Does Canada face any imminent military threat to its territory?

[madmax]

Swiss Navy on patrol

Thats awesome.... We got any of those gunboats?

[eyeball]

If and when there is a global war for natural resources, Canada will be one of the first if not THE first and prime target.

Not if we're nuclear armed. There's certainly no way we could afford to field the conventional armed force we'd need to repel the whole planet. What we really need is an escape route off this little ball of venal misery.

I think my idea of spending a few bucks on a few really nasty-assed nukes to keep the wolves at bay while we build a space elevator is looking better all the time.

[Borg]

The time could and possibly will come when someone will plant a flag on a major northern island, claim it and it will belong to them. We could not take it back. we will whine to the UN and there will be 20 years of argument that produces nothing and the new owner will just keep developing it.

And no I am not too worried about the little island and the disagreement with Denmark - we could solve that with typical Canuck talk - and give it to them which is probably what will happen.

Oil, natural gas, iron ore, copper, molybdenum and more. Already there are issues with those islands and the waters surrounding them. What is under them, in them and on top of them will become very important over time and a few Inuit Rangers will not do the job.

We have nothing to hold those islands other than the colour on a map. The new owners will militarize it - heavily. It would be their nature to do this.

I am quite surprized at the lack of knowledge here - or perhaps I should say denial.

An entitled life has made many quite arrogant in their beliefs. Weak and entitled. And not too realistic about the world they live in. How typically Canadian.

We hold the north at the pleasure of others - NOT because we can.

Borg

Edited June 11, 2010 by Borg

[maple_leafs182]

"Terrorists" may attack us because we are part of NATO but that is it.

[eyeball]

The time could and possibly will come when someone will plant a flag on a major northern island, claim it and it will belong to them. We could not take it back. we will whine to the UN and there will be 20 years of argument that produces nothing and the new owner will just keep developing it.

And no I am not too worried about the little island and the disagreement with Denmark - we could solve that with typical Canuck talk - and give it to them which is probably what will happen.

Oil, natural gas, iron ore, copper, molybdenum and more. Already there are issues with those islands and the waters surrounding them. What is under them, in them and on top of them will become very important over time and a few Inuit Rangers will not do the job.

We have nothing to hold those islands other than the colour on a map. The new owners will militarize it - heavily. It would be their nature to do this.

I am quite surprized at the lack of knowledge here - or perhaps I should say denial.

An entitled life has made many quite arrogant in their beliefs. Weak and entitled. And not too realistic about the world they live in. How typically Canadian.

We hold the north at the pleasure of others - NOT because we can.

Borg

I don't see anyone questioning the neutrality of this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_(orthographic_projection).svg

In fact, the only people I've seen question the ownership of the region you're talking about are people who use irrational fear to galvanize a public desire to arm ourselves to the teeth.

[dre]

The time could and possibly will come when someone will plant a flag on a major northern island, claim it and it will belong to them. We could not take it back. we will whine to the UN and there will be 20 years of argument that produces nothing and the new owner will just keep developing it.

And no I am not too worried about the little island and the disagreement with Denmark - we could solve that with typical Canuck talk - and give it to them which is probably what will happen.

Oil, natural gas, iron ore, copper, molybdenum and more. Already there are issues with those islands and the waters surrounding them. What is under them, in them and on top of them will become very important over time and a few Inuit Rangers will not do the job.

We have nothing to hold those islands other than the colour on a map. The new owners will militarize it - heavily. It would be their nature to do this.

I am quite surprized at the lack of knowledge here - or perhaps I should say denial.

An entitled life has made many quite arrogant in their beliefs. Weak and entitled. And not too realistic about the world they live in. How typically Canadian.

We hold the north at the pleasure of others - NOT because we can.

Borg

If we want to strengthen our claim to those islands, then money would be better spent on developing the resources there. Building mining operations, etc. We might even generate a profit on that activity, and an active industrial presense there would drastically increase our chances of permanently keeping it.

