US vs Canada
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
What naval resources are at sea or available to put to sea on either coast? Now answer the same question regarding Norfolk. We haven't pulled our own weight since the late 60's. Pick any U.S. state. I looked up Texas with a population of 28,500,000; 10,000,000 less than Canada. Now they aren't staffing a navy but they have 19,000 army national guard, 12,000 Texas national guard (cannot be federalised). The air component is comprised of a fighter wing with F16's along with a transport division of C130's and an airborne reconnaissance unit with UAVs. In other words one state provides as much defence muscle as all of Canada. So are we really holding up our end?
Well I don't know - what is it that the United States has supposedly been defending us from? What immediate danger to Canada have they paid to stop?
This seems more like a work of opportunistic fiction on the part of the President, which is par for the course.
This seems more like a work of opportunistic fiction on the part of the President, which is par for the course.
You are absolutely correct. There has been no immediate danger. So of what use is the military? As a civilian, here is how I see it. The military is a nations insurance policy. Just like having a lock on your door serves absolutely no purpose but to cause one to fumble with the groceries in one hand while looking for first the key and then the hole until the day someone tries to break in. Up until that moment your 49.95 yale was a complete waste of money.jmt18325 said:
Consider Switzerland. They haven't fought a war in several hundred years yet they continue to invest in their armed forces. Insurance. That is reason one. Reason two is respect. No one is paying any attention to Trudeau. At the international level he has been justifiably rejected as weak. The Swiss provided an escort of respect to Harper when he flew in several years ago. That won't ever happen to Trudeau(lite). His father discovered that without our squadrons in Lahr and Baden, no one was interested in listening to him at all (with the possible exception of Fidel).
Used properly by industry, the military provides an excellent training ground for future civilian leaders. It provides careers for lesser types too even if they look elsewhere after 10 years. Many of those who muster out and then make a go of it would never have done so without the confidence building that their time in service provided.
those are just of few of the benefits of a military and by not pulling our weight in NATO and NORAD and yes, the UN as well, but letting others pay for our defence we are failing to appreciate even those benefits that I have listed above.
There was a lot there - a lot of baseless insults directed at Trudeau mostly. He's taken just as seriously as Harper on the international stage, but I don't expect Conservative partisans to see it that way (as someone who defended Harper and now defends Trudeau, it isn't hard for me to see).
I haven't yet seen how the US is paying to protect Canada (or Europe, for that matter). Most of their massive budget is spent in places that have little to do with defending Canada from a danger that really doesn't exist.
I haven't yet seen how the US is paying to protect Canada (or Europe, for that matter). Most of their massive budget is spent in places that have little to do with defending Canada from a danger that really doesn't exist.
- Reaction score
- 1,806
- Points
- 1,140
jmt18325 said:
Do you know what deterrence is? Do you think if the US didn’t have the military presence they have that we wouldn’t be Russian by now? I don’t think our 60,000 strong military and 76 Hornets would even put a dent in the Russian military.
- Reaction score
- 1,806
- Points
- 1,140
jmt18325 said:
Just like you don’t know it wouldn’t have happenned. That’s a weak argument. That’s why we deter: so we don’t find out.
Eagle_Eye_View
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 55
- Points
- 360
Speaking from personal experience, on almost every major exercises and deployments I’ve been to, the US were key to our success, mostly for their logistical support.
SupersonicMax said:
That's not how this works, actually. You've made the accusation that without the US there, we'd be Russian. It's far more likely that without the US choosing to play world policeman, we'd all be living very different lives. Does that mean that they've paid to defend us? I don't know that it does.
- Reaction score
- 5,418
- Points
- 1,160
Absolutely. We have no ability to force project large task forces on our own without US assistance. Imagine if we couldn't stage out of KAF and had to run our own large base like the Brits in Bastien. We'd be tapped out by Roto 1 in manning, material and dollars.Eagle Eye View said:
- Reaction score
- 1,806
- Points
- 1,140
jmt18325 said:
Just like we could say that without D-Day, we would be Nazi. Don’t know for sure but given the outcome, we’ll say it at least contributed. You can’t prove an outcome on something that didn’t happen.
We know what happenned (big US presence and a bi-lateral agreement) and it was done to achieve an outcome (deter Russians to invade/destroy us) and it is the way it paned out. I’ll say the odds are that it at the very least contributed.
So lets say you're right - lets say that the US has paid for a portion of our defence (I dispute that, but we'll let that stand for now). What then, does that have to do for NAFTA, an agreement that has given them a trade surplus over us, and has contributed to massive economic growth for them?
Then you didn't read the response. Insurance is so you don't have to actually use it. It is the principle of MAD in miniature. Remember all the stories about buying a seat on the security council? Don't see them anymore because we haven't spent the money to ensure that we have earned the right to seek the position. We can't even live up to our agreement to send a single Herc to Entebbe. It is still being planned 6 months after the announcement. In January 2013 it took the government less than a week to decide to a) support the french involvement in Mali and b) agree and then dispatch a C17 to help with the airlift. Posing for selfies doesn't earn respect; taking action does. Me thinks we named the wrong leader Mr. Dithers.jmt18325 said:
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,417
- Points
- 1,260
YZT580 said:
I agree that we have been weak on defence spending. But I am not sure that international relations and treaty obligations really matter to our politicians. Its about empty words and knee jerk reactions that will help come election day. Actual results and contributions need not be brought into action unless their is some political benefit.
Didn't Harper tell the Ruskies to get out of the Ukraine or else ? What exactly was his plan if they said make me ?
