hand out of foreign aid

[Derek 2.0]

Not really, the use of remotely piloted aircraft has been a long time in the making. They were easily predictable (and, indeed, predicted) up to about 20 years ago.

The use of armed "drones" has been ongoing for decades:

[Army Guy]

While I disagree with the time lines I do agree that it will be the direction of active warfare. A few years ago if you claimed that a person sitting at a console in Phoenix would be controlling an airplane in air space over Pakistan and successfully guiding missiles to knock out a moving vehicle then you would have been written off as "overly optimistic" or demented. The use of robots has just begun to change the process of war.

In the past, the nation which had the more expendable population for warfare usually came out a winner. Might was right and if you could throw far more soldiers into a conflict than the other side then you would only have to match the enemy death rate to be the winner. With robotics it is the rich nations which have the great advantage. Why take the chance of losing a top notch pilot, which cost you $millions to train, when you can always send in a drone? That one gets knocked out then send in another etc. The side with a better strategy and more money for drones will win that conflict.

I agree that to be the direction Canada should be looking. Already the ground war tactics are being reviewed with the accelerated development of drone armed ground vehicles. Now a single tank (or someone at a console) could be maneuvering a number of other tanks in a ground battle.

Human soldiers get killed and have to be processed, their dependents have to be paid. Injured soldiers have to healed and supported until they are able to rejoin the workforce - if ever. Increasing casualties put pressure on governments to compromise and try to find negotiated resolutions to conflicts. With drone warfare, you get a couple blown so then send out a few more. The side with unlimited assets and support of a drone program will have to be the eventual winner - unless of course if one side sends nuclear missiles into the host country to knock out those consoles.

The success of the Canadarm indicates that we have the technical knowledge to pursue further development of robotic technology that could be applied to the killing fields. It could become a very lucrative export to fuel our economy as well as protect our borders.

While drone warfare is going to some what change the face of warfare their will always have a human componet, meaning someone is going to die in the conflict.... be it the soldier, or the civilian....you have to fight some where, in someones country.....the victim in this will be civilians the soft target....or human soldiers when they can no longer afford to make drones...

And having the best tech does not mean your going to be the victor in any conflict....remember the Vietnam war,or the last insurgency wars...nor does it mean you have to have mass casualites to change public opinion....Drones are just a tool, in war it would not take them long to figure out to kill the operators and soon they will not have any good ones left to fly their other drones ....War is always about atrition

[On Guard for Thee]

I am restricted by the information that I receive. If what you say is indeed true, then I thank you for the correction.

I'm talking Raptors and Predators. you can google them.

[Argus]

Idk, 2% of CO2 output is significant to me. Maybe we have different definitions of significant.

Canada puts out less than 1.5% of world Co2 - at present. China and India are increasing their share by leaps and bounds every year.

Unless you think we can completely eliminate emissions, ie, go back to horses and oxen, we're not going to reduce it enough to make any difference.

The Chinese are building new coal fired power plants just about every week, you know.

Again, military isn't needed to deal with these domestic affairs, especially not a 1.2% of GDP military.

The police were never designed, are not trained, nor are they equipped to deal with an armed criminal group in the hundreds, never mind thousands.

They weren't our friends, nor are they our enemies. The same is still true. Of course having many politicians stuck in the cold war mentality and creating avoidable situations like in Eastern Ukraine does not help.

Like Vladimir Putin, you mean?

Also, aren't you changing the nature of the question? The Chinese are a potential threat to our allies (Taiwan, South Korea & Japan), not to us. Thus our military expenditure is charity to our allies.

We fight tyrannies overseas so we don't have to fight them here, with no allies.

If the US and Canada had simply left Europe alone and Hitler won, we would eventually have been fighting him and his armies here.

Yes, except it is not the Chinese warring states period. And which enemy are we taking about here? Sun Tzu also said 'know your enemies', so perhaps you should identify these enemies you wish to prepare against and explain why you think they are going to invade Canada.

