Does Canada face any imminent military threat to its territory?

[dre]

Did you ever think that maybe one of the reasons many of those 'nutjobs' exist because the rest of the world hasn't actually taken action to produce a world where human rights and the rule of law are major driving forces?

Compelling for whom? Are you considering only self interest? Or do you also consider the plight of humans in other countries to be grounds for military intervention?

Would you have gotten Canada involved in World War 2 in 1939? After all, the war was over in Europe. We were at no risk to have our territory invaded by Germany.

What about Korea, where a militarily-aggressive North Korea invaded South Korea?

What about Kosovo, where there was large-scale displacement and possible genocide against non-combatants?

What about Rwamda, where almost 20% of the population was killed?

In none of those cases did Canada have benefit significantly (at least economically) from getting involved militarily. However, I'd like to think the moral choice would have been to intervene.

Far from it.

First of all, keep in mind that 'NATO' involvement basically involves a bunch of independent countries/armies. Each country/army would probably still have the same general level of forces even if NATO didn't exist. Whatever costs that are due to the existence of 'NATO' itself (e.g. infrastructure allowing proper communication among members) is probably a drop in the bucket compared to overall costs.

Secondly, I think NATO is much more useful than (lets say) the U.N. when it comes to global security. The countries making up NATO are all democratic, and actually have a real respect for human rights; compare that with the U.N., where many member states are dictatorships and human rights are only given lip service.

Compelling for whom? Are you considering only self interest? Or do you also consider the plight of humans in other countries to be grounds for military intervention?

I would say 90% our own interests, and 10% those of others.

The cases where we should intevene in other conflicts are few and far between, and spending 10 billion dollars on overpriced high tech fighter craft in no bid slush contracts is not necessary in order for us to do that.

Secondly, I think NATO is much more useful than (lets say) the U.N. when it comes to global security. The countries making up NATO are all democratic, and actually have a real respect for human rights; compare that with the U.N., where many member states are dictatorships and human rights are only given lip service.

Interesting. I see both the UN and NATO flat out ignoring most of the human rights abuses in the world.

Im not against joining in some NATO actions but we need to look at them on a case by case basis, and we should not stockpile weapons for that purpose. Our military should be built around whats necessary to defend Canadian soil, and if a NATO or UN missing asks for assets from us then we can look at making whatever assets we have available. I dont like the Idea of borrowing 10 billion dollars to buy kit for a mission we think MIGHT happen.

[wyly]

Umm...I assume you meant 'provoke'.

Please define what you mean by 'provoke'.

If we trade with the 'great Satan' the United States, are we 'provoking' an attack?

If we vote at all on any resolution that (for example) a terrorist group disagrees with, are we 'provoking' an attack?

If we send humanitarian aid to an area in conflict, are we 'provoking' an attack by one or both sides of the conflict?

unless you've lived in a cave you're entire life you can't be that dumb, you know exactly what I mean...

Tell me, prior to the overthrow of the Taliban, did you think it was OK for women to be stoned for leaving their homes in Afghanistan? You think Canada should just remain silent about that?

Tell me after removing the Taliban did you think it was OK for young boys to be raped by afghan police? Do think Canada should remain silent on that?

What if North Korea decides to invade the south. Should Canada be silent if Kim Jong Il decides he wants to control both the north and south?

you're in fantasy land, Little Red and the Big Bad Wolf is for children...

Well, the 'failed state' of Afghanistan back in 2001 managed to end up getting thousands killed and threw the entire world's economy into chaos.

Afghanistan did not attack anyone that was Osama and A Q, until 911 the largest death toll from terrorist attacks was by a terrorist organization based in Canada is Canada a failed state? do we buy F-35's to bomb Vancouver?...and a certian super state has killed millions of innocents, 911 was an insignificant pinprick in comparison...

Umm... why are you assuming that one method of fighting terrorism (the police) can be done in isolation without the other (i.e. military action)?

Umm...because it can...

Straw man. Rather pathetic one at that.

you have no response to the truth...

Nobody here has claimed bin Laden was putting together his own air force. We did give several possible scenarios that we can and should protect against, where military capability has some importance.

paranoid fantasyland scenarios, about as realistic as needing to protect ourselves from alien invasion... Edited June 11, 2010 by wyly

[Guest TrueMetis]

Who lives in a fantasy land, the people worried about potential attacks and so want a defence against them, or the one who thinks no one will ever attack Canada.

[wyly]

Who lives in a fantasy land, the people worried about potential attacks and so want a defence against them, or the one who thinks no one will ever attack Canada.

when someone can't even identify a viable enemy and then resort to inventing potential threats, that's paranoia...

