Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[Army Guy]

And where are the Japanese now? They spend some of the least per capita on their military in the world and have one of the strongest economies, despite having very few natural resources.

The Imperial Japanese in the 30s is a perfect example of how dangerous it is to allow government be taken over by the militarists and war profiteers. They utterly decimated their society based on their paranoia, hubris, and arrogance.

Bullshit, where do you pull these figues from, Japan spends almost 60 bil a year on defense, ranked 5 th world wide, spending just 1 % of thier GDP.

[Army Guy]

And you seriously think Korea would try to invade Japan?

The Conservative mentality is much the same as the Imperial Japanese uber militaristic paranoia.

Japan despite being a militaristic monster in world war 2 still got swatted down in only a few years by the States, while the States had barely built up their military at all in the 1930s. So that example right there shows how futile an ultra paranoid militaristic society arming itself to the teeth based on fantastic scenarios of cross Pacific conflict really is.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm

Hardly the swat you make it out to be, US cas alone were 111,606 killed, and 253,142 wounded...not counting other allieds including chinese 4 mil killed, and 3 mil wounded....36 million souls died in that conflict.

I guess those numbers don't scare you, the death and destruction in the pacific war was 50 % of all WWII cas numbers....proving it was hardly a swat....

[Guest Derek L]

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm

Hardly the swat you make it out to be, US cas alone were 111,606 killed, and 253,142 wounded...not counting other allieds including chinese 4 mil killed, and 3 mil wounded....36 million souls died in that conflict.

I guess those numbers don't scare you, the death and destruction in the pacific war was 50 % of all WWII cas numbers....proving it was hardly a swat....

Exactly, and of the numerous hard battles fought and won, there were numerous instances when the USN or USMC received losses with several days of fighting equalling the numbers associated with fighting in Afghanistan for over a decade……With Tarawa alone, the Marines and Navy saw a greater loss of life within 76 hours then the entire total of US Forces killed to date in Afghanistan.…..And they won that battle.

[Charon]

Derek L: If you don't believe that world war 1 era fleet was obsolete. Look at what happened at Pearl Harbour. It was utterly decimated by aerial torpedos.

Derek L:

"As you just quoted that 1735 bil was spent on militaries around the world....even the US does not spend more than half of that. "

Actually the US does spend more than half of that. If you add the cost of its current wars, its black budget, its military budget etc. It well exceeds that.

You folks are stuck in the militaristic mentality of the 1st half of the 20th century. We all saw what that led to, worldwide militaristic lunacy and the deaths of millions heaped upon millions.

The days of global third generational warfare are over. Its the 21st century now. Millions of people can be saved from starvation and death simply by helping them rather than hoarding weapons to benefit war profiteers and being paranoid about each other.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

Derek L: If you don't believe that world war 1 era fleet was obsolete. Look at what happened at Pearl Harbour. It was utterly decimated by aerial torpedos.

Derek L:

"As you just quoted that 1735 bil was spent on militaries around the world....even the US does not spend more than half of that. "

Actually the US does spend more than half of that. If you add the cost of its current wars, its black budget, its military budget etc. It well exceeds that.

You folks are stuck in the militaristic mentality of the 1st half of the 20th century. We all saw what that led to, worldwide militaristic lunacy and the deaths of millions heaped upon millions.

The days of global third generational warfare are over. Its the 21st century now. Millions of people can be saved from starvation and death simply by helping them rather than hoarding weapons to benefit war profiteers and being paranoid about each other.

Yeah, it was “decimated” at Pearl Harbour well at anchor, yet aside from the Arizona and Okalahoma, the USN saw fit to repair their remaining Battlewagons and they served at near every remaining battle within the Pacific. More to your point though, why would the Japanese risk a large portion of their fleet, in an attack that they were not certain they would return (or succeed) not only for fear off losses to enemy action, but for running out fuel, to attack “obsolete” American vessels?

Also of note, the Kido Butai, at Pearl Harbour (and the other battles later on that it took part in) saw fit to bring along said “obsolete” vessels as escorts for fear of running into “obsolete” American and British battleships in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

[Charon]

Why would the Japanese risk a large portion of their fleet, in an attack that they were not certain they would return (or succeed) not only for fear off losses to enemy action, but for running out fuel, to attack “obsolete” American vessels?

Because they thought the US carrier fleet, (which was not obsolete) was there, which it normally was, but that day was out to sea.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

Because they thought the US carrier fleet, (which was not obsolete) was there, which it normally was, but that day was out to sea.

