A Stronger Canadian Military?

[fellowtraveller]

canada had respect and political significance when we were unbiased mediators

This bit of monumental stupidity and wilful revisionism of the facts Gets more and more irrtiating.

Canada has NEVER been an unbiased mediator.

Canada has NEVER been a neutral country.

Canada IS a member of miltiary and political alliances and always has been, the primary one for the last 65 years being NATO.

And finally, NEUTRAL COUNTRIES LIKE SWEDEN AND SWITZERLAND ARE ARMED TO THE TEETH, AND EXPORT WEAPONS AS A CORE BUSINESS.

[Wilber]

Minor distinction, but worth pointing out: it wasn't a lack of power, but rather a lack of will to use that power.

Questionable, look at the trouble they have had in Chechnya. Point is the Soviet Union was a Russian empire composed of countries that didn't want to be there and which got out as soon as the Bear showed enough weakness.

[Wilber]

And finally, NEUTRAL COUNTRIES LIKE SWEDEN AND SWITZERLAND ARE ARMED TO THE TEETH, AND EXPORT WEAPONS AS A CORE BUSINESS.

They have to be, they have no allies to share the load.

[Army Guy]

Questionable, look at the trouble they have had in Chechnya. Point is the Soviet Union was a Russian empire composed of countries that didn't want to be there and which got out as soon as the Bear showed enough weakness.

I don't agree , Mother Russia never does anything without thinking long and hard, and having 2 or 3 back up plans....i think they cut them loose because it would save them money....Mother Russia still has the military might and will to use it to rein them in when she feels the need to.....Gorgia, even with the threat of US support Russia still took action...and as long as it's in thier back yard, even the US would be crazy to take direct action.....

Edited October 29, 2010 by Army Guy

[Wilber]

I don't agree , Mother Russia never does anything without thinking long and hard, and having 2 or 3 back up plans....i think they cut them loose because it would save them money....Mother Russia still has the military might and will to use it to rein them in when she feels the need to.....Gorgia, even with the threat of US support Russia still took action...and as long as it's in thier back yard, even the US would be crazy to take direct action.....

OK then, they couldn't afford to make them stay. Much the same thing in the end I guess. Perhaps the Bear will rise again, who knows. Wouldn't surprise me.

[nicky10013]

I don't agree , Mother Russia never does anything without thinking long and hard, and having 2 or 3 back up plans....i think they cut them loose because it would save them money....Mother Russia still has the military might and will to use it to rein them in when she feels the need to.....Gorgia, even with the threat of US support Russia still took action...and as long as it's in thier back yard, even the US would be crazy to take direct action.....

You're giving the Russians way too much credit. Their incursion into Georgia was declared by everyone to be an organizational disaster. The military is plagued with endemic corruption. Soldiers aren't paid, new equipment isn't delivered and no training is done. The Russian Armed forces, you're right, is quite large. However, right now, that's about the only thing it has going for it.

[wulf42]

You're giving the Russians way too much credit. Their incursion into Georgia was declared by everyone to be an organizational disaster. The military is plagued with endemic corruption. Soldiers aren't paid, new equipment isn't delivered and no training is done. The Russian Armed forces, you're right, is quite large. However, right now, that's about the only thing it has going for it.

While it's true the Russian Military has deteriorated over the years it still has one very very big thing going for it and that is Nuclear Weapons and lots of them. However there is one sign of hope, the Americans and Russians are working together against a common enemy! See the link i posted down at the bottom, i think we will see more of this in the future as it becomes clear to both Countries they shouldn't be worried about each other but more focused on Islamic Extremism and the drug trade.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11651469

Edited October 29, 2010 by wulf42

[Army Guy]

You're giving the Russians way too much credit. Their incursion into Georgia was declared by everyone to be an organizational disaster. The military is plagued with endemic corruption. Soldiers aren't paid, new equipment isn't delivered and no training is done. The Russian Armed forces, you're right, is quite large. However, right now, that's about the only thing it has going for it.

