[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

16 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 The likely result is that it will be President Trump. At that point, the US will no longer be a reliable ally and the potential for an American invasion, while still remote, becomes much higher on the scale of probability

again, America does not need to invade Canada to impose its will upon Canada

the Canadian economy is totally reliant upon access to the American markets

thus all Trump needs to do to force Canada to capitulate, is impose tariffs at the border

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

7 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Assuming the Americans didn't stay home. 

The Russians are not the Soviets. But they are led by a man who said the greatest catastrophe of the 20th Century was the breakup o the Soviet Union. Note, not WW2 or WW1, but the breakup of the Soviet Union. He wants to put it back together again. And while Russia is not as powerful as it was then NATO is far less powerful than it used to be. The state of the German military is almost worse than Canada's, for example. The British military is in deplorable state. And Russia is rapidly expanding its arms manufacturing while countries like Germany are still busy fighting lawsuits about the contracts to build up their arms manufacturing. They devoted billions to it years ago and none has yet even been spent.

they're still not powerful enough to overmatch Ukraine, so long as Ukraine is willing to fight

the only way the Russians win, is if Ukraine capitulates

tho there could be a point where Ukraine can't hold in the east, so the Ukrainians withdrawal across the Dneiper

then we are really into Cold War Two on a trace at the Inter Ukrainian Border

Russian forces in East Ukraine, NATO forces in West Ukraine

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That capability depends on the Americans.

that is the nature of being Canada

you can't fight America

America could simply impose a naval blockade on Canada, and Canada would immediately collapse

so you are stuck with the Americans as your patrons, no matter what

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It's not a stalemate if they have such things and you do not.

the Russians are not the Soviets

they don't have what the Soviets had

Europe is not what it used to be neither in terms of the military industrial base

so neither side has enough to achieve an overmatch

the only way to break this stalemate would be with American air power

only the Americans could win this war, by air land battle

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

How much weight could those women in the air force carry and how far could they carry it?

this is always where the girls ended up falling to the side of the road and quitting

they just couldn't keep up with the men while carrying rucksacks

women can perform many military tasks, particularly service support trades

but they just aren't built for the infantry

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Only if they already have those defenses. It certainly doesn't give you time to whistle up the construction of warships or tanks or fighter planes or anti-aircraft or anti-armor missiles or, for that matter, trained soldiers, sailors and airmen. If you don't have it then it really doesn't matter that you can see an enemy massing their troops for attack.

same problem for both sides, so again, it's a stalemate

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

When considering how to spend Canadian money on defence, the reality is, the most cost effective weapon systems are tipped with nuclear weapons. They are cheaper than tanks and high performance combat aircraft and done require the level of personnel to operate.

Canada already possesses a nuclear deterrent by way of NORAD & NATO

the American Triad already defends the entire continent

Canada has access to NATO B61 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe through the NATO nuclear sharing agreement

 

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The fourth option is you have sufficient military strength to make it unpalatable to attack you. 

The fifth option is you have sufficient military power to contribute to an alliance of like-minded nations which makes it far too dangerous for an enemy to attack any of them.

You forgot those options.

who is going to attack Canada with military forces and from where ?

it's 9 million square kilometres of territory, with an ocean on three sides, plus General Winter

even the US military is not capable of invading and occupying Canada

so there is really no conventional military threat to Canada at all

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The war in Ukraine would not have happened if Russia had realized how hard it would be. It happened because they thought Ukraine would be a pushover. Just as it had been the last time. Just as Georgia had been.

the problem for both sides in Ukraine is called "the transparent battlefield"

both sides can see deep into each others rear areas

so nobody can achieve any sort of surprise

if they mass their forces to attack, the other side has plenty of time to reinforce their defences

so it's right back to World War One, where nobody can achieve a breakthrough of the lines

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Even Army Guy, who has years more credibility than you acknowledges there is no hand to hand combat anymore