No, the Japanese would have also attacked the carriers, but their primary concern was the Battlewagons off of Ford Island, as demonstrated by the training mock-ups made by the Imperial Navy, namely reconfigured rock croppings in the waters surrounding Kure naval base and physical scale models.

Notice no mock-ups of carriers?

[Guest Derek L]

Because they thought the US carrier fleet, (which was not obsolete) was there, which it normally was, but that day was out to sea.

Also to add, in 1941, the bulk of the USN carriers were based in the Atlantic (USS Yorktown, USS Ranger, USS Wasp, USS Hornet) with the Pacific fleet carriers being based out of San Diego (USS Saratoga, USS Lexington, USS Enterprise) with regular forward deployments to WESTPAC forward based out of Pearl. As such, the Japanese's ability to successfully "target" USN Carriers well in Pearl Harbor was next to nil, namely in part to the fact that Saratoga was known to be in San Diego undergoing a planned refit in Dec '41 and the whereabouts of the other two Pacific carriers was not known.

[Charon]

Japan proved those ships were essentially osbolete in the era of aerial bombs through their attack. Actually the British had already showed that at Taranto, which the Japanese were emulating.

You're still stuck in the 1st half of the last century. Its the 21st century now.

Japan's paranoid militarism, which didn't work, is similar in thinking to the paranoid militarism you guys are advocating for Canada.

I'm about as worried about China (Japan's former enemy) attacking Canada as I am of kangaroos jumping over the moon.

I wish you could actually bet money on these things I'd bet 100 to one odds against it. Clearly a scenario with such little realistic likelihood of happening is not worth shelling out billions of public funds which could actual alleviate real problems like mass starvation, famine, and the AIDs epidemic, which rather than in the realm of paranoid fantasy land is a real problem which kill millions every single year.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

Japan proved those ships were essentially osbolete in the era of aerial bombs through their attack. Actually the British had already showed that at Taranto, which the Japanese were emulating.

You're still stuck in the 1st half of the last century. Its the 21st century now.

Japan's paranoid militarism, which didn't work, is similar in thinking to the paranoid militarism you guys are advocating for Canada.

No, they proved, like the British before them, that military vessels are vulnerable well laying at anchor. After Pearl Harbour, the Japanese didn’t succeed in sinking a single USN Battleship, yet the USN sunk Japanese vessels, including Battleships on several occasions, with their own Battleships and during the Battle of Surigao Strait, with battleships that survived the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Charon]

Yes, the U.S. Navy were a little more wise about putting their Battleships into danger after that. Unlike the British who lost the Repulse and the Prince of Wales soon after.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, the U.S. Navy were a little more wise about putting their Battleships into danger after that. Unlike the British who lost the Repulse and the Prince of Wales soon after.

And what's your point? The IJN also lost numerous Battleships to USN aircraft and submarines.....

How is this a reflection of USN doctrine associated with Battleships during the Second World War……At Pearl Harbour the ships were at low readiness and laying at anchor…….With the numerous sea battles that followed, the Battleships were put into harms way, some had been damaged, some loss crew members but none were sunk.

So what is your point William Charon? You stated the United States had “barely built up their military” and when confronted with the fact that they had one of the largest navies on the planet prior to entering the war, you indicated you felt it was made up of “relics”. Then when confronted with the fact that the level of modernization of the USN was equal to or better then the other Worlds navies you suggested the intended targets of the Japanese was elsewhere and not Battleship Row………

From my understanding, your implication was that the militaristic Japanese attacked a backwards America that was still able to whip their ass. You’re devoid though in following the trend of the current Chinese Government, that is eerily similar to the Japanese of the 1930s, in that they are structuring an expeditionary military centered around a foreign policy and international agreements to protect and control the sea lanes that convey required natural resources to their nation, well having the ability to deny others from said resources.

So you propose if the “West” focuses less on the their militaries and more on “humanitarian aide”, such strategy would contain potential Chinese aggression? If not, the Americans can always open up another can of whoop-ass on the Chinese?

[Charon]

The U.S. had a decent Navy, albeit with many obsolescent ships. It's army and airforce were very weak at the beginning of the 2nd world war.

So you propose if the “West” focuses less on the their militaries and more on “humanitarian aide”, such strategy would contain potential Chinese aggression? If not, the Americans can always open up another can of whoop-ass on the Chinese?