A physical invasion is not the only danger Canada faces.

A pilot. I recognize labour expenditure is inflexible. But you don't need multiple UAVs (or even any) to train multiple UAV pilots. At the same time, in a war scenario, a UAV pilot can consecutively fly multiple UAVs. So if capital expenditure on UAVs can be made flexible, then military expenditure can be made flexible.

Uh huh. And you're going to recruit civilian pilots, get them to start flying drones which kill large groups of people, and do it in no time at all? Meanwhile, the other side has already got drones and pilots and lots of fighters and bombers, which, by the way, carry way bigger bombs and missiles than drones.

Oh I agree that some day they'll all be automated, but that is many decades away.

One way you could make capital expenditure more flexible is to give tax credits to various companies such that these tax credits incentivize them to keep assets that can enable them to quickly change production to something with greater military application. For example (as a hypothetical), suppose you have a nail factory, that could potentially use their equipment to produce bullet casings if they keep around some molds that would allow them to do so.

This is neither practical nor realistic. Most plants are far too specialized. You'd need replacement machines for almost everything. You'd do better to just build a war material plant and keep it idle.

It's called going into debt.

Riiight. And politicians are going to suddenly announce that they need to increase spending by twenty billion a year for the next several years because there's a lot of tension in the world and we might need a military in ten years? I don't THINK so. Not only would they not have the courage to do so, finding it easier to push it down the road and hope it goes away, but there'd be all kinds of people shouting that doing something that would be provocative and could cause whomever it was to attack us.

[Argus]

Not only that, but 20 years from now, most other nations will have larger and younger populations. Canada and other developed countries (except maybe the US) are simply not going to be able to win a war in the conventional way (vs a medium powered nation state) like in the past.

We will if our military is better equipped, trained and led. And generally speaking, it is.

The military forces of most of the world, excluding the west, are generally unsophisticated, with poor leadership and little in the way of incentive for soldiers to get themselves killed. See Iraq, where that large, well-equipped military broke and ran away in the face of rabble who were far inferior in numbers and equipment.

The difference being the rabble were willing to die for their side, while the Iraqi soldiers most certainly were not.

[-1=e^ipi]

Canada puts out less than 1.5% of world Co2 - at present. China and India are increasing their share by leaps and bounds every year.

Unless you think we can completely eliminate emissions, ie, go back to horses and oxen, we're not going to reduce it enough to make any difference.

Clearly we have very different definitions of 'any difference'.

Like Vladimir Putin, you mean?

Yes. I do not deny that the Russian Government has contributed to making the situation in Ukraine worse.

We fight tyrannies overseas so we don't have to fight them here, with no allies.

If the US and Canada had simply left Europe alone and Hitler won, we would eventually have been fighting him and his armies here.

As expected, you are stuck in this post-WW2 mentality.

WW2 was 70 years ago, get over it. The world we live in now is very different.

Uh huh. And you're going to recruit civilian pilots, get them to start flying drones which kill large groups of people, and do it in no time at all? Meanwhile, the other side has already got drones and pilots and lots of fighters and bombers, which, by the way, carry way bigger bombs and missiles than drones.

No. Where did I mention civilian pilots?

You can train the pilots during peace time. You just don't need to produce all the expensive airplanes during peace time.

This is neither practical nor realistic. Most plants are far too specialized. You'd need replacement machines for almost everything. You'd do better to just build a war material plant and keep it idle.

It is very practical and very realistic. Plants are indeed specialized, as they should be, but how does that imply that incentivizing firms to keep extra equipment around to quickly change production in case of war.

What is impractical is having a useless war material plant not doing anything during peace time.

Riiight. And politicians are going to suddenly announce that they need to increase spending by twenty billion a year for the next several years because there's a lot of tension in the world and we might need a military in ten years? I don't THINK so.

Why not?

