The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

Smallc · March 29, 2009

Canada has a small population. The idea behind the transformation going on now is that we need to have a small effective force rather than a large one that we can't sustain.

Sabre Rider · March 29, 2009

Considering that California has a larger population, they probably should have more jets than Canada.

Bugger population, and bugger land mass, think airspace.......you think 80 operational CF-18 hanger queens or their 65 unknown replacements ten years from now are enough?

In 1944 Canada's population was just over 11 Million, about 1/3 our current population and yet at the same time, the RCAF had a peak strength of over 215,000 personnel and 70 operational squadrons and this was at a time when women and visible minorities, apart from the rare Fist Nation/Inuit male air gunner, were not allowed an air combat role. Today we have a combined regular and reserve force of approximately 90,000 all ranks and in all commands. Pathetic if you ask me.

If Canada's claim to sovereignty is to be respected by friends and foes alike, then we need to bolster our defence spending, especially within the Reserve elements. I see no reason why every major Canadian city does not host a Air Reserve Squadron or Wing. I doubt that recruitment would be much of an issue, the Air Forces has always been the more sexy of the services and rarely lacks for volunteers. Whereas both the Navy and Army are looked upon as being more plebeian in comparison. Really all it would take is for the Government to find the political will and guts to support the efforts and fund it. We could easily have a first rate air defence system in place that could protect and cover all our airspace and sovereignty, if we just had the nads to do so.

Smallc · March 30, 2009

Bugger population, and bugger land mass, think airspace

Airspace doesn't pay for equipment. People do. It's not 1944 and we can't pretend that it is. Canada cannot support a force of over 200 000 without giving up a great deal of other government services of drastically raising taxes.

Sabre Rider · March 30, 2009

Airspace doesn't pay for equipment. People do. It's not 1944 and we can't pretend that it is. Canada cannot support a force of over 200 000 without giving up a great deal of other government services of drastically raising taxes.

So basically what you are saying is you are willing to give up our sovereignty and responsibility to defend our territory just to save yourself a few pennies in additional taxes. Rather patriotic of you.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Sabre Rider

Smallc · March 30, 2009

So basically what you are saying is you are willing to give up our sovereignty and responsibility to defend our territory just to save yourself a few pennies in additional taxes. Rather patriotic of you.

Actually, I personally would have no problem paying higher taxes to make the military better. Imagine what could be done with say....$12B per year in GST money. Now try to sell that to Conservatives.

blueblood · March 30, 2009

Actually, I personally would have no problem paying higher taxes to make the military better. Imagine what could be done with say....$12B per year in GST money. Now try to sell that to Conservatives.

There was a bigger military pre-GST... Nothing wrong with having low taxes and a better military.

Smallc · March 30, 2009

Nothing wrong with having low taxes and a better military.

There is when Canadians aren't willing to give up other services in order to have this bigger military. We really don't need one anyway. We need an effective military.

Progressive Tory · March 30, 2009

Canada has a small population. The idea behind the transformation going on now is that we need to have a small effective force rather than a large one that we can't sustain.

I'm with you all the way. Military spending is one thing, but it has to be effective. The tank boondoggle is turning into an embarrassment, and the knock-off knives from China, a disgrace.

However, there is another factor that needs to be considered. I have been studying the impact of the 'baby boomers' and when we consider the economy, I'm concerned that this gov't is not planning for the massive drain on our resources as this group is now reaching the age when they will start to draw on services like CPP and Old Age Pension, while enjoying all the extra tax credits that come with reaching 65.

Someone suggested that with a larger population we should have a larger military, but we need to break that population down. According to the 2008 census, there are more than four and a half million people over 65 and 1/3 of our population is between the ages of 59 and 64. Seniors are growing at a rate of 11% a year, while our birthrate is a mere 2.5 %

Where are we going to get the soldiers?

We can't think in terms of a larger army, but a better equipped one. We simply don't have the population.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Progressive Tory

Argus · March 30, 2009

The program went beyond the original planned upgrades. The fighters will be in service until 2017 - 2020. That is when the military has said they need replacing and that is when they will be replaced. When they are replaced, they are only being replaced with 65 fighters according to the Conservatives.

They will not be replaced in time. What will happen is that around 2017 the government of the day will finally authorize the military to start looking for replacements. Two to three years later the military will be ready to start a bidding process, which will be completed within another 2 or 3 years. The first replacement aircraft won't arrive much before 2030. All of which is in keeping with the "proud" tradition of military purchases Canada has rung up over the past half century.

waldo · March 30, 2009

Someone suggested that with a larger population we should have a larger military, but we need to break that population down. According to the 2008 census, there are more than four and a half million people over 65 and 1/3 of our population is between the ages of 59 and 64. Seniors are growing at a rate of 11% a year, while our birthrate is a mere 1.5 %
Where are we going to get the soldiers?