HM Royal Canadian Infantry Corps prepares to execute the full spectrum of close quarters combat

to include hand to hand fighting

that is the standard at the Royal Canadian Regiment Battleschool

 infanteers must demonstrate that they can enter a trench & defeat the enemy soldier by any means necessary

if MWO Army Guy disagrees, then he is mistaken

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

18 hours ago, Army Guy said:

anyone can do it.

anyone could meet the elite standard of HM Royal Canadian Infantry Corps ?

with respect, MWO, I must disagree

at the RCR Battleschool, many fell to the side of the road and failed to meet the standard

only those who refused to quit,

whom put one foot in front of the other,

for the brothers to the left & right of them, come what may; met the standard

training ground of the warriors, at Camp Petawawa, Renfrew Garrison, Ontario

Airborne

 

 

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I challenge you to tell us when close combat at bayonet range warfare is happening except in movies OL

HM Royal Canadian Infantry Corps is charged with executing the full spectrum of close combat tasks

up to and including killing the enemy soldier with your bare hands as necessary

never pass a fault

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

 we did not face any hand to hand combat

none the less, every infantryman must be required to ultimately close to bayonet range in extremis

to include fixed bayonet fighting

unfixed bayonet fighting

and unarmed combat

that is the standard

Ducimus

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If you are unable to work alongside women without abusing them, you are the problem. 

women are best suited to a service support role

to subject women to close combat at bayonet range is uncivilized

[The land of Canada is owned by the King]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

  Is the fact that about 90% of the land is owned by the crown contributing to the housing crisis?

the vast majority of the land is uninhabitable wasteland, millions of square kilometres of frozen wilderness

the crisis is more related to all the immigrants wanting to live in Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver

plus the federal government printing money in order to pay the bills

causing inflation of the money supply

which bids the prices of everything up therein

furthermore, there is a shortage of construction workers, since most immigrants refuse to work in construction

to wit, don't blame HM The King

quite sure he is generally opposed to the policies of the federal government, tho he must remain above the fray therein

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

When it comes down to it though, the number of infantrymen would be way less than 28,000. That number includes a lot of support trades as well - cooks, logistic types, mechanics, etc. 

Even if we had unlimited troop carriers at our disposal, we probably have far less than 20,000 actual soldiers to drop off on a beach somewhere. I don't even want to guess. 

calculating how many infantrymen Canada has is related to asymmetrical operations like Peacekeeping & COIN

but if you are going to be in the big leagues, against the Chinese & Russians;  all that matters is sea power

since all the infantry in the world cant save you from a naval blockade imposed by SSN's

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Once gain, give your head a shake.

Why have a nuclear sub that can stay underwater for weeks and only have pea shooters onboard?

Canada is a non nuclear country and will never have ballistic missiles.

Stay with your 200 year old British army tributes because you clearly are way behind LOL

Ship Submersible Nuclear ( SSN ) is the Fast Attack Submarine

Ship Submersible Ballistic Missile Nuclear ( SSBN ) is the ballistic missile submarine

the SSN Fast Attack Submarine puts Canada in the big leagues of global security competition

this is really what Canadians desire from their military, to be a player in the big leagues

the SSBN ballistic missile submarine is another role, that's only for the Superpowers

you worked at NDHQ and you don't even know the difference between SSN and SSBN

typical NDHQ, what a bunch of clowns

[Are Nfld and Quebec Sustainable?]

On 2/24/2024 at 2:07 AM, August1991 said:

Island people.

Newfies are tough in terms of enduring hardship gladly

but not particularly aggressive

more of a congenial bunch

if you want Island people who will close with & destroy the enemies of the Crown without mercy nor quarter

you recruit from Cape Breton

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

Misleading title.

With Navy, Air Force -our military has about 50,000.

By comparison, the US with 10x our population has about 1.4 million active military. IOW, the US has about 3x our numbers.

I favour our way of doing things.

=====

In Canada and the US, soldiers now choose to join. (In Canada, we have always had a voluntary military. Since Nixon, the US has not had conscription.)

