A Stronger Canadian Military?

[nicky10013]

Per capita we have more natural wealth than any other country on the planet. That is far from insignificant and makes us a pretty big target for anyone who needs what we have. I wonder if we would be having this conversation if we didn't share a border with the most powerful country on the planet who happens to be our ally. Perhaps we wouldn't even exist.

The only country with the capability to attack us is the US and potentially Russia and China. The first wouldn't happen as they could buy our resources at the same price anyway. As for Russia and China, they're not that stupid to attack North America. Colour me skeptical. We should be doing risk assessment which includes discarding some risks as next to impossible.

[M.Dancer]

The only country with the capability to attack us is the US and potentially Russia and China.

As well as Pakistan, Iran and a host of others...best we not confine ourselves to thinking attacks will be conventionally delivered or accompanied by declarations of war. They could just as easily come by freighter or parcel post.

Or as in the case when Iran attacked the US, by a mob of students acting without *cough* orders...

In any case, the ability to respond to attacks is vital.

[Oliver]

Per capita we have more natural wealth than any other country on the planet. That is far from insignificant and makes us a pretty big target for anyone who needs what we have. I wonder if we would be having this conversation if we didn't share a border with the most powerful country on the planet who happens to be our ally. Perhaps we wouldn't even exist.

But I think you have to take into consideration that maintaining a close relationship with world's superpowers have always been Canada's policy. In the past, with England and now with United States. Currently Canada is encouraging Chinese investment as a preparation for the Chinese economic boost. I would consider Canada as one of the world's major powers (ranking up with United Kingdom, Western European countries, etc.) but I certainly encourage investment and increase in the military, for national defense and also for humanitarian interventions which I think Canada should involve in more often.

[nicky10013]

As well as Pakistan, Iran and a host of others...best we not confine ourselves to thinking attacks will be conventionally delivered or accompanied by declarations of war. They could just as easily come by freighter or parcel post.

Or as in the case when Iran attacked the US, by a mob of students acting without *cough* orders...

In any case, the ability to respond to attacks is vital.

So let me know how a stronger Canadian military can stop a container ship? Or a bomb at an airport? They can't. The theats we face today fall into the sphere of domestic policing, not international military action.

[Wilber]

The only country with the capability to attack us is the US and potentially Russia and China. The first wouldn't happen as they could buy our resources at the same price anyway. As for Russia and China, they're not that stupid to attack North America. Colour me skeptical. We should be doing risk assessment which includes discarding some risks as next to impossible.

Risk assesment to be sure but I think MD makes a good point. We have never been less sure about how we might be attacked.

In the past, the bad guys and those with the capability have been easy to pick out. Now, not so much.

[Wilber]

So let me know how a stronger Canadian military can stop a container ship? Or a bomb at an airport? They can't. The theats we face today fall into the sphere of domestic policing, not international military action.

How you can respond to such an event sure as hell does.

[nicky10013]

How you can respond to such an event sure as hell does.

We've tried that approach. Please, if you don't mind, tell me how it's going in Afghanistan 10 years on.

[wyly]

How you can respond to such an event sure as hell does.

who and why exactly is anyone going to send a bomb in a container ship and just what with our puny military do you think we can do about it? other than a few tiny island nations we zero ability to threaten any country with retaliation...regardless that's a job for the police and the courts to deal with as they did with the Air India bombing, there was no need to bomb and invade India...

[M.Dancer]

So let me know how a stronger Canadian military can stop a container ship?

Airborne suveillence, navy....it's not a difficult concept

Or a bomb at an airport? They can't. The theats we face today fall into the sphere of domestic policing, not international military action.

And again, how we repond will dictate whether it happens twice. And if you think a smoking gun show a nation is behind the attack, and that would lead to a police being called...give your head a shake. It would be war.

[wyly]

We've tried that approach. Please, if you don't mind, tell me how it's going in Afghanistan 10 years on.

and even with the help of NATO victory is impossible, a complete waste of lives and money...the ridiculed "negoiate" option of Jack Layton has now begun...

[M.Dancer]

We've tried that approach. Please, if you don't mind, tell me how it's going in Afghanistan 10 years on.

Far better than it was 11 years ago.

[M.Dancer]

and even with the help of NATO victory is impossible, a complete waste of lives and money...the ridiculed "negoiate" option of Jack Layton has now begun...