My point is that the only 'Chinese aggression,' is in your paranoid imagination, and that its a far better use of resources to help the millions who are dying and can be saved then to have a multi-billion dollar anatomical I mean military size competition with the Chinese.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

The U.S. had a decent Navy, albeit with many obsolescent ships. It's army and airforce were very weak at the beginning of the 2nd world war.

No, you’re incorrect, the American Standard type Battleships were no more obsolete, and in many cases more advanced in terms of fire control, range of their main guns and anti-aircraft artillery, then the respective British, French, Italian, German and Japanese classes.

My point is that the only 'Chinese aggression,' is in your paranoid imagination, and that its a far better use of resources to help the millions who are dying and can be saved then to have a multi-billion dollar anatomical I mean military size competition with the Chinese.

You'd best tell these guys:

And from a few days ago:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/china-s-navy-plans-for-more-and-larger-aircraft-carriers-1.1251417

BEIJING -- A top navy commander says China plans to operate more aircraft carriers in the future that will be even larger and carry more aircraft than the initial one launched last year.

The comments from deputy navy chief Song Xue reported Wednesday by the official Xinhua News Agency marked the clearest indication yet that China plans to expand its carrier program. Song didn't give a specific number, saying only, "We won't have just one."

China spent a decade refurbishing a derelict Soviet-era carrier bought from Ukraine before commissioning it as the Liaoning last year. The carrier is part of a major expansion of the Chinese navy that is equipping it with sophisticated new surface ships and submarines, prompting China's neighbours to upgrade and enlarge their own navies.

[Charon]

[carepov]

You did make a claim, "I am not so sure we need 65 planes..." sounds like a claim to me, i'm asking you how you came to such a claim, what research have you done to back this claim? i mean DND has a few experts and they have already said 65 is the bare minimum...

Yes, it is Canadian tax payers money, gather up by a government to which recieved a majority in votes, and it has given the Dept that funding to spend as it is needed....

A while it is your right to be concerned on how that money is being spent, here is something you should be concern with.

We continuly ask our members of our armed forces to risk thier lives to carry out our nations policies. And while they "the members of the Canadian forces"have gladly voluteered to do these taskings knowing what consquences could be. All they have asked in return is that the Citizens of Canada have our backs, that they to should gladly see that our men and women have the best training, and equipment to give them an edge on the battlefield. We are not asking you to fund a military capable of world domination, but rather one that can defend our nation,and her interests abroad, and carry out those very policies created by our government. Canada has never had a taste for world domination, it is just not in our DNA.

And god forbid, our nation enters a conflict that consumes those very same men and women, it will be up to the Citizens of Canada to take up the cause....pick up our flag off the battle field and raise it in pride like they have always done...would it not be some piece of mind that those that have gone before them, had atleast preped , did all the research and developement to ensure we had chosen the right equipment for the job.....history has shown in very clear detail that this has rarely been the case...we have in most cases picked the cheapest bider, the cheapest equipment the cheapest everything. Is this the legacy we want to leave our brothers, sisters ,sons, daughters....as these people will be climbing into these very machines we purchase , these will be the machines we will be pinning our hopes on to return them safely and in one peice after everything returns to normal....

And that cause is what has as you say my panties in a knot....when we place money above a Canadian life. To that note we also know there is a line that is drawn in the sand , when we simply can niot afford it.....in my opinion have we crossed it yet....i don't think so....we spend well under 2 % of our GDP on defence, whats the other 98 % being spent on, and why have we not focused on that...

You are making a lot of assumptions about my opinions that are not true. Please keep in mind that:

-I am not anti-military

-I respect and appreciate the work of our armed forces

-I do not value money above human life

-I am not in favour of cheap equipment

-I never want to send out soldiers ill-equipped

-As I said before, I argue for less defence spending AND better results (results include accomplishing the mission with fewer deaths)

-I am concerned with the safety of our troops and with PTSD

-I admire Romeo Dallaire

For very good reasons, I do not trust the government, the DOD, or any other department. I am not an expert on military matters and therefore avoid making specific claims or recommendations, but am concerned with defence policies and defence spending. We can save potentially save a lot of money AND get the same results if we:

-cancel the F35 program and get a comparable quality plane, perhaps the hornet

-work more closely with our NATO allies to reduce duplication of capabilities

-change our policy regarding the "need" to defend the north

-stop flying around Peter McKay

-....

Defence spending is ~1.3 % of out GDP but ~9% of our total budget. We have not focussed on other spending because it is not the topic of this thread.