Not only would they not have the courage to do so, finding it easier to push it down the road and hope it goes away, but there'd be all kinds of people shouting that doing something that would be provocative and could cause whomever it was to attack us.

Perhaps we need new politicians and different political parties then.

[-1=e^ipi]

The military forces of most of the world, excluding the west, are generally unsophisticated, with poor leadership and little in the way of incentive for soldiers to get themselves killed.

Now it is. In 20 or 30 years, things will change.

The difference being the rabble were willing to die for their side, while the Iraqi soldiers most certainly were not.

Actually that is a problem the west will likely face. The population is aging, becoming more apathetic, becoming less willing to die for their cause, and becoming less homogenous due to immigration (which can make it harder for a western country to obtain sufficient resolve to fight a conflict; of course this depends on what types of immigration the country is having).

What if there is a future war with North Korea or some sort of Islamic Caliphate? The enemy side would be more than willing to die for their side; the west, not so much.

[Army Guy]

US and Canada are examples of how wrong your thought process is, and yet here they sit today able to place Armies on the battle field. to suggest that 20 or 30 years is going to drastically change that is BS....You have lost track on what can bring a nation together and prepare it for any thing including total war...pearl harbor is one of those examples....

Being forced to fight is one thing, wanting to give your live freely is another beast unto it self not to many cultures pratice this and on a whole put it into practice.........Besides it is not a soldiers job to give his life up for his country, the soldiers job is to make the bad guys give up their lives for their country....and if you think that the west has lost it's edge in that dept maybe you should do some more research.....

[Big Guy]

US and Canada are examples of how wrong your thought process is, and yet here they sit today able to place Armies on the battle field. to suggest that 20 or 30 years is going to drastically change that is BS

... research.....

From Pattons Speech, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country".

I believe that may have been the case in his time but things have changed. To-day, the world is a far smaller place with illegal immigration prevalent all over the earth and the number of religious and political fanatics increasing. There is very little keeping someone from sneaking into Canada or USA with anthrax, Ebola or some other deadly chemical or biological weapon. If that individual is intent on dying for his cause while placing his bundle where he can kill the most "enemies" then there is not much we can do about it.

"Estimates of illegal immigrants range between 35,000 and 120,000. James Bisset, a former head of the Canadian Immigration Service, has suggested that the lack of any credible refugee screening process, combined with a high likelihood of ignoring any deportation orders, has resulted in tens of thousands of outstanding warrants for the arrest of rejected refugee claimants, with little attempt at enforcement.A 2008 report by the Auditor General Sheila Fraser stated that Canada has lost track of as many as 41,000 illegal immigrants."

Figures for the USA are ten times that number.

There is very little we can do about somebody who is prepared to die for a cause and take as many as possible with him. Creating that chaos is fairly simple - if you do not have to worry about an exit plan.

Might may continue to be right but the West has too many soft targets that are vulnerable to suicide attacks.

[Derek 2.0]

r.

There is very little we can do about somebody who is prepared to die for a cause and take as many as possible with him. Creating that chaos is fairly simple - if you do not have to worry about an exit plan.

Might may continue to be right but the West has too many soft targets that are vulnerable to suicide attacks.

Agreed.........Frankly I'm surprised more low level, less complex attacks haven't been launched........

.I think their failings to date Can be attributed to both the massive security and intelligence apparatus, coupled with an apparent desire to attack targets with a more complex manner……..

Instead of truck bombs, airlines or the use of WMDs, several dozen suicide bombers adorned in explosive vests, detonated across North America in coffee shops, grocery stores, shopping malls and aboard transit, though not reaching the same impact as a 9/11, would certainly shake confidence and be far harder to defend against.

[eyeball]

Agreed.........Frankly I'm surprised more low level, less complex attacks haven't been launched........(on Canada)

I'm not, we just haven't done anywhere near as much to piss people off...notwithstanding the efforts of right-wingers to change that.

[Army Guy]

From Pattons Speech, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country".

