Feb 2005)

When it comes to invasion, Canada has no worries. Anyone else has to cross an ocean to do so, and that has never been done.

I don't know, gee, Invasions in the Pacific and North Africa come to mind.

Please do your research before ranting and use the spell check.


        Since our friends on the other side of the North Pole invented the idea of the Air Mobile Division, it is actually possible for a force that can secure a window of air superiority to air deploy really large conventional forces rapidly. Since our own forces are so dispersed, and our own ability to patrol and interdict our borders are so limited, we would be in a bad position.   Denmark is currently contesting our claim to the northwest passage, Russia has never acknowledged it, and Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are currently developing some of the most promising diamond mines this side of South Africa.   Yes the US would stop any invasion of Canada that threatened their interests.   Would they risk a confrontation over Nunavut, especially if a sweet enough deal for access to those resources was offered them?   10% of the worlds fresh water is in the Northwest Territories, at some point, that may be worth more than our friendship.   As far as sea invasion, those nifty RORO car carriers that Japan keeps turning out seem to make seaborn invasion a ton easier than our assaults on Normandy, North Africa, Anzio; : :threat: and China really seems to be ramping up for a run at Taiwan that they seem to believe that a) will be possible, and b) the US will either permit, or be unable/unwilling to stop.   Seems the sea is not the protection it used to be..... :crybaby:


----------



## Stirling N6123 (25 Feb 2005)

Sorry, were you referring to my post on the spell check? I did spell check, or so I thought. :crybaby:

And would I be wrong in saying that an Invasion across the Pacific has been done? Did the US not cross the Pacific, the long way, over 60 years ago with plans under their arm for a Japanese Mainland invasion?


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Feb 2005)

he was quoting "big bad john".  and I think he missed the /sarcasm tag.  seems like everyone's in agreement though


----------



## oyaguy (25 Feb 2005)

The whole point about cross-oceanic invasion has very little to do with the forces involved. 



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> You kidding?  The only thing that might conceivably stop them is the US navy.  China has a pretty decent fleet though, and using the element of surprise it's quite possible they could land enough troops to overwhelm our defenses before the US had a chance to position their own ships.  If it wasn't for the yanks being worried about their own sovereignty, we'd be utterly defenceless.



While the Chinese could the land troops, surprise means very little if you don't accomplish the objectives. A Chinese landing in Vancouver means nothing unless they destroy the forces that would have opposed such a landing.

In turn, the Chinese's lack of real aircraft carriers means our F/A 18s get to work their ships over with impunity. So even if they do land troops, the troops will land without air support and eventually our air force and naval units should be able to interdict incoming flights and supply ships. Whatever troops that landed will eventually be fighting with clubs called AK-47s because they will run out of bullets because their supplies stopped coming.

This scenario is kind of stupid for anyone with a basic knowledge of geography, knows that China is right next door to Siberia, and Mongolia. Lots of big empty. If the Chinese want to stretch themselves, Australia is closer than Canada.



			
				mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> I don't know, gee, Invasions in the Pacific and North Africa come to mind.


 
As for past oceanic invasions, the Pacific, even the Torch Landing, really weren't oceanic invasions. For the pacific the US were doing Corp to Army size operations taking cutoff islands with overwhelming sea and air support. Additionally it was not as if they US was operating straight out of Los Angeles. The were operating from Hawaii, Australia, and finally the islands they took. 

Why was the US do the island hoping approach? Why not go straight to Japan? Because they needed the islands for the logistics, for the air bases, and for the time needed to destroy Japan's ability to wage war.
Another example is the Torch Operation. While some units shipped directly from the States to North Africa, they still had bases in theatre, and the opposition was not as heavy or spirited as it could have been if say German troops were resisting at the beaches.

A better example of an cross-oceanic invasion is the Falklands War. The British were literally at the end of their logistic capabilities to mount the operation. In turn, as one of those counter-factual musings, if the Argentinians had more reliable munitions, the British endeavour would have failed. 6 ships sunk, 12 damaged by air delivered munitions. Many of those 12 damaged ships were damaged by munitions that failed to explode. This all happened because the British never gained air superiority in theatre.

The Falklands example is what people should be looking at for how a cross-oceanic invasion would go today.



> Since our friends on the other side of the North Pole invented the idea of the Air Mobile Division, it is actually possible for a force that can secure a window of air superiority to air deploy really large conventional forces rapidly. Since our own forces are so dispersed, and our own ability to patrol and interdict our borders are so limited, we would be in a bad position.  Denmark is currently contesting our claim to the northwest passage, Russia has never acknowledged it, and Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are currently developing some of the most promising diamond mines this side of South Africa.  Yes the US would stop any invasion of Canada that threatened their interests.  Would they risk a confrontation over Nunavut, especially if a sweet enough deal for access to those resources was offered them?  10% of the worlds fresh water is in the Northwest Territories, at some point, that may be worth more than our friendship.  As far as sea invasion, those nifty RORO car carriers that Japan keeps turning out seem to make seaborn invasion a ton easier than our assaults on Normandy, North Africa, Anzio; : :threat: and China really seems to be ramping up for a run at Taiwan that they seem to believe that a) will be possible, and b) the US will either permit, or be unable/unwilling to stop.  Seems the sea is not the protection it used to be..... :crybaby:



The delivery of Air Mobile forces is kind of a non-starter. Just because a country can get troops somewhere means nothing, unless they can support them while the troops are there. As Arnhem demonstrated, airborne troops are mush if they don't get support when confronting mechanized forces of any kind. The way to destroy such forces is the logistics. If, for example, the Russians landed  three{I picked this number off the top of my head} divisions of troops on Whitehorse. The Russians weakest link is supplying their troops. For the Berlin air lift, bulldozers were on stand by at the air fields because any planes that crash landed, were to be immediately removed otherwise the crashed planes would screw up the landing schedule. It wouldn't be too hard for our F/A 18 to knock down a handful of cargo plane, once they go their act together. Besides the Russians don't have the airlift necessary to undertake such an endeavour, much less supply them. 

As a point the Russians have no boundary disputes with us. Those were picked up by the Americans when they bought Alaska. The US also says the Northwest Passage is an international water way, not Denmark. Denmark disputes sovereignty over Han Island. Looking at what you wrote, the Russians don't recognize our sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, or do they not recognize Nunavut and the North West Territory? I'm not sure what "it" is.


----------



## pipesnake (25 Feb 2005)

This is kind of funny. To think that a nation needs an armed forces simply for defense is naive to say the least. The military, for better or worse, is used as a tool of foreign policy. The use of Canadian forces in Afghanstan is a perfect example. There was no clear threat to Canada from the Taliban however Canadian politicians decided to send Canadian troops as full combatants. This showed the world that Canada was willing to put up or shut up in "the fight against terrorism". It particularly made the Americans quite happy, obviously in the short term, as seen by their dismay at our reluctance to participate in Iraq. Using forces in such a nature can buy you a seat at the table when the big boys get together and make decisions that DO affect our nation. Matters of trade, international relations, and diplomacy can all be assisted by our willingness to take part in military actions around the world. The recent decision of Canada not to participate in the Missile Defence Shield will not doubt prove to be a case in point where the participation in military matters will affect trade. Have no doubt about it the Americans are going to be right pissed off about that. This may directly influence pending decisions on trade with respect to lumber, cattle, pharmaceuticals, etc. If you want to play ball and and have some influence in world events in a manner that is beneficial to your nation than you must be able to project at least some modicum of military might throughout the world. Unfortunately that's the language people understand.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (25 Feb 2005)

Pipesnake,

While I will agree, the use of your military in support of the US, UK and others, can get you a seat with the big boys when it comes to making decisions of a global nature, that will affect our our nation, I would disagree that it will affect our trade or economy. "Matters of trade, international relations, and diplomacy" will hardly be affected by our willingness or unwillingness to send troops to Iraq or other global location when requested by the US for example. I work for an American company, with offices across Canada, and we are expanding, big time. We support an American product, and since we have not sent troops to Iraq, I don't see the US company pulling out. And I think the Cattle issue has to do with Mad Cow disease and not a reluctance to send troops to Iraq. And I think that the Government, rightfully elected by the people of Canada, listened to the citizens of Canada when they said no to missile defence. I hardly doubt the NORAD defence center in Cheyen will be kicking out the Canadian Officers and staff that work there merely because we are not participating in missile defense. 

As for being naive in saying that a country only needs an armed forces for defense. Try telling that to the Swedish Defense Force. First main task of the Swedish military is to defend Sweden against armed attack. The Israeli Defence Force. Their mission, "To defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life."
Irish Defence Force, Main Role "To defend the State against armed aggression". Japanese Ground self defense force, "The first objective of Japans Ground self defense force is to prevent any threat from reaching Japan and, in the event that it does, repel it and minimize any damage".

As you can see, quite a few countries have strictly self defense forces. So I do not believe it to be naive to have one for such a purpose.


----------



## pipesnake (25 Feb 2005)

It is not individual companies that make trade policy for the United States. Trade policy is made by both politicians and bureaucrats. If Canada does not have a good relationship with the US, due to military matters (or other issues), than this can influence American foreign policy with regards to trade. The countries you mention do not have near the economic power of Canada and therefore as much to lose as a result of their position within world economic decision making (read G8). Also none of the nations mentioned happen be the largest trading partner of the United States and vice versa. I am in no way saying we should sell out to the US however I have seen too many bad military decisions happen here for the sake of opinion polls. RIP Canadian Airborne Regiment.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (25 Feb 2005)

Canada has more natural resources, longer borders, and more powerful neighbors than any other nation on earth.   We require a military whose military can secure and patrol its borders, with land elements able to repel any external threat, and respond to internal threats and natural disasters.   That is the minumum for a nation that never plans on opening its mouth about international affairs. As a NATO member, and active UN supporter, we also need the abilitly to deploy expeditionary forces to honour our commitments.   To those who disagree with my assesment of threat: consider the size of the Sweedish, Japanese, Swiss and other purely self defence forces (I omit Isreal for reasons of acknoledged threat in their case).   In each of these nations, military spending and service by GDP and percent population is higher, and each of these countries has borders that are infinitly easier to secure then our own indefensible vastness.   When Zurich hosted arms reduction treaties between the US and USSR, they were able to mobilize tens of thousands of active and reserve troops for security by reactivating recent reservists to augment active forces.   Could we do the same in Toronto?   Their effort put our best to shame, and they don't participate in any external missions.


----------



## honestyrules (25 Feb 2005)

Stirling, you got good points, but i think pipe snake is right when he says that the U.S. could give us a hard time after that one. My reason to think so is: It's like racism, segregation and the like. You know..."them guys didn't support us, so they are wimps, they can't afford it politically and money wise". So every patriotic american citizien thinks that we aren't supporting them ,we don't protect our borders enough, we don't spend enough to revamp our army, and the like. Typical resentment....

Delavan


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2005)

As many others are pointing out here, the main threat to Canadian sovereignty is in our "Barren Lands", not the populated areas.  China doesn't have resources. We do.  They need them.  The Americans would prefer they didn't have them.  If we exploit them and control them then we can sell them to the highest bidder and control their distribution, favouring our friends.

If we don't protect them then we leave them as a tempting target.  Some folks might be inclined to exploit them and not bother to tell us if we don't bother to check.  Other folks might not be too thrilled at that turn of events and determine they have vital strategic interest in securing access for themselves and denying access to others - and woe betide us if we are in the middle.

At the same time, again as noted by many others, there are a number of folks who would not mind if the Northwest Passage were deemed to be international waters.  One way for that to happen is if the islands north of the waterway belong to one country while those to the south belong to another.  

Yes it is expensive to extract resources from the North.  We can do it much cheaper down here in the south.  We have lots to go around and no need to go hunting in the badlands.

Other folks though, more desperate for resources, might think it worth the effort to risk money, materiel, manpower and political capital to secure those resources - if they saw a high enough pay-off.

If we want to maintain control of the north then we have to be able to project credible force throughout our claimed territory.

And as technology improves the size of force that we might have to dislodge from our land becomes increasingly larger.

Right now the likelilhood to me seems slim that we will have to try and dislodge much more than a light platoon or company or possibly some armed civilians.  But if the WIG Ekranoplan/Pelican concept can be made to work then we might have to consider how we dislodge a battlegroup or even a brigade in the Arctic Archipelago.


----------



## pbi (26 Feb 2005)

> "Matters of trade, international relations, and diplomacy" will hardly be affected by our willingness or unwillingness to send troops to Iraq or other global location when requested by the US for example.



I diasgree with this statement. I think there are clear examples of this happening to us: a fairly senior person in our CBG is an employee of a major US parent company with a branch in Manitoba: he described an immediate freeze in relations at the time of the Chretien refusal to go to Iraq, and one that has not yet thawed. As well, I believe very strongly that the US attitude (at least among the more conservative Republican-oriented incumbents in the power seats of US business and politics) towards Canada over Iraq (and perhaps now over BMD) has contributed greatly to the leverage posessed by our US econmic opponents in the beef and softwood industries.

Having lived and studied in the US, and having now spent six months immersed in a major US operational HQ, living around US folks every da and watching their TV media, I am of the conviction that foreign policy, security and defence issues are far more important in US political and economic calculations than they would be to us. Imagine, for example, a Canadian election in which we were actually concerned about a candidate's military record: this is IMHO just one example of the degree of difference between our two societies on the issues of defence, security and foreign policy.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> ... I believe very strongly that the US attitude (at least among the more conservative Republican-oriented incumbents in the power seats of US business and politics) towards Canada over Iraq (and perhaps now over BMD) has contributed greatly to the leverage posessed by our US econmic opponents in the beef and softwood industries.
> 
> ...
> 
> Cheers.


Canadians must understand that political power is Canada is much more centralized, in the person and office of the prime minister, than in the US.   The US president shares his power with important and independent legislators who are not dependent upon his authority or goodwill.   Many, not all, of our trade problems are rooted in those legislators: senators and congressmen.

The authority of the president is, still, considerable and a well timed, well placed phone call from the president can have â â€œ has had in the past â â€œ dramatic and beneficial effects for Canadian interests.   Brian Mulroney's close relations with Ronal Reagan and George Bush the elder did pay off; he could call, the president would give him a courteous hearing and, provided the cost in _political capital_ was not too high, the president would, more often than not, try to make the Canadian case with sometimes hostile legislators.   Even the most anti-Canadian legislators (like Sen. Baucus) can be swayed by a personal call from the president.

Chrétien and Clinton had a good but not close relationship.   We hear â â€œ rumours â â€œ that Clinton was often frustrated by Chrétien's inclination to play the anti-American card and was offended by one of Chrétien's infamously candid _open mic_ comments in which he, Chrétien, bad-mouthed Clinton.   Bush, we hear from the same rumour  mill, detests Chrétien and wants his policies repudiated.   He was prepared to favour Martin but that is, probably, all in the past, now.   There is no reason for Bush, or any president, really, to spend scarce _political capital_ on Canada's behalf â â€œ we are a less than loyal, supportive ally and China will, soon â â€œ maybe next year â â€œ replace us as America's largest trading partner.   (We, on the other hand, will remain highly dependent on US trade and investment.)


----------



## Stirling N6123 (26 Feb 2005)

pbi,

I would hate to think that a company has put a freeze on relations with it's branch in Manitoba based solely on the Chretien Government decision to avoid military involvement in Iraq. 

As for current Canadian Operations around the globe that are in direct support of anti-terrorism,   I would like to point out a few, and the contribution Canada is making to that effort.

Op Athena            954 personnel              Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force 

Op Foundation        6 personnel               Canadian Liason with US Centcom

Op Sirius                    225 personnel           Canadian Forces participation in the NATO Campaign Against Terrorism

While Op Athena falls under the UN umbrella, and Op Sirius under the NATO umbrella, we as a country still have over a 1000 men and women of our armed forces directly or indirectly supporting anti-terrorist activities globally. And, we have our other global commitments to the UN, Golan Heights, Sinai, Jerusalem, Cyprus, The balkans, Africa and Dart in Sri Lanka. 

I would have to guess that the company you refer too, might have had some sort of bad timing, but as far as I can see, Companies Like General Motors have not stopped shipping cars south of the boarder, I still have Florida Orange Juice and Oranges in my fridge all this winter, and I can still open a bank account at the Bank of Nova Scotia strictly for US Funds.

So while there may be isolated accounts of what you describe as happening. I really fail to see how not sending troops to Iraq will have any sort of impact on our economy or trade with the US. 

As for China? Maybe they will surpass us as the USA's biggest trading partner. But just wait until Taiwan stop's being a part-time democracy and would rather have full time hours.

Edited for spelling Mr. Chretiens name worng. Sorry Jean...... :-[


----------



## PeterLT (27 Feb 2005)

Does Canada need a Military?

I know I am releasing the hounds by saying NO. 

Having said that, let me say that historically Canada has never found a need for a military force unless forced to have one. Every major conflict, whether at the call of the Empire, or responding to the international community has found Canada sitting in the corner on its thumb. And this state of being has seemed to have been the desire of Canadians since Confederation. Traditionally favour is gained from voters by supporting social programs at the cost of institutions that support our sovereignty. Canadians have repeatedly asserted that we are a touchy feely country in a state of nirvana with our sacred social programs that make us different from everyone else (USA). The belief is that this state of "Canirvana" will keep us sovereign by its mere existence. Successive Liberal governments have stayed in power almost uninterrupted over the past 50 years simply by fostering Canadian apathy. And that is probably what is most clearly the identifiable point that makes a Canadian. Some say that Canadians are "nice" or "polite" or "peacekeepers". No. Canadians are apethetic slugs that once sufficiently disturbed will do what they need to until the heat is off and they can go back to sleep in a "universal" and "multicultural" way. Here, have a tank and go away....

Such as it is, Canadians do not deserve the military they have. Except for a small number of folks who know better, the Canadian public will continue to be blissfully content with polls that say the Cdn Forces should be better supported. All the while sipping their Starbucks latte and secretly smug that we're under the cover of good ol'Uncle Sam. In effect, supporting the military while quietly suffocating it is simply the Canadian way (nothing personal, I just want my daycare and tax break).

I learned in my first few days in Cornwallis that a military force is a reflection of the country it serves. When I joined, there were 125000 people in the CF, when I retired we were just over 50k. As professional as we were, and those now serving still are, Canadian voters show time and again that they feel we don't really need a military force. A glorified civil defence force maybe. We insist, as Martin did the other day, that we are a sovereign country but we all know that in point of fact we are not, and that we fly our flag at the leasure of of our neighbour. If Canadians suddenly have a revelation or epiphany of sorts, perhaps we will have a military someday, somehow I doubt that, even with the fantasy budget recently announced. So does Canada need a Military? I and those in this Forum say yes. But Canadians really say, no.

Peter


----------



## SirLars (27 Feb 2005)

what an interesting thread...

Of COURSE Canada needs a military.

some points.

1.  While the US is mighty, Canadians would not roll over and become the 51st state, and the entire world would react.   besides... why fight, when they (our government) would roll over for whatever concessions the US wants with a little arm twisting.   Their "attack" would have to be of a non-military nature.. perhaps sanctions... If the US invaded, there would be 20 MILLION new "terrorists" for them to deal with... "terrorists" that look JUST like them but with touques and "terrorists" that live right next door.  Any nuke attack on us, would be a nuke attack on themselves... they are just too close.  The idea of a US invasion is kinda ridiculous right now.  Should they try to take over another ME country and run low on resources though.....  :-\

2.  Canadian nuclear weapons... that doesn't fit with the current political climate... and wouldn't that be a violation of the "no new nuke" world treaties?  (I'm not sure about that)

3.  Not going to Iraq DID hurt Canada in our cross-border relations, both political AND economical.  While the calls for sanctions were small, they WERE there, as is the growing resentment towards Canadians.  Now they want the missles, and the cows are crossing back (despite finding ANOTHER 'mad' one)1 ... 
Concerning the missles, the US WILL get mad and react if we say no...however, we can USE the 'possibility' of saying no to twist THEIR arm for some concessions.  They seem willing... so far. (re: mad cows)1

4.  Canada's natural resources are the envy of the world, they MUST be protected... they ARE our bargaining chip because we CANNOT (like the US) use our military to force/cajole OTHER nations to 'be our friends' or "do our bidding".  However, a supply of fresh water or oil can BUY them.    

I think the recent commitment 2 our idiot liberals have finally shown the military is a good step forward, and that it's not just a cost, but an INVESTMENT in Canada.  One that pays off in _political capital_ (I like that term  8) ), national pride and contributes to our sovereignity.  I truly hope they do not renegue on that deal.


5.  I really get tired of everyone saying "the US protects us"... protects us from WHAT? :threat:   THEY are arguably the greatest threat TO Canada.  Any protection of our nation we receive from the US is in their best interests only.



1 On Dec. 29, 2004, The USDA announced that it recognized Canada as a "minimal-risk region" for BSE and imports of young Canadian cattle would resume March 7, 2005.

The new classification means the U.S. will not again close its borders to Canadian beef unless there are two or more cases of BSE per one million cattle older than 24 months of age in each of four consecutive years. Simply put, Canada can have up to 11 cases of BSE and still be considered a safe country for cattle exports.

The move came less than a month after U.S. President George W. Bush made his first official visit to Canada and said the process for reopening the border was underway. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/madcow/index.html


 2Budget offers tax cuts, billions for military, environment, child care

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/cpress/20050223/ca_pr_on_na/fedbudget


----------



## Rick_Donald (27 Feb 2005)

As I said earlier in the thread I know we need an army. Both for our sovereignty and to extend our values and foreign policies beyond our borders. But we should also consider another reason for a stronger Canadian Army. Millions of Canadians as well as people all around the free world have given billions of dollars in aid to organizations like UNICEF, Red Cross,etc. Does it not make sense to protect those investments with an international force to ensure that the aid gets where it belongs and not into the hands of some despot. We're sending our relief workers in naked to various countries all around the world to help sick and starving people. Would this reason alone not be altruistic enough for the Canadian people. Not to mention it's their own money that this security force would be defending.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (27 Feb 2005)

Rick,

I agree with that. To have the financial clout to donate x amount of dollars to relief organizations around the world, or to support your own relief organization that goes abroad to render assistance, you think that you should have a military force strong enough to ensure that relief is given to those who need it most and not into the hands of some thugs. But, that sort of protection can get you into some sticky situations. While not a humanitarian effort, or relief effort, Look at Rwanda. Canadian general Roméo Dallaire was with an International Peacekeeping force of 2600 troops to prevent further bloodshed in a civil war, and help sstabilizethe region, the UN turned their back, he gets left with 800 troops after the killing starts and then over 800 000 people are slaughtered. 