Perhaps i am, but i never underestamte anyone or anything....and with Russia which has a long history of proving to be the master of disception....i mean everything they do seems to be to that piont, And while yes we have been lead to believe Russia is in shambles, coruption every where you look, military rusting away, etc etc....I'm still leary and so should we be, if history is to be believed.

And if anything the Russian's are a strong believer in mother Russia, and i don't think it would take much for them to be wiped up for the right cause....and anything anti american or western could do that...

[Oleg Bach]

I smell rhetoric. Get your point though, but don't diss the question. Many might argue that soft power now plays a more important role in International System. You clearly disagree but its something to think about.

Soft power as you put it is about character - respect and leadership...for instance if you want to deal with religious extremists..send an envoy that can hold his or her own...not as the Americans briefly did by sending an openly gay diplomat...or some other dis-honourable weasil...This is the problem why we do NOT have real influence..All of our elected officals are in the buisness of politics all for the wrong reasons..now..back to getting to the point.

If you are going to have a military..have a compact small and highly efficient killing machine- combine this with good and respected leadership---and forget hiring on cheeze ball henchmen like the former Colonel Russell Williams..I guess my point is- We are keepers of the peace- but we are now disrespected because our supposed right..sucked up to the corporate dictatorship of Richard Cheney - who believed that force without character, respect and honour would do the trick...Canada is now a United Nation of Nations...and we are strong...but remember HONOUR...Is a must- If you have a firm and honest persona..You can make peace with anyone.....but you had still better have some guys as back up who are packing heat.

[nicky10013]

Perhaps i am, but i never underestamte anyone or anything....and with Russia which has a long history of proving to be the master of disception....i mean everything they do seems to be to that piont, And while yes we have been lead to believe Russia is in shambles, coruption every where you look, military rusting away, etc etc....I'm still leary and so should we be, if history is to be believed.

And if anything the Russian's are a strong believer in mother Russia, and i don't think it would take much for them to be wiped up for the right cause....and anything anti american or western could do that...

They have been masters of deception. They've decieved us to think that they're far more power than they actually are. The biggest thing that comes to mind is the bomber gap. Instead of actually producing more airplanes, the Soviets just repaitned tail numbers to make it look as if they had far more planes. Most equipment they produce (biggest was the T-72) we've thought were machines of death. Instead, they were just death machines not for any enemy but for it's own crew. They were 20 years behind us in 1991 when the USSR collapsed and since then they've made very little headway. Their industry still hasn't been updated. Farming is still collectivized.

Edited October 29, 2010 by nicky10013

[wyly]

They have to be, they have no allies to share the load.

it's an exaggeration they're about the same as us...and the Swiss don't have a navy

armed to the teeth?..it's an exaggeration they're about the same as us...and the Swiss don't have a navy to $upport...and they're both tiny countries relative to Canada our infrastructure is far more costly...

[wyly]

This bit of monumental stupidity and wilful revisionism of the facts Gets more and more irrtiating.

Canada has NEVER been an unbiased mediator.

Canada has NEVER been a neutral country.

Canada IS a member of miltiary and political alliances and always has been, the primary one for the last 65 years being NATO.

And finally, NEUTRAL COUNTRIES LIKE SWEDEN AND SWITZERLAND ARE ARMED TO THE TEETH, AND EXPORT WEAPONS AS A CORE BUSINESS.

someone is in need of a history lesson...

Edited October 29, 2010 by wyly

[dre]

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

Its NATO and the Afghanistan government that are motivated to talk now that after eight years they have realized that killing that segment of Afghan society isnt as easy as they thought it would be.

Much like how in Iraq once the US government realized it wasnt going to be possible to kill all the terrorists and insurgents it made the employees of the US government. Gave em salaries and full time jobs "not killing americans and other Iraqis".

In both cases probably quite smart.

[Wilber]

it's an exaggeration they're about the same as us...and the Swiss don't have a navy

armed to the teeth?..it's an exaggeration they're about the same as us...and the Swiss don't have a navy to $upport...and they're both tiny countries relative to Canada our infrastructure is far more costly...

