Canada's flawed military policies

[bush_cheney2004]

We stand between the USA and Russia, that makes us pretty darned important to them.

...not to Alaska.

[Oleg Bach]

...not to Alaska.

AWH ! That's an old line... as if our land mass was some sort of protectorate zone - this is not 1657...a single missle covers that area in minutes as if we do not exist...now back to the Candian military policy at present..It's spun by old jerks like Rove - and the rest of those losers...now that the war on terror has lost it's spark - I guess it's the war on the flu VIRUS will be the new Orwellian cry of compliance.

[bush_cheney2004]

AWH ! That's an old line... as if our land mass was some sort of protectorate zone - this is not 1657...a single missle covers that area in minutes as if we do not exist...now back to the Candian military policy at present..It's spun by old jerks like Rove - and the rest of those losers...now that the war on terror has lost it's spark - I guess it's the war on the flu VIRUS will be the new Orwellian cry of compliance.

Madeline Albright already gave us the answer...."what's the point in having a multi-billion dollar military if you can't use it?"

Edited May 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Madeline Albright already gave us the answer...."what's the use in having a multi-billion dollar military if you can't use it?"

She's the same twitish one that said the loss of 30 thousand Iraq children prior the invasion, through sanctions via medical supplies "was worth it". Wonder what old stone utterus has to say now?

[bush_cheney2004]

She's the same twitish one that said the loss of 30 thousand Iraq children prior the invasion, through sanctions via medical supplies "was worth it". Wonder what old stone utterus has to say now?

I think she will be Ignatieff's Defense Minister.

[Oleg Bach]

I think she will be Ignatieff's Defense Minister.

Your getting your old spark back - that is amusing and a bit astounding because anything is possible. Is she still alive? So what the hell is going on these days BC? It's like the whole world has taken up hampsterism and is riding the same old wheel again....what I mean is ---- I thought that once I matured and figured it out - that the rest of the world did also..apparently not....I can't say I am disappointed...having never been appointed to begin with...so Ignatieff is looking good these days..Harper should have rebeled against the bankers and he might have made a run of it - but money talks it seems - even when it is proven to be worthless..

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Canadian military at present is wholly inadequate for our defensive needs. We are incapable of defending any of our three coastlines let alone the land border with the United States. That border however is of little import in as much as we have nothing to fear from American military interests at the moment. Now if we did have those types of concerns, we would be screwed because we simply cannot defend ourselves against the might of America.

What concerns me is that our three coastlines are basically undefended. That needs to be addressed as a matter of sovereignty. Should we fail to start developing and utilizing the northern portion of this nation we will forfeit the Arctic islands, use it or lose it. Our immediate concern is our current stance with respect to peace keeping. We have abandoned this stance and opted for aggressive force on foreign shores. That move requires an immediate increase in military expenditures. The force composition alone is insufficient for the missions required.

To summarize, we can neither defend our own nation nor can we conduct projected force operations outside of it. In short we are sending our sons and daughters into harms way armed with little more than a smile.

[Oleg Bach]

Defence means just that..money and lives spent over seas is a waste. We have a defence ministry not an offense ministry. This Americanized attitude of "it is better to fight them there than here" is sheer foolishness and a dellusion. They are NEVER going to come here. The pragmatic mind set should be one of defense. If America would have beefed up defense of it's boarders and coast line - they would have saved billions and thousands of lives...armed forces are not the toys the rich..they are tools of protection of all...Of the national family.

[Smallc]

What concerns me is that our three coastlines are basically undefended.

Where does that idea come from? We have 13 ships and 8 patrol craft on one coast and a sub on one coast and 16 ships and 2 subs on the other. We also have the coast guard with over 100 ships spread between the 3 coasts. There are also air patrols of the coasts done by fighters, patrol craft, and coast guard helicopters all of the time. I don't know how a nation with such a small population relative to its size will be over to afford much more.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

nor can we conduct projected force operations outside of it.

Actually, we are one of the few nations that actually has that capability. People underestimate our military far too often.

[Oleg Bach]

Actually, we are one of the few nations that actually has that capability. People underestimate our military far too often.