Canada very much needs a military to project Canada's foreign policy abroad, to protect Canadian interests abroad, For Increased National security against International Terrorism, and to meet our on-going commitments to NATO and the UN.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2005)

> I would hate to think that a company has put a freeze on relations with it's branch in Manitoba based solely on the Chretien Government decision to avoid military involvement in Iraq.


he

Stirling N6123:

Unfortunately companies are made up of people, individuals with opinions, and while company policy may be unaffected, the individual who makes the decision to purchase a box of staples may be less inclined to buy the box with the maple leaf on it if there is only a nickel's difference.

Yes, these types of decisions by the politicians affect Canada and us.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (27 Feb 2005)

This isn't even a question, every nation needs an armed forces for a myriad of reasons. I qoute one General Eisenhower (to ensure peace you must prepare for war) enough said.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Feb 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> This isn't even a question, every nation needs an armed forces for a myriad of reasons. I qoute one General Eisenhower (to ensure peace you must prepare for war) enough said.



Actually, Eisenhower said: _"Let him who desires peace prepare for war."_

More than two thousand years earlier Aristotle said: _"We make war that we may live in peace."_


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Feb 2005)

Sorry, but PeterLT has just about summed it up for me   :-\

In 100 years, Canadian politicians have turned Canada into a giant, beautiful, friendly banana republic. I love her traditions, the heritage, (most of) the people - but the politicians, feeding off of apathy, patronage, and socialism - have managed to turn the populace into self-absorbed sheep.

Sorry  :-[


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (27 Feb 2005)

The point remains the same, there will always be those willing to kill you and yours in order to take from you what is rightfully yours and to make you believe what they do.


----------



## pbi (28 Feb 2005)

> I would hate to think that a company has put a freeze on relations with it's branch in Manitoba based solely on the Chretien Government decision to avoid military involvement in Iraq.



Well, as hard as it may be to believe this, that is the way it has been explained to me by a very trustworthy individual. Unfortunaetly, I am not about to identify either the firm (it is quite large and well known...) nor the individual, so I guess we're at a draw on this one.

With respect to your enumeration of our various committments under the UN, etc, I understand that these are nominally part of the GWOT. Unfortunately, IMHO (but backed up by some recent experience...) these committments are not even on the screen of most people in the US military(less those who actually work with us...)or their government and are probably utterly invisble to the US public. The only way, IMHO, that we could gain visibiilty for ourselves as a "player" would be to take a role in Iraq (a political non-starter now, and anyway sadly after the fact...) or to assume, quickly, a much bigger role in OEF as opposed to ISAF.(We are finally taking steps in that direction, but again IMHO quite late to need.) 

The US, IMHO, appreciate and respect those who stand beside them and share the same risks they face. Unless we do that, we will remain in the shadows as far as the US is concerned. I can only imagine the impact that this recent ill-considered flip-floppery over BMD will have on this matter: probably not a very good one. Perhaps our govt will one day learn that continental defence policy is too important to make based on opinion polls of an ill-informed pubilc that has not benefitted from any meaningful education or debate on the issue, but instead expresses its opinion based, I suggest, to a great extent on misinformed, knee-jerk anti-Americanism. How many of our electorate actually have the faintest idea about BMD? Why was no meaningful attempt ever made to educate the public about it, as an issue for national debate. Once again, we raise questions in US minds about our reliability and relevance: not a good course of action, and one that I very much doubt is offset by the committments you listed.

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Why was no meaningful attempt ever made to educate the public about it, as an issue for national debate.



Name one time in recent memory that Canadians have an opportunity to be "educated" by the government on any issue in National Defence. I don't believe there is a succesful precedent for such a procedure - one would have to resort to analogies such as the 1988 FTA election or the Charlottetown Accord for examples of the government making an effort to educate and consult. Neither one of those examples is a good precedent if you're a liberal or attempting to sell Canadians on the importance of appeasing liberal interests situate in Quebec by further disemboweling the Canadian Armed Forces. 

Frankly, I think it's high time the US put it's foot down with Canada and enforced the "with us or against us" doctrine. In a flash, a critical mass of sensible Canadians would waste little time in deciding that special interest appeasement is clearly not the proper basis upon which to base foreign and defence policy. And BTW, the day when the US throws down the glove is probably closer now than at any time since Confederation. Cheers.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (28 Feb 2005)

pbi,

I will not disagree with any of that. And I am sure there are those who would argue that we are contributing allot, and then there are those who say we can do more. And at what cost? While I do not think the loss of a companies ability to sell staples to a US company will lead to our economic demise, It could have implications for those it does hurt, based on a government decision not to send in troops to a hotspot.

But as the original question asks, Do we need a military? Yes. We can all agree on that. But take the question a step further. What do we need that military for? That is the question that can lead to on-going debates that I am sure, will outlive this website.

If our military is to be used as an instrument of self defense, should we care whether or not the Americans ask for our assistance overseas in a place such as Iraq? And in turn have complete disregard for the billions of dollars of trade we conduct with the US on a yearly basis? We as a nation have practically shouted, election after election that we can do with a small, less equipped military. We have put our social programs, health care and other social issues on the front burner while military, and defence spending has taken to the backburner, for more years than I would like to admit. Only in the last election has the government addressed the need for better maritime choppers, and now, in the last budget, an increase in defence spending and troop increase. Does this mean that now, we are starting to feel the economic pinch of US companies reducing trade with it's Canadian partners?

Now, if our military is to be used as an instrument to project Canadian foreign policy abroad, do we run the risk of loosing our peacekeeping identity? If I am correct, I think we have only done that twice since WWII. The Gulf War, and Afghanistan. Everything else has been under the UN. Would the economic spinoffs from sending troops to Iraq outweigh our own identity as a nation of Peacekeepers? If we send troops somewhere, it should be in our own best interest, decided upon by our elected government and appointed generals. Not because we are requested by the US government, knowing full well there are hidden strings attached. Congressmen know that American companies doing business with Canadian companies are run my middleaged businessmen who served in Vietnam and currently have their sons and daughters serving in Iraq, so I would agree that yes, it can have implications for our trade and economic health should we decide to not send troops.

But, I cannot speak for the average Canadian solider. I have only ever been a reservist. But my feeling would be, that if I was sent to a hell hole like Iraq, just so we can keep our cross boarder trade going with the USA, I would be a little ticked off.


----------



## pbi (1 Mar 2005)

> Now, if our military is to be used as an instrument to project Canadian foreign policy abroad, do we run the risk of loosing our peacekeeping identity?



I am not sure what you mean by "peacekeeping identity".



> If I am correct, I think we have only done that twice since WWII. The Gulf War, and Afghanistan. Everything else has been under the UN.



Well, it depends again on what you are referring to by "peacekeeping": Korea and Kosovo were both under the auspices of the UN, but both involved Canadians in combat operations: in Korea, conducted primarily by the Army, and in Kosovo mainly by the Air Force. Would you call those "peacekeeping" operations?



> If we send troops somewhere, it should be in our own best interest, decided upon by our elected government and appointed generals



I agree, but I suspect that you and I might not define "best interests" in the same way.



> Not because we are requested by the US government, knowing full well there are hidden strings attached.



And why not because we are requested by the US? Does the UN represent some morally superior entity? I wonder that it does, given some of its disgracefully inept and failed missions,as well as its egregiously corrupt administrators. I wonder if there is any proof that classic UN Chapter Six peacekeeping has ever been shown to actually have prevented or resolved a conflict, or if it was really just window dressing for other more powerful factors at work.



> But my feeling would be, that if I was sent to a hell hole like Iraq, just so we can keep our cross boarder trade going with the USA, I would be a little ticked off.



Actually there was a much higher level of enthusiasm for the idea in the military than one might think. However, setting that aside, I would not be quite so cheap and narrow-minded as to suggest that we should be sent off to die to ensure good trade relations with the US. I do not think that at this point in my life I hold my fellow soldiers in such low regard that I would offer them (and perhaps myself...) up for sacrifice on that narrow basis. However, economic security IS a time-honoured reason for going to war: let's not forget that. As well, we must remain fully alert to the fact that we can only twist the US tail so far before we will inevitably feel some consequences: any decision to be a less than reliable friend and ally must be taken in full view of that fact, instead of in a smug, ostrich stance in which we shove our collective hands in our pockets and shrug: "it's their problem".

Cheers.


----------



## canadianblue (1 Mar 2005)

> ...then again didn't wargames experts figure out that it would take the US a mere thirty-six hours if it used all available forces to completely rout any armed response and occupy the whole country?  Highly unlikely that it would ever happen that way, though.



I would have a whole lot more hope that Canada would be able to hold out longer then that. In our nations history we have always been the underdogs, in the revolutionary war the American's had a superior fighting force, yet we still beat them. The same thing happened in the war of 1812. Remember Vietnam, that war lasted for what 10 years while America was over their. If people are fighting for their lives, and motivated enough, then a country can hold out really long. Especially if Guerilla warfare is used. 

Don't want to start an argument, but just because a country has a superior force, doesn't necessarily mean absolute victory.


----------



## buzgo (1 Mar 2005)

Just look at Iraq...

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! ?!??!?!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I would have a whole lot more hope that Canada would be able to hold out longer then that. In our nations history we have always been the underdogs, in the revolutionary war the American's had a superior fighting force, yet we still beat them. The same thing happened in the war of 1812. Remember Vietnam, that war lasted for what 10 years while America was over their. If people are fighting for their lives, and motivated enough, then a country can hold out really long. Especially if Guerilla warfare is used.
> 
> Don't want to start an argument, but just because a country has a superior force, doesn't necessarily mean absolute victory.



I suppose if one were to believe in Conspiracy Theories, one could look at the Gun Registry as an American plot to 'disarm' Canadians and thus avert the opportunity of guerrilla cells rising up to defend Canada in that event.   Canada's population is even more dispersed today and less likely to bear arms in their defence.   The majority of Canadians are to apathetic and anti-military to offer up much in a way of a capable, or even ineffective, guerrilla force.

Canadians must realize that the Military is an organization like the Police, Fire, Ambulance, Medical, and other Rescue Services that keep this nation from slipping into chaos and 3rd World Status.   These organizations must all train for worse case scenarios and constantly upgrade their equipment and training.   It is a complete package and no one service can be sacrificed without having an affect on the country.   Not to be Racist, but I look at some of our problem of the populace's dislike or apathy towards the military as being a result of the immigrants and refugees who have come to this country in the last twenty to thirty years, from countries with less than stellar militaries or dictatorships.   They naturally associate all militaries in the same light.   They have come here to escape tyranny and maintain their dislikes of anything resembling in any way what they have fled from.   The Liberal Government gave them refuge, and so they further reward that Government, leading further to our problems.   
[Edit 1 Mar 05 1730 hrs:   Coupled with the Liberal Left populations in our major metropolitan areas the problem is doubled.]

GW


----------



## 48Highlander (1 Mar 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Just look at Iraq...
> 
> MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! ?!??!?!



Ugh.  Stick to sigs and leave tactics to the infantry, ok?


----------



## pipesnake (1 Mar 2005)

For those of you that still think our lack of participation in military matters does not affect trade, diplomacy, international relations, etc.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109684680365_15?hub=topstories


----------



## canadianblue (1 Mar 2005)

I agree with you GW on the point about how the populace views the military. It seems to me that alot of people are ignorant when it comes to the military. However I still think if their were to be an invasion Canada would be able to fight it off. Their are still a large segment of the population that would have the will, and would find some way to find arms in order to resist any invasion. The invasion of Finland in 1940 comes to mind, the USSR suffered terrible losses due to the resistance put up in that country. As well as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, the people were able to use the enemy's weapons to help fight the enemy.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2005)

Futuretrooper

I am not so sure on that.  The socio and economic face of Canada has changed a lot since those days.  I am pessimistic as to whether or not Canadians would truly rally around the flag, especially seeing as many don't rally around it today.  Yes, I do believe we still would have 'Die Hard Canadians' that may fight a guerrilla war, but their numbers would be too few to effectively prevent capitulation.  They would probably be sought out and captured by Police Forces, rather than Armed Forces.  It may even be a "Bloodless Annexation".

GW


----------



## Wizard of OZ (1 Mar 2005)

I hate to say it but GW might be right.  We are so inundated with the American Culture that i think most people would think what took them so long.  I know some cultures the Natives and French Canadians may offer up more then token resistance but i don't think it would last long.  This is not Iraq or an area with a lot of weapons just lying around in caches around the country.  They know our weakness and or strenghts i don't think it would take more then a month or two at most for 80-90 percent of the country to be pacified.  I cannot believe i just said that but i had to be honest.  We A value life way more then other cultures.  And B our ways of life are not that different then America.

Hey maybe this way TO could get an NFL team.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2005)

> economic security IS a time-honoured reason for going to war



The above from pbi.

Some people argue, at base, that all wars are the result of competing interests trying to achieve economic security.  Whether it be food in your mouth or a squabble over the rum trade.


----------



## pbi (1 Mar 2005)

Thanks, Kirkhill. Before we righteously trash "economic security" as being an unsuitable reason for going to war, think about the average Canadian (or US...) city in February with no oil, no food, and no jobs. The outcome of economic collapse can be political upheaval, so I do not think that we should automatically say that "fighting for oil"(as an example)  is wrong from the get-go.

Cheers


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (1 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Futuretrooper
> 
> I am not so sure on that.   The socio and economic face of Canada has changed a lot since those days.   I am pessimistic as to whether or not Canadians would truly rally around the flag, especially seeing as many don't rally around it today.   Yes, I do believe we still would have 'Die Hard Canadians' that may fight a guerrilla war, but their numbers would be too few to effectively prevent capitulation.   They would probably be sought out and captured by Police Forces, rather than Armed Forces.   It may even be a "Bloodless Annexation".
> 
> ...


----------



## Zipper (1 Mar 2005)

Sheesh...

There are just way to many scary people around these days.

Someone has been thinking about "survival" a wee bit to long me thinks.


----------



## canadianblue (2 Mar 2005)

Unfortunately it is true that most Canadian's would'nt fight for this country. I believe on poll showed that only 35% of Canadian's would fight for this countries survival, compared to 89% for the United States.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

It is a sad day for those of us who do fight for our country (if those stats are true).


----------



## PeterLT (2 Mar 2005)

> We are so inundated with the American Culture that i think most people would think what took them so long.



Here's another slant on things. Now bear in mind that I am by no means unique in this respect. My sister is an American as she was born there when my Dad worked in the US. My brother is a Canadian married to an American and his kids are all Americans, one of which is in pilot training with the USAF. I have several relatives serving with the US Navy. I went to elementary school and junior high in Syracuse, NY, did a career in the Canadian Army and my son is in the midst of applying for the Canadian Forces. There are many Canadian families that are deeply intertwined with American families. That has been an inescapable fact of life when we have (had) the longest undefended border in the world. Any invasion of Canada would be perilous from that point of view, bringing up questions of fidelity on both sides. Besides, as I've tried to illustrate, we are in very many cases, connected by blood which makes for the best type of ally.

It's not an easy question from any aspect but to drive wedges between the two countries is at best stupid. Just my two bits.... 


Peter


----------



## buzgo (2 Mar 2005)

This is nothing new either:

During the war of 1812, the northern states continued trading with Canada and Britain, and were against the war.  There were also recent immigrants from the US in Canada that felt much the same, however Issac Brock was able to rally them to the cause in the end. 

Now look at the recent presidential election, most of the New England states voted democrat, and many of their citizens have stated that they feel that they have more in common with Canada than with the rest of the USA. I have friends in New York that are pretty much indistinguishable from Canadians (they are well educated, maybe this makes a diff?) and could easily fit in with our culture (which is different!)

Like PeterLT says, things are far too complex to make suppositions about what would happen.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

Do you think blood would win out over greed?

I am not saying this would happen in 10 or even 20 yrs but think 50 or even 70 yrs down the road.  Who would still maintain a large resource base,  the US or Canada.  In the last 50 yrs we have become so dependent on the US for all things from jobs (markets for our goods) to development of our own resources.  

I think in the end greed would win over blood. It would be sorta like a civil war.

MOO


----------



## buzgo (2 Mar 2005)

Oh, I still think that the US is going to invade us at some point. Maybe if we ever ended up with an NDP federal government (?) or resisted attempts to get us to export our water supplies - who knows... 

Maybe it would be more like a civil war, weren't there people in Vermont talking about seceeding to Canada as a state?

I agree with mainerjohntomas too, I think that the average Canadian would resist - maybe not right away, but eventually.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

Maybe it would be more like a civil war, weren't there people in Vermont talking about seceeding to Canada as a state?

True but how many times has Que, AB and even BC said they were thinking of leaving Canada?

( i would sell them Quebec)  Just kidding (Maybe)


----------



## oyaguy (2 Mar 2005)

As long as Canada and the US are democracies {liberal democracies at that} The United States Will Never Invade Canada.
Period. Just a statistical, historical fact. Mature democracies don't make war on each other. 
Besides, guess what people, Canada is a much more powerful country than we give ourselves credit for. 

For example, Saddam Hussein, till 2003, was trying off and on, to get nuclear weapons. If Paul Martin, said tomorrow, that Canada would obtain Nuclear weapons, given a few years, we would have them. A few years after that we would have the delivery system for nuclear weapons. All of this without having to buy or steal the technical know how, or materials to make nuclear weapons. 

The question then being, how many Americans is each Canadian worth? Does 1 Canada equal, say, A Chicago? A Los Angeles? A New York? A Washington D.C.? A Houston? A Seattle? A San Francisco? 1 million Americans? 2? 3? 10? 20? 30? 50? 100?

If relations between the U.S. and Canada soured to the point of overt hostility, Canada could only guarantee our sovereignty through nuclear weapons. Whatever the US think, their Ballistic Missile Defence system won't protect them from Canadian-made nuclear weapons.

Of course in this scenario, Canada is reduced to a parking lot, the US loses 10s, if not 100s, of millions, of citizens, and a good many of their major cites are reduced to rubble and whatever semblance of being a super power the US has, would be irrevocably broken. Throw in the dust kicked up by all the nuclear explosions, and a Canadian-US war, could shake civilization down to its foundation due to a nuclear winter. Depends on how many nuclear devices are used.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Mar 2005)

oyaguy

There is a major fault with your scenario.  You and so many of Canada's "Intellectuals" have the opinion that in time of crisis or conflict, our Nation will be able to produce weapons and materials to go to war with.  As we have sold off most of our Industrial capabilities under NAFTA and other Corporate deals, we would not.  Yes, we do have the technology to develop any weapon system imaginable, however, we do not have the Industry to produce them.  Also, in the socio-economic society of Canada today, we would not be able to produce such weapons SECRETLY.  The impressions of so many today, that we can produce any weapons we need for war at the "Snap of Our Fingers" in the next conflict are a truly a work of Fiction.  By the time that we even began to think of building weapons, the war would already be over.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

You 1) are assuming Canadian citizens would support and pay for a nuclear developmet program.

          2) are assuming that should relations sour think that we would be able to detect the first strike          capability of the US.


Both of which i think are dead WRONG.

We would lose our postion in NORAD and more then likely NATO.   We would be reduced to no moreinfo then we could detect on our own.   Which as it stands now is not whole heck of alot.


Really Mature democracies don't make war on each other?   Define this please, Germany was a democracy when Hitler and   his party were elected.   And he i think might have started a war yea that was it he started a war what was it called ohh yea World War II.


----------



## canadianblue (2 Mar 2005)

Well, the world is growing. I don't really fear much of a threat from the United States. The nation that I fear most is China, they are growing exponentially, and will eventaully need more resources. Now who do you all think they will invade in the future if they require resources. Probably Siberia, and I could see a war over that part of the world. Even though China has better relations with the west then ever before, I do percieve them as a threat. In any such a war as that, I think that most of the western world would declare war on China. However their are alot of aspects that could effect any future war

What role will technology play, I heard that the US is starting to experiment with robots that can fire at the enemy, allowing the soldier to stay off the battlefield. What about nuclear weapons, and what will happen if eventually are resources dwindle down.

I might be a bit of a survivalist, but I just am interested in seeing what future conflicts could possibly happen.


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Really Mature democracies don't make war on each other?   Define this please, Germany was a democracy when Hitler and   his party were elected.   And he i think might have started a war yea that was it he started a war what was it called ohh yea World War II.



Germany was NOT a democracy when it invaded Poland. Full stop. 

Yes, Germany was a democratic state when Hitler came to power, but it was also crippled by the Depression and reparations payments. Their economic situation was completely dissabling, leading to great political instability. That will not happen in the US.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Mar 2005)

China is the new EMPIRE.

Go to the store, any store, and look at the labels.  "Made in China" is on everything.  More Industry is now moving into China than you can shake a stick at.  Chinese Business currently travel the world looking for new resources and markets.  Chinese are buying up Canadian Resource companies.  Will military forces be necessary?  I look at our economy and said years ago that the Americans had already invaded and bought us out.  I look at the Far East now in the same way.  High Tech companies are springing up all over China and India.  Soon we will become "Cottage Country" and only have our Tourist Industry to keep our economy going.

We will loss the Economic War soon; if we haven't already.

GW


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

But it did elect the leader that sent them to war.  Correct.  Just as some other nations did.

elections put a person into power it is still up to the people to maintain the checks and balances on that power.

but it was also crippled by the Depression and reparations payments. Their economic situation was completely dissabling, leading to great political instability. That will not happen in the US.

Really you don't think that could happen they have trillions of dollars in national debt.  They are losing their manufatruing sector to China and other Asian nations.  HMMM i think it could very well happen if it is not already.