Definition:

-Paranoia is an exaggerated distrust of others that is not based on fact.

-Paranoia is a symptom in which an individual feels as if the world is "out to get" him or her.

Edited June 11, 2010 by wyly

[Guest TrueMetis]

when someone can't even identify a viable enemy and then resort to inventing potential threats, that's paranoia...

As a country looking out for potential threats is what prevents you from being destroyed. How do you think countries saw Germany before the world wars? Or saw Russia, Italy and Spain before world war 2? A little bit more "inventing potential threats" could have prevented a lot of trouble and deaths.

[Wild Bill]

Your thoughts.

I'm really not sure of the context behind your question. Are you simply asking if there is an imminent threat at the moment or is the implication that this ties to our need for a capable military defense structure?

If you are simply asking about a threat TODAY then of course the answer would be no. However, if this has to do with our military then the question seems rather silly!

If a threat does occur and we have no military capacity to speak of, what are we supposed to do? Do we expect that any invader must give reasonable notice? How much notice would be necessary for us to "arm up"? We are years behind now!

The days of having a couple of years to build a military from scratch, as we did in WWI and WWII, are long gone. Forget about a couple of years to set up Commonwealth Flying Training Schools and enlisting/training infantry. With the technology of today, wars are "come as you are" wars. You can be surprised with an attack and you defend with what you have. Likely it will be all over in a few days or at most weeks. If you didn't have enough resources, too bad. So sad. You lose!

There is also a truism of human nature that those who look like they can be safely pushed around usually are! This is true in the schoolyard and also true between nations. We may not actually be invaded but we could lose oil or fishing areas in the north or even some land area that another nation wants to develop. The idea of "soft diplomacy" sounds nice but in the world of realpolitik it can mean little or nothing when push comes to shove. If another nation has a dispute with us and knows that it can take what it wants with no fear of retaliation then it very well might! Or if there is retaliation, it would be diplomatic rather than military. A country might very well think that diplomatic repercussions are cheap at the price!

If someone wants to make the argument that we don't need a robust military, now or ever in the future, I can understand that. I don't agree with it but I can understand it! However, if they are speaking with the assumption that we can always "arm up" if we ever have to then we part company. I just don't see how that would be possible today.

[Yesterday]

IMO We do not have a military threat issue as it seems that every successive government has been quite happy to use our massive resource index to buy off the bullies and prop up our seat at the negotiating table. We are no where near tapped.

Wild Bill, for myself not having really thought about the realities of war on our soil, you make an interesting point. Thank-you.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Yesterday

[Army Guy]

not all that robust there lots of myhts concerning Swiss ability, they're down sizing their air force and still fly the F-5 which Canada retired a decade ago...

What is the myth about having a robust military force, the 33 F18c and D models or the over 100 F-5e and F aircraft, which are going to be retired with the swiss looking for a replacement aircraft one of the types they are looking at is the grippen, and euro fighter....but you forgot to compare the size of thier airspace to ours...

they did it because they were led by gun strokers who believed in their delusionary superiority, winter has no respect for gun strokers...

The fact remains is it was done, and the cost of that decision was in the tens of millions of lives.... and that is with being prepared for thier defence....we are not, even close to that....you just want us to stick up our hands in surrender....

something you forget is you voluntered for the job don't want to get sent to some hell hole where someone may shoot at you don't join...

I did'nt forget i volunteered, and i know the risks of doing the Job, and i'm not whinning like you.....unlike you who are quite willing to have someone else provide that sercurity blanket we all live under ...i wanted to give something back to our great nation which has providsed me with so much....

And while i don't hold that again'st you atleast you could show some compassion for the men and women who gladly provide you with that which you take for granted everyday....we would be having this aurgument over 10 bil if the government decided to give a 10 bil dollar tax break we all be for that....

[Yesterday]

If we back out of our alliances, on what basis could we expect to have those former allies help to defend us if we ever needed it? Canada may face no threat now, in the current geopolitical climate, but we are a vast and sparsely populated and weakly defended territory with some of the world's most extensive and richest reserves of natural resources of almost every variety. If ever in the future some entity was bent on large scale conquest, we would be an easy and juicy target were it not for our alliances. This may or may not be a situation that ever arises, but it is possible.

For the meager price of maintaining a relatively small and modest military force and helping occasionally with allied initiatives, we maintain our place as a respected member of a major alliance of powerful nations. This is definitely in our overall, long-term, national interests, even if some of those individual small initiatives that we partake in do not directly serve our interests.

Very well said...

[Yesterday]

What is the myth about having a robust military force, the 33 F18c and D models or the over 100 F-5e and F aircraft, which are going to be retired with the swiss looking for a replacement aircraft one of the types they are looking at is the grippen, and euro fighter....but you forgot to compare the size of thier airspace to ours...

