CANADA'S LITTLE MILITARY

[jay74]

Time and time again we the screams, "our military capabilities SUCK!". And it is true. So what do we do about it? Do we sit on the sidelines and allow other nations to do the dirty work (or do nothing), or, do we spend the money to rebuild and modernize our forces, so we to can have a say in what goes on in the world. Really, it comes down to us Canadians. How do we want to conduct business around the world? Regardless of our relationship with the USA, we can no longer ride on their coat tails. If we want a strong and separate foreign policy from the states, then we will need a strong and separate military.

[Black Dog]

Do we sit on the sidelines and allow other nations to do the dirty work (or do nothing), or, do we spend the money to rebuild and modernize our forces, so we to can have a say in what goes on in the world.

What "dirty-work" is that, exactly.

The issue of what to do with Canada's armed forces has come up many times on this board. IMO, the key question that needs to be answered before we spend so much as an extra dime on our military is: what do we want our military to do.

My position, of course, has been that since a standing military force seems to be a necessary evil, Canada should develop a small, well-equipped force that can protect our borders and enforce Canadian territoorial soverignty. And that's about it.

[Cartman]

My position, of course, has been that since a standing military force seems to be a necessary evil, Canada should develop a small, well-equipped force that can protect our borders and enforce Canadian territoorial soverignty. And that's about it.

Sounds reasonable to me. Anyone believe that we should start a large or massive arms buildup?

[jay74]

The "dirty work" I am refering to are the situations that have happened throughout world, such as Rwanda and present day Sudan. Don't get me wrong. I do not think that we need to build some massive force and spread "freedom and democracy" around the world (aka USA). I do agree with you, we need to protect ourselves first and foremost but, we also need to be capable of helping others when the time arises. Peacekeeping was an ideal born in Canada and we need to lead the way.

[Black Dog]

In all the discussions I've seen on this subject, I've noticed that most of the arguments in favour of a dramatic increase in military spending tend to be based in the abstract, such as asserting that a bigger military will give Canada a bigger role in world affairs.

Taken by itself, such a statement is meaningless, as it fails to define what is mant by a "voice" or role. For example, look at the recent high-profile cases involving Canadians abroad, such as the murder of the Cnadian photojournalist in Iran. Would having a bigger military have enabled Canada to leverage a better result? No, because the dispute was political and diplomatic in nature. In disputes of that nature, military power is only a factor if one of the parties has the ability, desire and conviction to use their military power to enforce a favourable resoultion. Canada has never been that kind of country, nor would many want it to become one.

The "dirty work" I am refering to are the situations that have happened throughout world, such as Rwanda and present day Sudan. Don't get me wrong. I do not think that we need to build some massive force and spread "freedom and democracy" around the world (aka USA). I do agree with you, we need to protect ourselves first and foremost but, we also need to be capable of helping others when the time arises. Peacekeeping was an ideal born in Canada and we need to lead the way.

Peacekeeping and "humanitarian intervention" are fine in theory, but have prove problematic in practice. Look at the Balkans, where NATO backed factions like the KSA, who have since been shown to be affiliated with Al Qaeda and otehr terrorist groups. Sudan is another story, one that has been developing for a long time, but is only now becoming a priority for the west. Intervention in that country would be extremely problematic given the legacy of imperialism and the involvement of western economic interests in Sudan's oil.

So I'm not sure if peacekeeping should continue to be a prority. In some cases, I can see it being a good thing, but it's not quite as cut and dried as the Canadian mythos surrounding it would suggest.

[Cartman]

Look at the Balkans, where NATO backed factions like the KSA, who have since been shown to be affiliated with Al Qaeda and otehr terrorist groups.

Quick question...did you mean the KSA or the KLA?

[jay74]

Nothing is cut and dried, when it comes to foreign affairs and military issues. War and conflict will never go away so long as we humans walk the earth. I only originally asked, "what do we as Canada do"? Do we sit on our hands as Black Dog suggests or do we take a more active role militarily? Please elaborate.

I only suggest this because it seems that force and aggression is the only language that many gov'ts and factions seem to speak and understand now a days.

[Stoker]

CANADA'S LITTLE MILITARY, What should we do about it?

Vote Conservative and pray.

In all the discussions I've seen on this subject, I've noticed that most of the arguments in favour of a dramatic increase in military spending tend to be based in the abstract, such as asserting that a bigger military will give Canada a bigger role in world affairs.

Black Dog do you think that allowing our military to collapse or be reduced even further, will make Canada more sovereign?

[Bakunin]

I think it must be a long term reform. Lets say 20 years.