It's true our militaries have different rolls because of our individual circumstances but you are either able to defend your country or you aren't.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's true our militaries have different rolls because of our individual circumstances but you are either able to defend your country or you aren't.

Currently in my opinion we are not. Nor shall we be anytime soon, unless we wake up and smell the coffee here folks. We need to get off the dime and start doing things differently.

[wyly]

Perhaps i am, but i never underestamte anyone or anything....and with Russia which has a long history of proving to be the master of disception....i mean everything they do seems to be to that piont, And while yes we have been lead to believe Russia is in shambles, coruption every where you look, military rusting away, etc etc....I'm still leary and so should we be, if history is to be believed.

And if anything the Russian's are a strong believer in mother Russia, and i don't think it would take much for them to be wiped up for the right cause....and anything anti american or western could do that...

Russians don't a long history of imperailistc type expansion...most of the russian land mass was a vaccum they walked into...other places it was the czars removing invaders like the turks, the former soviet republics was more a politcal/social movement...

I don't think anti american or anti westernism would do anything to whip them up they'ld be quite indifferent, threaten russia itself and you'll get a strong reaction...russian troops of ww1 had little motivation in a war with germany, ww2 was different matter it was threat to the motherland motivation wasn't a problem...

[wyly]

It's true our militaries have different rolls because of our individual circumstances but you are either able to defend your country or you aren't.

we could debate that as well Wilber...Sweden and Switzerland are much easier to defend because of their size...with our enormous land mass and small population have no hope of defending it short of using nuclear weapons, it would bankrupt the country to try...I just don't believe we need to, no country other than the USA(200 yrs ago) has showed any interest in attacking us, it's a different world other than Iraq going beserk for a brief period and the USA going on it's little rampages the world is quite stable...most warfare is of the internal variety...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

we could debate that as well Wilber...Sweden and Switzerland are much easier to defend because of their size...with our enormous land mass and small population have no hope of defending it short of using nuclear weapons, it would bankrupt the country to try...I just don't believe we need to, no country other than the USA(200 yrs ago) has showed any interest in attacking us, it's a different world other than Iraq going beserk for a brief period and the USA going on it's little rampages the world is quite stable...most warfare is of the internal variety...

I disagree. I think it can be done.

[Wilber]

we could debate that as well Wilber...Sweden and Switzerland are much easier to defend because of their size...with our enormous land mass and small population have no hope of defending it short of using nuclear weapons, it would bankrupt the country to try...I just don't believe we need to, no country other than the USA(200 yrs ago) has showed any interest in attacking us, it's a different world other than Iraq going beserk for a brief period and the USA going on it's little rampages the world is quite stable...most warfare is of the internal variety...

Woe are we, all this wealth and we should be able to defend it? Life can be so cruel. It's our lot, get used to it and the advantages of living in this country far outweigh the disadvantages, including the fact that on a per capita basis it is expensive to govern and defend.

The two times we were invaded from the south were a result of Britain's bone headed treatment of its own colonies the first time and the equally bone headed treatment of a new nation during the Napoleonic Wars the second. The US has never presented a threat to the sovereignty of the nation called the Dominion of Canada or the country of Canada that succeeded it. The US has always respected the country of Canada's sovereignty or been its ally. In fact its military power has been the greatest guarantor of our sovereignty. Since the Statute of Westminster, the US has been our ally for all but the first ten years.

[Army Guy]

They have been masters of deception. They've decieved us to think that they're far more power than they actually are. The biggest thing that comes to mind is the bomber gap. Instead of actually producing more airplanes, the Soviets just repaitned tail numbers to make it look as if they had far more planes. Most equipment they produce (biggest was the T-72) we've thought were machines of death. Instead, they were just death machines not for any enemy but for it's own crew. They were 20 years behind us in 1991 when the USSR collapsed and since then they've made very little headway. Their industry still hasn't been updated. Farming is still collectivized.