No one will fund us as we or our allies desire until such point as it is politically expedient to do so.
- Reaction score
- 2,917
- Points
- 940
YZT580 said:
Comparing any country's defence spending against the US produces a pretty spurious argument.
According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies' The Military Balance 2017, the next TEN countries' defence spending combined is still less than the Americans (People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Brazil).
Mind you, if you go to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's "Trends in World Military Expenditure 2017" for a different measure, the US contributes 35% of global military spending, and PRC 13%, before it drops down into single-digits; Canada still makes the 'Top 15' of war-mongers coming in at #14, contributing 1.2% (WOOHOO! Suck it Turkey, at #15!)
Bottom line? Using the Americans as a baseline for comparing pretty much anything military, produces little of value (well, other than hand-wringing)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
The US has always relished the position of being the world police. Canada has always stepped up in conflict when needed and done a very good job. The US has a wonderful peaceful neighbor up north, which has always been it's #1 or #2 trading partner and that trade has paid for plenty on both sides of the border. The only reason we're even having this discussion is because of this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/bob-woodward-book-donald-trump-fear/index.html
Just wanted to add that I have always believed we should be spending more on the military. Just for anyone who doesn't know, Bob Woodward is one of the original Watergate investigative journalists, and is highly regarded.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/bob-woodward-book-donald-trump-fear/index.html
Just wanted to add that I have always believed we should be spending more on the military. Just for anyone who doesn't know, Bob Woodward is one of the original Watergate investigative journalists, and is highly regarded.
- Reaction score
- 2,917
- Points
- 940
Oooh... can't wait for the torch & pitchfork crowd when that's released.AlexanderM said:
op:
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Canada has been a very weak partner for decades. As one politician said, we are like that guy who eats the meal at the restaurant, but goes to the washroom when it is time for the cheque to be paid.
The Americans sent an oil tanker to traverse the North West Passage decades ago in defiance of our claims that it is our, rather than international waters, and China is openly contemplating doing the same in the event that the passage became ice free. The US has offered a place at the table numerous times for theater and continental ABM defence, which Canada has always rejected (yet somehow we still manage to become outraged when someone points out that without Canadian participation, US ABM defence will involve interception over Canadian airspace). Even the tariff brewup is strategic in nature, the US is applying economic pressure on China and closing back doors for Chinese imports to enter the US market unaffected by the tariff barriers, but we somehow imagine we are not supposed to be caught up or involved in a US-China dispute. I'm sure you can think of other examples.
If Canada refuses to step up, then we as Canadians should not be surprised if others will step into the gaps we are leaving, or ignore our interests as irrelevant or even opposed to their own. After all, what are we going to do about it anyway?
A tremendous amount of what is happening is really the results of decades of smugly imagining we are "above" the fray, or are somehow able to use moral superiority to achieve results (how well did that work with Saudi Arabia?). Until the Canadian public gets their heads out of their collective a***s, and starts demanding the political establishment take things like foreign affairs and defence seriously like an advanced G7 nation should, there will be no end to this. President Trump has a very good chance of re election in 2020, and his policies will last well beyond his leaving the White House in 2024 (as a minimum, it will take the new Administration at least one term to move thing back to the way they were prior to 2016, and the voting public will harshly constrain their ability to move), so we will be suffering the effects of tariffs and trade barriers until 2028, or be forced to sign a much less beneficial deal based on the bilateral US-Mexico trade agreement.
And so long as the government and "Laurentian Elites" continue to sit on their hands WRT things like Canada's petroleum and petrochemical industry, breaking down internal trade barriers or actually moving to take advantage of the TPP and CETA, we have essentially cut off all our room to manoeuvre. The blame isn't to be found in the White House, but right here at home.
The Americans sent an oil tanker to traverse the North West Passage decades ago in defiance of our claims that it is our, rather than international waters, and China is openly contemplating doing the same in the event that the passage became ice free. The US has offered a place at the table numerous times for theater and continental ABM defence, which Canada has always rejected (yet somehow we still manage to become outraged when someone points out that without Canadian participation, US ABM defence will involve interception over Canadian airspace). Even the tariff brewup is strategic in nature, the US is applying economic pressure on China and closing back doors for Chinese imports to enter the US market unaffected by the tariff barriers, but we somehow imagine we are not supposed to be caught up or involved in a US-China dispute. I'm sure you can think of other examples.
If Canada refuses to step up, then we as Canadians should not be surprised if others will step into the gaps we are leaving, or ignore our interests as irrelevant or even opposed to their own. After all, what are we going to do about it anyway?
A tremendous amount of what is happening is really the results of decades of smugly imagining we are "above" the fray, or are somehow able to use moral superiority to achieve results (how well did that work with Saudi Arabia?). Until the Canadian public gets their heads out of their collective a***s, and starts demanding the political establishment take things like foreign affairs and defence seriously like an advanced G7 nation should, there will be no end to this. President Trump has a very good chance of re election in 2020, and his policies will last well beyond his leaving the White House in 2024 (as a minimum, it will take the new Administration at least one term to move thing back to the way they were prior to 2016, and the voting public will harshly constrain their ability to move), so we will be suffering the effects of tariffs and trade barriers until 2028, or be forced to sign a much less beneficial deal based on the bilateral US-Mexico trade agreement.
And so long as the government and "Laurentian Elites" continue to sit on their hands WRT things like Canada's petroleum and petrochemical industry, breaking down internal trade barriers or actually moving to take advantage of the TPP and CETA, we have essentially cut off all our room to manoeuvre. The blame isn't to be found in the White House, but right here at home.
Similar threads