We can't think in terms of a larger army, but a better equipped one. We simply don't have the population.

not to worry! The Conservatives "temporary work agency" Bill C-50 will ensure a steady stream of immigrant soldiers :lol:

you remember, right? That ole immigration stuff the Harper Conservatives back-doored/buried within the budget bill...

Argus · March 30, 2009

Canada has a small population. The idea behind the transformation going on now is that we need to have a small effective force rather than a large one that we can't sustain.

Canada has a LARGE population.

Canadians are used to comparing ourselves with the Americans in all things. By that standard, we do have a small population. But we are one of the world's largest states, population wise. We are 50% larger in population than we were in the 70s, when our military was 2-3 times larger.

As for sustainability - that is merely a matter of making choices. Not even very difficult ones either. If we took say, a couple of billion a year out of what we waste on pretty much useless pork and graft each year and added it to the military budget, that would go a long way to improving things.

Argus · March 30, 2009

There is when Canadians aren't willing to give up other services in order to have this bigger military. We really don't need one anyway. We need an effective military.

We have neither. We CAN afford it. We choose not to. For example, the Consercatives chose to cut the GST rather than put more money into the military. That was done solely for political reasons.

We do not have nearly enough people in the combat arms given how generous the government tends to be in sending them overseas, and they do not have nearly enough equipment to outfit them all. There needs to be enough people in the infantry so that they can rotate back to Canada from current missions and not be on notice to move out again within six bloody months. You keep that kind of thing up for very long and you have a very hard time retaining personnel. We only have three regiments (about 2,500 people each) all of which are understrength. I think we have enough front line equipment to properly outfit maybe one regiment, so they trade off gear when going overseas. This gear is not really that expensive, btw, compared to the likes of fighter jets, helicopters and warships. We're talking tens of millions here - chump change - which has not been spent. The government should have been ordering more APCs, more armored vehicles of all sorts, but it hasn't been.

It did, however, find another $4.5 billion per year to try and please Quebec in hopes of getting more votes.

Argus · March 30, 2009

Where are we going to get the soldiers?
We can't think in terms of a larger army, but a better equipped one. We simply don't have the population.

As has been mentioned, we had over 1 million people in the military in ww2 with a population of about 11 million.

And that didn't include women or minorities.

Are you seriously suggesting that with a population 3 times larger - not even counting women - that we can't staff a military of say, 125,000 people?

Army Guy · March 30, 2009

There is when Canadians aren't willing to give up other services in order to have this bigger military. We really don't need one anyway. We need an effective military.

I agree, but not just a more effective military, but a more effective way of doing bussiness with all the departments, health, education, etc,etc....

they all need to be torn apart and rebuilt from the ground up....and maximize our tax dollars....

Someone suggested that with a larger population we should have a larger military, but we need to break that population down. According to the 2008 census, there are more than four and a half million people over 65 and 1/3 of our population is between the ages of 59 and 64. Seniors are growing at a rate of 11% a year, while our birthrate is a mere 2.5 %

The average age in our military is now 36 years old, which in it self is not very old, but when put into contect that the avg retiring age for the military is 40 years old that should send a signal....our military is getting very old....the next 5 years or so will see a huge protion of these guys getting out....

With a population of well over 35 million there should be no problems in supporting a military of well over 100 k, many other smaller nations have no problems, while sustaining all of there other social programs...there needs to be a bal, and it needs to be maintained.

Our military budget might sound huge and place around 15 th , but you also need to take alook at what our military pays out. 2.5 to 3 bil comes off the top for emergency preparness and other like depts, another 1 to 1.5 bil goes out to pay our Afghan mission bill, plus any other foreign affairs adventure or mission they send us on....Dart equipment and missions are another drain on the budget....Most if not all the other nations carve thier defence bill up very differently than we do, and if we did the same we all be shocked to see just what is left to defence dept budget.

People need to atleast wake, our military is not just in sad shape it is in critical condition, and although the Cons have provided additional funding, really it has been a small tansfusion keeping it alive barely....All the signs have been posted on the media forever....it's time the people just recongized it and decided on what they are will to do....

Smallc · March 30, 2009

I agree, but not just a more effective military, but a more effective way of doing business with all the departments, health, education, etc,etc....

In some provinces, you're right, but those things are provincial responsibility, and what needs to be done with them varies from province to province.

Most if not all the other nations carve thier defence bill up very differently than we do,

One thing to consider though is that our budget doesn't seem to contain major purchases. For somewhere like Australia, it seems that it does. Those are made whenever the government really feels like it. That means that some years, the budget could actually look much larger.

Smallc · March 30, 2009

We have neither. We CAN afford it. We choose not to. For example, the Conservatives chose to cut the GST rather than put more money into the military.

I completely agree. That money should have been split 3 ways for defence, health, and infrastructure rather than being cut out of the system. Those three areas could do very well with about $4B more each per year.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · March 30, 2009

Canada has a LARGE population.

