A Stronger Canadian Military?

[William Ashley]

Any ideas of Canada being invaded are utterly ridiculous

*facepalm*

Edited November 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

Here is my proposed national security policy (an introduction anyway)

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/nationalsecurity.htm

This begins to address some of the issues with national security policy in Canada currently.

BTW by LTA (lighter than air craft) I don't mean kites - I mean systems that float and can manover due to electronics and " a air tight casing filled with gas that makes them raise - the system takes in "ballast" from the air or expells it to manover since air can be "scrubed or cycled" into its heavier or lighter components. Likewise precipitation can be accumulated or cloud matter - or even uav's could steer them that docked with them when they needed to move. These acutally fit into my "NO PIPELINE MAKE A FLIGHT LINE" plan for northern swamp gas deposits - these could actually be suplimented by a moving array of "transport" pods that moved the gases and acted as as a relay it also saves a need for "northern artic pipeline and allows instead of "air mobile" transport / sensor array. "jumbling these together saves a whole lot of money for the desired effects.

Arming some or all of these with missles and you have a........ system that can engage - aiding alititdue in position rather than reuqiring intercept from a remote base.

Just because you picture a hot air balloon or the hindenburg doesn't mean that a working system that didn't crash and burn that allows all the assets of rural communications technologies, air defence aginast non no wake stealth technologies - ponetial for air defence, emergency rescue, and drone stations, transport of goods and equipment to remote areas all in one pricetag - that is way less than all the otherones added up.

The cost is fraction of the 30 billion for the programs independently.

AND IT SAVES THE ENVIRONEMNT AND TURNS torn forest pathways into a few plants to pump these out - possible even as a federal crown corp to make the derigible stations in bulk as it rolls out.

Edited November 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[Army Guy]

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.

DLS:

Not sure who your adressing this to, but i don't think anyone is really talking about a Russian invasion, but rather Russia's military strength and her abilites to influence global matters. Counting Russia out of anything is a huge mistake, during the cold war Russia had the ability and Amb forces to conduct large Amb landings, and still does, infact they just purchased more Amb landing craft off France...And while Canada may not be a target it still needs to be taken into account as a threat...

That being said these Amb forces are used in taking a hostile beach, or a defended shore, any nation that has civilain RO-RO ships could effectivly launch a large enough force provided they had a dock or port deep enough for these ships....So lets not count that theory out just yet...

As for your comments on the Canadian military, i'd like to ask on what experience or knowledge do you base that on, The military has for years been screaming that our size needs to be increased, our combat formations that is...i'd be curious to know just how big you think our land force is ?

As for adapting to it's requirements you've got to be kidding, we are the master to adating to anything, and pulling off taskings and missions out of our asses because we 've been so well funded,(joking) but mostly because there is still a large group of Canadians that don't have a clue on what it is we have been tasked with, or how we are equiped...or what it takes to pull off thesse taskings or missions...and yet these are the same people who know whats best for our military.

[nicky10013]

DLS:

Not sure who your adressing this to, but i don't think anyone is really talking about a Russian invasion, but rather Russia's military strength and her abilites to influence global matters. Counting Russia out of anything is a huge mistake, during the cold war Russia had the ability and Amb forces to conduct large Amb landings, and still does, infact they just purchased more Amb landing craft off France...And while Canada may not be a target it still needs to be taken into account as a threat...

That being said these Amb forces are used in taking a hostile beach, or a defended shore, any nation that has civilain RO-RO ships could effectivly launch a large enough force provided they had a dock or port deep enough for these ships....So lets not count that theory out just yet...

As for your comments on the Canadian military, i'd like to ask on what experience or knowledge do you base that on, The military has for years been screaming that our size needs to be increased, our combat formations that is...i'd be curious to know just how big you think our land force is ?

As for adapting to it's requirements you've got to be kidding, we are the master to adating to anything, and pulling off taskings and missions out of our asses because we 've been so well funded,(joking) but mostly because there is still a large group of Canadians that don't have a clue on what it is we have been tasked with, or how we are equiped...or what it takes to pull off thesse taskings or missions...and yet these are the same people who know whats best for our military.