First we must stop to make peace mission evrywhere for a while to save money.

not put a dollars in the star war system.

Buy stuff that can be upgraded easily and can make multiple task, if we don't want to pay more or too much in our system.

No submarine or battleship or stuff that we will never use or that we can't compete with devlopped country.

No nuclear weapon or gaz. Doesn't worth it, if we get to the point of using them, its because we already lost the war or its doesn't worth fighting anymore.

I think we should work on infantry, fast mobile transporter, fast light tank, artilery and air.

Water is too costly and obsolete except for transport ship.

Create the military equipment in 100% canada to create jobs.

If never we have to go to war, it will problably be with the united nation for special task so we should be specialized in that.

[jay74]

I agree with where you are going Bakunin. Except for one detail. We do not have the military industry to be able to provide for all of our needs. It just is not realistic to think that all of our militaries equipment can be "made in Canada".

[KrustyKidd]

For example, look at the recent high-profile cases involving Canadians abroad, such as the murder of the Cnadian photojournalist in Iran. Would having a bigger military have enabled Canada to leverage a better result?

Wars are fought by insurgents against governments and third world armies against proxies supported by first world governments and armies. Which ones does Iran support? Would they be ones that Canada, if having a strong military could give a hard time to if they met? This is the stick and carrot that makes a difference much of the time.

[jay74]

I won't argue with that point Krusty.

[caesar]

For example, look at the recent high-profile cases involving Canadians abroad, such as the murder of the Cnadian photojournalist in Iran. Would having a bigger military have enabled Canada to leverage a better result-------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way; she had dual citizenship; Canadian and Iranian. You do not go to war over one person. We need stronger grounds than than. This photographer was just as much an Iranian citizen as she was Canadian especially while she was in Iran. I do not like the way the Iranian government is covering up this case; or the treatment she recieved but just where does her dual citizenship leave us????

[caesar]

While we do need a stronger defensive military; trained to assist the citizens in times of natural disasters, accidents or attacks. I do not believe we need a large offensive force. We can do our part in ways other than military aggression. Diplomacy, peacekeepers, intelligence gathering, negotiators. World order requires much more than lethal force to solve problems. Oft times, military intervention causes more problems than it solves.

[Stoker]

I think it must be a long term reform. Lets say 20 years.

First we must stop to make peace mission evrywhere for a while to save money.

not put a dollars in the star war system.

Buy stuff that can be upgraded easily and can make multiple task, if we don't want to pay more or too much in our system.

No submarine or battleship or stuff that we will never use or that we can't compete with devlopped country.

No nuclear weapon or gaz. Doesn't worth it, if we get to the point of using them, its because we already lost the war or its doesn't worth fighting anymore.

I think we should work on infantry, fast mobile transporter, fast light tank, artilery and air.

Water is too costly and obsolete except for transport ship.

Create the military equipment in 100% canada to create jobs.

If never we have to go to war, it will problably be with the united nation for special task so we should be specialized in that.

Why would you want to reduce the number of Peacekeeping missions we partake in, well at the same time increasing the size of our army and making it "fast" and "light"?

Though I believe that we need to fund all three services (army, navy and air force) well, I'd argue that if the left has it's way, and decideds that we can only fund one service properly *shudders* that it be the navy for the reason being that many Canadians don't seem able to commit to certains courses of action. Unlike the Army, a commitment of Canadian Naval task force is much easier to move into (and more importantly to some Canadians, move out) of most "hot spots".

[caesar]

I can't believe it but I do agree with you Stoker. I believe our Navy would be the most important to build up. We do have lots of shore line to protect and patrol. Hospital ships are very necessary at many conflicts and very compatible with our outlook.

[Black Dog]

Quick question...did you mean the KSA or the KLA?

Kosovo Liberation Army. Oops.

War and conflict will never go away so long as we humans walk the earth. I only originally asked, "what do we as Canada do"? Do we sit on our hands as Black Dog suggests or do we take a more active role militarily? Please elaborate.

If we had "taken an acticve role" the way folks liek Harper want, we'd be bogged down in Iraq right now. It would be nice to think Canada would be a strong force for global justice on the world stage, but the reality is we'd probably just run around enforcing the same order that has created many of the problems we see today.

I only suggest this because it seems that force and aggression is the only language that many gov'ts and factions seem to speak and understand now a days.

It seems to me that responding with force and aggression in kind makes us no better than "them" (whoever "they" are).

Black Dog do you think that allowing our military to collapse or be reduced even further, will make Canada more sovereign?

Where did I say that? I think the military needs to be modernized, with more attention placed on the needs of the rank-and-file (including safety on the job and the ability to make a living).