That said... I have no problem with Canada having an airforce but I think we generally be thrifty when it comes to military spending. I still believe that we need the most high tech and expensive planes on the market to fullfill our rather limited military needs. I would have looked harder at the other planes and I definately would gotten bids on all the other viable options before pulling the trigger on any deal.

[Wild Bill]

Not if we're nuclear armed. There's certainly no way we could afford to field the conventional armed force we'd need to repel the whole planet. What we really need is an escape route off this little ball of venal misery.

I think my idea of spending a few bucks on a few really nasty-assed nukes to keep the wolves at bay while we build a space elevator is looking better all the time.

Having a few nukes can be a good deterrent to an all out invasion but you don't have many options. It's like you have one huge hammer to use both for charging rhinos or swatting mosquitoes. Sometimes it makes more sense to respond on a smaller scale to smaller disputes.

Somehow I can't see us trying to nuke Russia just because they seized and developed a northern island with gas or other resources.

[dre]

Having a few nukes can be a good deterrent to an all out invasion but you don't have many options. It's like you have one huge hammer to use both for charging rhinos or swatting mosquitoes. Sometimes it makes more sense to respond on a smaller scale to smaller disputes.

Somehow I can't see us trying to nuke Russia just because they seized and developed a northern island with gas or other resources.

Somehow I can't see us trying to nuke Russia just because they seized and developed a northern island with gas or other resources.

No, but the actual response itself isnt whats important. If we had ICBMs aimed at Moscow it would be less likely that they would sieze an island in the first place.

In any case I think most of the threats we face are assymetric, and that we would get more "safety" for our buck by spending it on common sense security measures. And as I said before our best option to strenghen our claim to the islands in question is to do something with them.

[wyly]

I don't see anyone questioning the neutrality of this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_(orthographic_projection).svg

In fact, the only people I've seen question the ownership of the region you're talking about are people who use irrational fear to galvanize a public desire to arm ourselves to the teeth.

the supposed invader is always Russia which strangely enough recognizes our claims...the only other country capable of taking and holding territory is the USA and it does not recognize our territorial claims, and if they want it all the F-35's we could buy won't prevent them from taking it...

[wyly]

Having a few nukes can be a good deterrent to an all out invasion but you don't have many options. It's like you have one huge hammer to use both for charging rhinos or swatting mosquitoes. Sometimes it makes more sense to respond on a smaller scale to smaller disputes.

Somehow I can't see us trying to nuke Russia just because they seized and developed a northern island with gas or other resources.

agreed, we're not about to commit suicide over some frozen islands, but still nukes do make other countries take what we say seriously...

[wyly]

If we want to strengthen our claim to those islands, then money would be better spent on developing the resources there. Building mining operations, etc. We might even generate a profit on that activity, and an active industrial presense there would drastically increase our chances of permanently keeping it.

which is what the Russians have done, cities in the arctic exploiting the resources...

[Wild Bill]

And as I said before our best option to strenghen our claim to the islands in question is to do something with them.

Exactly! One of the basic definitions of a country's territory is to actually have a presence in a region and be doing something there!

Harper had made some grand talk about building military bases in the Arctic, icebreakers capable of breaking ice during the Arctic winter and not just the "warm" summer months and expanding or building cities in conjunction with the Innuit peoples to benefit in more than just the military area. Somehow, everything seems to have been scaled back to the point where essentially we are doing the usual...nothing!

Still, I repeat my point that it seems senseless to me to have a military consisting only of nukes. Suppose someone DID lay claim to an Arctic oil/gas field or a fishing area. Remember that during Tobin's "Turbot Wars" the foreign fishing fleets virtually had ignored any diplomatic complaints from Canada. It was only when he sent out a couple of our warships that they finally paid attention!

A country needs the ability to give a measured response. If Spain and Portugal refuse to stop over-fishing in our waters it seems crazy to have only nuking Lisbon as an option.

[William Ashley]

Your thoughts.

A threat is capacity. So in that regard the answer to the question is yes.

[William Ashley]

A threat is capacity. So in that regard the answer to the question is yes.

And no, this isn't me saying oh my neighbour has a rifle, better buy a bullet proof vest and wear it all the time. That is why gun control exists.