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

I don't have the stats in front of me, but the economic situation in Germany, with regards to the Depression and the reparations payments, was really severe. They were paying billions a year to France that they didn't have, and the Depression hit them harder than any other country. You can't compare the US's current debt/deficit to that of Germany in the 30's. They're not in the same ball park, they're not even on the same planet. 

Perhaps a_Majoor, Kirkhill, Brad Sallows, or Infanteer can comment on the political situation of Germany at that time. I just don't have the material either at my fingertips nor is it committed to memory. But my understanding is that it was this severe crippling of the depression and the Treaty of Versailles that allowed a leader to gain popularity. This was due to his willingness to thumb his nose at those outside Germany, all the while stoking the fires of Nationalism that had been quelled by years of 'shame' over the defeat at the hands of the Allies. 

On their own, the Depression or the Reparations payments would (and did) cripple almost any economy of the day. Together, their damage was so severe that had WW2 not happened, and had the Reparations payments not been adjusted, today Germany would still be paying very dearly. The reparations payments were established as a PUNITIVE measure, without regard to Germany's actual ability to pay them.

Further, the US has a political system that would make it difficult, if not impossible, to create a dictatorship.

As my college History prof said to me, and I love it's simplicity: "Economic instability creates political instability. Economic stability creates political stability." The US's economy is nowhere near the instability required to thrust it into a dictatorship.


----------



## Acorn (2 Mar 2005)

Add to that the Hitler created his power base through hate and intimidation, and then used that same intimidation to seize power (his "election" is somewhat more questionable than the famous 2000 "hanging chad" nonsense).

There was nothing particularly democratic about Germany in the 'tween war years, let alone "mature democracy."

Acorn


----------



## old medic (2 Mar 2005)

There are many good books on the Weimar Republic and Germany's troubles after 1918.

A good one is: The Weimar Republic Through the Lens of the Press, 
Eye Witness Accounts 1918-1933 In Press Photos and Photo Essays
by Torsten Palmer and Hendrik Neubauer
2000 Konemann Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
ISBN 3-8290-2697-8  for the english translation

I leave out the details as that's more suited for a history thread, and just say it's a good read.


----------



## PeterLT (3 Mar 2005)

I was just reading over all the posts must say that it's one heck of a ride!   It's evolved from a simple question to socio-historical commentary with a minimum of bloodshed. Bravo folks! ;D

Peter


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (3 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Further, the US has a political system that would make it difficult, if not impossible, to create a dictatorship.
> 
> As my college History prof said to me, and I love it's simplicity: "Economic instability creates political instability. Economic stability creates political stability." The US's economy is nowhere near the instability required to thrust it into a dictatorship.


     The problem with a comparison between the German Weimar republic and our position with the US, is the rationale for war is totally different.  Germany went to war against their equals for revenge, and to secure the resources stripped away by the unjust treaty Versai.  The US would look at annexation of Canada much like they looked at intervention in Mexico just before WWI during the civil war, after the Mexicans failed to control Pancho Villa.  To the US, it is not so much an invasion, as a restoration of stability on their borders.  They got their hand slapped pretty hard when they intervened in Mexico (surprise!), just as they have here when they tried it.  The motivation is still there, a combination of fears of security, and a little manifest destiny, leave the risk of the US invading to put our house in order if they feel we cannot.  If we do not have an army to suppress locally derived security issues (IE transborder disputes like Oka, separatist uprisings, or home grown terrorist operations) to their satisfaction, we may find they use their army to do it, and are unlikely to leave afterwards.


----------



## buzgo (3 Mar 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> Well, the world is growing. I don't really fear much of a threat from the United States. The nation that I fear most is China, they are growing exponentially, and will eventaully need more resources. Now who do you all think they will invade in the future if they require resources. Probably Siberia, and I could see a war over that part of the world. Even though China has better relations with the west then ever before, I do percieve them as a threat. In any such a war as that, I think that most of the western world would declare war on China. However their are alot of aspects that could effect any future war
> 
> What role will technology play, I heard that the US is starting to experiment with robots that can fire at the enemy, allowing the soldier to stay off the battlefield. What about nuclear weapons, and what will happen if eventually are resources dwindle down.
> 
> I might be a bit of a survivalist, but I just am interested in seeing what future conflicts could possibly happen.



-- I read that Tom Clancy book too, he was right about using passenger jets as guided missiles....

I believe that China is now the largest owner of us Treasury holdings. Nations worldwide are losing confidence in the US dollar, including China, Japan and South Korea. They are starting to talk about pegging their currencies against something other than US $$. This has already damaged the Dow and other markets and has shaken confidence in the US economy.

The US has set themselves up for a major economic catastrophe, what are they going to do when their credit runs out? 

As for China, they are going to be the 'next' superpower (if they aren't already) maybe they will do things differently... Who knows? Its hard to argue with the country that produces the majority of your consumer goods.


----------



## Blue Max (3 Mar 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> The problem with a comparison between the German Weimar republic and our position with the US, is the rationale for war is totally different.   Germany went to war against their equals for revenge, and to secure the resources stripped away by the unjust treaty Versai.   The US would look at annexation of Canada much like they looked at intervention in Mexico just before WWI during the civil war, after the Mexicans failed to control Pancho Villa.   To the US, it is not so much an invasion, as a restoration of stability on their borders.   They got their hand slapped pretty hard when they intervened in Mexico (surprise!), just as they have here when they tried it.   The motivation is still there, a combination of fears of security, and a little manifest destiny, leave the risk of the US invading to put our house in order if they feel we cannot.   If we do not have an army to suppress locally derived security issues (IE transborder disputes like Oka, separatist uprisings, or home grown terrorist operations) to their satisfaction, we may find they use their army to do it, and are unlikely to leave afterwards.



I find myself agreeing with your outlook, as one possible scenario for the future.

B M.


----------



## pbi (3 Mar 2005)

As a side note, if you're interested in a capsule history of the political and military situation in Germany between the end of WWI and just prior to the accession of Hitler and the Nazis, check out our Bde web site Prof. Dev page at:





> http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/38cbg_hq/Headquarters/Command/professional_development/mod1_jan03.htm



Cheers


----------



## big bad john (3 Mar 2005)

Very nice indeed.  I find that on line education is some what lacking in the Canadian Army Reserves, so this is nice to see.  But that is just my impression.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (3 Mar 2005)

Geeez, A guy or gal really has to check the boards daily. I take a few days off work sick, and I had to recheck to make sure I was on the same topic. I have to now go back and reread 2 days woth of post's. So much work, so little time. :crybaby:


----------



## Cpl.Banks (3 Mar 2005)

Are we really facing a threat from China?? I dont really think so, we have always had pretty good relations with China, especially in the last few decades. Take for example Trudeau, one of the first Western diplomats to visit the eastern world. Even though China is stealing our technological industry, and buying up our industrie. We will be left like somebody put so well  "cottage country". But, even though their population is HUGE they still dont have the same technological advances as us. Their military though it is gargantuan still cant compare to the U.S`s. They have about the same number of personel(China might have a few tens of thousands  extra troops lying around but they are much less well trained and less well equiped, and i belive China has conscription? than the U.S`s army. So I think the Western powers are here to stay and NATO will stay strong...but eventually Aisia will overcome due to the fact of just plain numbers.
UBIQUE!!!!


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2005)

Make your own judgement.  Here are some sites on the Chinese Armed Forces:

http://www.chinatoday.com/arm/    2.5 Million man Army.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/default.asp

http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/handbook.html

http://www.rense.com/general21/jiangaskschina.htm  China's Army to prepare for Military Struggle


----------



## Smarty (3 Mar 2005)

Why is eveyone so afraid of china?  Its china, has anyone ever been to China?  Personally speaking Chinese people are generally very peaceful.  Chinese youth are smart and well educated.  Although they suffer from overpopulation, err.. just gonna have to dig deeper i guess..  

Our media portrays China as some bubble thats gonna BURST and get crap all over the place, but being there personally i can say that would be hard to imagine.  

All the paratroopers would be gettin stuck on the buildings in Bejing, man that would be HARSH, Ak47s spraying up and ur parachute is stuck, DAMN!


----------



## Smarty (3 Mar 2005)

OH MAN.

FORGOT TO SAY

ARGH!!!


----------



## Zipper (3 Mar 2005)

I do not think that we are "afraid" of China. Although with their military might, I would be. It is the fact that they are one of the countries that would prove the most unstable to world peace due in part to their growing ambitions as well as their recent history (last 50 or so years). It could just as well be a blow up of major porportions between India and Pakastan, N. Korea and anyone within striking distance, China and Russia, Iran and the US, etc.

It doesn't really matter who it is. Just that history says that war is something that happens on a regular basis, and it happens BIG every 20-100 years or so. 

So be prepared.

Which we are not.

And thus that and many other reason why we NEED a strong military.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (3 Mar 2005)

I saw the sites you told me to visit, the PLA's site was interesting, did you happen to look at it, I did and I can tell you I am not impressed,I do not think that China would be able to compete with say the US, for several reasons, first would be their equipment is older than ours!!!!! they field aprox 10 000 tanks right, but what they also say is that 5     500 of them are :The Type 59 main battle tank is a Chinese licensed production version of the Soviet T-54A. Thats 1958!!!!!!!! More than half of their tanks are obcelete!Not to mention 3000 Type 69/79 Main Battle Tanks...once again a Carl G could take that out(or at least disable it!!!!) These are old Begging cold war Russian clones! Their newest tank is too expensive for them to buy in large numbers and I quote: "a small number (few hundred) of the Type 98s will be equipped by few 'core units' in the Army." Even these tanks are out dated compared to MI's. This is only their tank force,They have virtually no IFV's or APC's, and the ones they have are outtdated AGAIN *who knew?* THey are develloping new IFV's but they are based on BMP-3 (Russian again!!!!) and those admitadly are pretty cool, a 100mm smoothbore cannon with a 30mm stablised gun, I dont they will get that mnay of those though. Their APC's are the kind we used in Korea! All in all their ARMY is a rather large one but poorly trained and not that well equiped, Tanks from the fifty's? I dont think they will be a threat, if they get more funding and train better they might be able to challenge the US but definatly not NATO, no way no how.
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Acorn (3 Mar 2005)

People should, perhaps, stick with what they know.  :

Acorn


----------



## pbi (3 Mar 2005)

> Why is eveyone so afraid of china?



Dunno: ask the Indians, Japanese, Taiwanese, Koreans and Australians what they think about the future of China in their part of the world. You might get a different perspective from folks who live within striking distance of China, some of whom have exchanged shots with the Chinese in living memory.

Cheers


----------



## Cpl.Banks (3 Mar 2005)

Acorn, I have gotten all of my info from the PLA's defence site, though I am only a cadet and I cannot hope to grasp then entire concept I do belive that my information is correct or at least not incorrect(maybe slightly flawed) but the numbers dont lie. And further more i have quoted from their site! If you dont likeit see the PLA's site and talk to me after. No offence intended, its just that I dont post things without being somewhat sure of what im saying.
UBIQUE!!!


----------



## Acorn (3 Mar 2005)

Fair enough Banks. "If it's on the internet it must be true." I would suggest branching beyond the PLA's website and looking at a more critical examination of...ahhh, why do I bother. 

Bottom line me son, I do this for a living, and you need a bit more seasoning and training to be able to make any sort of assessment. I would suggest that you should, before making any assessment, consider posing your posts as questions (i.e. "the PLA website says X. Is this credible?") rather than posting comments about how "cool" certain bits of kit might be. 

Just a friendly suggestion.

Acorn


----------



## oyaguy (4 Mar 2005)

Wow, gone two days and now I need to post some rebuttals.

to Mr. Wizard of Oz.

Relations between Canada and the US are not going to implode and on the same day the Ten Mountain crosses the border. It will take years. This of course, assumes it happens at all in such a catastrophic manner.

For your first point, Canadians are generally a smart bunch of people. If they did the math, there is no way any amount of conventional forces that would deter the US could be procured without crippling the Canadian economy. Therefore, nuclear weapons is the way. As for cost, if North Korea, with their GDP of $29.58 Billion, Purchasing Power Parity, can get a hold of nuclear weapons, Canada with it's $958.7 Billlion PPP, I think can handle the challenge. Hell, Calgary, my home town, probably has a bigger economic foot print than North Korea.

As for the "mature democracy", I believe Caesar and few others have made good points on it. The key word in my statement was _mature_. The Weimar Republic was not a _mature_ democracy. Germany at the time had no tradition of democracy, especially with a demagogue like Hitler deliberately used the mechanisms of the Weimar Republic in order to usurp it. My definition of Mature Democracy is a country that has universal adult sufferage, along with a constitution, whether written or unwritten, and a Per Capita GDP of $20,000. Once a democracy hits that Per Capita GDP mark,  its practically immortal. The point about the constitution, I should add a is constitution that matters, not just fig leaf parchment. The Rule of Law, Independent Judiciary, etc...

Anyway, the point about I'm trying to make, with my whole nuclear weapons is the only mean with which Canadians could develop to deter the US, is when we say we need a military, we shouldn't be jumping at these figments in our imaginations. We should worry about the real threats to Canadian sovereignty, not the imaginary Bogey man in the closet.


----------



## arty4life392 (4 Mar 2005)

In Respone to Faders view about the army and pride, I couldn't agree more i am just a Bdr with the artillery and have only been in for a few years, however i feel that this is the best job in the world.   And to respond to the Mig's comment, Canada needs an army so that basic freedoms can be ensured. You know the basic freedom that allows you to ask such an asinine question like does Canada need a Military? 

Pride is not fighting for your country but to be fearless in dying for your country


----------



## pbi (4 Mar 2005)

> You know the basic freedom that allows you to ask such an asinine question like does Canada need a Military?



I think I understand what you're driving at, but I would not be so quick to call this an asinine question. In fact, to me it is a bit like religious faith: the adherents have it, but often never permit it to be challenged or questioned. Thus, they are incapable of developing arguments to defend or explain their faith. The result of that is that non-believers take them to the intellectual cleaners and make mincemeat out of them. (Hmmmm-two metaphors in one sentence: OK-Mike-what do I win???).


We, the "believers" are in the same boat if we do not put our beliefs up on the intellectual hoist every now and then nd take a flashlight to them. We need to ask ourselves these questions, then go through the exercise of answering them, and bouncing our answers off each other. If we don't ask these questions, you can be very sure that the "non-believers" will.


To me, debate is what Army.ca is all about

Cheers.


----------



## arty4life392 (4 Mar 2005)

Fair enough 


Pride is not fighting for your country but to be fearless in dying for your country


----------



## Wizard of OZ (4 Mar 2005)

oyaguy

I never said that we could not afford them financially.  I said the public would never support financing them.  Yes NK does have them.  But they lack big money takers like health care, welfare, daycare, pension plans, all things that eat up our budget quicker then the purchase of some lonely nuc.  

As for Germany they were a deomocratic state before Hitler took over, not after, He made the changes, and then decided on "living space".  I think they would have met your criteria before and even during his election.


----------



## Blue Max (4 Mar 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Wow, gone two days and now I need to post some rebuttals.
> 
> to Mr. Wizard of Oz.
> 
> ...



OYAGUY, I am not sure what you are trying to get at saying only nuclear weapons will deter the US. Are you making a case for Kim Jung Il?
Canada is part of NATO so that responsible democratic states can have a mutual defence pact without bankrupting our economies. We do not need nuclear weapons, maybe BMD but not nuclear weapons.

The real threat to Canadian sovereignty is ourselves if we fail in our duties to live up to our mutual defence commitments with our friendly neighbours; If we do not nourish our relationships with our like minded friendly neighbours; If we strip our military of the most basic capabilities to monitor our borders and be first on site to defend them befor our friends show up to help.

North Korea is not a real threat to the Pacific Rim but rather an extortionist spoiler. Extortionist in the way it goes about getting what it needs, and Spoiler in that if it was to go down (like USSR) it would prefer to take as much of the world down with it.   

China is the real threat, it has visions of grandeur in the Pacific Rim, and of its "rightful place in the world and history". Though it is not a match for the US NOW, take a look at how the Japanese are reacting. They are taking China very seriously and changing their constitution likewise.  We should take China very seriously as well.

Blue Max.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (4 Mar 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> .
> 
> The real threat to Canadian sovereignty is ourselves if we fail in our duties to live up to our mutual defence commitments with our friendly neighbours; If we do not nourish our relationships with our like minded friendly neighbours; If we strip our military of the most basic capabilities to monitor our borders and be first on site to defend them before our friends show up to help.
> We do not need nuclear weapons unless we wish to forgo our defensive alliances.  If we wish to rely on alliances like NATO to ensure our defense, then we must retain a force that is able to contribute in such a way as to honour the spirit and letter of the accord, so that we can count on our partners standing with us in our own time of need.  That does mean sending troops to unpopular wars.  Remember WWII for the US didn't start until 1941, because the US people couldn't be convinced that it was their problem, even though the military and government knew better.  The value of our alliance system to us is in our allies perception of our contribution, if we are viewed as not doing our part, why should they bleed for us in turn?  If we wish to go our own way, then we need a military capable of handling our entire defence unaided, and we would require a nuclear deterrent, given two neighbors so vastly more powerful than ourselves.
> ...



Blue Max made good points, to have friends you have to act like one.  This world has not gotten so safe we can afford not to have them.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Mar 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> , to have friends you have to act like one.   This world has not gotten so safe we can afford not to have them.



And *that* , my friends, is the golden nugget of the day.

Well said


----------



## oyaguy (5 Mar 2005)

With my thing for nuclear weapons, is that IF, the US was a hostile power, given the economic, and military disparity, nuclear weapons would be the only system we could deploy that would keep this hypothetical hostile US power out of Canada. What I am trying to get at, is stop with this fantasizing about Canada being overrun by the Chinese, Japanese, Argentinians, whomever. The only country that could successfully invade Canada is the US, and even some relatively modest preparation can pre-empt that. 


As for North Korea, they're using nuclear weapons to extort the US. The hundreds of artillery pieces in range of Seoul, and the fact that the US and South Korea don't want North Korea to go down swinging is the reason the US isn't going to pull an Iraq with North Korea. Even with conventional weapons, the casualties the US has taken in Iraq would be peanuts compared to what the US's 2nd Infantry Division will take in their inevitable fighting retreat, or counter-attack. The millions of Koreans who would die from direct conflict, and the millions of North Koreans who would starve to death, or die trying to get out of the way.

And again, The Weimar Republic of Germany, no matter how it is cut, was not a mature democracy. They spent less than fifteen years as a democracy. By that time{the 30s} Canada had a tradition of representative government that goes back to 1839, with the first Durham report. Before that, Germany had absolutely no tradition with representative government, much less democracy, and much less a mature democracy. By today's standards, the representative governments of the 19th century{suich as Great Britain, Canada, USA with Germany not among them} would be considered to be decidedly undemocratic states, but the precendents and traditions were there.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2005)

oyaguy

I know you seem to think that Canada must develop its' own Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction to defend herself, but that is a fantasy that will never be able to happen in these times.






			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> oyaguy
> 
> There is a major fault with your scenario. You and so many of Canada's "Intellectuals" have the opinion that in time of crisis or conflict, our Nation will be able to produce weapons and materials to go to war with. As we have sold off most of our Industrial capabilities under NAFTA and other Corporate deals, we would not. Yes, we do have the technology to develop any weapon system imaginable, however, we do not have the Industry to produce them. Also, in the socio-economic society of Canada today, we would not be able to produce such weapons SECRETLY. The impressions of so many today, that we can produce any weapons we need for war at the "Snap of Our Fingers" in the next conflict are a truly a work of Fiction. By the time that we even began to think of building weapons, the war would already be over.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (5 Mar 2005)

But what I think our friend was saying is IF hypotheticaly the US did invade us we COULD use WMD's as a defence.IF we had develloped them, wich we wont, lets just get some damn MBT's instead!!!!  
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## capt j (5 Mar 2005)

Well Well Well...............

Does Canada need a Military. I find that question unreal. Why is it one needs to question the vocation that provides the very blanket of freedom that allows one to pose such a question. While I am the first to admit the CF's warfighting ability has been eroded greatly. Yet time and time again the people via our Government has called upon the men and women of the CF to put their lives and family on hold and yes regretably pay the ultimate price. What for you may ask, as a nation Canada is a middle power who can go where others the US, UK, France etc cannot. We go to places to help make this little place we call earth a better place for mankind. In addition while we have a Military we are still a sovereign nation who can stand on it's own and make its own policy.


----------



## oyaguy (6 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> oyaguy
> 
> I know you seem to think that Canada must develop its' own Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction to defend herself, but that is a fantasy that will never be able to happen in these times.
> 
> ...





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> oyaguy



Interestingly enough, you kind of support, and missed the point of what I was getting at, mostly because my point is rather murky.

You're right, I'm advocating a fantasy. 

Your point about our industrial ability to build weapons etc... is well taken. I'm kind of bypassing that {rather valid} point, with the idea that relations with the US won't implode tomorrow, and the Tenth Mountain rolls over the border. Such a scenario would take years, festering, before hostilities break out. Otherwise, you're right we are royally screwed in regards to building weapons.

Now let me articulate my point in a clearer manner than I have been before, and adresses the raison d'etre of this forum.

As I see it, Canada needs a military to defend our sovereignty. Okay, fair enough. 

Therefore stop fantasizing about the next evil empire, and their plan to invade Canada. Only the US could successfully invade Canada, if they were inclined to do so, and we would still have military recourse i.e. my song and dance about nuclear weapons, with some assumptions thrown in the mix in that regard.

When I mention evil empire, I mean China. China is not going to invade Canada. They are not inclined to do so, or capable of doing so.

So therefore, we should stop trying to formulate a military capable of fighting the next evil empire. It's a non-starter. For Canada to do so, we would have to jump straight to nuclear weapons, which is non-starter in itself.

So when it comes to Canada needing a military, we need a military that can go places. We haven't fought a war on Canadian soil, in almost 2 hundred years, and nothing about the worlds geo-political makeup, makes that a likelier possibility in future. So again, we need a military that can go places, be it Africa, Afghanistan, or the high Arctic.