Projective force is bullying...projected force is never and will never be some stratigic pre-emptive measure...I know one thing - if you never attack (project) - You never lose..and that is the point - never to be vanquished...It's like my father taught me - it was an eastern Russian approach that is opposite the John Wayne puff out your chest approach...It's a street fight - he who attacks will always lose - If your are being attacked retreat and systemicallty dismantle the aggressor - make him come to you - make his use his anger and agression to destroy himself - No other apporach guarentees a sustainable victory.

[Argus]

Where does that idea come from? We have 13 ships and 8 patrol craft on one coast and a sub on one coast and 16 ships and 2 subs on the other. We also have the coast guard with over 100 ships spread between the 3 coasts. There are also air patrols of the coasts done by fighters, patrol craft, and coast guard helicopters all of the time. I don't know how a nation with such a small population relative to its size will be over to afford much more.

The above is simply silly. The subs are rarely, if ever in service. THe destroyers are on the edge of rustout. THe patorl ships, such as they are, were designed as mine layers and are exeedingly slow with limited capabilities. We have perhaps two dozen ships that can be termed warship, if you stretch the word far enough, and that includes the patrol boats. I have no idea what you're counting up there to get 100. The rowboats I guess. The Coast Guard has zero fast patrol boats, and zero armed vessels. Their ships are designed more for icebreaking and fishery patrol. We do not use our limited helicopter assets for air patrols - ever. Nor are fighters used for that purpose. We have about a dozen very old patrol aircraft, also on the verge of rustout, and often down for repairs. Our coasts are sieves. Anyone can bring anything ashore they want to at any time at almost any point and in almost any harbor.

[Argus]

If those are useless toys, why we need to buy it just because other nation does.

If Harper is able to make economic boom, and make us live happier, I would say nothing no matter how many toys you would like to buy.

Why am I left wondering why a dedicated supporter of the Chinese Communist party and of Chinese world supremacy suggesting Canada needs no military. I suggest you co home, Bjre, and tell your government that you oppose their massive military buildup.

[Argus]

So that paper they released....the one with dates and everything...what would you call that?

Also, it's important to point out that he military is getting recruits, but attrition is high, that is why the land force hasn't grown at all and the other two have only gone up by very small numbers.

It hasn't grown because the necessary political will has not been applied. The Canadian army grew tenfold in size in a single year in WW2. It's had several years now and has not grown at all. Don't talk to me about attrition. That's a cop-out by incompetent officers and politicians who don't want to spend the money.

[Argus]

And? The Canada First Defence Policy seems to have a similar theme.

Ships - 2015

SAR aircraft - 2015

Maritime patrol aircraft - 2020

Fighters - 2017 (though I am not fond of the 65 number....but I'm sure the people that wrote it know more than me)

And more to come.

The only things that ire behind right now are the supply ships (apparently there will be an announcement around summer time) and the Leopard II refit program (someone dropped the ball there).

What ships? You mean the supply ships we never got or the training ships they're building - all 8 of them, none of them armed and none of them paticularly fast?

As for the fighters, there will be no fighters in 2017. The government has not even begun the preliminary preparations to authorize the Armed Forces to begin looking at requirements. That alone will take at least five years, if past history is anything to go by. If there is any organization in this country more incompetent at purchasing goods and services than DND I have not yet heard of it.

[Smallc]

The subs are rarely, if ever in service.

They are used and have been used to catch people breaking the law. There was a story a couple of years ago.

The destroyers are on the edge of rustout.

They are still used often and will do just fine until their 2017 - 20 replacement date.

The patrol ships, such as they are, were designed as mine layers and are exceedingly slow with limited capabilities.

You're right, they are slow, and that is why they will be phased out in favour of the light ice breaking patrol ships.

.I have no idea what you're counting up there to get 100.

That was in reference to the coast guard, not the Navy. The Navy has 33 ships.

The Coast Guard has zero fast patrol boats, and zero armed vessels.

The coast guard has a variety of vessels, some of the crew is armed, and some of the patrol boats still have .50 calibre machine guns for fisheries patrol.