IMHO, when a State resorts to military conscription, its leaders are imposing a tax - a weird tax.

 

when it comes to great power security competition

to wit, China & Russia vs the Anglosphere & Western Europe

the deciding factor is rather maritime power

he who rules the waves rules the world

ground forces are not really decisive in this strategic confrontation to control the global sea lanes

so Canada should really invest in the navy at the expense of the army anyways

ideally acquiring nuclear submarines, which are the arm of decision on the high seas

now obviously America & Britain do not trust Canada to be a partner in AUKUS at this juncture

but Canada does have another option, which is to court the French

Canada could buy into the French Naval Group Barracuda SSN program

although as soon as Canada did that, the Americans & British might change their minds and invite Canada into AUKUS

 

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

bear in mind that there is a limit as to how much you could expand HM Canadian Army in this day & age

that limit is the number of personnel available to be instructors

and the number of formations within the chain of command

you're looking at 5 Regular Force & 10 Reserve Brigade Groups

which would be about 75,000 troops when fully mobilized, roughly 5,000 per Brigade Group

and it would probably take at least one year for Canada to mobilize that, even under wartime conditions

it's not like the First World War when you just had to train them to charge with bayonets

the amount of technical skills required now; limits how many troops you could train

this is the problem for Ukraine, there's a limit to how many troops they can train to use NATO kit

it's all technology dependent now, it's not industrial warfare anymore, this is post industrial war

as of right now, the deciding factor is drones

it is already a drone war which renders large formations of troops extremely vulnerable

NATO tanks are getting blown up left and right by drones

they can fly right up and drop a hand grenade down the hatch of your tank with a drone

so its basically a stalemate at this juncture, and neither side has figured out how to break it

[Canadian Defence News]

20 hours ago, Army Guy said:

War in Europe just means more Canadian men and women will die...being unprepared just means more of them will die sooner and quicker....

preparedness can be a deterrent to a war breaking out in the first place

but if deterrence fails, such as if you are facing a madman like Adolf Hitler

then preparedness does not reduce casualties per se

the Germans were the most prepared in both World Wars by far

yet they were totally annihilated in both cases

in the case of Canada, being unprepared has actually reduced casualties before

because in the Second World War, Canada didn't put large numbers of boots on the ground until 1944

instead Canada focused on the bombing campaign against Germany

this was the Canadian government's strategy to reduce casualties, and it was successful for the most part

it's the same situation with NATO now

because if NATO goes to war, and wholly unprepared Canada doesn't have many troops to send

that will prevent casualties not increase them

the more prepared Canada is to send troops right away, the more casualties Canada will suffer

thus it is better for Canada to stick to the World War Two strategy

send some navy and air force to the fight, but hold the troops back until as late as possible

the Navy SEALs have an axiom which is :  "don't rush to your death"

so if Canada has to spend years building up an army in Canada

that's not a bad thing in terms of avoiding casualties

Canada suffered its highest casualty rate in the First World War

why ?

because Canada was too prepared

Canada rushed in, putting large numbers of boots on the ground right away, at the Ypres Salient

if Canada had instead done what the Americans did, which was wait until 1917 to go in

then Canada would have suffered vastly fewer casualties overall

bear in mind that NATO Article V within the Washington Treaty ;

does not actually demand that Canada send large numbers of troops to Europe

all it says is that Canada must "assist" its NATO allies

it doesn't stipulate that Canada do anything specific therein however

the treaty allows all member states to contribute only what they "deem necessary"

so Canada is in fact free to hang back and consider its options, even if NATO goes to war

furthermore, in terms of Latvia, it's not a good idea for Canada to deploy more forces there

that's just a tripwire

in the event of war however, that force could be cut off by way of Lithuania & Kaliningrad

you don't want to get caught in a "Dunkirk on the Baltic" scenario

so in terms of avoiding casualties, Canada should minimize the tripwire force, not expand it

like if you were going to reactivate 4 CMBG and send it to Europe, don't send it to Latvia

just like World War Two ; you send them to England, and then just wait out from there

you're really only bound, constitutionally, to defend the Commander-in-Chief at Buckingham Palace

there's nothing actually binding Canada to save Latvia at any cost, even under Article V

[Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army]

33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

War is folly. That being said, I cannot completely let go of options 1 & 2. It would be very expensive, but it dramatically increases the probability we will not be involved in war for a long time. Too bad many Canadians disagree with me.

it just doesn't make any logical sense

the only threat of invasion to Canada is America

but America has so much leverage over Canada, America would not need to invade to bring Canada to its knees

so a large standing army is useless

in terms of a massive thermonuclear deterrent, America already defends the entire hemisphere with that

so there is no need for Canada to duplicate the American deterrent

in terms of not being involved in wars ; Canada has always fought other peoples wars overseas

so the defence of Canada itself never precludes Canada from being involved in war, roughly one every generation

[Canadian Defence News]

36 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OMG...he is off in never never land again. LOL

I am not the one seeking to throw off the chains of American domination

quite the opposite in fact

as I am a Republican in the classical sense

to wit, an American imperialist

but if Beaverfeaver has the courage of his convictions

then he should stop kowtowing to us and assert his independence by way of another patron

otherwise, he is forever reduced to a fake country colonial, in the face of the American religion

 

[Canadian Defence News]

9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Canada “needs” to contribute to the defence of North America for political reasons   Not because it’s necessary for our security but because the less we contribute to continental defence , the more USA dominates us. . 

fool's errand

America will dominate you regardless

the only way to win would be to do as little as possible

which is Canada's actual strategy

there is no need for a navy nor an air force, unless you are going to project power overseas

projecting power on behalf of the Americans is ultimate American domination

hence why Canada invented UN Peacekeeping

the whole point was to project power independent of the Americans

the problem was simply that Canada lacked the courage of convictions

and the UN doesn't have a chain of command

none the less, Continental Defence is a fake mission, Canada serves no purpose there

the only threat to the continent is nuclear submarines, and Canada does not participate therein

the Americans & British defend the continent with SSN's under the polar ice

thus, if you want to gain independence from Washington, you will need your own foreign policy

only then would you have a justification for a navy and an air force

if you're going to spend the billions, it should all be spent on expeditionary capability

then you deploy those capabilities where the Americans decline to go

basically what the French do

to wit, if Canada is not going to be a British country anymore

then Canada defaults back to being a French country

at which point, you might as well go all the way

Quebec already runs Canada by default ; so just lean into it

kowtowing to Washington doesn't work, that just makes them take you for granted

the way to get their attention, is to be a thorn in their side, as Quebec is to Ottawa

just acknowledge that Canada is no longer loyal to the Anglo-American hegemony

Canada fears & loathes America

 Canada not only resents but actually despises its own British origins

so much so, that Canada actually wants to cut a deal with the Chinese Communists in Beijing

Canada literally desires to be the Chinese Communist fifth column against Washington

which really leaves you with one alternative, which is joining treasonous Versailles in Paris

Canada is obviously not trusted to be in AUKUS for these reasons

so Canada should go to the French and buy into their SSN program instead

in broad strokes, stop buying American, start buying French

the biggest threat to Canadian arctic sovereignty is the Americans

so you buy some French SSNs and start following the Americans around up there

you don't have to shoot a torpedo at the Americans

just hit them with active sonar to give their position away, that does the job

 there is only one kind of nationalism in Canada, and it is Bourbonite French

you can't beat them, so might as well join them

Je me souviens

[Canadian Defence News]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Australia is geographically isolated  far away from allies and close to a variety of undemocratic regimes including China.

except New Zealand is right beside Australia

and New Zealand barely has any military forces at all

New Zealand proves you can be an isolationist pacifist free rider totally relying on the Americans;  in the South Pacific

so there must be some other reason why Australia is buying high end military hardware from the Americans