When it comes to a military, we need one that goes places, not wait around for the non-existent invasion. To bring up the future evil empire up again, if we end up fighting China, it's going to be over there, rather than over here, so we need a military that can get there. 

Otherwise though, we don't need a military that's preparing for a hostile nation to roll over the border, or hit the beaches. We need the opposite. A military capable of rolling over a border, and hitting a hostile beach. Unlike a lot of other nations in the world, Canada, because of our pretty decent geography and international relations, we get to pick the time and places we want to use our mlilitary. What seems to be limiting Canada, is that while we can pick the time and place, whether we can get there is bigger problem.

What would be more useful for Canada, is a DART, that can actually do it's thing within 48 hrs. Or the ability to do the same for a Brigade Group. Stuff like that.


----------



## oyaguy (6 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> oyaguy
> 
> I know you seem to think that Canada must develop its' own Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction to defend herself, but that is a fantasy that will never be able to happen in these times.
> 
> ...





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> oyaguy



Interestingly enough, you kind of support, and missed the point of what I was getting at, mostly because I don't think I have actually written it down.

You're right, I'm advocating a fantasy. 

Your point about our industrial ability to build weapons etc... is well taken. I'm kind of bypassing that {rather valid} point, with the idea that relations with the US won't implode tomorrow, and the Tenth Mountain rolls over the border. Such a scenario would take years, festering, before hostilities break out. Otherwise, you're right we are royally screwed in regards to building weapons.

Now let me articulate my real point in a clearer manner than I have been before, and addresses the raison d'etre of this forum.

As I see it, Canada needs a military to defend our sovereignty. Okay, fair enough. 

Therefore we should stop fantasizing about the next evil empire, and their plan to invade Canada. Only the US could successfully invade Canada, if they were inclined to do so, and we would still have military recourse {i.e. my song and dance about nuclear weapons}, with some assumptions thrown in the mix in that regard.

When I mention evil empire, I mean China. China is not going to invade Canada. They are not inclined to do so, or capable of doing so.

So therefore, we should stop trying to formulate a military capable of fighting the next evil empire. It's a non-starter. For Canada to do so, we would have to jump straight to nuclear weapons, which is non-starter in itself. I say this because the next great power conflict would probably go nuclear pretty quick. There is some leeway there, for example I doubt the US will be using nuclear weapons in the defence of Taiwan, but when two nuclear armed nations go to war, there ability for the situation to become catastrophic, is enormous. 

So when it comes to Canada needing a military, we need a military that can go places. We haven't fought a war on Canadian soil, in almost 2 hundred years, and nothing about the worlds geo-political makeup, makes that a likelier possibility in future. So again, we need a military that can go places, be it Africa, Afghanistan, or the high Arctic.

When it comes to a military, we need one that goes places, not wait around for the non-existent invasion. To bring up the future evil empire up again, if we end up fighting China, it's going to be over there, rather than over here, so we need a military that can get there. 

Otherwise though, we don't need a military that's preparing for a hostile nation to roll over the border, or hit the beaches. We need the opposite. A military capable of rolling over a border, and hitting a hostile beach. Unlike a lot of other nations in the world, Canada, because of our pretty decent geography and international relationships, we get to pick the time and places we want to use our military. What seems to be limiting Canada, is that while we can pick the time and place, we still need to get there.


----------



## VBC (6 Mar 2005)

A nation not woth defending is a nation not worth preserving.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (6 Mar 2005)

Thats true... And just to mix things up a little who do you all think will be our next great foe, war is being spoken about alot these days and eventually we will face a conflict so ladies and gens who is it gonna be ??? and depending on whoit is do you all think that we are ready?
UBIQUE!!!!


----------



## PJ D-Dog (7 Mar 2005)

Yes, it is obvious that Canada needs a military.   Unfortunately, the CF has had its strength eroded and now the Government has woken up to find that it is a new day and the time has come to beef up the CF.

A number of things needs to happend in order to increase the CF size.   The first thing is to stop thinking in terms of old when trying to achieve the new.   In other words, think outside the box.   Here are some suggestions:

1.   Man all Reg Force units to the full capacity of their establishments.   That will increase our operational readiness and not have to rely on reserve augmentation.

2.   Increase all P Res budgets and create a cadre of full-time stand-by soldiers.   This should represent 15 per cent of each unit.   In other words, 15 per cent of each P Res unit should have class B-A soldiers ready to deploy at any given time in support of any operation.   This would be how we would augment the Reg Force.   i.e.- an artillery battery should have at least one gun det and a FOO party employed full-time and ready to go if need be.

3.   Introduce job protection legislation for serving reservists.   This is used in the US and with great success.   How can we mobilize reservists to full-time duty when they need to leave their jobs without any guarantees that they will still have a job when they return home from deployment.   Again, it's a change in attitude.

Canada does not have a large enough population to have a military as large as the US.   Therefore, we must look at other means to boost our military when we need it.   We also have to look at what we have at our disposal.

4.   Get new equipment.

5.   Introduce mandatory reserve service legislation.   
A.   This could be used to recruit college students.   If you are receiving a student loan then you should at least serve in the reserve as a way to pay it back.   Allow a percentage of the student loan to be subtracted from the full amount based on years of reserve time service.   For example, if you serve three out of your four years at university while receiving a goverment student loan, then you should only have to pay back 75 per cent of your loan amount for three of the years.   Not only do you get a rebate on your student loan, you also get a good part-time job while in college.   Of course only those eligible for military service would qualify.

B.   If you are 18 and a high school graduate and are not employed or in reciept of Employment Insurance benefits, you would be required to serve in the reserves until you get a full-time job at which point continued service would become voluntary.

This could solve the manpower problems and some of the economic problems that certain regions face.   Although it may sound drastic and a total departure from the "all volunteer force".   We need to recognize that the world is changing and we need to change with it.   This policy would also shed more light on the military in terms of the public.   Every Canadian would know of or have a member of their family in a military component of some sort...the winning of hearts and minds.

Yours for comments...enjoy.

D-Dog


----------



## oyaguy (7 Mar 2005)

Conscription is a bad idea period.

Conscription does not get the kind of soldiers the military wants. When the US military had the draft, the average intelligence of the military was below the national average. Makes sense too, when you think about it. When you don't need the entire male population that comes of military age every year, you need to narrow down the recruits. So they implemented a lottery system, which, if you had the money, influence, or education, you could easily bypass even if your number comes up. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, are two big examples of this in effect. I believe it is money, education, and influence followed by money, education and influence, respectively for those two.

When the US draft went away, the US got a better army. I remember a few years ago, reading a Time magazine article, that made no bones about the fact that the US army was on average, more intelligent than the national average. I believe they were able to accomplish this by raising the standards, and when undesirable personals enlistments come up, they are not asked to be renewed. 

For Canada, conscription in any form could rip apart the nation. It has almost done so twice in the last century. The last two times Conscription was implemented in Canada, countries around the world were engaged in the most titanic death matches the world has ever seen{World War I less so than World War II}. Nothing less would be an acceptable reason to implement conscription in any form. 

Point remains though that, Yes Canada needs a military. However conscription has too much historical memory, the fact it isn't necessary, and the possibility it could be a detriment to the CF means it is too loaded an issue to perpetrate on Canada.

Otherwise, D-Dog, Points 1, 3, and 4 make sense. Point 2 seems to make a little sense, but I don't quite understand "P-res budget". Present Reserve Budget? The reserves would have more in the way of budget to support regular troops? Do I have the right idea or have I botched your point?

Additionally isn't point 5 A, kind of already in place? The CF will pay for your education, you serve 5 years etc...


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (7 Mar 2005)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 3.   Introduce job protection legislation for serving reservists.   This is used in the US and with great success.   How can we mobilize reservists to full-time duty when they need to leave their jobs without any guarantees that they will still have a job when they return home from deployment.   Again, it's a change in attitude.
> 5.   Introduce mandatory reserve service legislation.
> A.   This could be used to recruit college students.   If you are receiving a student loan then you should at least serve in the reserve as a way to pay it back.   Allow a percentage of the student loan to be subtracted from the full amount based on years of reserve time service.   For example, if you serve three out of your four years at university while receiving a goverment student loan, then you should only have to pay back 75 per cent of your loan amount for three of the years.   Not only do you get a rebate on your student loan, you also get a good part-time job while in college.   Of course only those eligible for military service would qualify.
> D-Dog




     Protection for reservist jobs will attract and retain more and better reservists.  Too many are forced to choose between reserve service, and gainful employment.  Give us the chance to do both, and you will retain more of us, and that means retaining the trained ones.
     Mandatory service gives us crap soldiers.  Student loan programs linked to reserve service, like the old GI bill are a good way to attract the cream of young Canadians into the service.  Young, talented, ambitious, given a chance to trade service to the state for an education, its a win-win situation.  Defaulters on reserve comitments are then faced with Student loan repayment (if your heart doesn't belong to the Armed Forces, then your ass belongs to Revenue Canada).
     Make the reserves attractive to young students and working people, and you will attract and retain them.  Make them more closely linked with their Reg Force parent units, and you will get a better trained, better motivated reserve, and one the Reg Force brigades can make better use of.


----------



## pbi (7 Mar 2005)

> When the US draft went away, the US got a better army. I remember a few years ago, reading a Time magazine article, that made no bones about the fact that the US army was on average, more intelligent than the national average. I believe they were able to accomplish this by raising the standards, and when undesirable personals enlistments come up, they are not asked to be renewed



This was definitely not the case in the beginning. The post-Vietnam VOLAR (the VOLunteer ARmy) was initially plagued by very substandard recruits, including numbers who were barely literate, as well as serious crime problems. I remember spending a   summer MILCON at Fort Drum as a Reservist in the 80's: we were given strict warnings by the US post about the crime rate, and especially about violence against females. During the time I was there, a number of violent crimes occurred including arson. The response by the military police to a fight call at the JRs' showed what they were used to dealing with: several jeeploads of armed MPs with dogs. The problem was that the military was extremely unpopular in the States, and the middle class stayed away from it in droves, leaving only the poor and minorities as the main recruiting base for enlisted.

The US Army has come a long way since then, to the highly professional and capable force that it is today, but even recently it was still having serious difficulties recruiting and retaining skilled soldiers, especially Senior NCOs.

Although I am not a fan of conscription in Canada, I have to admit that there may be, in the US at least, a case for it. During my time in Afghanistan, I became friends with a US SF officer who had very extensive service. He was in favour of conscription for the Army. He felt that in peacetime, the US Army attracted a lower quality class of enlisted person who embraced the Army as a "job"-he referred to it as a "lazy man's job" since not much was asked of the average enlisted man (at least in peacetime). Conscription, he felt, brought in a much wider cross section of society, including a higher percentage of intelligent, educated soldiers who were not afraid to think for themselves and to question the various silly aspects of the Army. Now, admittedly, this was an SF point of view: IMHO they are a bit different from the mainstream Army. Anyway, it made me think.

I am not convinced, at all, about conscription in Canada: our Army, both Regular and Reserve, is overwhelmingly made up of middle class people whose education levels range IMHO from good to excellent (the latter being more common in the Res but not exclusively so). Therefore, the demographic problem that conscription might address for the US Army does not really exist for us. Second, the purpose of conscription is to produce and sustain a large force of short-service soldiers. I am not sure we can demonstrate either the requirement for, or the ability to sustain, such a large force, as opposed to a smaller more professional force of long service soldiers. Finally, if we think Quebec is traditionally not supportive of the military now, just try introducing conscription. To me it is a dragon that we really don't need to fight right now.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2005)

I want to back up what *pbi* says.   The US Army, in particular, endured a pretty dreadful 35 years â â€œ from about 1950, onwards, during which a whole series of _social engineering_ experiments â â€œ including, in the '60s, the compulsory conscription of 100,000 _visible minority_ personnel who had failed their first level conscription 'tests' (known as Johnson's 100,000 after Pres. LB Johnson) because, it was thought, the Army provided a necessary leg-up for blacks.   And that was just one of many, many _experiments_ inflicted upon a proud fighting force in misguided efforts to make the military do a whole range of (maybe important and even valuable) social tasks.

By the 1970s drug abuse and racial tensions were rampant.   The commanding general of one major US base showed me (in '78 or '79, if memory serves) his _command directive_ (or something like that); the first two and half pages listed a huge range of _social_ tasks â â€œ ranging from fostering job skills amongst minority soldiers through improving community race relations with the local towns to achieving certain racial and sexual quotas in a variety of areas.   I think the first time I saw words like training, readiness, etc was on page 3!   He was, in part, apologizing for a _small unit exchange_ which went very, very wrong â â€œ the Canadian soldiers returned with a bad taste in their mouths and a total lack of respect for the US Army.   We, in Canada, knew that the US Army, especially, had real problems but we also knew that tremendous strides were being made to correct them; we were being asked, regularly, by our US friends, to visit, talk, and _share_ or experiences, etc re: discipline and training.   The Americans sunk, in my personal opinion, about as low as one could go by the early '70s â â€œ then they grabbed themselves by the arse and hauled themselves up, way up.   But it was a long, hard pull; as late as the mid '80s we (NATO senior staff) were still be warned about traveling about in some sections of a major US Army base in Germany (Baumholder, I think) at night because of racial tensions and violence.   The important point is: *they made it.   They reformed themselves.   I think the US Army is a skilled, professional force.*

We must remember, also, that the US embraced the Napoleonic _nation in arms_ principle from a very early date â â€œ the 1860s, when voluntary enlistments began to fail.   There was never, in 1940, any thought given to soliciting for volunteers â â€œ the DRAFT was applied from day one and young Americans were warned to wait for their call up, or, if they were just too keen to fight, enlist in the USMC.

I believe that conscripted troops can be trained to an adequate level â â€œ we, too, did that in WWII, but, even in peacetime, there has to be some understandable (to the troops) rationale for learning to do this or that.   The Brits discovered, in the '50s, that training short-service conscripts for the types of soldiering required to fight in e.g. Malaya and then withdraw, in the '60s, from _East of Suez_ was too hard; a better paid professional army was a better model, even for the defence of Europe.

It is important in modern, professional armies, I believe, to weed out the job-seekers â â€œ and we need to start by not using tech skill training as a recruiting tool â â€œ and make sure that we recruit young men and women who want to be _*fighters*_ and, maybe, technicians, too, in their copious free time.   Then we need to maintain the idea of the _supremacy_ of operations and combat â â€œ infantry soldiers are not 'better' than, say, air force radar technicians but they are the 'heart and soul' of the Canadian Forces and they need to be respected for their skills and knowledge and professionalism as much as the most highly skilled technical tradesman, and then some.   I recognize the market driven need to pay avionics technicians more than tank gunners â â€œ they may be more 'valuable' but they aren't more 'important' â â€œ we must stress that we are all members of a team which is *led* from the front by the combat arms and the crews of our warships and the aircrew.

(Of course we always must realize that there are important distinctions in the Canadian Forces: e.g. *RCR* officers are, generally, smarter and more handsome than the others, etc ...)


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2005)

There is one model of "Conscription" that I have occasionally thought might be workable in a Canadian context and that is a variant of the German notion not of conscripted military service but rather of conscripted National Service.

Youngsters are expected to put some "sweat equity" into society in lieu of taxes, and conceivably get a "free" post-secondary education out of it in return.   Military service would be just one form of National Service.   Maintaining parks, fighting forest fires, emergency response, meals on wheels, hospital volunteers....imagination time.   All these could be forms of National Service.   

Military service could require volunteers from the conscript pool.

Foreign military service could still be a full-time regular force augmented by individual conscripted military volunteers that have volunteered again for foreign service.   Guarantees given that there would be no repeat of the WW2 crisis where Home Service conscripts were "volunteered" against their will to join the overseas forces.

I suppose we could even have volunteers for the Conscript pool for international humanitarian assistance.

It would answer some questions on the Health and Education files as well.   Lack of young blood in the medical   system, high price of maintaining parks or reforesting hillsides, high debt loads when the kids come out of University/College.

Sweat in lieu of Taxes.


----------



## karl28 (7 Mar 2005)

Kirkhill that was a real intersting post on your last one inreagrds to conscription .   It would probably help out a lot of kids that would love to go to post secondary education but cant afford it .   It would also help the military out . But in todays  current government thinking do you think something like this would work ??


----------



## Horse_Soldier (7 Mar 2005)

National service would be a fine thing to get the nintendo generation up and at it.   Ontario has its 40 hours of compulsory community service as a requirement for high school graduation - but remembering some of the shit storm that blew aound that one, my cynical self (which is in command on Mondays) can't see Canadians, let alone those who would lead us by following poll results (politicians) taking such a drastic step.   Somewhere along the line, Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" spirit was lost - if Canada ever even had it.   Maybe I'm selling my compatriots short, but the rights without responsibilities mentality seems to militate against any form of compulsory service - be it military or civilian.


----------



## onecat (7 Mar 2005)

compulsory service would be a good idea, but I don't think the Liberals would go for it.  They have been tring for at least 30 years to degrade the CF, so I don't see them adding anything that would put a stop to their plan.  Non-military service might work.  It would be a good way to reduce the cost university and give something back in areas that get left out in budgets.  Like parks, road service etc...


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2005)

You are both probably right Horse_Soldier and karl28.

But thinking a bit further about this I wonder what would happen if it wasn't pitched as a Conscription issue but as a Free Education.   As I suggested Sweat in lieu of Taxes.

Something along these lines:

"Free" services such as "Free Education" cost the Government money.   The Government gets its money through taxes from your parents. This means your parents are paying for your education in any case but don't have choice over how to spend their money and don't have it available to spend on you.

Are you willing to invest some of your own sweat so as to secure a "free" education?

Perhaps some sort of   Tax Credit system could be worked out that would reward Hours of National Service with Tax Credits that would be more broadly applicable than just to youngsters?

I dunno.

Just rambling.

Cheers.

Sorry radiohead, didn't see your response.  You posted while I was posting.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (7 Mar 2005)

Kirkhill - that approach would likely have a better chance of succeeding than the traditional one.  Appealing to self-interest will always trump appeals to patriotism or community spirit or the like  ;D


----------



## pbi (7 Mar 2005)

While still remaining skeptical about the applicability of conscription to the CF, I could see supporting a National Service system because those choosing military service would, in effect, be "volunteers" because they could choose between the military option and several others. As well, this system would be unlikely to flood us with thousands of unwilling recruits that we cannot really manage properly while doing all our other business in the world.
Given the amount of time required to produce a good quality trained soldier, and then get some mileage out of him, how long should these people engage for? (My thought is one BE-three years) Would they be mixed into existing units (my preference) or serve in conscript units?

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2005)

I think it would still be up to the Forces to "offer" employment to these folks.  A mutual agreement that they were good enough for the job and wanted to do the job.  I agree with using them with mixing them into existing units.  

One area that could benefit would be the Militia as opposed to the Reserves. Another bug-bear of mine.  We have compressed and confused the two roles in my view.  The Militia is traditionally a Home Defence Army,  like the European Home Guards.  Reserves are usually ex-Forces types that are subject to recall and available to bulk up the Regular Forces.

It would be nice to have the luxury to make that distinction.


----------



## Blunt Object (7 Mar 2005)

Any Nation obviously needs a military. I don't think we need to worry about being invaded or attacked. It's not like you can move a force large enough to attack a country without anyone noticing (unless the USA attacks us which is the dumbest thing I can think of). But long story short we do need an army even if its just for aiding our allies or other people.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (7 Mar 2005)

Glad to see that there was a whole debate about the merrit of the conscription idea.  All of you have some excellent ideas.  It's obvious that the liberal government would never go for that type of tactic.

While Canada is trying to beef up the CF, they should also look at the operational capabilities.  Since the demise of the Airborn Regiment, there has not been a "911" force or quick reaction force established, there is JTF, but aside from that.  The CF should perhaps look at introducing a Royal Marines type unit or a Marine Corps of some sort to be Canada's quick reaction force.  This could instill new blood in the organization and have the first new unit raised since the introduction of the PPCLI (although I could be wrong on that one).

This could serve as a dual purpose.

1.  The psychological effect that the government is really serious about defense both to its citizens and to our NATO neighbours.

2.  It would spark interest among the population as many would want to be part of the new units etc.

Your thoughts, as per normal...


----------



## Cpl.Banks (7 Mar 2005)

I dunno about the marine units...Already we are trying to get 5000 reg member to Cf and 300 Reservists then + another say 2000 for a marine corp as you put it? do we have the capability to make a corp able to fight in land and sea like the U.S.M.C? New vehicles a new branch more staff ahhh the logistical problems !!!!! I dunno maybe it wouldnt be that hard but a new unit such as the marine corp might drain someof our units.Say some PPCLI guys wanna fight marine style so they transfer or change career...lower number of troops in existing batallions? my two cents
UBIQUE!!!!!!!


----------



## oyaguy (8 Mar 2005)

To me, something like National Service, be it military service, or work in national parks would be the equivalent to make work programs. Let's give these people "jobs" and we can pad our employment numbers. In other ways, say service, for a university education, we kind of already have that. The CF pays for your education, you put in the requisite number of years to "pay it off". The out for people not interested in military service are Student loans. Same thing, you get money get your education and you have to pay back with interest {though not till three months after school does the interest payments kick in, and the interest payments are pretty reasonable}.

I honestly don't see any pressing need for a National Service program.


----------



## pipesnake (8 Mar 2005)

I don't see conscription working. People aren't going to do a good job if they don't want to be there. Imagine trying to force someone through infantry battleschool? It's tough enough to get through that when you want to do it.


----------



## MiNi_DeLtA_X (8 Mar 2005)

same here  soon i will be joinin the army  :threat:


----------



## BigMcLargeHuge (9 Mar 2005)

Greetings 

to all my first post  weee!!

I was reading through this post and had to reply right away to what fortunecookie5084 stated. (im not sure how to work the little quote thing)    The barbarian hordes that you refer to did not cause the fall of Rome.  They were the straw that broke the camels back, the coup de grace of an already declining empire.  So many other major key factors caused the downfall of the Roman Empire.  I didnt read the rest of the post,  that just jumped out at me from the post as a classics student...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> (Of course we always must realize that there are important distinctions in the Canadian Forces: e.g. *RCR* officers are, generally, smarter and more handsome than the others, etc ...)