The military has been screaming to get bigger, that's for sure. What's not being said is that they can barely upkeep the size it is today because recruiting has been so low. So, it doesn't really matter if there's a budget for it or not, they're not going to be able to recruit very many more people to begin with anyway.

[Wilber]

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.

Several other countries have the capability to project such power or could do so if they had a mind to, it is US power that keeps them in check. Why do many Canadians think they have the right to have the US protect their country without taking on any obligation to do so themselves?

We agree that we are not capable of meeting all threats on our own therefore we need allies. Any ally has the right to ask, what's in it for us if we are going to help protect your sovereignty? Any alliance is a two way street and you need something of value to offer your partners in return.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why do many Canadians think they have the right to have the US protect their country without taking on any obligation to do so themselves?

That is a very good question....perhaps they need to review the definition of "sovereign state".

[wyly]

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....

while I don't Russians are threat to anyone, I do agree some people are very arrogant thinking we're smarter than they are, the KISS principle is deceptively simple but very effective...

I always thought "underestimate the opponent at your peril" was a standard rule among the militaries of the world...those who ignored that cliché tended to get a bloody nose...

[Army Guy]

The military has been screaming to get bigger, that's for sure. What's not being said is that they can barely upkeep the size it is today because recruiting has been so low. So, it doesn't really matter if there's a budget for it or not, they're not going to be able to recruit very many more people to begin with anyway.

Thats false, the problem has never been getting recruits, the problem is not having the infra structure to train or house them all of them...and that needs a major investment. and it's normally the first to get cut...

[Army Guy]

while I don't Russians are threat to anyone, I do agree some people are very arrogant thinking we're smarter than they are, the KISS principle is deceptively simple but very effective...

I always thought "underestimate the opponent at your peril" was a standard rule among the militaries of the world...those who ignored that cliché tended to get a bloody nose...

Any military that can still project over a million troops is still a threat, the real problem, is are the Russian as bad off as we think they are...history has shown them not to be...i mean how many nations have cashed in on the peace bonds after the cold war....how many nations actually cut their militaries to the bone in the process....most of them still recite that same old phrase the russians are dead nobody is left to fight....and while i pray to the war gods that is true...reality says the russians are still have a huge influence in global affairs, and can still project power if need be.

[wyly]

Any military that can still project over a million troops is still a threat, the real problem, is are the Russian as bad off as we think they are...history has shown them not to be...i mean how many nations have cashed in on the peace bonds after the cold war....how many nations actually cut their militaries to the bone in the process....most of them still recite that same old phrase the russians are dead nobody is left to fight....and while i pray to the war gods that is true...reality says the russians are still have a huge influence in global affairs, and can still project power if need be.

I agree they're just not motivated to do so but they're more than capable if they choose to...

[William Ashley]

Several other countries have the capability to project such power or could do so if they had a mind to, it is US power that keeps them in check. Why do many Canadians think they have the right to have the US protect their country without taking on any obligation to do so themselves?

We agree that we are not capable of meeting all threats on our own therefore we need allies. Any ally has the right to ask, what's in it for us if we are going to help protect your sovereignty? Any alliance is a two way street and you need something of value to offer your partners in return.

Although allies are a good thing you also need to recognize the difference between the benefit of an alliance and its pitfalls.