[Bonam]

You'd best tell these guys:

I don't think the fact that China modernizing it's military is an indication of intent at aggression, just as Canada's acquisition of new military equipment also does not correlate with a desire for conquest.

China benefits greatly from the peaceful status quo and from international commerce. It's military will primarily serve the same purpose as America's military, to provide security and stability in its sphere of influence. While we in the West differ with China on many points of ideology, there are now enough similarities, the desire above all for stability and prosperity, that we need not necessarily fear a rising China. The most important steps to stay competitive in the face of an ascendent China that we can and must take are economic in nature.

All that being said, we should of course also keep our own militaries up to date. One can never know what dangers the future might hold.

[TimG]

I don't think the fact that China modernizing it's military is an indication of intent at aggression, just as Canada's acquisition of new military equipment also does not correlate with a desire for conquest.

This is true in theory but China has explicitly stated that it rejects the status quo and plans to annex territory belonging to its neighbors (or in the case of Taiwan the China has stated its intent to annex the entire country). The US has never made such a declaration (at least recent years). This makes China a real threat to world peace as long as it refuses to accept the status quo. Edited April 29, 2013 by TimG

[Charon]

Thanks Bonam for the down to earth common sense.

TimG That's funny I thought we were talking about defending Canada here. I didn't know our military covers Taiwan's defense as well. I sure hope Taiwan is paying us for the favour.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think the fact that China modernizing it's military is an indication of intent at aggression, just as Canada's acquisition of new military equipment also does not correlate with a desire for conquest.

China benefits greatly from the peaceful status quo and from international commerce. It's military will primarily serve the same purpose as America's military, to provide security and stability in its sphere of influence. While we in the West differ with China on many points of ideology, there are now enough similarities, the desire above all for stability and prosperity, that we need not necessarily fear a rising China. The most important steps to stay competitive in the face of an ascendent China that we can and must take are economic in nature.

All that being said, we should of course also keep our own militaries up to date. One can never know what dangers the future might hold.

That’s applies to oranges though, fore our military purchases are replacements and progressive upgrades of military equipment that we already own, hence no real inherent ability to expand our own foreign policies. The Chinese military purchases, namely the addition of a blue-water navy, signal a change in capabilities that their military with be able to project (A true expeditionary capability) and by extension (as noted by Clausewitz) the ability to project their form of politics onto others, by other means……….This of course can also be applied to the Indians, Japanese and South Koreans...........And the reason for the American Pacific pivot strategy early in the 21st century…..

Edited April 29, 2013 by Derek L

[Charon]

So the military is a way of projecting politics on others? I thought we were supposed to be a peaceful democracy here.

Clausewitz is neat and all, but war and politics is a nasty combination. See what happened to the Prussian dream in the 20th century.

[Guest Derek L]

So the military is a way of projecting politics on others? I thought we were supposed to be a peaceful democracy here.

Clausewitz is neat and all, but war and politics is a nasty combination. See what happened to the Prussian dream in the 20th century.

No, warfare is a means of politics, the military is simply the tool used.

And what dashed the "Prussian dream"? It surely wasn't "humanitarian aide".

[Charon]

No, warfare is a means of politics, the military is simply the tool used.

if you are using the military to advance a political agenda, then that's an abuse of power. Ask Peter McKay about that.

And what dashed the "Prussian dream"? It surely wasn't "humanitarian aide".

It was using war to advance politics by other means in Europe.

The humanitarian Marshall Plan finished dashing it to the ground.

[Guest Derek L]

if you are using the military to advance a political agenda, then that's an abuse of power. Ask Peter McKay about that.

Why would I ask the MND? If someone pokes me in the eye and my response is in kind, that’s clearly not an abuse of power, just as if your family and mine were stranded on a lifeboat at sea with only enough water for one family to survive, offing your family is an act of survival.

It was using war to advance politics by other means in Europe.

The humanitarian Marshall Plan finished dashing it to the ground.

War in Europe was, as I stated, a continuation of politics……It’s irrelevant that the initial aggressors lost.

Also, the Marshall Plan could never have been implemented without the “Allies” use of politics by other means.

[Charon]

No one's poking you in the eye Derek L.

War in Europe was, as I stated, a continuation of politics……It’s irrelevant that the initial aggressors lost.

Exactly case in point militarism to advance politics, the example specifically applying to the inheritors of the Prussian Empire of Clausewitz and its ideology.

Also, the Marshall Plan could never have been implemented without the “Allies” use of politics by other means.

The allies responded to a direct attack, not your fertile imagination that someone is poking you in the eye.