Their ships are designed more for ice breaking and fishery patrol.

As I said, there are a variety of coast guard ships for patrol of many kinds. You don't know what they are doing every minute. Besides, every fisheries patrol is also a sovereignty patrol.

We do not use our limited helicopter assets for air patrols - ever.

Coast guard helicopters are used near their base for a variety of purposes....including 'lookabouts'.

Nor are fighters used for that purpose.

They take many different flights and often make tours through the north.

We have about a dozen very old patrol aircraft

We have a similar type and age of craft used by by other countries. They are currently going through a multi billion dollar refit program. There is also a sensor system being set up throughout our arctic. Progress is being made.

You know, in the last 3 years, almost $30B has been spent on new military equipment. I'm really not sure what you expect. Our forces are in far better shape than they used to be and they are getting better all of the time. You simply want to hate something (or everything it seems) and you are never ever the least bit satisfied. There are hundreds of priorities in this country, and the military isn't the only one. We fund what we can, and that isn't always everything we want.

[Smallc]

What ships?

The replacement of all 15 surface combatants begins in 2015.

You mean the supply ships we never got

You mean the ones that we'll still be getting, if a bit late. There is supposed to be word this summer, and something will get built.

or the training ships they're building - all 8 of them, none of them armed and none of them particularly fast?

Yes, those ones, the ones able to accept a fore firing 12.7 mm machine gun.

As for the fighters, there will be no fighters in 2017.

Always the optimist.

[Smallc]

It hasn't grown because the necessary political will has not been applied. The Canadian army grew tenfold in size in a single year in WW2.

Oh, such a comparable time. Get a grip on reality already. Yes, things can be better, but they are improving. Recognize some progress once in a while instead of constantly complaining.

[normanchateau]

Yes, things can be better, but they are improving.

I think it depends on what measures one chooses to examine. For example, if one looks at Canadian military spending relative to GDP, Trudeau spent more than any Prime Minister in the past 39 years:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=141640

The nice thing about statistics is they can be used to argue one point as well as the complete opposite. Depending on which measures one chooses, things are getting worse, better or remain about the same.

Those with either a strong pro-military or anti-military bias of course will not accept this possibility.

[Sabre Rider]

Governments in Canada have shown very little attention or interest in the needs of the military over the past thirty years. And Harper's Conservatives have not been much of an improvement over that.

You are correct for the most part but have made one major error in your statement, that the "Government in Canada have shown very little attention or interest in the needs of the military over the past thirty years". The sad fact of the matter is, that no Canadian Government since Confederation has shown any interest in the Canadian military and apparently the Canadian people and taxpayers are quite happy with this situation. Sure many Canadians decry about the sad state of our military and say that the Government MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IMMEDIATELY!!! But there is always a rider in those public demands, that whatever the Government does to improve the lot of the CF, it must not raise taxes nor mean that those demanding changes actually have to serve. In other words, as long as it doesn't personally affect them in their pocketbooks or easy life, the people of Canada are all in favour of having a bigger, stronger and more versatile Armed Forces.

Canada is rather unique in that we were protected from threats by other major powers. Up until the turn of the 20th Century, Canada's sovereignty was protected in the most part by the Royal Navy. When the RN announced it was pulling out of Canada, we suddenly faced a crisis, there was no one available left to protect us from the threat from the US and from the Imperial German Navy.

In 1914, the BC Government of the day actually bought two submarines from a Washington Shipyard that were built for the Chilean Navy who had default on payment. Till those subs arrived, the only protection the BC coast had from marauding the Imperial German Merchant Cruisers known to be steaming in the Pacific was the clapped out Armoured Cruises HMCS Rainbow and patrols from the Japanese Imperial Navy, which was an ally during the First World War. The subs, named HMCS C-1 and HMCS C-2 were turned over to Canadian Naval personnel and BC Government representatives in great secrecy in fear that the US Navy would suddenly appear and seize the vessels.