For example - the US - our strongest ally - is very gungho and active in asserting - agrgresive in asserting themselves - historically. This means they pick fights. This means Canada is allied with someone who is a fighter - as opposed to someone who is not a -distruptive party. Now you can argue that they are picking fights for good reasons - the fact still remains they are picking fights and starting wars - and they don't have the record of finishing them until the other party doesn't exist anymore - WWII nazi germany is the only example I can think of - and you could argue part of this was due to competition - for every 10 Germans there was 1 American - Americans are a more German state than an English state but that is beside the point. In Iraq the levels were even higher. You got to understand - for America - leaving Iraq is leaving 50000 troops in Iraq - rather leaving Iraq 50000 troops. That is half the Canadian military right there and almost all regular forces. America has a lot of troops but they are stretched all around the world - thankfully some of these bases have since closed or relocated - and America has also been downsizing its military - but here isthe clencher America cannot fight a war without the Security council OKing it, it may spend the most, but it doesn't have the msot equipment - it has some of the most advanced equipment true - but if you look at the price of a b1 spirit as compared to a conventional bomber you have far more many conventional bombers for that same price - while china may have $5000 soilders the us has $3.6 million dollar soilders out there. You can look at spending and go - wow that is a lot of money - they must be good. You look at kill rates - 150,000 to 5000 and that is pretty good but most of that 150000 is civilians who don't have guns. Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world - where did it go? HOw much did the US spend to acheive 150000 civlian deaths? Or are there numbers we arn't seeing?

The point here is that the US has not had a real competition - and the reality is - we can talk about mnuclear weapons - as soon as a real war escalates (Russia is still at war with Japan for as long as the US has been at war with North Korea actually longer..) You have to understand that there are ongoing conflicts. The point here is that the US is set to leave Japan - it has shifted responsiblity in Korea to South Korean command - there is a definate mid term shift in US policy on Asia - Taiwan is open to joining China - on some fronts - or enhanced cooperation the timescale view here - if you look at the big picture is that there is a global shift in power. The old ways are not sufficient.

Now I'm not talking about dropping the US - but the US is becoming impotent as time passess to be a bully BUT its mind is still the type to be the cowboy - and that is a major liablity to Canada. But if the cowboy aint't there the little countries in Asia will liekly not be US satalites - and this will diminish US global power (and perhaps there 13 trillion dollar economy at a time that their debt is so high they can't even maintain it with their current system this within 20 or 30 years under current projections - but projections may change based on a number of major factors - our strongest allies quickly turns into #1 on everyone elses hit list and you know how well that worked for Israel. It is hard to beleive this but look at what happened to Tibet when it accepted chinese military oversight - canada is clearly monroe doctrine but I don't think manifest destiny is very current with the rise of countries like venzeula and brazil among others. You need to see US policy and understand that canada is a lap dog to that - but we can't depend on the US because over the long term their policies change the global environment changes. It is a partnership - and a common cultural bond - but US foreign policy has not met Canadian foreign policy it just so happens the latest government has been a lap tdog and in the process has largely tarnished and strained many foreign relations - on many issues. Due to canada's size - canada needs to have more of a swiss or swedish defence policy it can't survive being America while maintaining its sovereignty.

BTW what is happening to the US is called a "delayed collapse"

The last major collapse we saw was the USSR and it took about 10 years.

Before that was the British Empire

And before that perhaps the French

The death of a leader such as Alexanders Empire or the roman Empires under the ceasarates are other examples of power projects that counlnd't maintain with difference in the "power structure"

The US is definately nearing a greater risk of collapse the further it goes ahead - meanwhile we have new super states like the EU and AU forming some further ahead than others. The US however is image wise - the Empire, not a unionist.

A falling US dollar - in a "recession" is fine but how far is fine? How low can it go? This as some countries shift from a US reserve to an EU reserve - without reserve dominance just how strong is the US as a central economic focus - is the marshall plan still relevant, in a world where a Unified Europe is stronger than the US?

The grounding has shifted between a warsaw pact between the outset of NATO, and China Russia and former SSRs and parts of the western Middle east coming together.

China and Russia didn't have organizations that I'm aware of such as the SCO - but I could be mistaken. It is still 3 vs. 2 more or less depending on how you view France. but the difference is 3 are in NATO, and nato is suppose to act on consensus. Both Pakistan and Iran are "sco bloc aligned" The US actually has commited acts of war in Pakistan and also (although based on information I've received) in Iran also. While Iraq did have a number of relations with Russia - I think that Iran and Pakistan may have even closer relations - not it is questionable but Kora is very much a Chinese interest, As well I can't see how NATO can push anyhwhere else - China is growing in Africa, Latin America is suppose to be asserting mroe independence (except for Columbia but that is years) Mexico is taking US military aid.