Must...not...engage...in...Regimental...flamewar :-X

Dave
VP


----------



## Horse_Soldier (9 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Must...not...engage...in...Regimental...flamewar :-X
> 
> Dave
> VP



What? You haven't learned to treat self-promotion from that particular regiment the same way you would a skeeter buzzing around your head  ;D


----------



## Rick_Donald (9 Mar 2005)

As I'm reading this thread I'm seeing all kinds of references to China and the U.S. (really???) being the aggressor states. There are probably over 50 countries in this world that could rear up and start murdering their own or neighbouring states peoples. The UN was designed to respond to those threats and protect the innocent civilians of these countries. Canada on it's own would never be able to defend itself from China or the US just based on our population alone. We'd run out of able bodies in no time. But as part of a multi national peacekeeping/peacemaking force we can afford to fight evil and tyranny around the world. In order to accomplish that Canada needs a healthy well equipped army.
I find that the majority of liberal Canadians and northern US democrats would rather sit in their nice heated homes and wait for the aggressors to burst through their front doors and start smashing their 52" big screen TV before taking any action. Sorry but that doesn't work for me. My wife and kids are sitting in that living room and war is no place for them.
It's too late to start fighting after the food, heat and electricity run out. You must be prepared to fight for what we have now and prevent it from ever being snatched away.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (9 Mar 2005)

It's too late to start fighting after the food, heat and electricity run out. You must be prepared to fight for what we have now and prevent it from ever being snatched away.


That is something that i totally agree with.  No matter the enemy or cause we must be able to defend ourselfs before we can defend others.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (9 Mar 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> It's too late to start fighting after the food, heat and electricity run out. You must be prepared to fight for what we have now and prevent it from ever being snatched away.
> 
> 
> That is something that i totally agree with.   No matter the enemy or cause we must be able to defend ourselfs before we can defend others.


      When I was in Kindergarten, our teacher played the folksong "One tin soldier" for the class, and asked us what lesson it held.  I knew the answer the first time I heard it.  The people on the mountain thought they were above the need to fight for what was theirs, so the died to the last woman and child, while the murdering barbarians looted the wreckage of a society that had grown to feeble to bother defending itself.  I filled with rage to think that their leaders had so betrayed them, as to leave them naked to the swords of their enemies.  It seems the teacher felt the lesson had something to do with violence not solving anything, but that seems hard to credit when the only survivors are looting the corpses of the side that beleived that.  Our leaders remind me much of that Kindergarten teacher, the media sings its modern folksong of this theoritical construct called peace; a thing that the world has not known in the whole of human history.  There is no historical basis for the assumption that peace is even possible for the human race; what is possible, is that well run, well defended pockets of prosperous civilization can be preserved, and increased as long as the civilization so defended retains the will to protect it.  We sit in a tiny pocket of civilization, and our defences are threadbare; the barbarians are as numerous as ever, poor and desperate, hungry and ambitious.  Canada must have an army capable of standing with our allies to stop the barbarians at someone elses gates; if it ever goes so far as to be fought at our own, we are already lost.  Keeping order at home, responding to natural disasters, and aiding our alliance partners to make sure the brushfires that burn the globe do not spread into a conflagration that will see Canadian cities burn.  When Hitler crossed (to remilitarize) the Rhine, a single platoon could have halted the rise of Nazi expansionism, do not think that our contribution can have no effect.


----------



## oyaguy (10 Mar 2005)

Does anyone else get an alarmist vibe on the latter posts of this forum?

Sorry, but where are the hordes?

Better yet, name two countries that could pull-off an invasion of Canada?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (10 Mar 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Does anyone else get an alarmist vibe on the latter posts of this forum?
> 
> Sorry, but where are the hordes?
> 
> Better yet, name two countries that could pull-off an invasion of Canada?


     In the early 1900's, an obscure Austrian noble was shot by a Serbian state sponsored terrorist orginization, the Austrians responded by shelling Sarajevo.  A few million dead later, the first world war was history.  Who says that the intention of destroying Canada will have any part of anyones plans?  I don't think the Austrians or Serbians had any plans involving what was to become the western front in France when either one of them fired the first shot, but war has this nasty tendancy to spill over.  The tensions over Taiwan/China, over India/Pakistan, the instability in the former Soviet South Asian republics, the turmoil in the Middle East, the re-emergence of the left wing in South America, and its attendant conflict with US interests, there are so many hot spots, and so many competing interests that no one can really say with any certainty from where the next crissis will emerge.  None of the world wars Canada has fought has been on her soil.  I don't suppose the next one will be any different.  The reality of the modern world is that there is no option of isolationism any more, our economies are all linked, and with the large immigrant populations in North America and Europe, there are few international conflicts that do not contain the risks of domestic involvement.  In Vancouver, the issue of Taiwanese independence actually became an election issue for a local MP.  It doesn't matter where the trouble starts, if we cannot keep a lid on it, its effects will quickly be here.  9/11 showed that there are no more safe seats for other peoples problems, in a heartbeat, they become your own.  As I said before, Canada requires the ability to respond to its own domestic crisis, and to deploy a credible force oversee's to act with its allies to make sure that the brushfires burning around the world stay small, and stay there.


----------



## BigMcLargeHuge (10 Mar 2005)

Estonia and Tuvalu!!!   They have mighty armies just over our borders!!   Everyone grab your gats   :threat:

But seriously: Does Canada need an army?

To aid with domestic disturbance and natural disasters, yes for sure, The idea that I can respond in times of emergencies to aid my fellow man within my country is great.

Most of you are going to dislike this next part but I'm entitled to my opinion and ill defend the right for you guys to hold yours

To stand with the United States? Why should we? The United States foreign policy is based on imperialism; the expansion for economic growth.   The only reason they establish a base or mission is to secure a resource (be it political or economical) or ensure its continuing existence.   No government gives to flying flocks about the "people" of a third world country.   Past wars did indeed have strong purposes but reason and war don't really go hand in hand. Why should our soldiers continue to suffer or die to oust "evil dictators" and replace them with democratic states were standards of living will increase but further cloud the image of poverty and oppresion.   Were a capitalistic state will enslave the population through greed. 

Our soldiers of past and present are brave noble and professional, that I have no doubt about that.   May their souls rest with whatever god they believe in and may those alive receive protection.   

I do have strong disagreement about how our army is used.   

In perfect vacuum if Canada's forces should be deployed, I would like to see Canada's forces deployed in cooperation with other nations in order to separate warring nations and insure that aid reaches the prospective people while diplomatic negotiations can be successful.   
The result would be a government established of their choice that could be overseen by the UN. 

To do this, then Canada obviously needs a military, a military which is well supplied well led well trained and well armed.   Not to such an extent the military spending is unportional to the amount that we spend helping our own but alot higher then it is now.

(random tangent the word barbarian comes from ancient Greece, anyone who was not a Athenian citizen spoke in a language which sounded like bar bar bar to the Athenians, hence barbarians.... write that in your journals everybody)

Canada cant even take care of its own people let alone start worrying about other countries, thousands live in the streets more in poverty and living conditions in the north are horrible.   Health care is failing, our schools are going to the can the very land we seek to protect is being raped and pillaged by lax environmental protection laws.   Canada's military is failing and it needs help big time.   

The brushfires burning out of control can be solved in a diplomatic way if anyone really cared.  

My final opinion: Canada needs an army in support of its people and as a army ready to defend the interests of PEOPLE not economy. 

By this time most of you think im a big hippie pacifist, I can assure you I'm not.   I am part of the military   for the reasons I stated: I'm here to help the people of need, as an individual I can do this.

I urge anyone about to respond to take a deep breath before you start yelling at me    or typing loudly.

Cheers


----------



## JBP (10 Mar 2005)

It has been my PERSONAL opinion for quite some time that there will be another major war. As someone mentioned above, there are simply too many hotspots waiting to erupt, it's like a balancing act, eventually it's going to spill over... And sh*t will hit the fan!

I would be surprised if there isn't a major war within the next 20 years with at least 4-5 countries being heavily involved. And I don't mean some "coalition of the willing", I mean world war style, sending every troop they've got into theatre and drafting half the rest of able bodied population.

I really hope the world stabilizes enough to avoid such a thing, but with dwindling resources, more conflict over different idealisms and national lines being "drawn in the sand", it seems it's only time that it will take before blood is shed en masse once again...

So yes, Canada needs a military, whether we'll sit back and stay neutral and watch the fireworks... Or go to work with the boyz and get into the fray. We wouldn't BE a nation called Canada without a military. Point blank...

Joe


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Mar 2005)

Agreed Joe.

A possible near future scenario that could erupt any day really:

China invades taiwan,
North Korea takes advantage and attacks South Korea.

The number of countries that would be drawn into this madness alone would constitute another world war... if you mean that 'world war' is when countries from all over the world are involved in a war.Id call it a world war.Not to mention, probobly a very very messy scenario that I dont even like pondering the outcome of.  :-\


----------



## PJ D-Dog (10 Mar 2005)

BigMcLargeHuge said:
			
		

> To stand with the United States? Why should we? The United States foreign policy is based on imperialism; the expansion for economic growth.   The only reason they establish a base or mission is to secure a resource (be it political or economical) or ensure its continuing existence.



So was the British policy when Canada sent troops to South Africa.  Of course every war is politically motivated.  That's just part of being a bunch of human beings.  Do you really think the soldier on the ground is lying awake at night worrying if the war is politically motivated?  If the war is just?  If the war is for the right cause?  When the balloon goes up and your unit, RNBR, gets mobilized, the last thing on your mind should be wether or not the war is politically motivated.  You signed the dotted line, you trained hard and now it's time to go.  Sometimes we have to have faith in our leaders.  We don't have to like them, we only need to have faith that what they are doing is the right thing for the greater good.

When one joins the military, one gives up a lot of rights that other citizens have.  We accept to live by an additional set of rules.  We also accept to live by certain priciples. One of them is loyalty.  Not just to your fellow soldiers but all the way up the chain of command and that includes the politicians that will send you to combat.

In my shop, I am serving with combat action vets from OIF one (op Iraqi Freedom).  Marines who have earned their combat action ribbons and let me tell you, that the last thing on their minds was whether or not the war is politically motivated.  They did not join the military to train hard, be professionals and then question if the war is right when the time comes to deploy.  I don't know of any Marine who does that (except for Cpl Henderson in Michael Moore's 911.  Incidently, that Marine is under investigation for his participation in that documentary and will probably go to jail).  They joined to serve their country, and when the country called, they were ready.  They weren't ready with questions and doubts.  They were ready with guts and guns and a fierce devotion to their beliefs.  They believe in their country and their Corps and when they signed that dotted line, they willingly gave up the right to question and disobey.

Canada has had nothing bad happen to it since the FLQ and OKA.  If they were flying planes into the Peace Tower or the Eaton's Center or the Sky Dome or some other place of national importance, I think your shoe would be on a different foot.  When Canadian civilian blood starts to flow (and I pray it never does), it won't matter if the cause for war is of a humanitarian one.  When your done blowing them up, you can rebuild them.

That is exactly what the US is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and it's what the US has done in the past as well.  Let's not forget the rebuilding of Germany, France, Japan, UK, the Berlin Airlifts, the Balkans and the list goes on.  The US is the only country that will go to war with you and then or fight a war on your soil and then help you get back on your feet again.  No nation in history has ever done that.  The Brits used to exploit the countries it concoured until they got thrown out.

As for the UN, they have no credibility at all.  Take Rwanda....need I say more.  And who was undersecretary for Africa at the time, none other than Koffi Annan.  The UN is as credible as the League of Nations in my view.

I think I've said enough...

Regards,

PJ D-Dog


----------



## pbi (11 Mar 2005)

BigMcLargeHuge said:
			
		

> Estonia and Tuvalu!!!   They have mighty armies just over our borders!!   Everyone grab your gats   :threat:
> 
> But seriously: Does Canada need an army?
> 
> ...


----------



## Zipper (11 Mar 2005)

Sorry pbi.

I have to agree with the kid on the American Imperialism. Although today we call it Hegemony. Read and you'll see alot of similarities between the US and Imperial Britain, Rome, etc...

As for the rest...

BigMC - Your idea that the UN will solve all your problems and thus we (Canada) being only a peacekeeping force is naive. No where has peacekeeping worked in the long run. Yes it has worked in the short term to stop the butchery, but those opposing sides then have no reason to sit down at a table and stop the horror. This is why so many peacekeeping mission of yesteryear are still going on today. In many cases today, the idea of peacemaking and thus heavier hitting forces going in and slapping both sides and "forcing" them to the table works better.

Yes, Canada has its own problems and should look to them more. But in order to do that should we get rid of the military and our foreign affairs office to channel the money towards domestic issues? Because to truly fix them, that is what it would take. Or we can do the best job we can, care for our people, and fix problems a little at a time.

As for supporting the people and not the economy. Well in a free market (social) democracy, the two pretty much go hand in hand. You cannot separate the two without either going to a different sort of government, or anarchy.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Mar 2005)

The world is not as big as it used to be.  A major war in any of the areas mentioned in the preceding posts could and my eventually become the next world war.  Look at Syria and Iran as well are they next on the list for the US if they go will it be NK.  

With the world shrinking the possibility of a global conflict grows it does not diminish.  There for Canada must be able to; 1 protect its own borders, regardless of who our neighbour is, remember you keep your friends close but your enemies even closer. 2, we must be able to act on the world stage if there ever truly is a conflict of global interest we must be able to either respond or retaliate depending on the circumstance. If  9/11 had taken out the skydome or some other area packed with people what we have been able to do.  Remember we may have friends but we definitely have enemies.

If we are unable to do those things then we fail not only others who depend on us but ourselves and isn't that the point of a nation to protect their own?   I think it is no longer a question of do we need an military but what kind of military do we want?


----------



## Blue Max (11 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> BigMC - Your idea that the UN will solve all your problems and thus we (Canada) being only a peacekeeping force is naive. No where has peacekeeping worked in the long run. Yes it has worked in the short term to stop the butchery, but those opposing sides then have no reason to sit down at a table and stop the horror. This is why so many peacekeeping mission of yesteryear are still going on today. In many cases today, the idea of peacemaking and thus heavier hitting forces going in and slapping both sides and "forcing" them to the table works better.



Zipper, excellent point. It reminds me of a paper I read of the point was, historically conflicts between combatants have ended because one side or the other was exhausted or beaten to a pulp, thus the willingness of one side to continue the fight was taken away eventually. 

Of course this meant a very bloody conflict, usually and our modern (PC) sensibilities think there is a better way. Now jump to modern times (post WW2) were most conflicts do NOT run their course and exhaust the willingness of one side or the other to continue the fight. 

When the UN or some other peace keeping force jumps in the middle of two combatants, this only gives time to one or both sides to rearm and lick their wounds. It does little to remove the compulsion to restart the fight at some later date, thus extending the missery for civilians into another generation.

Take the example of Iraq. The Americans overwhelmed the Iraqi forces so quickly that the hard core Iraqis were not really beaten into submission and were able to regroup and fight back as an insurgent force. Post WW2 Germany, the Germans were so beaten down by the war from all sides that there was not much if any interest in continuing the fight in any form by the hard core elements.

MHO,

Blue Max


----------



## jarko (12 Mar 2005)

The times are getting harder, we need a military.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Sorry pbi.
> 
> I have to agree with the kid on the American Imperialism. Although today we call it Hegemony. Read and you'll see alot of similarities between the US and Imperial Britain, Rome, etc...



Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing.   Considering that we did, generally, quite well under the British (read Ferguson's Empire) and that 50 years of US dominance, hegemony, or whatever you want to call it has brought us an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity, I can't figure out why people treat the word like its the boogeyman.

If serving in the military means being assertive with our interests and often working alongside US Hegemony or furthering US imperialism, then so be it.   Better then living in the cave....

PS: BigLargewhatever, you better take PBI's advice - every soldier who's been around the block knows that "helping people" is some sort of pipedream - see you at the races....


----------



## Zipper (13 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing.   Considering that we did, generally, quite well under the British (read Ferguson's Empire) and that 50 years of US dominance, hegemony, or whatever you want to call it has brought us an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity, I can't figure out why people treat the word like its the boogeyman.
> 
> If serving in the military means being assertive with our interests and often working alongside US Hegemony or furthering US imperialism, then so be it.   Better then living in the cave....



Thats all fine and dandy if your on the benefit side. However it is the fact that people, especially people in other countries who do not wish someone else from another country telling them what to do, how to live their lives, and how to conduct there own business within their own borders that is the main contention. I seem to remember that being enshrined in the UN charter someplace?

And you can say "we" did fine under the British empire. But the same cannot be said of the native peoples of those countries that the US or Britain (Spain, France, Italy, Netherlands, etc...) turned their "interests" towards. You could call it progress from our stand point. But they would call it interference and domination. 

Where people lived for generation (even thousands of years) on subsistance off the land, we brought progress. Thus we brought disese, hunger, poverty, stress, etc.

The argument here is that we forced it upon them. They did not evolve as we did through their own means and willingness to progress. We shoved it upon them, told them this is how it must be done, and then left them to figure it out on their own.

Who wins? Sure as heck isn't them.

We do through exploitation of their resources, their cheap labour, and their lack of understanding of what it is to protect there own interests.

But I digress.

Hegemony's and Empires are fine if your willing participants from the get go. Its the rest that are not that don't like it.


----------



## JBP (13 Mar 2005)

> Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing.  Considering that we did, generally, quite well under the British (read Ferguson's Empire) and that 50 years of US dominance, hegemony, or whatever you want to call it has brought us an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity, I can't figure out why people treat the word like its the boogeyman.
> 
> If serving in the military means being assertive with our interests and often working alongside US Hegemony or furthering US imperialism, then so be it.  Better then living in the cave....
> 
> PS: BigLargewhatever, you better take PBI's advice - every soldier who's been around the block knows that "helping people" is some sort of pipedream - see you at the races....




Slight rant ON:

Aha! And look what happened to all of those "great" nations and thier achievements eventually. They were all looked upon as tyrants, dominators and subjugators' of people... Also viewed as Evil itself in many cases... Rome, Britian, France, they all had thier big time. Many other nations' throughout history also...

It's human nature to not like the "big dog" on top, but how does one get to the top? By stepping on other people's BACKS....

Well Infanteer, if you want to fantasize about wearing the 52nd goddamn state patch on your uniform, have a blast. I don't think that's a great image to express when you're going to become an Officer in the Canadian Forces....  :  "Sure, I'd like to be apart of an American Imperialism!"..... God... Almost enough to make me sick! (IMHO only).. I'm not saying that simply as a knee-jerk reaction either. I wouldn't expect ANY member of the CF to WANT to join another country or be "subjugated"(sp?) by them. I don't care if we'd be joining Greece for all I care, as a member of the military I would expect and think that you'd /want/ to be loyal to your home nation and value what it has on it's own and have pride for your country...

Just my reaction to your opinions as someone who has always loved Canada and always will and a person who takes great pride in our nation and would expect those who swear an oath to DIE to defend it wouldn't want to just say, "Hey, well those guys over there sure seem tough, let's drop what we're doing (Canada) and just come under thier flag!!!"...

Slight rant OFF:

Obviously that hit abit of a sore spot.
 - Regardless


----------



## Spr.Earl (13 Mar 2005)

Yes we do,too stop the American hoards form buying our Beer!!


----------



## PJ D-Dog (13 Mar 2005)

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> I wouldn't expect ANY member of the CF to WANT to join another country or be "subjugated"(sp?) by them. I don't care if we'd be joining Greece for all I care, as a member of the military I would expect and think that you'd /want/ to be loyal to your home nation and value what it has on it's own and have pride for your country...



It's obvious that you have not been in the CF for very long.  I was in the CF for 11 years and I felt very "subjugated" by the organization to the point of having to leave.

I felt very much the way you do when I first joined the CF.  I was more than proud and I hated the Americans.  As I grew older and saw things as they really are, I realized that the loyalty I had for Canada and the CF was not reciprocal.

A few points:

1.  A foreign national serving in the US military is not "subjugated" in any way.  Unless you think that having to following rules and regulations is subjugation (the same thing exists in the CF...rules and regulations).  I have personally never felt that way about he the Marine Corps and there are people from all sorts of countries serving in the Marines.  The attitude is simple:  if you're here, you're one of us.  No one treats you as a second class citizen because of the language you speak or where you come from.  That's more than I can say for the CF where if you are a francophone, some units hold it against you.  On the flip side, when serving with Quebec regiments, if you are an anglophone, no one wants anything to do with you.  Being bilingual, I saw both sides of the coin and I can tell you that it hurts and I used to get extremely angry.  I've seen field grade officers speak only in french at conferences trying to force obvious unilingual anglophones to speak a language they don't know and cause them embarrassment just the "bring down the english oppressors".  I can tell you, I had some very animated exchanges with some of those people because what they were doing was just wrong.

2.  Loyalty is a two way street.  For some reason the CF can't figure that out.  In Canada you are treated as a subject (we know what is good for you).  In the US you are treated as a citizen (you have rights).  You will never know how restricted your freedom is in Canada until you live in the US.  If you're own country can't look after you and treat its soldier right, then the foundation of your loyalty begins to erode. (read my post in Quitting the forces and you'll see what I mean.

3.  Canada is economically dominated by the US.  It doesn't matter how you slice it, it's always dollar fourty four day for Americans visiting Canada.  Everyting that happens in the US directly and indirectly affects the Canadian economy.  If we were to shut down the border today and allow no more trade with the US, Canada would slip to the status of a second world nation.

As much as you, others may not want to admit it, Canada needs the US to survive.  If CF soldiers want to migrate south of the border to be with the real thing rather than belonging to a reasonably hand drawn facsimile, then that is up to them.  It doesn't mean they don't feel any loyalty to Canada.  I have far more respect for CF soldiers joining the US military than I do for those candy rear-end college graduates who are interested only in their personal monetary gain.  You won't be a millionaire while serving the US military, I can assure you of that.