[Bakunin]

Why would you want to reduce the number of Peacekeeping missions we partake in, well at the same time increasing the size of our army and making it "fast" and "light"?

Though I believe that we need to fund all three services (army, navy and air force) well, I'd argue that if the left has it's way, and decideds that we can only fund one service properly *shudders* that it be the navy for the reason being that many Canadians don't seem able to commit to certains courses of action. Unlike the Army, a commitment of Canadian Naval task force is much easier to move into (and more importantly to some Canadians, move out) of most "hot spots".

i mean rediuce peacekeeping for a while the time we buy new stuff and train our troop for that. but peacekeeping will problably be the only purpose of our army.

I dont agree with naval forces. we will buy 10 tiny unequiped ship and it will cost how much ? 10-20 billions ?. And a ship is not that usefull for peace keeping.

Thats why i think the infantry should be one who receive the best equipment and training. Maybe air if we want a defensive army but we should specialize in infantry for a light special force and peace keeping kind of army, and the infantry is the most dangerous job in military, they should be equiped proprely.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I think that the Canadian Army should stay at its current size. However I believe that the Canadian troops at the moment should be given the best training possible, and the best equipment to do missions overseas. A large reason why Canada does not hold much clout in the international arena, is due to the fact that we do not have a strong military. Canada had a lot of influence in the world from 1945-1968, because are military was strong, and could contribute to military operations.

Right now I believe the only "well" equiped part of the military, is the Military Police.

The Canadian Airborne should also be re-instated.

[Virail]

One thing that people seem to overlook is that since the invention of the air plane. all wars fought to date have depended on air superiority. You can have superiority on the ground but if we control the air it doesn't matter. Knowledge is the largest key to warfare. Without it you are at a severe disadvantage. Did you all know that Canada has the BEST snipers in the world? Our 'black ops' sectors are among the best in the world. CSIS is in the top spy agencies. I think Canada should focus on defence only and become an economic and diplomatic force. I mean why do we really need defence? Who would ever attack Canada? We have defence treaties with most countries on the planet including USA, CHINA and RUSSIA. We don't really need a big military. A little defence is nessessary to hold back invaders until our allies can help us.

But even then, There are pleanty of weapons in Canada that the average citizen could pick up and defend our country with. We are already better trained then the american military, We might as well become better trained then the sweedish military

Keep in mind that every invasion attempt of Canada has failed. ( see war of 1812 )

[Stoker]

Where did I say that? I think the military needs to be modernized, with more attention placed on the needs of the rank-and-file (including safety on the job and the ability to make a living).

This thread should be locked!!! Tis too freaky

First caesar agrees with me, and now I find myself in agreement with Black Dog.......

Now do when you say the needs of the rank and file, am I correct to understand you in saying equipment and more personnal?

i mean rediuce peacekeeping for a while the time we buy new stuff and train our troop for that. but peacekeeping will problably be the only purpose of our army.

We are......trying to do that, but global events don't seem to let us.

I dont agree with naval forces. we will buy 10 tiny unequiped ship and it will cost how much ? 10-20 billions ?. And a ship is not that usefull for peace keeping.

10-20 Billion dollars for unequiped ships? Where did you hear that? For that price we could buy a dozen US Arleigh Burke (AEGIS) Destroyers, which are arguably the most powerful surface ship ever made..........

Thats why i think the infantry should be one who receive the best equipment and training. Maybe air if we want a defensive army but we should specialize in infantry for a light special force and peace keeping kind of army, and the infantry is the most dangerous job in military, they should be equiped proprely.

As I said before, we shouldn't rob peter to paul, noe of the three services should be aloud to fall apart.

So Virail, do you beleive that it is the duty of the United States to "look after us"?

[Big Blue Machine]

We buy the best equipement money can buy.

[Bakunin]

10-20 Billion dollars for unequiped ships? Where did you hear that? For that price we could buy a dozen US Arleigh Burke (AEGIS) Destroyers, which are arguably the most powerful surface ship ever made..........

argus told me on this forum that our frigate cost over a billions each.

[Stoker]

argus told me on this forum that our frigate cost over a billions each.

Burke price tag

NGSS, formerly Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. was awarded a $1,968,269,674 for four DDG 51-class ships, one in fiscal 2002, one in fiscal 2003, one in fiscal 2004, and one in fiscal 2005. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, Miss.

Then when you convert that figure to CDN, you get around 2.5-2.6 billion dollars in Canuck funny money for for ships........times 2.6 billion by 3, you get around 7.9 billion dollars for 12 ships........

[Bakunin]

they where used english ship, unused already obsolete english ship or brand new?