The most powerful militaries in the world

[Rue]

34 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It would be nice to actually discuss the situation without the complete utter bullshyte you continually regurgitate. When you grow up maybe we can have a real discussion on the state of Canada's military and where it should be.

Discuss the situation. Provide your evidence that what I provided is false. I will sing Oh Canada and dance Bollywood style while I wait.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

I like your comparison.  One has to make accurate comparisons as to levels of income, geographic issues, etc., and Australia v. Canada is a good comparison .

For me Canada has clearly done away with its navy,  understaffed and under-armed its military and has neglected its Air Force since WW2 assuming the US taxpayers and their military would umbrella protect us. Its dishonest. The same leftist toads who piss on the US in Canada have lived under its military protection umbrella they take for granted.

You get a lot of people on the Left, including, I'm sure, Trudeau, who flat out don't see any reason to have a military unless it's for 'peacekeeping'. And by peacekeeping they mean the 'good old days' of the blue helmets who carried unloaded rifles and simply took notes when they saw ceasefire violations. Actual militarism disgusts them. And yes, underlying their beliefs is the thought the US will protect us from anything anyway so why should we bother. They don't like to really talk about that because of their disdain for the US, of course.

[?Impact]

34 minutes ago, Argus said:

Actual militarism disgusts them.

Please define actual militarism, I am curious.

[?Impact]

23 hours ago, Argus said:

So my question is, who is it a country a third smaller than us has a more powerful military than we do with a considerably larger budget?

Did you notice that the "powerful" metric you linked to is based on a formula that takes many factors into consideration including population so the fact they are smaller has little relevance. If you go to the original source, you will find the comparison is Australia was assigned 0.4072  (rank 22) and Canada was assigned 0.4381 (rank 26).

b.t.w. the Canadian Armed Forces have considerably more active and reserve personnel than the Australian Defense Force. Canadian soldiers are among the highest paid in the world which eats up a huge part of the budget.

[Argus]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Did you notice that the "powerful" metric you linked to is based on a formula that takes many factors into consideration including population so the fact they are smaller has little relevance. If you go to the original source, you will find the comparison is Australia was assigned 0.4072  (rank 22) and Canada was assigned 0.4381 (rank 26).

b.t.w. the Canadian Armed Forces have considerably more active and reserve personnel than the Australian Defense Force. Canadian soldiers are among the highest paid in the world which eats up a huge part of the budget.

I don't give credit for high pay, only for ability. If the Canadian military is paid too much, and I happen to believe they are, they should have a pay cut. The Australians are a third smaller but have more aircraft and ships.  They are currently at 1.9% of GDP for defense spending, which was about what Canada committed to but has refused to meet. According to Wiki the size of the Australian Defense Force is 58,206, vs Canada's 65,900. I wouldn't call that considerably more people.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Please define actual militarism, I am curious.

Shooting people. Ie, Afghanistan. The Liberals were eager to set up a good old fashioned peacekeeping assignment for us, and searched desperately for one, but the only ones they could find were those, like in Mali, where there'd be bodybags coming home and Canadians would be shooting people and (eeek!) taking prisoners. They wanted no part of any of that!

[Queenmandy85]

I have always said, Canada should adopt the Swiss model of Defence, or an updated version of Defence Scheme No. 1. On the other hand, from a strictly logistical standpoint, the only nation able to invade Canada is the United States. Clearly, there is no rational, viable defence against them. Also, I highly doubt such a possibility is likely in the near future. Russia is theoretically in reach but they would have to come through Alaska and then our dependence on the US for protection is academic. No other country is in a position to invade Canada other than the US. We have three massive oceans on our perimetre. You might be able to cross a narrow English Channel, but the Atlantic and Pacific are a different kettle of fish. I still, believe a few hundred nuclear weapons would be a prudent investment, but the fact is, Canadians do not want to pay for an actual effective military and are currently anti nuke. It is their money and their choice. If President Trump wants to cut us loose, that is his right and I doubt we would notice much difference.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

... If President Trump wants to cut us loose, that is his right and I doubt we would notice much difference.

 

Most Canadians may not notice any difference, but DND/Canadian Forces and intelligence gathering services most certainly would.  Canada depends on U.S. military and intel gathering infrastructure, munitions, supply chain, platform systems, training, etc.

Canada should cut itself "loose" if that is the policy it desires (don't wait for Trump), but I don't think Canada will.   Talk is cheap.

Economically, Canada wants continued access to lucrative defense contracts (domestically owned and U.S. subsidiaries).   This jobs/votes consideration has long kept Canada in the "defense" business and NATO/NORAD alliance.

[Omni]

17 hours ago, betsy said:

Could it be because of........ Obama's lap dog, Trudeau? 