My advice to you:  Do ten years in the CF (if you can stand it that long or if you can make ends meat that long) and then come back and tell me where your loyalties lie.

Regards.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## pbi (13 Mar 2005)

Canada will always play the role of the "brilliant subordinate" until the day comes that we are fully capable of pursuing a totally independent course in the world. We simply lack the ability (at present) to play that role, and anyway one might want to ask why we would bother, since unilateralism seems to create more problems than it solves, except _in extremis _ when national security is immediately at stake and trumps all other concerns.

Anyway, we are a pretty junior partner in the world, and most definitely the junior partner in North America (I do not include Mexico in this discussion, since AFAIK their role beyond their borders has been next to zero.) Given this fact, we can take one of two courses of action. We can work with the US, as a respected and loyal ally who holds up their end of the load, or we can try to pursue a separate way which will bring with it inevitable friction with the US. While I think that the historical spectre of a US invasion ("Manifest Destiny", etc) is an unlikely one, economic sanctions are not. Note that I am not discussing the "Third Option" because IMHO it is not really relevant to the security issue at hand.

In my opinion, if we do not like the course of US foreign policy, the best way to be able to influence it is from the first position: that of an "insider". If we force ourselves (or, maybe I should say "continue to force ourselves") into the role of the untrustworthy, flip-flopping carper and whiner that wants everything but is willing to contribute nothing, then our attempts to influence their foreign policy, or any other policy that affects us, will be given about as much weight as comments from Holland or Morocco. The US are, in my opinion (and some experience) extremely defensive toward negative comment, even if well intended, that comes from "outsiders". Those who are seen in this role can lose all credibility in the blink of an eye. Anecdotally, look how quickly France and Germany, two allies of long standing, went from the status of friends to that of "surrender monkeys" and "Old Europe".

Unless we want the same treatment, the course of action I recommend is the same one we followed under the British: the "insider". 

To bring this back to the thread, I believe that in order to do that, we need a capable military that can contribute to the security of North America in a meaningful, visible way, both on our shores and "at the scene of the fire". I am not in favour of doorstep defence, and neutrality is simply not an option for us.

Cheers.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (13 Mar 2005)

Great post PBI...I'll try and look in this week.  I'll be away training the navy....gasp.

D-Dog.


----------



## Zipper (13 Mar 2005)

Good post pbi. It amazes me how intelligent some of the Infantry can be. :dontpanic:

PJ - You bring up some very valid points. It is a shame at how our own people, let alone the military establishment treats its own. And yes, the French/English thing seems to simmer on and on.


----------



## DanielleAnne (3 Apr 2005)

All I have to say is we live in the greatest country in the world.    and I feel that we need to protect what many other Canadians fought and died to give us. So Hell yeah we need a military.  :threat: but that is just mho.


----------



## Devin (10 Sep 2005)

What kind of a question is that? of course we need a military, read about ww1 and 2 and find out what the canadians did in those wars. our armed forces are underfunded, underequiped and undermanned we need more young people in our armed forces, i had many people say to me "what are you going in the army for?,are you retaded?" it is very sicking to see how far downhill our country has gotten since 1945. 60 years of spiraling down, well I for one will keep going up and keep fighting for a better and stronger Canada.


----------



## koss78a (10 Sep 2005)

hello all im 27 year old male, i am considering joining full time in the canadian military.
not to sure what area, army, navy or air? not sure yet,
i feel though since im 27, im a bit too old to start in the infantry
but i what i want from you guys , is to help me make my decision

y is the military so good? tell me your thoughts?


----------



## Meridian (11 Sep 2005)

Koss, Im gonna be friendly (before everyone jumps all over you) and suggest that you take some time with the search function and read through some existing threads... You are not the first person in your position to ask the question.. IF you still have a specific question, create your own thread, dont hijack another that is unrelated.

I agree with pbi, My greatest issue is that the vast majority of Canadians do not, or don't even care to consider the arguments. Sure they want us to the support the military we have, because to do otherwise would be, well rude. But most of the younger Canadians I talk to about my interests with the military almost invariably tell me we dont need one, that it is a joke, and clearly demonstrate they have no will to explore arguments to the contrary.


----------



## koss78a (12 Sep 2005)

then we are all doomed if the next generations are not supporting that
we will be taken by the americans in the next 40 years or so


----------



## Meridian (12 Sep 2005)

I should note that Im a Poli Sci Honours student and thus have talked about this with some fairly educated pukes


----------



## koss78a (12 Sep 2005)

well if your so educated?
then why do educated people say lets get rid of the military in canada?

what are the reasons, lets here them


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Sep 2005)

Koss,
This is a Moderator warning.

Stop asking these open-ended questions. This is the second[and last] time I have said this to you.
Like I said to you just yesterday,...start reading!!!!


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2005)

koss78a said:
			
		

> well if your so educated?
> then why do educated people say lets get rid of the military in canada?
> 
> what are the reasons, lets here them



For a guy who claims 





> i am 27 years old, have law and security diploma and business.
> as well i have lots of experience working security for last few years
> cant decide on what trade to get into, but would like something thats diverse and practical.


I am surprised by the simplicity of your questions.   I would have imagined that by now in your life, many of these questions must have been discussed over beers at a bar or party.   I am sure that in the Security Business there must have been talk over coffee about these matters at some time or other also.  The novelty of your lines of questioning is wearing thin.  You post like a prepubescent teenager, and perhaps are mascarading as something you are not.  Please do more reading of the Forums before flooding us with inane questions.   And please post with good grammar and spelling.  It looks and reads so much better.


----------



## TheNomad (12 Sep 2005)

Well I am an outsider here:

1.  The question is a valid one. Firstly I believe Canada needs to decide what it wants it armed forces to do.  I doubt if this will ever really happen based on what I have read about the history of the Canadian Army.

2.  Canada is almost irrelevant as far as military action is concerned.  Note this is not a dig at the troops, but a reflection of the government policies thay are subjected to. CANBAT in UNPROFOR was often referred to as CANTBAT.

3.  Canada is in no position to defend itself from the US.  The US will never need to invade Canada, they will just buy up those bits they do not already own.  Remember in whose favour is NAFTA?

4.  There is no readily identifiable threat to Canada.  Fishing disputes are not likely to lead to Spain attempting to invade.

5.  If Canada cuts its forces much more, then it might as well wind the whole show up and stop pretendig.

6.  Maybe it is time to scrap the CF and just reform the Coastguard into something more like the USCG with a real remit to protect Canada's coast line against illegal fishing and the landing of people and drugs etc.  This would of course meaning having to recognise that Canada has no intention of ever having a real armed forces or going to war again.

7.  Most Canadian civilians I know seriously do not think the Canada should have any military at all.

8.  Personally I would like to see the return of the RCN, CA and RCAF instead of these so called elements. However, I also think there is more chance of the CF being scrapped than that happening.

Like I said these are not digs at the troops, but I seriously doubt that any Canadian government of any party is likely to do much in the way of making the CF viable entities, so maybe it is time for a total re-think.


----------



## Ubique RCA (12 Sep 2005)

Why would we as a sovern nation need a military. We don't need to protect our borders, is ludicrous statement. We need to show that we will protect not just our land but the people that are in it. I think that the CDS has stated this clearly. 

"We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."
Quote : CDS Gen. HILLIER R.

As an example of our troops abilities, forces that were in Afghanistan requested snipers, lots of snipers. but not just any snipers specifically Canadian Snipers. Prime example is the longest recorded confirmed Kill, by a PPCLI sniper observer team @ 2450 m

It doesn't really matter if someone leaves the CF and goes to an other nation's military, that has no bearing on Canada as a whole. What does matter is that we have a force that is capable of returning fire if the situation warranted. Peaceful means of solving a situation is always the best course to take but it is a necessary evil that if things hit the fan, the muscle no matter how big or small needs to be used. 

As Canadians we are known for our peacefulness, and thus in a great % of the world are well liked.  The Canadian Military has been known for it's "Peace keeping." The world as PM Pearson knew it is no longer and the days of "Peacekeeping" are gone. In no situation that we go to as a military are we mearly peace keepers. I am sure that everyone has heard of the 3 block war concept. In todays world we as a military are needed to help stabilize regions from colapse. In one block we may be fighting the EN the next providing Aid and then next rebuilding the comunity. If this is the way that the Government is showing/growing  its international relations then so be it. I am not afraid to go to a foreign country to help in anyway possible, and if I am called a peacekeeper then so be it but I am a Canadian Peacekeeper and am proud to know that we are there to help. 

There are many things that are messed up in our military and many are in it for their own reasons. But the will to serve and the idea of duty before self is in everyone no matter how small. To sum up Canada needs a military, to Comfort, Protect and Provide, in what ever fashion Canada or the world may need.



Just as an aside if you have a chance please have a read. It is an excellent article that outlines Canada's and Canadian's thought's on peacekeeping then and now. Or what it should be. 


http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/050906/cit/050906bn.htm


----------



## Meridian (13 Sep 2005)

Now, I'm sure someone can show my argument as being unfounded, or maybe just total common sense, but, I have always tended to beleive that Canadians are just not excitable people.

They do not see a need for something unless its smack in their face every single day.  When's the last time Canadians have actually FELT the repercussions of all these wars we are fighting in a very tangible and real way?  Its been a while (comparatively speaking). Instead, Canadians want Healthcare, lower taxes and better education to make a more comfortable and "enlightened" living.  All things that canadians live and breathe every day.  The Realities of war are (fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on what you are arguing for) are far, far away from the realities that everyday Canadians face... You ask a poor newfoundlander fisherman or a struggling Sask farmer why we shouldnt spend more on stabilization missions to africa and you will get a very direct response. That doesn't mean they don't think if we had the resouces it wouldnt be nice to help africa out... it just means priorities are priorities.

I do not personally believe that Canadians will give all that much of a damn or believe in the need of an active, professional military force until something happens on Canadian soil that demonstrates only a Canadian unit will do.  Until then, Canadians look at the CF as a "token force", something that is used in IR (international relations) and foreign policy more specifically to demonstrate multinationalism when really everything could have been accomplished by a world policeman.

Furthermore, most Canadians do not seem to either be aware or to subscribe to the belief that wars should be fought over there so that they dont have to be fought here.... Thus there is no need for a military, because the US can quite clearly assure the security of the continent (assuming their military leadership functions better than DHD did 3 weeks ago), and since there should be no need for us to go over there (humanitarian aid and more "canadian" "peace orientated" "soft" type functions such as mediation can do the job sufficiently on our behalf), why a military?


----------



## Ubique RCA (13 Sep 2005)

Hypothetical Rant:

If we were to  scrub the military today, and in 5 years time there is an attack on our soil. For lack of an enemy the granovian forces land on our soil and push to Ottawa and other major cities because they know we have no army.  There is a crucial time in the beginning of any battle, big or small where it will be won or lost. This is the time where forces are maneuvering to get the advantage. ok. now what happens....The US will take time to mobilize, we deffinitely won't have an army to put together. and if we did they wouldn't be as organized as the invading force and wouldn't have the fire power to stop on coming forces. The Americans come in and retake Canada. (which they wouldn't let down for eons to come) and the public would now say we want an army and we are back to square one. 

Thanks for the rant


----------



## GNR (13 Sep 2005)

(sarcasm) Why don't we just give up our sovereignty now and join the United States? They have a BIG Army. (/end sarcasm)


----------



## koss78a (13 Sep 2005)

I agree it is very well needed that canada must maintain its military status. For one good reason it does provide jobs and quality employment to many of the serving members.
Why would someone want to leave a position as a Seragant to go and wash dishes at burger king???
It helps the canadian economy, since many people are employed and buy things in canada.
AS well, the military does help othe rparts of the world, such as search and rescue and helping in new orleans right now.

Secondly, the military is needed to protect our parts of the country, even though they are small, they are needed and perform an important duty.

If we were to get rid of our military and wait for the americans to help us, we might as well, say goodbye to canada.
If another country were to invade canada, and we called the americans to help. The president would say, ok we will help, only unless you the prime minister turn canada over to the united states, then we will help you. 
That what would happen. Many people just dont see the whole picture of things. They are too absorbed drinking at the bars and playing playstation all the time.
my 2 cents!


----------



## Meridian (13 Sep 2005)

How many Sgts actually leave the forces and end up at BK?  I don't know, but I doubt the proportion is that high.

Anyway, my argument wasn't that I AGREE with many of the people who have given me those impressions, simply that thats how many canadians portray the issue.  
I guess I was looking more for a way to counteract this impression, or argue that hte impression isnt there at all and that Im grossly generalizing.... not to simply throw sarcasm to the wind...


----------



## Zarathustra (16 Sep 2005)

I'm not sure it's worth it to add yet another opinion to this thread but hey, can't hurt that much.

My opinion is the size of your military should fit the size of the threat your country is facing. The internal and external threat to Canada were very low until recently so the military was very small. Now the threat seems to be increasing a bit, and so is the size of our military. Makes sense to me. 

Zero military on the other hand seems dangerous. Because you can go from a small military to a larger one fairly easily. I mean, the military knowledge is there, you just have many new guys to teach. Going from zero military to a larger one seems to be much harder. It's gonna be very amateurish until you get experience.


----------



## GNR (16 Sep 2005)

You know Zarathustra, that is a simple idea.......but it works.

Now the question is;
Will we be a nation that reacts to the increasing threat, changing only after we are threatened...potentially to late
OR one that is proactive and anticipates the upcoming threat and prepares for it now?

Failure to prepare IS preparing to fail.


----------



## reccecrewman (16 Sep 2005)

> You kidding?  The only thing that might concievably stop them is the US navy.  China has a pretty decent fleet though, and using the element of surprise it's quite possible they could land enough troops to overwhelm our defenses before the US had a chance to position their own ships.  If it wasn't for the yanks being worried about their own soverignty, we'd be utterly defenceless.




What?  : Omigod!  It is absolutely ludicrous to think that some foreign power would EVER attempt to invade Canada.  Just think about the logistics involved in something like that.  First, you need enough transport ships to get the invasionary troops here, then you need supply ships for those invading troops, escort warships to protect the transport ships, aircraft carriers & refuelling ships & submarines.  Know of ANY Country out there that possesses enough of these to pull it off? I don't.  China's name has been thrown into the ring as a possible invader but they do not have adequete naval power to bring it to fruition.  Russia? No, they're not interested anymore & they're having enough issues of their own military shortcomings & the fact that they can't even properly handle the Chechens.

Next, should you have some other Country you believe actually HAS the naval requirements to invade us, now there's another problem.  Look at the sheer size of Canada.  Who could actually occupy us?  Do you have any idea of the number of troops that would be required to occupy Canada once they invaded & conquered?  ;D  If OP SEALION had actually happened and England fell to German invasion, history very well could be very different.  England was the jump off point for the liberation of Europe and had England fallen, that key staging area would not have been available to the allies, and Nazi Germany could bring her full weight down on the Soviets.  D-Day never would have happened because there's no way we could have mounted an invasion from the other side of the globe.  The same holds true today, no country could invade and hold Canada.

I still believe we need a standing Army to honour our NATO commitments and be able to defend our territory, but the liklihood of an invasion is next to nil. (Unless it was a land invasion from the South   )


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2005)

How about if they get invited in?

Consider Oka revisited.  As I recall a company strength group of Natives with small arms, some engineering skills and a bit of military training held the best part of a Brigade Group at bay for a summer.  And yes I know that was political not military but all conflicts are political.  If the politicians don't have the will nothing happens, except perhaps things go from bad to worse.  
\
Consider.  Perhaps on the West Coast at an oil terminus or gas field.  Perhaps on the East Coast at a Nickel mine.  In the North at a Diamond.  Land claimed by natives. Supported by the Toronto Chapter of Hell's Angels looking for a "free port" to smooth imports and exports.  Claim upheld by UN.  Disputed by Canada.  Natives and friends, along with money from Middle Eastern friends intend to develop resource themselves.  Appeal to other "foreign friends" to supply security, perhaps even technical advisers, guest workers.  Security systems shipped in by sea in standard containers as innocuous freight.

"The capitalist will pay you to buy the rope with which to hang him"  or words to that poorly remembered effect.

We may not need to repel a June 6th fleet or even an Inchon fleet.  However the cat can be skinned other ways and we may still end up needing a well equipped conventional force capable of operating at home.


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Sep 2005)

We need a military.

I once heard a WW2 vet say this line "Freedom has one price, blood"

If we give up our military, then we should also lay up the Candian Flag because that is what you are doing.

If that were to happen, I would move to the Republic of Alberta and join their army.


----------



## reccecrewman (19 Sep 2005)

LOL  ;D Well, you can safely assume it would be a well funded Army!


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (20 Sep 2005)

The notion that the US would someday "assimilate" Canada is entirely possible and quite frightening, and could easily happen alot sooner than most people think.

Its been said on these forums many times before, but in the event of another large scale terrorist attack on the US, that US intelligence discovered to have been staged from inside Canada, we would then be seen as a safe haven for terrorists, and we are obviously unable to keep them out of Canada.We are now a liability to the US. What do you think would happen then?

"Don't fret Canada, we're here patrolling your streets for your own protection" - George Bush, 2008

A nightmarish scenario if you ask me.

I find it disturbing and discomforting that our military is as meak as it is... I pray that it gets some kind of large scale resurgence very VERY quickly.

The odds of us staying a sovreign nation, with the most abundance of the worlds natural resources (oil, food, water) without an adequate military to defend ourselves, is 100-0. History does indeed go in circles, and the farther we drift into mediocrity, the more we are inviting our american "friends" to sleep over for the weekend.


----------



## koss78a (20 Sep 2005)

Totally agree on that last response, it is time that canada steps up the military power.
The general public needs to find out why its important to have a military.

too many canadians are too arrogant about the way it is right now and just go about their daily business.


----------



## GNR (20 Sep 2005)

It's best Canada figures out NOW why we NEED a military instead of them realising later why the SHOULD have had one.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (20 Sep 2005)

It doesn't even have to be a terrorist attack from or on Canadian soil.  What a bout at Cat 4-5 storm hitting the east or west coast.  The USA had over 70,000 troops deployed in the gulf area after the storm while still maintaining their commitments over seas.  This would be an impossibility in Canada.  We don't have the troops or equipment to re-act to an event of that size.  It is said that we can not even provide support to our own country man within our own borders.  That is reason one why Canada needs to beef up the Forces.


----------



## JDFreeSoul (22 Sep 2005)

PTE Fader said:
			
		

> I'm new to the Canadian Army, the Reserves infact, but I take great pride in my work.   It's enjoyable, fun, challenging, and quite rewarding.
> 
> I've met some of the finest people I've met in my life from being in the army for just a few short months, and I feel quite content with the fact that while other people of my stature are working part time at McD's for $6 an hour doing, flipping burgers and asking "uh... you want fries with that?" I'm learning how to be a soldier.   A trade that I've dreamt about being since I was a little kid.   Furthermore, as an added bonus, I get paid more than buddy at McDonalds.
> 
> ...




Exactly... that's why we need Armed Forces like every nations, we never know what could happen tomorrow, who will defend the country if we're under attack in 20 years from now?


----------



## Part-Timer (22 Sep 2005)

If you look at the military history of Canada (and British North America before that) you will see a disturbing (to me) pattern emerge. Crisis emerges, people pay attention to the military. It takes a while to ramp up, and we lose too many people learning our lessons as a result. Crisis is resolved, people ignore the militray, budgets get cut, military shrinks...until the next crisis. The only thing that has saved us has been the fact that the fight's always been "over there" (except pre-confederation, and then the British and First Nations saved our bacon). But what will happen when the fight is over here? Will we finally wake up and smell the coffee? Or will it be too late?


----------



## Meridian (24 Sep 2005)

Just like the former CSIS director was saying in this week's edition of Time.... paraphrasing, "You can't just snap your figures and turn out intelligence officers".  Same thing goes for the military...


----------



## zein (24 Sep 2005)

Hi,

Somebody mentioned that the CF get an embarrassment in Somalia and that the CF is there for civilian rescues only... Well let us get back to the history of the CF and here I will remind everybody about the Vimy battle in World WarI   that changed things drastically. Let us get back to the storm that hit Quebec in the nineties and see how the forces managed to rescue our civilians.Without the army who was supposed to do the rescue if the local authorities were unable to handle the situation by themselves.Do we call for others to assist us? Or do we ask for an overseas rescuers to help us? The forces are there in peace and war times and as a result county without a national army will never gain a respect from its citizens. Why because the army is there to protect our citizens and sovereignty from any possible threats whether these are coming form aliens or nature..   Regardless of the resources available to our forces defending our nation and assisting our citizens are engraved in our hearts and that's the most important because we believe in our forces and our nation.


----------



## Mr.PhatRat (24 Sep 2005)

About the only thing I think Canada needs to change with its army is the fact that we ALL need to be soldiers FIRST and foremost.  The Marine Corps is a prime example of what Canada needs.  Every person that puts on a uniform needs to qualify on the range every year, and conduct actual dismounted ops.  We say that we do it, but for those of you who currently serve, you know how it is sometimes.  There is a HUGE differance between saying "Soldier First" and actually meaning it.


----------



## ArmyRick (24 Sep 2005)

Phatrodent, you are quite correct. Generals Hillier and Caron are both pushing this notion hard. Logistics branch, look out because you guys are the number one bunch that will get a culture shock  > The Infantry, armour, arty and FD Eng have been traditionally still "Soldiers first" all along so it won't be a drastic change.

The days of the Canadian Employment Forces are over.  Lets all do our part to put the ARMY back in army. For those of you who do not agree, GET OUT  ^-^


----------



## Kyle (24 Sep 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> The notion that the US would someday "assimilate" Canada is entirely possible and quite frightening, and could easily happen alot sooner than most people think.
> 
> Its been said on these forums many times before, but in the event of another large scale terrorist attack on the US, that US intelligence discovered to have been staged from inside Canada, we would then be seen as a safe haven for terrorists, and we are obviously unable to keep them out of Canada.We are now a liability to the US. What do you think would happen then?
> 
> ...