Yes and I assume you think that now the Taliban are motivated to talk it is because we are losing :lol:

[nicky10013]

Airborne suveillence, navy....it's not a difficult concept

Nope. Not quite. Have you ever seen a container ship? The only way air surveillance will work if we already know a weapon is on the ship. Given the amount of ships that dock in our ports, the navy can only interdict so many vessels.

The leads come from surveillance which is primarily civilian in Canada along with domestic policing and security at aiports and sea ports.

And again, how we repond will dictate whether it happens twice. And if you think a smoking gun show a nation is behind the attack, and that would lead to a police being called...give your head a shake. It would be war.

Bombing a country doesn't prevent an attack. Our response that would actually prevent an attack would come from the increase in security and domestic policing.

[nicky10013]

Far better than it was 11 years ago.

Right. Will we ever eliminate the threat there? No, not with military force. So, again, what's the point?

[Wilber]

Bombing a country doesn't prevent an attack. Our response that would actually prevent an attack would come from the increase in security and domestic policing.

If you know you will be bombed if you attack it sure can. That is why the Cold War never became hot. What if your responce doesn't work? What then? You say it is impossible to stop a bomb in a container ship. Say you are right. What then? We just accept it? Our strength is in our weakness? What?

[wyly]

Nope. Not quite. Have you ever seen a container ship? The only way air surveillance will work if we already know a weapon is on the ship. Given the amount of ships that dock in our ports, the navy can only interdict so many vessels.

The leads come from surveillance which is primarily civilian in Canada along with domestic policing and security at aiports and sea ports.

correct the navy has no ability to check all container ships let alone the containers they carry...our civilian security on the docks scan containers with high tech equipment and even then it's expensive and they're only able to scan a small fraction of the containers that come into out ports everyday...

[wyly]

If you know you will be bombed if you attack it sure can. That is why the Cold War never became hot. What if your responce doesn't work? What then? You say it is impossible to stop a bomb in a container ship. Say you are right. What then? We just accept it? Our strength is in our weakness? What?

other than when the Soviet Union got involved in a domestic dispute in Afghanistan when did a Warsaw pact country ever invade another country? it was our southern ally that was busy invading countries...the Warsaw Pact was a defensive agreement no different than NATO...it was the Warsaw Pact that had historical reasons to protect themselves from NATO members, as some of those Nato members took part in an attack on the Soviet Union early in it's history...we gave them every reason to be hostile and defensive because we were...

[M.Dancer]

Bombing a country doesn't prevent an attack. Our response that would actually prevent an attack would come from the increase in security and domestic policing.

Oh..so you are in favour of a stronger military...

[nicky10013]

If you know you will be bombed if you attack it sure can. That is why the Cold War never became hot. What if your responce doesn't work? What then? You say it is impossible to stop a bomb in a container ship. Say you are right. What then? We just accept it? Our strength is in our weakness? What?

So you're going to bomb a container ship otherwise carrying valuable goods that would benefit the economy?

[nicky10013]

Oh..so you are in favour of a stronger military...

I guess you ignored the whole domestic security thing.

[M.Dancer]

Nope. Not quite. Have you ever seen a container ship? The only way air surveillance will work if we already know a weapon is on the ship. Given the amount of ships that dock in our ports, the navy can only interdict so many vessels.

Given that container ships make numerous ports of call with an equal amount of inspections, chances are it would not be a routine voyage. The ability to single out a gypsy freightor, to track it and stop it is important.

[Wilber]

So you're going to bomb a container ship otherwise carrying valuable goods that would benefit the economy?

Gaawd, the ship would probably go up in the fireball. You bomb the knobs who sent it.

[bush_cheney2004]

other than when the Soviet Union got involved in a domestic dispute in Afghanistan when did a Warsaw pact country ever invade another country?

Hungary - 1956

it was our southern ally that was busy invading countries...

Canada - Iraq, Serbia, Haiti, Afghanistan

[Wilber]

other than when the Soviet Union got involved in a domestic dispute in Afghanistan when did a Warsaw pact country ever invade another country? it was our southern ally that was busy invading countries...the Warsaw Pact was a defensive agreement no different than NATO...it was the Warsaw Pact that had historical reasons to protect themselves from NATO members, as some of those Nato members took part in an attack on the Soviet Union early in it's history...we gave them every reason to be hostile and defensive because we were...

So our strength would be in our weakness.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Wilber

[M.Dancer]

Right. Will we ever eliminate the threat there? No, not with military force. So, again, what's the point?

The Taliban have in the past rejected every overture for talks....they have been bombed to to negotiating table. And that is my point. I said before that a political solution has always bee in the cards and that does not preclude military action to motivate the other side.