After WWI, Canada had built up an impressive field army and air corp however its naval force was still vastly under manned and shipped, even the C-1 and C-2 were paid off after transferring from Equimalt BC to Halifax around wars end due to their diesel engines being burned out. However the majority of the WWI field army were hostilities only militia units which were disbanded at wars end and the troops demob'ed.

The inter-wars years were to become known as the Militia Colonel Era. During this period holding a Colonel's rank in the Militia pretty much guaranteed you a seat in Parliament. It didn't matter if the unit only had a strength of under 100 members, the thing that mattered was that you were its Colonel. This was strictly a political maneuver and did not translate into better funding or conditions for the regular Military or the Militia, indeed one of the best ways to lose favour with your party was to push for more money, equipment and manpower for the army or navy.

By the time WWII started, the Canadian military of WWI had been gutted and when hostilities broke out, the population cried out "Where's our Army and Navy?" To which the politicians said, "Well you didn't want to fund them, so we let them shrink to almost nothing."

But one of the things about Canadians and its relationship with their military back then is, that during times of conflict we come together as a nation and man up as required. And like in WWI, Canada built up a world class Army, Air Force and Navy. Indeed by wars end, the RCN was the third largest navy in the world and the RCAF was also in the top five.

But again once the crisis was past, we turned our backs on the military and allowed it to whether away till it became a mere shadow of its former self. Although during the 1950, Canada still had a fairly strong military, especially its navy and air forces. One of the things most people don't know is that for a period during the 50's before the advent of ICBM's, Canada fielded the only all weather jet fighter interceptors available to NATO, the venerable CF-100 Canuck.

But by the 60's we fell back into the old pattern of disregarding the CAF as it had become to be known as and allowed Ottawa to drastically cut back on its funding and manpower size. The Black Watch Regiment was just one of many units with long histories and hard won battle honours to be disbanded.

During the late 70's even more funding cuts were made, till Reserve units were only allowed one paid parade/training night per week and during the summer, units stood down apart from a two week training exercise. Also, our CF-5's were mothballed and never replaced and their squadrons disbanded. The navy has lost two of its three supply ships, along with the carrier HMCS Bonaventure in the early 70's. The navy also lost its air wing along with it Tracker aircraft. Replacements for our age helicopter fleet have been slow in coming, the CF-18's purchased back in the early to mid 80's are expected to continue in service for at least another 10 to 20 years.

During all this, we have been very quiet about it and when ever Ottawa does announce a major spending programme to support the CF, all you hear is howls of outrage about taxes, taxes and taxes. We as a people do not truly support our military in any meaningful manner. Sure we line the bridges on the Route of Hero's when our fallen come home, and we wave our little flags and salute. And between November 1st to 11th, we were poppies in Remembrance but that's about it. If asked to actually sign up and serve or pry open our pocketbooks, we repel in abject horror.

No matter what Government is in power, be they Liberal, be they Conservative or be they whatever, they will continue to ignore, under-fund and disregard our military, not because they don't care, but because we as a people want them to. The blame lays firmly with us, not the Government of today nor the Governments of the past. We allowed it to happen and just didn't give a damn.

[Sabre Rider]

We need only design and implement a defensive strategy for three sides of our nation, all of which involves shorelines, with an added bonus of ice in the north. The forth side being the USA, and given the fact that there is no defense against nor needed on that front we are able to save a great deal on land defense.

In this you are being a bit narrow sighted and forgetting one of the major lessons of history and that is "Today's friend and ally can and most likely will become at some point your enemy and foe and that today's enemy and foe will become your friend and ally."

Consider the history of Germany, France, Italy, Russia, England, the US, Canada, Turkey and Japan.

During the Napoleonic Wars, England, Canada although still not an independent nation yet, Russia, and Germany were allies against France which The US later allied itself with when it invaded Canada.

Fast forward to 1853 and the Crimean War, France and England were allied with Turkey against Russia.

During the First World War, Japan and Italy were allies with England, France, Canada, Russia and later the US against Germany and her ally Turkey.

During the Second World War, Japan and Italy sided with Germany against the Allies.

During the Cold War, Italy, Japan and half of Germany were again good allies and friends and our former ally during WWII Russia was now the enemy.