I believe that may have been the case in his time but things have changed. To-day, the world is a far smaller place with illegal immigration prevalent all over the earth and the number of religious and political fanatics increasing. There is very little keeping someone from sneaking into Canada or USA with anthrax, Ebola or some other deadly chemical or biological weapon. If that individual is intent on dying for his cause while placing his bundle where he can kill the most "enemies" then there is not much we can do about it.

"Estimates of illegal immigrants range between 35,000 and 120,000. James Bisset, a former head of the Canadian Immigration Service, has suggested that the lack of any credible refugee screening process, combined with a high likelihood of ignoring any deportation orders, has resulted in tens of thousands of outstanding warrants for the arrest of rejected refugee claimants, with little attempt at enforcement.A 2008 report by the Auditor General Sheila Fraser stated that Canada has lost track of as many as 41,000 illegal immigrants."

Figures for the USA are ten times that number.

There is very little we can do about somebody who is prepared to die for a cause and take as many as possible with him. Creating that chaos is fairly simple - if you do not have to worry about an exit plan.

Might may continue to be right but the West has too many soft targets that are vulnerable to suicide attacks.

Changed how ? Did we not put Japanese in interment camps in WWII. Why was that, to control that certain portion of the population that was percieved as threats, so that would piont that they did have similar problems as we have today. Not saying that is the best solution, it was however how they played out their part of the same problem.

During a conflict you are going to have someone or some group enter our country and cause some sort of issue it happened during all the major conflicts....but the problem you mention would not be on the scale that would throw the people into submission, wanting to surrender. In WWII it took a atomic bomb to change the japanese mind set so these attacks would have to be on that scale..... And there would be large consquences for any series of attacks such as 9/11. And while it would be fairly easy to carry out an attack, would it have the right effect...other than attracting alot of US military attention to your cause as in AL Quada, i don't think it would soften US and Canadian citizens resolve either for revenge or retalition..... i guess i'm saying all it would do is turn the citizens resolve up for approval of further attacks on the attacking parties...

might is always right, and i do agree that there is alot of soft targets that could be hit , but none that would weaken the west will to carring on the fight...in fact i compare it to poking the bear, wake it up and you better have on your best running shoes....Am sure it would not take to long for the west to harden those soft targets, even at great cost in treasure.

[Big Guy]

Changed how ? Did we not put Japanese in interment camps in WWII. Why was that, to control that certain portion of the population that was percieved as threats, so that would piont that they did have similar problems as we have today. Not saying that is the best solution, it was however how they played out their part of the same problem.

During a conflict you are going to have someone or some group enter our country and cause some sort of issue it happened during all the major conflicts....but the problem you mention would not be on the scale that would throw the people into submission, wanting to surrender. In WWII it took a atomic bomb to change the japanese mind set so these attacks would have to be on that scale..... And there would be large consquences for any series of attacks such as 9/11. And while it would be fairly easy to carry out an attack, would it have the right effect...other than attracting alot of US military attention to your cause as in AL Quada, i don't think it would soften US and Canadian citizens resolve either for revenge or retalition..... i guess i'm saying all it would do is turn the citizens resolve up for approval of further attacks on the attacking parties...

might is always right, and i do agree that there is alot of soft targets that could be hit , but none that would weaken the west will to carring on the fight...in fact i compare it to poking the bear, wake it up and you better have on your best running shoes....Am sure it would not take to long for the west to harden those soft targets, even at great cost in treasure.

I do not consider the gathering up of Canadian and American citizens, taking away their land and putting them into camps because they look like somebody as a particularly proud part of the history of our reaction to conflict. To-day, if we used the same criteria as a protection, there would be more Canadians in camps than on the outside of those camps.

Also I think that going to war for revenge or retaliation is not an acceptable reason. Also, I do not believe that submission or surrender are the only two possible results of a conflict. I suggest that compromise and accommodation are far more desirable and permanent. To-day, our conflicts are not an identifiable nation vs another identifiable nation – it is an ideology vs a nation.

