You can’t afford it. Nor should you try.
Good enough. I'll stop worrying my pretty little head about it. We have professionals to manage that. And if they fail then Uncle Sam will sort it out.
You constantly try to force Canada into situations it isn’t in.
I don't worry about the situation Canada IS in. My concern is for the many situations Canada MIGHT BE in.
Your nation has a 400 year history of crisis management.
Your crisis management system begins with a stout house and a gun over the door.
It progressed to a rudimentary minuteman system where the locals gathered their guns in times of crisis.
The communities then started to engage some of their number on an on-going basis as rangers to patrol the outskirts.
Those elements all came together as the State Militias.
The collective State Militias became the National Guard.
That is your first "Army".
In 1775 an army formed from the State Militias was raised for the duration. It stood down in 1783.
The permanent force was reduced to a border force of about 3000 divided into four regional regiments and an artillery regiment.
The key elements of the crisis management system was a system of arsenals, a means of training all the militias to a uniform standard and a professional academy for the ordnance: guns and engineers.
Like the earlier rangers it was raised to manage the borders.
That was its primary function up until 1917 when Black Jack Pershing was pulled off the Mexican border and sent to France.
WWI was a bit of a stutter step in that after the war the army pretty much reverted to status quo ante.
But in 1941 the army got another shot and never looked back.
If it was still honouring its roots as a border force then the borders now covered the globe.
The Regular Army is your second "Army".
Like the rest of the Army the Marines were raised in 1775. They were raised for seagoing service with the Navy.
Like the rest of the Army they were stood down in 1783.
The Marines were re-raised in 1798 for foreign service with the newly formed Navy anticipating action against revolutionary France.
Ultimately the Marines and the Navy became permanent arms of the President's Department of State and instruments of foreign policy.
The Marines are your third "Army".
....
All these elements, from the citizen with the gun, through the Guard, to the Army, to the Marines are all available to your nation for crisis management.
My sense of Canada is that Canada is trying to manage crises on the cheap, without expending the cash, and without taking the personal responsiblity.
It is relying on a poor man's version of the Marine Corps, an essentially expeditionary force that can be applied by the executive in a discretionary manner to manage all crises, foreign and domestic.
And that is asking too much of what it is.
I’m sure there is a concept of operations for something like this - but it isn’t rush out and make 100 CUAS Batteries.
I don't share you confidence in the existence of a conops for this situation, or for many others. And I have no problem being told there is a better plan than 100 CUAS Batteries. We have armed officers in the Coast Guard. Maybe we can arm NavCan to keep the geese and drones at bay.
Because Canada is a liberal democracy. It isn’t a police state.
A standing army is more indicative of a police state than an organized citizenry. That was established in 1689 and reiterated in 1776.
Having a professional security detachment to guard facilities is a lot different than creating the appearance of an occupied country.
Agreed. Whether they were called rangers, or constables, or whatever there has always been a recognized need for "border" forces. And those necessarily act in both civil and military capacities. I would like to know that those federal compounds, those cantonments, critical to the life and defence of my country were adequately defended from all threats.
And I put that at a higher priority than funding an expeditionary force.
One should base plans against the most likely actions and work one’s way down the priority list as long as their are funds. What you shouldn’t do is jump onto one idea and rush blindly at it.
Plans and Funds are two separate things. Even if you don't have funds you can still make plans. Funds will follow perceived risk.
If people believe the threat, the danger, is real then they will divert resources to deal with it. But the first thing they are going to ask is "How do you fix this?"
Having plans for the improbable is no bad thing.
Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns.
The more the planning the fewer the unknown uknowns, the fewer the surprises.