Also during the inter-war years between 1918 and 1939, the US Army developed its Plan Crimson as part of its Plan Red. Plan Red plotted out a war against the UK and its Empire/Common Wealth and Plan Crimson plotted the invasion and annexation of Canada. These plans were the most updated and gamed plans within the US Military College during that period and were gamed right up to 1939. Actual military exercises were conducted in preparation for the invasion. US Army bases were strategically located near to the border in order to provide: area's to concentrate troops, launch the attack and to provide logistically support of the invasion. Many of these bases were not closed until the 1980's.

Whether or not the US would of actually implemented Plan Crimson is a matter of debate. As it turned out, other events in the world change the whole dynamic and US attention was forced elsewhere. However, it should be noted that nations rarely act because of altruistic reasons, but rather they act in what they believe to be in their best interest, even it that means taking the territory and resources of another nation.

Today and for the foreseeable future, the US is a good friend and ally of Canada, however what is to say that will always be the case? If events in the world demand it and the US sees the invasion and annexation of Canada is in its best economic or political best interest or the only way to save the Union, then she will invade. That is the cold hard reality of geo-politics and economics.

So it would be wise for Canadian military and government leaders to plan accordingly and develop a military that would offer a credible deterrence against any and all hostile actions from all quarters, including from south of the 49th. And the US should also consider and plan accordingly to deal with a threat from our side of the border, because it is entirely possible that we peace loving Canadians might one day decide to make a grab for the US.

Such is the nature of the world.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Sabre Rider

[bjre]

Today and for the foreseeable future, the US is a good friend and ally of Canada, however what is to say that will always be the case? If events in the world demand it and the US sees the invasion and annexation of Canada is in its best economic or political best interest or the only way to save the Union, then she will invade. That is the cold hard reality of geo-politics and economics.

So it would be wise for Canadian military and government leaders to plan accordingly and develop a military that would offer a credible deterrence against any and all hostile actions from all quarters, including from south of the 49th. And the US should also consider and plan accordingly to deal with a threat from our side of the border, because it is entirely possible that we peace loving Canadians might one day decide to make a grab for the US.

Canada is so rely on US that if US decide to see Canada as an enemy, lots of workers will have no job to do, US need not send a soldier before Canada collapse.

[Smallc]

Canada is so rely on US that if US decide to see Canada as an enemy, lots of workers will have no job to do, US need not send a soldier before Canada collapse.

Our domestic sector makes up a larger part of our economy than trade with the US does. We are dependent on them, but we wouldn't completely collapse without them....and they would be no better off without us.

[bjre]

Our domestic sector makes up a larger part of our economy than trade with the US does. We are dependent on them, but we wouldn't completely collapse without them....and they would be no better off without us.

Anyway, there is no wisdom can say if Canada let US become enemy.

[Argus]

They are used and have been used to catch people breaking the law. There was a story a couple of years ago.

Which contradicts my statement not at all.

They are still used often and will do just fine until their 2017 - 20 replacement date.

They might sink by then but they will most certainly not be replaced by then.

You're right, they are slow, and that is why they will be phased out in favour of the light ice breaking patrol ships.

The icebreaking ships are not comparable in any way. And in any event, we are not building any icebreakers and have no plans to build any.

That was in reference to the coast guard, not the Navy. The Navy has 33 ships.

In other words you were being dishonest.

You know, in the last 3 years, almost $30B has been spent on new military equipment. I'm really not sure what you expect. Our forces are in far better shape than they used to be and they are getting better all of the time. You simply want to hate something (or everything it seems) and you are never ever the least bit satisfied. There are hundreds of priorities in this country, and the military isn't the only one. We fund what we can, and that isn't always everything we want.

Given the amount of money this government has spent on political projects of no particular need to the country, it HAS the money to expand and modernize the military. It does not choose to do so. At a bare minimum we need more infantry, and a lot more equipment - so that even the troops at home have vehicles which actually run - and more inshore patrol craft. We also need the equipment, including icebreakers, to exercise sovereignty in the north - or we're going to lose it to those willing to do so.