I do like your analogy of the bear. But I suggest that a very small person could easily sneak up to a bear and poke it with a needle full of poison. With those running shoes. the runner would then have to survive only until the poison took effect to kill the bear.

Why is it that every year, more and more people around the world are showing their displeasure and hate towards the USA (and now Canada) and more and more are prepared to die in retaliation to our foreign policies?

[-1=e^ipi]

Why is it that every year, more and more people around the world are showing their displeasure and hate towards the USA (and now Canada) and more and more are prepared to die in retaliation to our foreign policies?

Or maybe it has something to do with the world domination goals of islamists...

[bush_cheney2004]

....Why is it that every year, more and more people around the world are showing their displeasure and hate towards the USA (and now Canada) and more and more are prepared to die in retaliation to our foreign policies?

And yet, many of their friends and families have emigrated to both nations to have exactly what they hate.

[Army Guy]

I do not consider the gathering up of Canadian and American citizens, taking away their land and putting them into camps because they look like somebody as a particularly proud part of the history of our reaction to conflict. To-day, if we used the same criteria as a protection, there would be more Canadians in camps than on the outside of those camps.

Also I think that going to war for revenge or retaliation is not an acceptable reason. Also, I do not believe that submission or surrender are the only two possible results of a conflict. I suggest that compromise and accommodation are far more desirable and permanent. To-day, our conflicts are not an identifiable nation vs another identifiable nation – it is an ideology vs a nation.

I do like your analogy of the bear. But I suggest that a very small person could easily sneak up to a bear and poke it with a needle full of poison. With those running shoes. the runner would then have to survive only until the poison took effect to kill the bear.

Why is it that every year, more and more people around the world are showing their displeasure and hate towards the USA (and now Canada) and more and more are prepared to die in retaliation to our foreign policies?

I agree it's not a proud moment in our history, but it does demostrate that they faced the same problems as we do today. And there are solutions.

I disagree, there has to be some accountability for the enemies actions, for serveral reasons you don't want the world knowing that anyone can get away with killing your citizens without some type of action being taking....I aslo disagree with your idea of more to war than comprise....If comprise was on the table then why did you have to go to war in the first place....War is suppose to be the last option, but once you start down that road you have to have the balls to carry it through until the end....

And while that maybe the flavor of the day, And war has adapted to that as well with nations hunting this pecker woods across the globe.... But the more traditional sense of conflicts is not down and out, there is still lots of examples of these today and brewing around the globe....

I do not see any form of attack that would knock the US out of the game, unless perhaps dozens of dirty bombs exploded at the same time....even then i could see the US mounting some type of response...Canada on the other hand would be crippled.

The west is the haves and the others are the have nots, it is easy to blame the US for everything it is part of their culture, spread in their media, spread through religion, everything spreads this hate....hard not to go with the flow....and on the other hand as BC has quoted it is the prime source of immigration, to go to the US, and live the dream.

[Big Guy]

The USA government does what it believes is best for the USA and the Canadian government does what it believes to be best for Canada. That is the way it should be. Unfortunately, what is best for one country often comes at the expense of other countries and their citizens. The West has been an aggressor in Europe and the Mideast for many years. The West has used the Middle East as a convenient source of oil and treasure. The people there are beginning to realize that they were "took" in many of the trade "arrangements" and the puppet governments that were imposed on them for the convenience of western economies.

I think they resent that and feel that the USA (and now Canada) have built successful nations on the backs of those "backward" nations that they colonized, developed and plundered.

Good for USA and Canada and not so good for the rest of the world population - that feeling is what I believe to be the cause of this unrest and hate. Problem is - I don't have a solution. The governments in the West were elected to benefit their citizens. They did a good job - but at a price. I think that we are now starting to pay the price.

[Argus]

I think they resent that and feel that the USA (and now Canada) have built successful nations on the backs of those "backward" nations that they colonized, developed and plundered.