Understandable, but at the same time, in order to defend a land mass the size of Canada against the US, we'd need an army bigger than China's. If the US wanted to annex Canada, no matter what kind of military force we had, we really wouldn't stand much of a chance - they have ten times our population, a far stronger and more diversified economy and a military system that's technologically superior to ours is almost every way. In addition to this, a great deal of our defence materials and equipment come from the US, so we would be reduced to fighting a guerrila war, which I don't know how long we would be able to sustain if the US controlled all shipping traffic in and out of North America. And as much as the rest of the world generally likes Canada, I don't know if any of them are friendly enough to go to war with the US for us. If the US was really bent on taking over Canada, there's pretty much nothing that we could do to stop them. Or even slow them down, really.

And since we have the US (the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world) as our neighbour, nobody's going to try to attack or invade us. Personally, I think that we should maintain enough of a force to keep our overseas commitments (which would imply either stepping up our military capacity, or cutting back on our overseas commitments - for the moment, the government seems to be taking the first road), while having enough back in Canada to respond to natural disasters, riots, etc. I would suggest that regular force be used for overseas deployments, due to the fact that they're much better prepared for such tasks (simply because they can train all day every day) than reserves, and reserves be trained and used during national emergencies where civilian agencies do not have the capacity to respond adequately.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (25 Sep 2005)

Mr.PhatRat said:
			
		

> About the only thing I think Canada needs to change with its army is the fact that we ALL need to be soldiers FIRST and foremost.   The Marine Corps is a prime example of what Canada needs.   Every person that puts on a uniform needs to qualify on the range every year, and conduct actual dismounted ops.   We say that we do it, but for those of you who currently serve, you know how it is sometimes.   There is a HUGE differance between saying "Soldier First" and actually meaning it.



    The reality of our forces overseas is that there is no such thing as a safe area.  As the US has discovered in Iraq, and we all have discovered in sunny Afghanistan, it is as likely that a supply convoy, or recovery vehicle may be the first point of contact for an insurgent attack, our "support troops" are the ones that the insurgents target, rather than our amoured recce and frontline infantry patrols.  Our troops from clerks to drivers to mechanics must be infantry trained, and current engough react instintively and agressively to turn an "ambush close" on our support troops into a bad idea.  There have been times enough in the past, like my grandfathers quote about the battles of the Schelte in WWII where we have sent "the cooks, the clerks, and the Sgt Mgr's blinking band" into the line to push an assault through.  If every soldier is an infantry man first, then there will be no soft targets for the enemy to attack, and there will be solidarity in the forces as every soldier shares a common vision of the CF as a fighting force, not a uniformed branch of the dept of transport or finance ministry.


----------



## RangerRay (25 Sep 2005)

This is a no-brainer.  But a surpisingly large number of leftists in this country believe it.

These people are usually the same ones that scream "our sovereignty is under attack" at any notion of closer relations with the US.

Well, if you disband the Canadian Forces, you might as well lower the Maple Leaf on that flagpole and run up the Stars and Stripes, because we will no longer be sovereign, and the US will take up our defence by default.


----------



## Inspir (16 Apr 2006)

Polish Mig-29 Pilot said:
			
		

> The thing about this is. Canada has no clear danger or no clear enemy.



My how much things have changed since


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Apr 2006)

> Quote from: Polish Mig-29 Pilot on May 04, 2001, 16:16:00
> The thing about this is. Canada has no clear danger or no clear enemy.



Just because there was no enemy that particular day, doesnt mean one cannot present itself tomorrow.
Would you pack your kit for a month based on the sunny weather of one day ?


----------



## JBP (16 Apr 2006)

On the point of the USA annexing Canada... I for one, LOVE this country. If that were to somehow happen, I would not live in Canada under US rule. I will pickup and move somewhere else in the world if I have to.

Also, I believe the rest of the world wouldn't sit by and watch the USA takeover Canada, because they all know what that would mean. They would be undefeatable indefinately in any conventional and probably unconventional war. They would have basically unlimited natural resources to run amok and do as they please. Indestructible really...

I believe if that happened, it would be the last straw for the world to put up with and there would be a war the likes of which no one could imagine. It would end up being 1/2 the world against the USA probably. I don't even think Britain or France would allow that to happen. I'd much rather we be taken completely back under British rule than American. And technically since we're still part of the Commonwealth, they have to defend us!

You folks really think the world would let Canada crumble like that???

I don't believe so and I would die to defend our country and what it stands for.


----------



## TCBF (16 Apr 2006)

"I don't believe so and I would die to defend our country and what it stands for."

- You choose your enemies poorly, but, anyway, just what DOES Canada stand for?  in your own words...

Tom


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Apr 2006)

Does Canada Need An Army?...The question is foolish no need for any long winded history just simple reality as follows:
Under international law and conventions to be considered a country you need:
 1.  You must be able to control your borders from attack.
 2.  You must be able to control the civilian population and quell civil unrest with a police force.
 3.  You must be able to control your waterways and sea coast out to the international limit.

  Without all of these you cannot be considered a country. So why do we need an army, it is self explanatory if you don't want to be taken over by a rebel force who could in turn provide the above 3 items and ask for standing in the world as a legitimate country.


----------



## Scipio (18 Apr 2006)

Canada does not need an army for defensive or offensive purposes.  The US has a 400 billion dollar a year Military budget.  The Americans air superiority is enough to win any battle.  Any threat to us and by proxy the USA would respond.

Canada does need an army to flex it's sovereignly even though it's more of a staged event than an actual necessity.



> Without all of these you cannot be considered a country. So why do we need an army, it is self explanatory if you don't want to be taken over by a rebel force who could in turn provide the above 3 items and ask for standing in the world as a legitimate country.



You can be considered a country without a military.  There are countries right now with no Army, Air Force, or Navy to call their own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_an_army. You may not be a world player, but meh.  There are many nice socialist countries with insignificant forces and they are not under threat of losing their borders.

New Zealand's army is 1000 or so strong, they couldn't defend their land against a swarm of lemurs.  Iceland.... not sure but I'm guessing it's small.  Today, rebel force can't just take over a powerful country.  Canada will never be taken over by 'rebels'.  Presently, nobody is that unhappy to actually spur a bloody revolution.  And if a rebellion did emerge then chances are the army (or a good portion of the army) would side with the rebels.  So aside from image and personal pride, you can't make an argument that Canada would lose it's borders without the CF. I would like to hear your argument.

As of late, I'm starting to wonder if 'image' is what Canada even needs.  I was sure it was for a very long time, and even championed it here at the forums.  But given our population, our budget, and our place geographically- Can we support a worthy military?  One that does not run on out-dated ships and one that Canadians could rely on?  I'd say no.  Small populations wield small taxes on top of which we import more than we export, so Canada has neither the bank nor size to support anything other than small military.

And to me, a small military is starting to become slightly irrelevant.  I think a portion of Canadians feel pride in knowing they have an army and to that degree I'd say it's a good thing to have around.  It really is the only argument I can see as to why we MUST have a military.  Because the world would not notice if we scrapped our CF.  I'm sure the US does not care, just as long as we have missile stocked satellites orbiting over our hemisphere.

---------------------------------------------

The US will not Annex Canada.  Wealthy American industrialist already own a large portion of our industry.  Vancouver’s hottest money maker at the moment, Land, is own vastly by wealthy Hong Kong business men - So don't think Americans are the only greedy ones out there.  We sold Alaska and whatever lumber we don't use for ourselves, we sell to the US alongside energy and produce.  I'm not sure if the cost of annexing Canada would be worth the hassle.  Business with Canada works good for the US at the moment until our dollar surpasses their own.  But the US would respond ot a weak dollar by simply tacking on tariffs to Canadian imports.  

The US is not a threat.  I can't think of one threat in the entire world.  Building a huge army will not 'weed' out terrorism either.  Stricter border control and spy games (CSIS, CIA, MI6) is what prevents that sort of thing, not Fort Bragg or Gagetown.  Terrorists don't care about how big an army is, if you haven't already noticed.

So between the lack of threat and money and the presence of a big neighbor- Canada's military does seem a bit superfluous.


----------



## monika (18 Apr 2006)

Looking at a map it should be blindingly obvious as to why Canada needs a military.


----------



## Scipio (18 Apr 2006)

No, the US could respond with a much bigger force, and are monitering our NOrthern shores for us, much to our chagrin.  What Canada needs (or so the US thinks) is missles floating in space and missle bases on our land.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> No, the US could respond with a much bigger force, and are monitering our NOrthern shores for us, much to our chagrin.  What Canada needs (or so the US thinks) is missles floating in space and missle bases on our land.



go back to your playpen kid......

come back when you can walk and talk on your own    :


----------



## Gunner (18 Apr 2006)

> Canada does not need an army for defensive or offensive purposes.  The US has a 400 billion dollar a year Military budget.  The Americans air superiority is enough to win any battle.



Every time I read a newspaper or watch the news on TV, I marvel at how well the air force is winning battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.   :


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Apr 2006)

Scipio,

    Some of your examples are protectorits so they have an armed force protecting it, others are encircled by countries that have issued Independence and promised to protect thus they have a armed force. I see that TCI is not on the list (my new home) it has no armed force but has a promise of protection from its Independence grantor. They have also seen the need to maintain their status and will be developing an armed force soon. Let me explain again...if you have a country with no defence then a rebel force can come in and provide the 3 criteria I laid out and then ask for status from the world and they will be granted it...shizam....new country.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Apr 2006)

Regardless of debates about repelling an unlikely US invasion (you can take over a country with economics too, don't forget) Canada has a responsibility to assist in the world security theatre.  We have resources and ability, and should not sit back and say "stick you" to the rest of the planet because we don't have any boarding parties showing up in Vancouver or St John.  
For decades we have shirked our relative military responsibilities to NATO onto others.  The government and the people of Canada, IMO, have said repeatedly "well, just let the Americans take care of it" and now OH MY GAWD!!! the Americans are taking care of things!  Crazy how that happens!
It is our turn to step up and start making things better.  And in my biased opinion, the areas that we secure and help rebuild will turn out more stable and appreciative than the ones the US takes on.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Apr 2006)

Did I read something wrong here?  At what point did "we" (Canada) own Alaska?  Or did Scipio just out himself as a Russian sleeper agent?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Apr 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Did I read something wrong here?  At what point did "we" (Canada) own Alaska?  Or did Scipio just out himself as a Russian sleeper agent?


I was wondering the same.  Must be that New History, that goes with the New Math.


----------



## pbi (18 Apr 2006)

Scipio: Please start checking your facts before you post nonsense. The NZ Armed Forces do not consist of 1,000 people.According to the NZ MND website:

"..The New Zealand Defence Force comprises some 8,721 regular force, 2,275 territorial force Service men and women and 2,134 civilian staff across the armed services of Navy, Army and Air Force, operating as Three Services – One Force..."

I know from personal experience that NZ has deployed forces to FRY and Afgh (as part of OEF.

Externally, I think your argument ignores reality. There are no "significant" countries without armed forces, and certainly no countries that aspire to any sort of world role, which Canada has for the better part of a century now.(Whether or not it has resourced that role properly is another question...) As Germany and Japan re-discovered in the later years of the last century, the currency of influence in the world includes the willingness to risk blood as well as  just treasure, and not necessarily just in defense of your immediate doorstep. IMHO there is no more clear statement that a country can make than to deploy its forces in harm's way. As long as Canada wishes to play in the world leagues, we will need effective and deployable forces.

Internally, in terms of our own physical sovereignty, (not to mention credibility and leverage in our relations with the US), the argument for effective forces as a clear demonstration of our interest in the security of our own territory should be self-evident. As well, do not make the mistake of thinking that the current political/economic situation in the world can't change, bringing us security threats we can't envision right now. Sticking our heads in the sand and insisting that "things will always be this way" is probably not a very effective course of action.

Cheers


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Apr 2006)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> I don't even think Britain or France would allow that to happen. I'd much rather we be taken completely back under British rule than American. And technically since we're still part of the Commonwealth, they have to defend us!



I don't believe that membership in the Commonwealth implies any requirement to defend other members.


----------



## Franko (18 Apr 2006)

Scipio said:
			
		

> New Zealand's army is 1000 or so strong, they couldn't defend their land against a swarm of lemurs.



You try telling that to their faces and see how long you're still standing....    :



> And to me, a small military is starting to become slightly irrelevant.  I think a portion of Canadians feel pride in knowing they have an army and to that degree I'd say it's a good thing to have around.  It really is the only argument I can see as to why we MUST have a military.  Because the world would not notice if we scrapped our CF.  I'm sure the US does not care, just as long as we have missile stocked satellites orbiting over our hemisphere.



Your ignorance is absolutly astounding. Ever hear of NATO and our commitments there? Obviously not.



> We sold Alaska ........



Wrong again....Russia sold Alaska to the US in the late 1800s    :



> So between the lack of threat and money and the presence of a big neighbor- Canada's military does seem a bit superfluous.



Really then....so I take it that you weren't craping your pants during 911.

I and many people here on this site are getting tired of your retoric fast.

Keep it up.

Regards


----------



## Eland (18 Apr 2006)

Kyle said:
			
		

> Understandable, but at the same time, in order to defend a land mass the size of Canada against the US, we'd need an army bigger than China's. If the US wanted to annex Canada, no matter what kind of military force we had, we really wouldn't stand much of a chance - they have ten times our population, a far stronger and more diversified economy and a military system that's technologically superior to ours is almost every way. In addition to this, a great deal of our defence materials and equipment come from the US, so we would be reduced to fighting a guerrila war, which I don't know how long we would be able to sustain if the US controlled all shipping traffic in and out of North America. And as much as the rest of the world generally likes Canada, I don't know if any of them are friendly enough to go to war with the US for us. If the US was really bent on taking over Canada, there's pretty much nothing that we could do to stop them. Or even slow them down, really.
> 
> And since we have the US (the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world) as our neighbour, nobody's going to try to attack or invade us. Personally, I think that we should maintain enough of a force to keep our overseas commitments (which would imply either stepping up our military capacity, or cutting back on our overseas commitments - for the moment, the government seems to be taking the first road), while having enough back in Canada to respond to natural disasters, riots, etc. I would suggest that regular force be used for overseas deployments, due to the fact that they're much better prepared for such tasks (simply because they can train all day every day) than reserves, and reserves be trained and used during national emergencies where civilian agencies do not have the capacity to respond adequately.



There's little doubt we couldn't even begin to field an army the size of China's. However, Canada is wealthy enough to be able to do far, far more than it is doing in the military sphere. Retired general Lewis McKenzie was once quoted as saying that Canada should have a military of about 180,000, army, navy and air force included. A force that large would allow for fairly sizable army - perhaps as large as the 100,000 -strong force we saw before the Liberals started their social engineering regime which almost destroyed it.

The fact that we have a large land mass is not a reason for us not to make a reasonable attempt to defend it. Our presently tiny military is not what I would call 'a reasonable effort'. Simply saying "Let the Americans defend us" is a cop-out of the worst kind, and is one of the reasons why Canada currently enjoys little real credibility in the world today. In fact, we are a G8 country not because of our contribution to the collective defence burden, or even in the humanitarian arena, but because of our rich natural resources. I sometimes think that Canada is essentially a US protectorate, and that the rest of the world, the US included, humours us by letting us pretend to be sovereign - as long as we dish out the natural resources. We've also been guilty of resting too long on the laurels we earned in WWII and Korea.

Yes, the Americans could invade, and there's little Canada could do about it. If Canadians were suitably disposed in such an event, they could embroil the Americans in a guerrilla war and make their lives difficult. After all, the US Army has had a long history of prosecuting,  losing, and generally having great difficulty in wars where the opponent was basically a guerrilla army. 

But there's little guarantee that this would happen. More to the point, Canadians are so regional in outlook and so spread out, that it's hard to see how any resistance movement could maintain much momentum for long. That's notwithstanding your point about the US possibly choking off our seaports. I'm simply pointing out that Canada's historical, cultural and political make-up would militate against much of a response to a US invasion.


----------



## exsemjingo (9 Jun 2006)

Golly, is this B.S. Thread Still up?

Here's a better question:  Do we still need to breath?  
The existence of the military is not a matter of political opinion.  If you think that, say, the Americans are a potential enemy despite our being in NATO and NORAD, then we definitely need a military to defend ourselves.  In this case it would have to be far larger than it is now.  If, on the other hand, you pay attention to rudimentary politics and know that the Americans are the best ally anyone could ever have, then we should have a military significantly larger than it is now in order to contribute our fair share to said treaties.
If you are of the opinion that we need to Invade the U.S. and trade with China and Russia, then we need a significantly larger military...

See what I am driving at? 
 The only nations ever to ask this question, and what's more say no like our previous Liberal government did, are ones in a position more secure than they deserve, or about to loose the position they thought they had.  A strong military equals national sovereignty.  The absence of one equals international subjugation.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2006)

Eland said:
			
		

> Yes, the Americans could invade, and there's little Canada could do about it. If Canadians were suitably disposed in such an event, they could embroil the Americans in a guerrilla war and make their lives difficult. After all, the US Army has had a long history of prosecuting,  losing, and generally having great difficulty in wars where the opponent was basically a guerrilla army.



As a historical BTW, the American Army, Navy and Marines have long and deep historical roots in fighting and *winning* guerrilla wars, starting with the Colonial period, the American Revolution (AS the guerrilla army, who says they are not adaptable?), the "Indian Wars", fighting the Barberry Pirates, occupying the Philippines, operations in China, the "Banana Wars"....The Continental Army, large American Armies of the Civil War and WW I were abberations and demobilized as soon as possible after the wars were done.

The problem was the huge American Army (and armed forces) of WW II were not fully demobilized, but underwent a new expansion, due to the threat from the USSR. As a large standing army preparing for Armageddon in the Fulda Gap, they had little institutional attention for the other aspects of conflict (and their leadership was initially drawn form the ranks of WW II Generals who learned their trade with Divisions and Corps fighting formed enemy formations.)

The proponents of the "small army" reorganized and became known as the Special Forces and Special Operations Forces, and since the 1980s, have come to the fore in terms of being an effective element of the force. It is difficult in bureaucratic terms to balance the success of the 250 man force with Satphones destroying the Taliban and the institutional need to have a "Heavy Metal Army" so you have the institutional and budgetary clout to count as "the" player in Washington. As "Small Army" officers gain operational experience and rise through the ranks, we may eventually see an institutional and organizational change, but so long as the threat environment is global and multi faceted, I don't expect to see the overall size of the force decreasing anytime soon.

Further reading: Max Boot: "The Savage Wars of Peace", Robert Kaplan: "An Empire Wilderness" (some historical background) and "Imperial Grunts" (small unit activities throughout the world, including some surprising places).


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Jun 2006)

Eland said:
			
		

> There's little doubt we couldn't even begin to field an army the size of China's. However, Canada is wealthy enough to be able to do far, far more than it is doing in the military sphere. Retired general Lewis McKenzie was once quoted as saying that Canada should have a military of about 180,000, army, navy and air force included. A force that large would allow for fairly sizable army - perhaps as large as the 100,000 -strong force we saw before the Liberals started their social engineering regime which almost destroyed it.



In all honesty though, what would Canada be like today had we maintained that large standing army of seven multi-battalion infantry regiments (well, six and the Airborne)? Or the Army?  In the post Vietnam-era, could we have maintained those battalions? I understand Unification was a blow to morale, but so too was the war in Vietnam.  Would it have strained our relations even more by having a 100,000 man army and not contributing to missions in Vietnam with our allies, or say, the Falklands?

And if we did participate in those campaigns, would our "honest broker" status be different today?  And would it matter/ I'd be interested in a discussion on those points. It is easy to point to the destruction of our traditions and the size of our Army - so how do we imagine we would have turned out had we continued to live out Guy Simond's dream?

What missions should we have participated in the 1970s that we didn't because of our declining army? We kept up a solid brigade commitment to NATO and a sizable force in Cyprus as a UN commitment (along with other small overver missions). 

I guess I ask in all sincerity, what did we need 13 battalions of regular infantry for in the 1970s or 1980s?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Jun 2006)

I actually took the time to read most of this thread...out of some apparant perverse curiousity after reading the 1st post from 2001...

MRM


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I guess I ask in all sincerity, what did we need 13 battalions of regular infantry for in the 1970s or 1980s?


Russians.


----------



## Lumber (12 Jun 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Russians.


Yeeep. Oh, that and norwegian fishing boats. Or was it swedish? Danish? Oh well, it was scandanavian.


----------



## Leonidio (12 Jun 2006)

There are so many positive aspects of having a Military force .And I will name 1 that has nothing to do with the service to the population(humanitary help,etc) ,but with the protection of it.Having a military gives reasons to the ennemy to think twice before invading you.Why do you think the U.S.A dont attack north corea?Or any other country that has "weapons of mass destruction"? Because if they attack them,they might have a bad surprise..Take it this way,if you where looking for a fight,for somewhat reason,would you go to someone that would be difficult to beat,or someone weak? Every nation needs an army,if the U.S knew that iraq had Weapons of mass destrution,they would have never invaded them.Thats the proof that they didint have any by the way.I explained myself shorty,instead of going on with  a long lecture.. Just think about it.


----------



## Sapper41 (12 Jun 2006)

Leonidio,

It's a free country, but I'll give you some free and friendly advice.  Loose the JTF-2 avatar, maybe your a 'fan' but unless your with the 'band' it's kinda cheesy to misrepresent yourself...yeah just take it down.

Chimo!


----------



## Leonidio (12 Jun 2006)

Its good to express you're opinion,and have an open mind.You should feel free to give you're word on anything.And I guess you're right,I am a fan,and as a fan I put that pic because of my interest in JTF2.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Jun 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Russians.



And we met that commitment with 4 CMBG in West Germany.  I think our victory in the Cold War came more from Ronald Reagan's sense of humour than Canada's standing army in Europe.  "We start the bombing in five minutes" probably said a lot more to the die-hard Commies than our results in the Canadian Army Trophy competitions.