The fact remains is it was done, and the cost of that decision was in the tens of millions of lives.... and that is with being prepared for thier defence....we are not, even close to that....you just want us to stick up our hands in surrender....

I did'nt forget i volunteered, and i know the risks of doing the Job, and i'm not whinning like you.....unlike you who are quite willing to have someone else provide that sercurity blanket we all live under ...i wanted to give something back to our great nation which has providsed me with so much....

And while i don't hold that again'st you atleast you could show some compassion for the men and women who gladly provide you with that which you take for granted everyday....we would be having this aurgument over 10 bil if the government decided to give a 10 bil dollar tax break we all be for that....

It can be hard to separate the realities that provide the cause for the men and women who are fighting and dying in war from the reality that men and women are fighting and dying in war. Any disrespect needs to be carefully aimed at the cause of this mess, never at the result which is men and women fighting and dying in war.

[Oleg Bach]

Private corporate armies are now applying for a permit to operate this side of the boarder - over a thousand of them are going to be hear for the summit..they are american contractors. If there are protesters that get out of line it might be an American bringing down his billy club on the head of some Canadian youth.

There might not be a threat to actual real estate or (territory) but it might become a personal threat against persons. It will remind me of a wife that divorces her husband and brings in a new man into the house - that man who is NOT the father of the son starts to beat the son.

[eyeball]

While someone believes there is no chance of conflict.

We're talking about a military threat to our territory. The chance of that happening is extremely slim. Thin enough that simply maintaining a small stockpile of nuclear weapons as a deterrent should more than suffice to defend our territory.

[eyeball]

Let me sum your argument more succinctly...

If we act like pussies and ignore our responsibilities to our allies and friends, bad people might ignore us.

If we act like assholes and ignore the irresponsibility of some of our allies and friends, people will conclude we're just as bad.

[Machjo]

Here's how I see it. No country would ever attack Canada just for the sake of attacking it. If a country attacks Canada, it would need a valid reason to do so. Heck, even Hitler could not attack Poland without first controlling all media and then launching a false flag attack against German soil by German soldiers dressed up a Polish soldiers.

If even Hitler were so constrained, then without a doubt a country would give plenty of forewarning of an attack. It must first find a valid excuse or even its own people will oppose it.

But even with that, just attacking Poland for the sake of attacking it was of no value to Hitler. He intended to exploit the country's resources. So looking at it that way, simply having bomber planes would not suffice, since while bombers can destroy, you eventually have to put soldiers on the ground to control if the goal is to benefit from this in some way.

And even with that, Hitler had to be cautious. It was learnt at the end of WWII that even some German officers were not aware of the atrocities committed by the Nazis and sincerely believed from the start that they were simply fighting for their homeland. So clearly Hitler had to be cautious when attacking other countries not to make his atrocities too obvious to the overall public, thus restricting how violent they could be.

I believe this is where Switzerland outsmarted Poland. Poland simply had a professional army, which is easy to attack with full force on the argument of them being legitimate targets. Once the professional military was down, that was game over for Poland.

With Switzerland, for one thing it was a citizen army, so the Nazis would have had to either bomb the whole of Switzerland, which would likely have shaken the loyalty of many German officers (after all, they were still human and had a pride in being upright and certainly engaging in genocide is not what most would want to engage in). Or fight the Swiss street to street. After all, just attacking the country is of no benefit unless you can then control it.

So looking at it that way, Canada does not need to be able to outperform an enemy force, but like Switzerland just be able to ensure that while the enemy might win, it would be a hollow victory bringing with it no benefit anyway.

[M.Dancer]

I believe this is where Switzerland outsmarted Poland. Poland simply had a professional army, which is easy to attack with full force on the argument of them being legitimate targets. Once the professional military was down, that was game over for Poland.

Switzerland was so smart, they put their nation in the middle of the alps, surrounded by impentrable walls of bedrock with only a limited number of easily defended passes....the Swiss also have a professional standing army so your thoughts about this are off base.

[Machjo]

Switzerland was so smart, they put their nation in the middle of the alps, surrounded by impentrable walls of bedrock with only a limited number of easily defended passes....the Swiss also have a professional standing army so your thoughts about this are off base.

They do, but once the professional army collapses, you then have to face the civil defense force.

Canada has this flaw too. Once the professional army is overrun, it's game over for us.

Sweden is another country like Switzerland. Even if you do overrun its professional force, you then have to face the citizenry.

[M.Dancer]

They do, but once the professional army collapses, you then have to face the civil defense force.