A lot of bable but the point is here --- Canada is of no less interest in the world as far as a resource and useful partners as the rest - and Canada apparently isn't well enough defended to defend against a real attack. Invasions are questionable so close to the US by anyone but the US and they have little requirement because of cultural waterboarding and economic stake. China is slowly through its international investment funds buying up intersts. It is taking an economic stance - but part of that economy is increasing resources. It is business. But some areas of the world are not businesss - when you can't do business you make war if it means you loose. Sabatouge is a greater threat than invasion - and that is partly the reason why air defence is needed.

SABATOUGE... not WMD's going off - although that is also a possiblility if even one Chinese or Russian suitcase WMD were to get into Canada you could kiss 1/4 of toronto goodbuy, and that is a 10th of Canada in one infiltration right there.

The US has defended borders and people still get in. and it is the biggest military in the world.

There was an old security report about the trhreat of ditry bombs entering the US.. well as China projects and if the US were to continue doing this a successful inflitration - like the US has done in CHina - or a succesful infiltation into Canada would be possible. The US could do the same to Canada, but why hurt an ally - well what if you are supplying the other guys?

Canda is not immune to clandestine operations whether by ally or friend - and I woulnd't put it above canada's allies to use their own people or their allies people as a pawn in the overall game.

Perhaps they arn't so evil.... well these are the same people that straved a million iraqi's to death.

And even though you might say but we would do them in - without knowing - someone would make up a story to spin to their advantage rather than enter into court record something more accurate - the truth and lies are not in question only the influence the words have - maintain importance.

If you don't know - how do you know - you know because you know

that is plausible deniability - use it sometime - that is the only way to know is by saying you don't know unless it pertains to your own acts and intents.

Trust what you can verify - that which is not verifiable has no basis for trust.

Edited November 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

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.

I disagree - there is something called awareness - what you think there are no puppet states out there.

Institutionls like Harvard (note M. Ignatieff and the Governor General both attended) have world leaders of note inlcuding Georgias Mic.....ll..evi

All it takes is "special acts" to muzzle in on things. Remember boards control companies here - and we don't have a democratic open society - we have a secreted society that vets and excludes people. Canada is only "aware" if it is self involved - and large portions of Canada are not. We do not all know one another. We keep personal information in places like facebook and cellphones. It may seem difficult to image replacing prominent people - but this has popped up in intelligence anals before. Saddam for instnace had a bunch 7 or so stand ins for himself alone. Some people are more prone to replacement than other s - and as technologies like the brainchip and full face plastic surgery come into effect - only biometrics can defend identity - and even then the security of the system can be an authority to deny identity a double edged sword.

Of course this seems impossible but some ocuntries have massive resources.

What do you think the CIA does? It asserts US objectives --- foul play is not beyond world intelligence bodies - murders have happened, abductions, and most likely imbedded agents that were not identified as opposed to those who were many years later ----- around the world and not just the CIA ---- people can be compramized and the level of compramize is greater as the years pass. It is not so mcuh an impossibility to influence - outright control is not that likely - but look at POT ash corp for isntance - half of it is US owned - how many US board members are there then? Hmm well then is that Cnada contorlling that companies operations --- not really.Some protections do exist in communications firms or DID.. under canada ownership rules - but these are dispaeraing - and business people are "well known" but there are some scenarios that are technologically possible that remove some of these sureties. It is still in the "fiction story" class but the people who are ontop arn't uncreative - I would think.

BTW esstimates on Iraqi deaths vary from about 100000 to over a million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Are these all acccidents?

Next time you hear about a bunch of Iraqi cops dying ask what their former occupations were.

Iraq military 1990 over 500,000

Iraq combat deaths 2003 "Our analysis of the evidence leads to the conclusion that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants – that is: civilians who did not take up arms."

500000 - 10000 = 490000

where are they now?

Edited November 2, 2010 by William Ashley