We're 36th I think and our military is about 55th (in terms of size). I would love to have a bigger military, but I have to remember that my priorities aren't necessarily Canadians priorities. I can't always have my way. I wish they would have spend the extra money that it was going to take to build the 3 JSS ships so we could have them when we needed them, but it wasn't. I fine that and the SAR planes to be the most frustrating things currently when it comes to military spending needs.

Alta4ever · March 30, 2009

The tank boondoggle is turning into an embarrassment,

PRAY TELL, WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR LEOPARDS?

Army Guy · March 30, 2009

In some provinces, you're right, but those things are provincial responsibility, and what needs to be done with them varies from province to province.

OK bad example but you get the piont.

One thing to consider though is that our budget doesn't seem to contain major purchases. For somewhere like Australia, it seems that it does. Those are made whenever the government really feels like it. That means that some years, the budget could actually look much larger.

true enough, but major purchases are a rare thing. once every 3 or 4 blue moons, or when enough soldiers have died....

Compare Australia's budget and everything it incompasses, to ours and you'll see that we are no longer 15th overall, but rather well behind luxemburg.....a population of under 8 mil,

Smallc · March 30, 2009

true enough, but major purchases are a rare thing. once every 3 or 4 blue moons, or when enough soldiers have died....
Compare Australia's budget and everything it encompasses, to ours and you'll see that we are no longer 15th overall, but rather well behind luxemburg.....a population of under 8 mil,

Well, major purchases haven't been few and far between so much anymore. If you look at all the new purchases (C130J, C17, Chinook) as well as the modernization programs going on, you will see that a great deal of money outside of the straightforward budget is being spent. I would love if it was more, let me say that now, but it isn't going to happen because not enough people want it to happen. In terms of overall money spent on the military, we are 15th (or thereabouts). We aren't 15th per capita, not even close. We're somewhere around 64th.

Progressive Tory · March 30, 2009

As has been mentioned, we had over 1 million people in the military in ww2 with a population of about 11 million.
And that didn't include women or minorities.

Are you seriously suggesting that with a population 3 times larger - not even counting women - that we can't staff a military of say, 125,000 people?

Have you considered the age of that population? The median age of Canadians is now 39.4; hardly ready at 40 to consider enlisting in the military. 1/3 of our population are baby boomers and we make up the largest generation. 4,563,000 Canadians are over 65. We are an aging population who will hardly swell the muster rolls.

And don't forget that polls still show that the majority of Canadians do not support war in general and recruitment is difficult at best.

Demand for soldiers outpaces supply despite recessionary job woes

While the rest of the country trembles in fear of layoffs and unemployment numbers soar, the demand for soldiers, technicians and other specialists in the Canadian Forces outpaced actual growth for yet another year, the Department of National Defence said in an annual report to Parliament.

If we can't even get 65,000 how can we get 125,000? Are you suggesting conscription?

bjre · March 30, 2009

The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!, Or maybe anyway

Crying wolf on such a recession?

Asking for money from tax payers to feed the US weapon industry/dealers?

No least sympathize about the poor people who are suffering current economic crisis.

I am so surprised that this thread was first initialized by a person who frequently with the words such as "morals" and "ethics". Maybe your value of "morals" and "ethics" are all based on bloody weapons.

Progressive Tory · March 30, 2009

PRAY TELL, WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR LEOPARDS?

Besides the fact that the recent purchases are sitting in mothballs and the ones we have are in disrepair?

Rollout date for tanks uncertain

The Defence Department has known about the shortage of Leopard 2 spare parts since at least the fall of 2007 — even though the Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Materiel claimed there were no problems.

Military officers quietly briefed industry representatives about a shortage of Leopard 2 parts at a November 2007 meeting. But in a Dec. 5, 2007, e-mail to the Ottawa Citizen, the Defence Department claimed there were no problems.

Progressive Tory · March 30, 2009

Canada has a LARGE population.

We have a small and aging population. Besides you still have to get people to join up.

Military's recruiting efforts fall short

Oleg Bach · March 30, 2009

Crying wolf on such a recession?
Asking for money from tax payers to feed the US weapon industry/dealers?

No least sympathize about the poor people who are suffering current economic crisis.

I am so surprised that this thread was first initialized by a person who frequently with the words such as "morals" and "ethics". Maybe your value of "morals" and "ethics" are all based on bloody weapons.

Moral neutrality is the new moral - Hitting someone on the noggin with a rock and taking their food is now good - because when you eat you feel good and the caved in scull is of no concern...those dealing weapons are all dellusional and usuall medicated or alcholic..The one weapons dealer that I met..drank at least a large bottle of liquior per day - he always acted as if he was moral..but he really could not stand himself..I stated to him that he was unethical and lived on blood money - He retorted back and said "I saved lives" - I said "how is that?" - He said "Because I armed both sides" (Iran and Iraq)....now the old miserable prick is dead - He died alone in his bed while his adult children were smoking crack..they heeded their sick father after the smell of death drifted from his bedroom....I wept for his poor stupid man..because he could have done some good in the world but got lost along the way.