Canada has this flaw too. Once the professional army is overrun, it's game over for us.

You clearly don't understand the Swiss Military or the Canadian for that matter...their militia units are seemlessly incorporated into their professional army..if the professinal army is defeated, so would be their citizen soldiery...this is no different than Canada who have a militia of over 25,000 strong...

Edited June 11, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Machjo]

You clearly don't understand the Swiss Military or the Canadian for that matter...their militia units are seemlessly incorporated into their professional army..if the professinal army is defeated, so would be their citizen soldiery...this is no different than Canada who have a militia of over 25,000 strong...

Do we have rifles in almost every home in the country? Is almost every Canadian trained in at least basic infantry skills?

[wyly]

What is the myth about having a robust military force, the 33 F18c and D models or the over 100 F-5e and F aircraft, which are going to be retired with the swiss looking for a replacement aircraft one of the types they are looking at is the grippen, and euro fighter....

you don't that it's a robust force it's basically an untested citizens militia...the entire point of them downsizing is to convert to a more professional force...

but you forgot to compare the size of thier airspace to ours...

I'm very good at geography, you evidently forgot the small size of our population, we have no hope of defending a country as large as ours...

The fact remains is it was done, and the cost of that decision was in the tens of millions of lives.... and that is with being prepared for thier defence....we are not, even close to that....you just want us to stick up our hands in surrender....

that we have a defense is an illusion even with F-35's we are pushovers, we have no hope of defending ourselves if a superpower should decide to attack us and no other country has the capability hold our territory for any significant length of time...

I did'nt forget i volunteered, and i know the risks of doing the Job, and i'm not whinning like you.....unlike you who are quite willing to have someone else provide that sercurity blanket we all live under ...i wanted to give something back to our great nation which has providsed me with so much....

you don't provide as security blanket, that's all in your head you believe your own propaganda...Costa Rica located in the volatile Central America abolished it's military in 1948 and it has been invaded how many times since then??? zero...do Costa Ricans lose sleep over their lack of security blanket?

And while i don't hold that again'st you atleast you could show some compassion for the men and women who gladly provide you with that which you take for granted everyday....we would be having this aurgument over 10 bil if the government decided to give a 10 bil dollar tax break we all be for that....

you have a job where for decades on end nothing happens you get trained and educated at tax payer expense be grateful...it may sound harsh but I have absolutely no compassion don't confuse that with wishing ill will, you chose a career that has risks like any other job don't expect sympathy or to be idolized...

[wyly]

With Switzerland, for one thing it was a citizen army, so the Nazis would have had to either bomb the whole of Switzerland, which would likely have shaken the loyalty of many German officers (after all, they were still human and had a pride in being upright and certainly engaging in genocide is not what most would want to engage in). Or fight the Swiss street to street. After all, just attacking the country is of no benefit unless you can then control it.

what's not commonly known was european countries long ago decided to respect Swiss neutrality, it was in no one's interest to drag them into a war...Nazi Germany could have easily overrun the Swiss but what would be the point it would just tie up valuable troops needed elsewhere the same logic applied to not invading Sweden...so it wasn't really their military the Germans feared...

also the Swiss may have ended up divided in a civil war much of German speaking Switzerland was very pro-Nazi which many Nazi's took advantage of hiding stolen loot and themselves among sympathetic Swiss/Germans

[madmax]

I'm really not sure of the context behind your question. Are you simply asking if there is an imminent threat at the moment or is the implication that this ties to our need for a capable military defense structure?

If you are simply asking about a threat TODAY then of course the answer would be no. However, if this has to do with our military then the question seems rather silly!

There is also a truism of human nature that those who look like they can be safely pushed around usually are!

If someone wants to make the argument that we don't need a robust military, now or ever in the future, I can understand that. I don't agree with it but I can understand it! However, if they are speaking with the assumption that we can always "arm up" if we ever have to then we part company. I just don't see how that would be possible today.

I snipped out alot. But.... Logic like this isn't going to get any reaction.

But it is one of the best posts in this thread.

[M.Dancer]

Do we have rifles in almost every home in the country? Is almost every Canadian trained in at least basic infantry skills?

Canada has 31-5 firearms per 100 people..Switzerland has 46...

only 2/3rds of male swiss receive training...never the less, Switzerlands standing army is almost twice the size of Canada's...

[madmax]

Canada has 31-5 firearms per 100 people..Switzerland has 46...

only 2/3rds of male swiss receive training...never the less, Switzerlands standing army is almost twice the size of Canada's...

You forgot about their Navy...

[GostHacked]

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.

[M.Dancer]

You forgot about their Navy...

Swiss Navy on patrol