The US and Canada built successful nations through hard work, organization, and reasonably honest government. Both countries were building up societies with a superior standard of living to Europe (to say nothing of the rest of the world) well before the twentieth century.

[waldo]

The US and Canada built successful nations through hard work, organization, and reasonably honest government. Both countries were building up societies with a superior standard of living to Europe (to say nothing of the rest of the world) well before the twentieth century.

"with a superior standard of living to Europe (to say nothing of the rest of the world)" ... metric(s) used in your assessment? Citation request.

[waldo]

And yet, many of their friends and families have emigrated to both nations to have exactly what they hate.

how much is a... "many"? As below, per U.S. census figures, to 2012: ~40 million immigrants living in the U.S. by country of origin... have a go at tallying the figures from your speciously absent detail and 'your' selected target countries... then identify what ratio of that tally constitutes your "many". Thanks in advance.

.

[Bonam]

The USA government does what it believes is best for the USA and the Canadian government does what it believes to be best for Canada. That is the way it should be. Unfortunately, what is best for one country often comes at the expense of other countries and their citizens. The West has been an aggressor in Europe and the Mideast for many years.

Er, Europe is a part of "the West". Care to elaborate?

The West has used the Middle East as a convenient source of oil and treasure. The people there are beginning to realize that they were "took" in many of the trade "arrangements" and the puppet governments that were imposed on them for the convenience of western economies.

The Middle East countries that possess and export oil are some of the richest in the world as a result. They've hardly been plundered for their treasure, rather they have (in general) been paid handsomely and sold their oil freely. Except of course that most of the wealth goes to their dictators rather than being usefully spent.

I think they resent that and feel that the USA (and now Canada) have built successful nations on the backs of those "backward" nations that they colonized, developed and plundered.

So which nations has the US colonized? Which nations has Canada colonized?

[-1=e^ipi]

The USA government does what it believes is best for the USA and the Canadian government does what it believes to be best for Canada. That is the way it should be.

I disagree. I think the behaviour of both countries can be better explained by stupidity and ignorance. Thus actions like supporting Islamists in Syria.

I think they resent that and feel that the USA (and now Canada) have built successful nations on the backs of those "backward" nations that they colonized, developed and plundered.

This zero-sum-game mentality is nonsense.

Tell me, how do you explain the success of South Korea? Which countries did they plunder?

[eyeball]

The Middle East countries that possess and export oil are some of the richest in the world as a result. They've hardly been plundered for their treasure, rather they have (in general) been paid handsomely and sold their oil freely. Except of course that most of the wealth goes to their dictators rather than being usefully spent.

I wonder how much was put to good use purchasing military equipment from the west to maintain these dictatorships?

We not only plundered the people in these countries we helped rape and pillage them too.

Edited August 22, 2014 by eyeball

[Big Guy]

The Middle East countries ... colonized?

I disagree. I think ....

It appears that there are many, many people in the Middle East who "hate" the USA and now Canada since our foreign policy now seems "us too". One explanation given here, and often, that it is the nature of Islam and/or some kind of recessive gene that causes these people to become "crazed". Another explanation seems to be that they are jealous of democracy and want to kill everybody who likes democracy. I am just presenting some other possible motives.

Maybe they do not like the idea of their natural resources being exploited by the West. Maybe they do not like the idea of their nations being invaded to satisfy a perceived threat. Maybe they do not like their nations being invaded, “liberated”, their infrastructure destroyed and then their society left to try to rebuild their nation. Maybe they do not like other nations getting involved in their civil wars. Maybe they do not like other nations invading them, “liberating” them and in the process then killing their family members and calling it “collateral damage”.

All military actions have consequences be it in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Afghanistan ... It appears that the West had not considered those consequences when it decided to get directly involved in the Middle East.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Big Guy

[Army Guy]

Not sure how we exploit their resources, oil being the biggest resource and the price being set by OPEC...