Fact is though, you need to draw a line somewhere.

[William Ashley]

And no, this isn't me saying oh my neighbour has a rifle, better buy a bullet proof vest and wear it all the time. That is why gun control exists.

Fact is though, you need to draw a line somewhere.

The "best" or safest anwswer isn't necisarily the "most enjoyable, or economic option." Just going and stealing your neighbours gun or killing them usually isn't a civil option.

[wyly]

Exactly! One of the basic definitions of a country's territory is to actually have a presence in a region and be doing something there!

Harper had made some grand talk about building military bases in the Arctic, icebreakers capable of breaking ice during the Arctic winter and not just the "warm" summer months and expanding or building cities in conjunction with the Innuit peoples to benefit in more than just the military area. Somehow, everything seems to have been scaled back to the point where essentially we are doing the usual...nothing!

I'd sooner have ice breakers than F-35's...planes don't have a physical presence, ships on the water, cities/towns on the land say more about ownership than a dot in the sky that's gone by in a couple of minutes...want to send a message to the americans those waterways of the north are ours have them greeted by a armed coast guard icebreaker and demand they produce a permit for passage...

Still, I repeat my point that it seems senseless to me to have a military consisting only of nukes. Suppose someone DID lay claim to an Arctic oil/gas field or a fishing area. Remember that during Tobin's "Turbot Wars" the foreign fishing fleets virtually had ignored any diplomatic complaints from Canada. It was only when he sent out a couple of our warships that they finally paid attention!

A country needs the ability to give a measured response. If Spain and Portugal refuse to stop over-fishing in our waters it seems crazy to have only nuking Lisbon as an option.

agreed it needs to be balanced.... Edited June 11, 2010 by wyly

[William Ashley]

I'd sooner have ice breakers than F-35's...planes don't have a physical presence, ships on the water, cities/towns on the land say more about ownership than a dot in the sky that's gone by in a couple of minutes...

agreed it needs to be balanced....

yeah then 1 stealth fighter with a stealth missle turns your frigate into scrap metal, now what?

[Bonam]

I'd sooner have ice breakers than F-35's...

What we really need is a fleet of icebreaking aircraft carriers with a few squadrons of F-35C's each. Then we'd really have some presence.

[wyly]

yeah then 1 stealth fighter with a stealth missle turns your frigate into scrap metal, now what?

what colour is the sky in your world william?

[yarg]

what colour is the sky in your world william?

Exactly what about his statement is incorrect?

[Machjo]

What we really need is a fleet of icebreaking aircraft carriers with a few squadrons of F-35C's each. Then we'd really have some presence.

Our national debt would have a massive presence too.

[Machjo]

As for the far north, why not just exploit its resources? Also, the smaller Canada's population, the fewer people there are to populate the North. How about banning abortion except to save the mothers' life as a start.

Start with the basics.

[dre]

As for the far north, why not just exploit its resources? Also, the smaller Canada's population, the fewer people there are to populate the North. How about banning abortion except to save the mothers' life as a start.

Start with the basics.

I dont think we have to give womb-goons the right to make reproductive decisions for women in order to strengthen our sovereignty over the north. If we did that I wouldnt even consider Canada worth defending and would be fine with it being balkanized by whatever external entities felt like raiding us for resources.

[Machjo]

I dont think we have to give womb-goons the right to make reproductive decisions for women in order to strengthen our sovereignty over the north. If we did that I wouldnt even consider Canada worth defending and would be fine with it being balkanized by whatever external entities felt like raiding us for resources.

So in other words, it's preferable to have a small tax base supporting an army that has to defend the second largest country in the world?

I can hear the printing presses at the Bank of Canada revving up as I type.

The truth of the matter is, we cannot afford an army capable of defending all Canadian territory with the population and tax base we currently have. If the goal is to expand our military, then we first have to expand our tax base, and that comes via more births or more immigration. Take your pick.

[Smallc]

I can hear the printing presses at the Bank of Canada revving up as I type.

the deficit is shrinking by the day now.