Like i've said before the Russians have never done something without carefully studying it, and would not under estamate them now they have had a long practice of developing wpns sys in complete secret, including putting them into mass production...Russia's history is full of examples dating back to WWII and the sudden appearence of the T-34, this practice has been continued through out the cold war, in other examples such as the t-54/55, 62, 64 and T-72, discovered only after mother Russia decided to throw them on the may day parade and introduce them to the Russian people....all of these wpns systems were already mass produced and were well on there way to full deployment within there armies...With that kind of record one has to assume that practice is still going on....

Russians have always produced two versions, of the same equipment, don't assume the Russian T-72 is the same tank as the one that was used by the Iraqis in the Iraq war....because you'd be wrong...and don't assume the T-72 is the only tank in mass production, since then the T-80, and T-80U, have been produced in mass these tanks have also been upgraded by the T-90 version, with some T-95'sin the wings...

Besides history has clearly shown us it's not about quality it's about numbers, and how fast they can be produced....western tanks are killing machines but they are very tech, and require alot of training time....Russian tanks are designed around the KISS principal, shit the export T-72 still do not have sycro mesh for their standard transmissions....it's find em or grind em tech....but then again they produced them by the 1000's...and could mass produce them with ease, while western tanks takes weeks to produce just one....

As for thinking they are years behind us in tech think again, look at the tech behind their aircraft, ships, anti air sys, NBCW wpns....they work just fine...if they did not during the cold war NATO forces would have been much smaller....

[dls]

Any ideas of Canada being invaded are utterly ridiculous, we're strong allies with the country that has by far the strongest military in the world. Nobody outside the US has the power to project force at a large level (Even poor countries with awful militaries like iraq and afghanistan still present serious problems years on). Even without US military backing it would be virtually impossible for a nation to get enough troops, supplies, equiptment and logistics over here to actually occupy us and 'take our resources' from us. With US military support, the idea of anyone invading Canada is laughable. Aren't you big military folks supposed to know your stuff?

The stuff about a larger military required to retaliate for hypothetical state-sponsored terror attacks on Canada, by enemies we don't have is ridiculous.

Canada's military should at most remain the smallish professional force it is today, and adapt according to changes in its requirements.

[Wilber]

And yet the allies managed to invade Europe in 1945 and would have invaded Japan in 1945 or 46. For a nation like China, Canada would be a pushover in comparison. Without the US of course.

The roll of the Canadian forces is certainly up for debate but when it takes years to get modern equipment plus the years of screwing around that we always engage in before we can make up our minds what we need, adapting to changes in requirements seems somewhat problematical. The cost of that adapting will most likely be paid in lives, as usual.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The roll of the Canadian forces is certainly up for debate but when it takes years to get modern equipment plus the years of screwing around that we always engage in before we can make up our minds what we need, adapting to changes in requirements seems somewhat problematical. The cost of that adapting will most likely be paid in lives, as usual.

Some desire such gridlock by design, so as to hobble Canadian capabilities and limit the risk of enjoining international or even domestic conflict. The problem with this approach is as you stated, with the added negative impact on humanitarian and so called "Responsibility to Protect" force projection. So that leads to General Dallaire's UN nightmare of not only lacking a few dozen APCs, but also lacking the means to get them to there (Rwanda).

[Wilber]

Some desire such gridlock by design, so as to hobble Canadian capabilities and limit the risk of enjoining international or even domestic conflict.

No doubt.

[nicky10013]

And yet the allies managed to invade Europe in 1945 and would have invaded Japan in 1945 or 46. For a nation like China, Canada would be a pushover in comparison. Without the US of course.

The roll of the Canadian forces is certainly up for debate but when it takes years to get modern equipment plus the years of screwing around that we always engage in before we can make up our minds what we need, adapting to changes in requirements seems somewhat problematical. The cost of that adapting will most likely be paid in lives, as usual.

Despite the typo I think he made it perfectly clear that invasion "without" the support of the US is ridiculous. He's right. Look who led d-day. No country has the capability to project land power intercontinentally except the US and certainly not when the US would consider any attack on North America an attack on the US.