 So the question still stands - why bemoan the fact we "only" did it with 10 battalions instead of 13?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> In all honesty though, what would Canada be like today had we maintained that large standing army of seven multi-battalion infantry regiments (well, six and the Airborne)? Or the Army?  In the post Vietnam-era, could we have maintained those battalions? I understand Unification was a blow to morale, but so too was the war in Vietnam.  Would it have strained our relations even more by having a 100,000 man army and not contributing to missions in Vietnam with our allies, or say, the Falklands?
> 
> And if we did participate in those campaigns, would our "honest broker" status be different today?  And would it matter/ I'd be interested in a discussion on those points. It is easy to point to the destruction of our traditions and the size of our Army - so how do we imagine we would have turned out had we continued to live out Guy Simond's dream?
> 
> ...



You're missing a few things.  First, you need to count 4 CMBG, then you need to include the CAST Brigade commitment to the N. Flank (another 3 battalions), plus a battalion in Cyprus and a battalion equivalent on other UN missions.  That gives us a total of eight battalions.    Then, on top of these commitments, you need 3 or 4 IRU battalions (if the system was the same then as it is now), plus another battalion for MAJAID (a commitment  which went in the 1970s, IIRC, largely to the CAR).

Gets chewed up pretty fast, doesn't it?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> You're missing a few things.  First, you need to count 4 CMBG, then you need to include the CAST Brigade commitment to the N. Flank (another 3 battalions), plus a battalion in Cyprus and a battalion equivalent on other UN missions.  That gives us a total of eight battalions.    Then, on top of these commitments, you need 3 or 4 IRU battalions (if the system was the same then as it is now), plus another battalion for MAJAID (a commitment  which went in the 1970s, IIRC, largely to the CAR).
> 
> Gets chewed up pretty fast, doesn't it?



That's what I'm asking. What commitments didn't we meet, that we should have, by "only" having the size of Army we had rather than the one Simonds envisioned?


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2006)

Michael, you can start with the CAST Brigade commitment.

The reason that Mulroney cancelled that commitment was there weren't enough bodies to both meet the commitment in Germany and the one in Norway.  It was decided to concentrate the available bodies in Germany and convert 4CMBG from a large (undermanned?) Brigade into a small (undermanned?)Division.  The decision was made easier because there was not transport to transport the Canadian Air-Sea Transportable Brigade - much less bring them home when things went pear-shaped.

Cheers.


----------



## pbi (12 Jun 2006)

IIRC this task was quickly given the nickname of "Hong Kong Brigade" since it faced about as much chance of  success as that unfortunate but brave force. If we could have gotten it to Norway in time (questionable) it would have been very hard to sustain and just about impossible to recover "in contact". Sme people rudely referred to it as "Fire and Forget".

Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> IIRC this task was quickly given the nickname of "Hong Kong Brigade" since it faced about as much chance of  success as that unfortunate but brave force. If we could have gotten it to Norway in time (questionable) it would have been very hard to sustain and just about impossible to recover "in contact". Sme people rudely referred to it as "Fire and Forget".
> 
> Cheers.



At risk of being too deadpan, that strikes me as a non-essential task, then. So I guess my original question still stands - what essential commitments did we balk at due to the small size of FMC?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> At risk of being too deadpan, that strikes me as a non-essential task, then. So I guess my original question still stands - what essential commitments did we balk at due to the small size of FMC?



I was a bit too young to know the full nuances, but seems to me the task was simply to field a viable ground force that would contribute to stemming Ivan the Red Commie Dog when the wave started.  Would not having those units in place, along with the implicit message that the country that sent them was committed to fighting the spread of the USSR, have at least made the Russians think twice about starting something?  Now that we have seen what the plan was (heavy armour, blitzkrieg style advance, hit hard defence, fall back, tac nuke, roll on top high)  I'm glad they didn't try it.  IMO we were kidding ourselves about being able to stop them, at least on the battle field while their resources and supplies held out.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2006)

> At risk of being too deadpan, that strikes me as a non-essential task, then. So I guess my original question still stands - what essential commitments did we balk at due to the small size of FMC?


 
By that definition would 4CMBG also be a non-essential task in that it never fired a shot in anger.  It was there to prevent the Russians invading.  The Russians never invaded. Therefore it was unnecessary.   

The CAST brigade fell into the same form of deterrence with the additional problem for the Norwegians, who are the only NATO country to actually share a border with Russia.  Their border is only 100 km by land from Murmansk - home of Russia's North Atlantic/Arctic fleet and its ICBM subs.  The Norwegians thought having a permanent NATO garrison in Norway might be unduly provocative.  I believe the Russians concurred. 

The Norwegian's other border, the long one, was occupied by neutral Sweden.  The best they could hope for was that escalation of tensions would happen slowly enough to allow NATO to demonstrate solidarity by deploying troops and the Russians would take their time thinking about consequences....... Then again the Russians might have considered all of that in advance.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Jun 2006)

At the risk of having my membership in cynics anonymous revealed, we were stuck in the trap created by commitment based planning. Thus, if the bill for all the tasks we had been given were added up, it exceeded the number of available troops and equipment by quite a large amount. Circa 1989-1990 the decision was made to adopt capability based planning (much easier said than done) and that in turn led to a major reduction in tasks. (The end of the cold war certainly helped.) This was not exclusively an army 'problem,' but we were the horrible example of allowing the can do attitude to be carried well past the ridiculous, let alone the sublime.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By that definition would 4CMBG also be a non-essential task in that it never fired a shot in anger.  It was there to prevent the Russians invading.  The Russians never invaded. Therefore it was unnecessary.
> 
> The CAST brigade fell into the same form of deterrence with the additional problem for the Norwegians, who are the only NATO country to actually share a border with Russia.  Their border is only 100 km by land from Murmansk - home of Russia's North Atlantic/Arctic fleet and its ICBM subs.  The Norwegians thought having a permanent NATO garrison in Norway might be unduly provocative.  I believe the Russians concurred.
> 
> The Norwegian's other border, the long one, was occupied by neutral Sweden.  The best they could hope for was that escalation of tensions would happen slowly enough to allow NATO to demonstrate solidarity by deploying troops and the Russians would take their time thinking about consequences....... Then again the Russians might have considered all of that in advance. That being the case, I would guess "more" always equals "better"...?



It all makes sense, but I think the question of deterrence is certainly an intangible - ie would the Russians be more frightened of 13 Canadian battalions than 10? I suppose the question goes deeper than just the mere number of troops deployed to questions of national will and what in fact the numbers represented aside from combat power. That being the case, I guess "more" always equals "better"?


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2006)

Michael, I think Old Sweat has it right, as might be expected from someone who lived through it.

Canada committed units, not troops, so that it could stick Flags into Mapboards.  This kept Canada's profile high, demonstrated verbally an intent but given a lack of troops to supply capability probably didn't give our allies a warm and fuzzy feeling that our acts would match our words.

But we got invited to a lot of meetings and got to join a lot of clubs so it couldn't have been all bad.  Good business for the canape vendors.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And we met that commitment with 4 CMBG in West Germany.  I think our victory in the Cold War came more from Ronald Reagan's sense of humour than Canada's standing army in Europe.  "We start the bombing in five minutes" probably said a lot more to the die-hard Commies than our results in the Canadian Army Trophy competitions.


Don't discount the value that 4 CMBG had. As the CENTAG reserve, a lot of espionage and subversive activity was directed our way - probably much more than at any other comparable-sized formation. On slow days during Fallexes I used to go looking for TIR trucks and could usually find a couple fairly easily. I may also have been the target of subversion once near the end of my tour, although I didn't realize it for several months afterwards. It was very subtle, so that I cannot be certain, but I still wonder. I don't think that too many of us took those threats seriously enough - we were only Canadian, undermanned, and under-equipped, so why would the Russians have any interest in us?

As for Northern Norway, I was only ever there twice (1983) but I figured that it would be an interesting place to fight if we had to. It was all mountain and valley, with only two main roads leading down south - not enough to cram more than a couple of Motor Rifle Divisions down at the best of times. Off-road movement was rather dodgy for much of the year - rocky, boggy, or fairly deep snow. Weather could be very unpredictable. I spent a fair amount of time wandering the valleys on either side of the road looking for the inevitable ski patrols attempting to find OP positions - the only time that I ever thought that the MiniTAT on the Kiowa had any value (no E-Bay then). It was probably some of the best defensive (and Kiowa) terrain anywhere, which is why the Russians didn't seem terribly interested given the relatively small and low-pri forces that they kept available on their side, although I cannot recall specifics two decades on.

Yes, getting there would probably have been way more than half of the fun, but if we were to have made it in time I don't think that we would have been a push-over.

And the locals were fun to party with, too.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Jun 2006)

Interesting comments, Loachman, thanks.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jun 2006)

Could we at least get something straight here?  

Canada does not need a Milt*i*ary

Canada does need a military.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jun 2006)

Anything else, my friend?? :cheers:


----------



## ReadyandWilling (13 Jun 2006)

Canada Does need a military, and we need someone in charge of this country willing to beef it up enough to allow us to do something with it. No I am not saying we should be starting random wars, kinda like a certain neighbour of ours , but we should have up to date equipment. 

Now we have some of the best d*** soldiers in the world. My best friends dad is a major, and he had a very funny, and true analogy. "If you were to describe war as washing a car(please dont go off on that one, I am quoting) a canadian soldier will be able to wash the hole car himself, and then drive away to get it dirty again, but most other militarys have overly specialised armys. They need one man to wash the rims, and one man to polich the crome, and one man to to wax etc." So i think that with the soldiers we have, that we have a great army, we just need the equipment to back them up. 

Our soldiers deserve everything we can give them on the battle field, and the fact that civilians disagree with that absolutly drives me crazy. I would like to see them go a whole month without you guys, lets see what they say when another country decides they want a peice of this land, just like the jerks who complain about the RCMP, You guys are there to protect people, I, for one am very grateful.  

RAW

Sorry that the rant hit so many different topic.


----------



## Red 6 (13 Jun 2006)

I would like to share my perspective on this topic as an American. Having spent about 22 years in the service, I have seen some places  and come in contact with military forces from quite a few different parts of the world. In my experience, the Canadian Forces are professional, well-trained and capable of accomplishing missions in a broad spectrum. Every nation needs a military force, and Canada is no exception. You have paid too high a price in blood to not maintain a credible military presence, especially in NATO.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Jun 2006)




----------



## Leonidio (13 Jun 2006)

Nice one Mr Dorosh! Gave me a good laugh.


----------



## Acadian10 (20 Jun 2006)

This is a question with an obvious answer, yes we do need a military, it's one of the main institutions that gives us our independence... you can learn this in politics 101


----------



## Koenigsegg (20 Jun 2006)

The soldier pretty much got us every right we in Western society take for granted today.  It was the other professions (lawyer) that simply followed up.  Do we need a military?  Uhh, Do we need police?  YES.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (22 Jun 2006)

No.  We don't need a military.  We have the nothing to worry about.  Nor did we from 1939-1945.   ;D


----------



## Koenigsegg (22 Jun 2006)

Of course not, they were just misunderstood.

So was Saddam.  He said he invaded Kuwait for fun, no harm in that for sure!
And the Soviet Union was just a group of countries wanting to give everyone a big hug, and handouts...


----------



## Cabose (26 Jun 2006)

Hey and Vietnam was just a giant orgy and one person forgot to get tested.


----------



## Fiji (26 Jun 2006)

To be a sovereign state, you must be a geographically bound entity that sets rules and regulations, and governs with a monopoly of force. Kind of hard to be a country that stands on its own two feet, without a strong military as its backbone.


----------



## Koenigsegg (26 Jun 2006)

Exactamundo.

with out a military force, even the "good" countries may take advantage of you.  
With no promise of force, what is the incentive to stay out?


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2006)

Fiji said:
			
		

> To be a sovereign state, you must be a geographically bound entity that sets rules and regulations, and governs with a monopoly of force. Kind of hard to be a country that stands on its own two feet, without a strong military as its backbone.



Legal definition of state:

An entity that p[osses the following qualifications ;

1- Permanent population
2- Defined territory
3- Governement
4- The capacity to enter into relations with other states

Source : Montevideo Convention on the rights and duties of states.

This is what is used in international law and the standard required for entrance to the UN. Nothing about monopoly of force or having a military.


----------



## xmarcx (26 Jun 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Legal definition of state:
> 
> An entity that p[osses the following qualifications ;
> 
> ...



While you are certainly correct on the UN definition, the concept of a legitimate monopoly on the use of force both within and outside of the state has long been a requirement for sovereign statehood in the academic field of international relations, since Max Weber introduced it in 1918. 

It's going to become far more important in the future since that criteria is  part of a cosmopolitan ideal of 'just cause' for military intervention. That is to say, if a state no longer holds a monopoly on the use of force within their borders and this is leading to destabilization, civil war, gang rule, massacres of civilians, etc, the international community has a right if not a moral duty to invade this now failed state. 

In the near future, Canadian soldiers could very well be part of an invasion of a foreign state because it either lost control of force internally, or it could no longer prevent domestic forces, i.e. terrorists, from launching attacks outside of the state. If the global order becomes dominated by an international liberal legalist paradigm, then it'd be a pretty dangerous idea for a state to not have a military because there is legal precedent for an interested foreign power to seize control of your country following some domestic disturbance in the pretext of generating stability.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (26 Jun 2006)

_In the near future, Canadian soldiers could very well be part of an invasion of a foreign state because it either lost control of force internally_

Would FRY not fit into what you say?  I am not sure if it would an "invasion" though.  Stabilization op, some other word, but invasion??


----------



## xmarcx (26 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> _In the near future, Canadian soldiers could very well be part of an invasion of a foreign state because it either lost control of force internally_
> 
> Would FRY not fit into what you say?  I am not sure if it would an "invasion" though.  Stabilization op, some other word, but invasion??



It was a move in that direction, but the international legalist community is really starting to stretch its legs now and politicians are beginning to pick up on the persuasive power of 'just cause' and 'failed states.' Elements of both were used to convince the UN/Security Council on Afghanistan and Iraq. The same ideas are being used to justify international involvement in Haiti and are laying the groundwork for a greater commitment to Darfur. The difference in terminology has more to do with what side of the conflict you're on. It's better for UN PR of course to call everything a stabilization or assistance mission, but if it's your country being 'stabilized' you'd probably have a different opinion


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (26 Jun 2006)

Well, its not only the "some" people in certain countries using the word Invasion...some folks here and in the good ol US of A are using that to describe our troops in A-stan, or the US in Iraq.

I guess I just don't think of Canada in A-stan when I think of "invasion".  I think of...the Nazi's, or something like that, as an example.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> It was a move in that direction, but the international legalist community is really starting to stretch its legs now and politicians are beginning to pick up on the persuasive power of 'just cause' and 'failed states.' Elements of both were used to convince the UN/Security Council on Afghanistan and Iraq. The same ideas are being used to justify international involvement in Haiti and are laying the groundwork for a greater commitment to Darfur. The difference in terminology has more to do with what side of the conflict you're on. It's better for UN PR of course to call everything a stabilization or assistance mission, but if it's your country being 'stabilized' you'd probably have a different opinion



The US involvement, at least initialy, in Afghanistan stands on its own as the resons for it are strongly grounded in custumary international law (response to an attack against state interest).  The US invasion of Iraq can be, albeit arguably, justiied again in custumary international law as anticipatory right to self-defence.  Actions in "failed" states are legaly justifiable under various chapters of the UN charter relating to humanitarian intervention ( NATO bombings in Kosovo for example).  There is no great "stretching of legs" involved IMHO as correct interpretation of existing international law permits such operations.


----------



## xmarcx (26 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Well, its not only the "some" people in certain countries using the word Invasion...some folks here and in the good ol US of A are using that to describe our troops in A-stan, or the US in Iraq.
> 
> I guess I just don't think of Canada in A-stan when I think of "invasion".  I think of...the Nazi's, or something like that, as an example.



I've never really thought of it that way.  Personally, I don't attach any negative connotations to invasions, but I have noticed that it's certainly a buzzword for the protesters. I've spent a fair bit of my academic career defending Canada's involvement in A-stan & the War on Terror as both a necessary and generally beneficial move for humanity, human rights, and the international rule of law, and always referred to the combined international effort as an invasion. I'd make the distinction on the end objective. If the goal is to protect a legitimate government while it restores order, than it's some kind of stabilization operation, but if the goal is overcome, destroy, and wholly replace a corrupt, failed, or illegal government then it's rightly an invasion.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 Jun 2006)

Roger, now I know where you are coming from, more, what you see the word meaning.   

And, yes, its the "buzzword" factor for all the protestors and such that got me curious as to why you used that word, thanks for clarifying.


----------



## xmarcx (27 Jun 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The US involvement, at least initially, in Afghanistan stands on its own as the reasons for it are strongly grounded in customary international law (response to an attack against state interest).  The US invasion of Iraq can be, albeit arguably, justified again in customary international law as anticipatory right to self-defence.  Actions in "failed" states are legally justifiable under various chapters of the UN charter relating to humanitarian intervention ( NATO bombings in Kosovo for example).  There is no great "stretching of legs" involved IMHO as correct interpretation of existing international law permits such operations.



Generally I agree with you, but international law isn't static, it's evolving all the time and new precedents are increasingly important. For example, customary international law and the letter of the UN Charter is clearly interpreted as allowing self-defence and generally interpreted as allowing preemptive warfare as self-defence. Iraq certainly wasn't a matter of self-defence, and it'd be very hard to argue that it was preemptive warfare since Iraq didn't exactly have a legion of tanks floating at the borders of the United States. It was the perceived possibility that Iraq was developing or possessed WMDs and the intent to use them against America and the need to prevent this possibility that was claimed - despite it quite distinctly not being allowed by customary international law. 

But the UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change recently (Dec. 2005) made one of the most legitimate and authoritative claims that preventative warfare if conducted multilaterally and with just cause is an acceptable if not desirable global practice. 50 years ago, that claim would have been outrageous. Post 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and after a few failures to prevent massive genocides, it starts to make a lot more sense and may very well define how the international community approaches human security in the future.


----------



## Buschgirl427 (24 Nov 2006)

In my opinion, not only does Canada need a military as a symolism of  protection of our Canadian heritage, but in history, the involvement of Canadian in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions has created a positive Canadian identity abroad.


----------



## exsemjingo (24 Nov 2006)

What about active combat missions?  Aren't they valuable?


----------



## armyvern (24 Nov 2006)

Buschgirl427 said:
			
		

> In my opinion, not only does Canada need a military as a symolism of  protection of our Canadian heritage, but in history, the involvement of Canadian in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions has created a positive Canadian identity abroad.



No offense. But new history is being made by our soldiers each and every day in Afghanistan....we are moving to the future now. Advance.


----------



## Buschgirl427 (28 Nov 2006)

I acknowledge that there is a shift occuring in our military history right now. We are becoming more agressive when it comes to "maintianing peace" but this shift is necessary. I was simply stating that in the past, those have been our motives.


----------



## Cote (30 Nov 2006)

I haven't read all 20 pages, sorry for just jumping in. But what kind of response was the author of this thread expecting to get, I mean in effect he asked the Canadian Military if Canada needs a military... I would think that the answer would have a flavour of bias, sort of like asking a group of gun enthusiasts if guns should really be owned legally...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Nov 2006)

recce pigeon said:
			
		

> I haven't read all 20 pages, sorry for just jumping in. But what kind of response was the author of this thread expecting to get, I mean in effect he asked the Canadian Military if Canada needs a military... I would think that the answer would have a flavour of bias, sort of like asking a group of gun enthusiasts if guns should really be owned legally...



The thread started in April of 2001, and the person who started it is not even a member anymore.  "Sorry for jumping in" will not hold a lot of water around here.  Try to be familiar with an entire thread otherwise your post will not be contributing anything useful.


----------



## exsemjingo (1 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> The thread started in April of 2001, and the person who started it is not even a member anymore.  "Sorry for jumping in" will not hold a lot of water around here.  Try to be familiar with an entire thread otherwise your post will not be contributing anything useful.


Good one Zipperhead.  This guest will leave with a favourable view of the web site and an improved view of the Canadian Forces.
Now as for Recce Pigeon, you've made not just one, but two fallacious arguments.  First you compare the Canadian Forces, which operates under and for the nation of Canada, to "Gun Enthusiasts" who exist largely in magazines and also liberal nightmares.  Most firearms owners do not fall into this category, but certain leftward segments of the population like to believe they do.
Secondly, you pretend that the legality of owning firearms has been questioned in this country.  It has not, even under the foolishly conceived and executed federal gun registry.

As far as undue bias goes: a Canada without a military is a Canada without sovereignty. That's simple and objective, and further detail can be found throughout the 20 previous pages.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Dec 2006)

Canada's Future Role in Hemispheric Defense
Article from 'Parameters'

An interesting article about why our big neighbour to the south thinks that Canada needs an Army.


----------



## bbereziuk (8 Dec 2006)

A little ancient history, and some boring Latin - "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum"

-Means 'if you want peace, prepare for war'.  A Roman military writer known as Vegitus wrote the line after pondering the way the Spartans used to rape and pillage defenceless towns that indicated they would not support them in a war against Athens.. and how the Romans regularly took over 'barbarian' towns with little or no defences - even though they often represented no threat to the empire.

-Basically.. if a hostile country really wanted to start stiring the international pot again by attempting a Nazi style wholesale take over of the world - Canada would represent a threat to that nation simply by exisiting.  If we did NOT represent an immediate threat to that nation, Canada would surely represent a potential future threat merely due to our economic strength and educated population.  -They would want to ensure we don't build a military to take them on later..

-Of course, conquering us would ensure their access to our resources and population to increase their strength.

-So, to anyone who thinks we don't need a military - if you like nice things - like a house, a car, a regular job, food... guess what... history has shown us many examples of how easily other nations can step in and bring that all crashing down.  - If you want peace, prepare for war...


----------



## midget-boyd91 (10 Dec 2006)

I like the comment made about asking gun-nuts if guns should be legally owned, that sums a lot up  : . But I also think that it isn't just Canada that needs a military, but Canadian politics need it just as much. Where would The NDP be if they could not come down on the government about the mission which was started by the other-other party.


----------