 

 

No, it's because of.........Putin's lapdog Trump.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

On the other hand, from a strictly logistical standpoint, the only nation able to invade Canada is the United States. Clearly, there is no rational, viable defence against them. Also, I highly doubt such a possibility is likely in the near future. Russia is theoretically in reach but they would have to come through Alaska

You have been looking at transverse mercator projections.  Russia is right on the other side of the Arctic Ocean, and summer or winter, they don't need to drive or float, they just need to hop into some airplanes (that they have in abundance).  Problem is, they are ALREADY "invading" (violating Canadian sovereignty) in the arctic, as has the US on many occassions.   Having a bunch of nukes is not the solution, but having a presence IS - and an appropriate role for our military,

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Economically, Canada wants continued access to lucrative defense contracts (domestically owned and U.S. subsidiaries).   This jobs/votes consideration has long kept Canada in the "defense" business and NATO/NORAD alliance.

The defense development sharing program between Canada and the US is a very strange beast. It was signed in 1963, and still in effect today. Trade between the two nations under this agreement are not subject to other trade agreements that are reported on, and there are no details available on what the real volume is in either direction. Probably the bulk of the business is subsystems that get incorporated into products that either nation may use internally or sell to other nations (if they contain classified information material then there is a process to determine what consent is required)

[cannuck]

Impact:  I can't tell you the volume, but I can give you a pretty good idea of how things work:  someone in procurement calls up Bombardier and based on their largess at the time to contributing to the well being of political parties and politicians, they will be asked how they would like to take a simple $x value piece of equipment, get involved with assembling and/or modifying that proven design to the point where it becomes a proper POS at a value or $3xxx - and the forces will have yet another extremely expensive and ineffective solution to a real need.

Ever since PET, the armed forces have nothing to do with defence and 100% simply a tool for social engineering and propping up PQ for votes and "benefits".

Doesn't matter who is in power.

Edited February 28, 2018 by cannuck

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Impact:  I can't tell you the volume, but I can give you a pretty good idea of how things work:  someone in procurement calls up Bombardier and based on their largess at the time to contributing to the well being of political parties and politicians, they will be asked how they would like to take a simple $x value piece of equipment, get involved with assembling and/or modifying that proven design to the point where it becomes a proper POS at a value or $3xxx - and the forces will have yet another extremely expensive and ineffective solution to a real need.

Ever since PET, the armed forces have nothing to do with defence and 100% simply a tool for social engineering and propping up PQ for votes and "benefits".

Doesn't matter who is in power.

It was Mike Pearson's Minister of Defence, Paul Hellyer, who started the dismantling of the Canadian Forces.

It goes back to the Pharaohs. Military expenditure has been a source of graft in Roman times, or in the Royal Navy since God knows when.  When ever you have a lot of cash at hand, it attracts pirates. Remember the Bonaventure refit?  The military has a lot of money to hand out. Are you going to spend it in a place you don't need votes? Politicians are a reflection of ourselves. Everyone of us would behave in the same way as our MP's.

[eyeball]

On 2/27/2018 at 8:34 AM, Rue said:

For me Canada has clearly done away with its navy,  understaffed and under-armed its military and has neglected its Air Force since WW2 assuming the US taxpayers and their military would umbrella protect us. Its dishonest. The same leftist toads who piss on the US in Canada have lived under its military protection umbrella they take for granted.

Lest we forget...the US told us to stand down, that they would protect us and Diefenbaker the right-wing toady complied.

Lest we also forget...our grandparents sacrificed some %25 of Canada's GDP in their war against tyranny.  The US in the meantime has probably given 10 times that much to tyrants.  No wonder they told us to stand down. 

[Queenmandy85]

The event that really killed the Canadian Forces was Viet Nam. The impact of the anti-war movement led to a lack of support for an effective military in Canada and the abandoning of our nuclear capability. Add to that the campaign of Preston Manning against taxes and you have a perfect storm. Canadian voters neither want to join the military or pay the taxes necessary to equip the Forces.

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Lest we forget...the US told us to stand down, that they would protect us and Diefenbaker the right-wing toady complied.

Lest we also forget...our grandparents sacrificed some %25 of Canada's GDP in their war against tyranny.  The US in the meantime has probably given 10 times that much to tyrants.  No wonder they told us to stand down. 

I think you are in error with regard to Diefenbaker's relationship with the US. He refused to arm the Canadian Forces with nuclear weapons and for that, JFK engineered his ouster. Pearson was the toady. 

[Queenmandy85]

12 hours ago, cannuck said:

   Having a bunch of nukes is not the solution, but having a presence IS - and an appropriate role for our military,

You underestimate the benefits of having nuclear weapons. If we had ERD tipped SAM's, your Russian airborne invasion would come down some where in Santa's south pasture.  Nuclear weapons give a lot more bang for your buck, but, more importantly, they are the ultimate deterrent.

We have the advantage of having once possessed them and having been part of the initial development.

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I think you are in error with regard to Diefenbaker's relationship with the US. He refused to arm the Canadian Forces with nuclear weapons and for that, JFK engineered his ouster. Pearson was the toady. 

Pearson was a toady in the sense Justin Trudeau is a toady - Trudeau's decision to continue outfitting dictatorships like Saudi Arabia is reminiscent of Pearson's decision to proceed with a decision Diefenbaker made.  

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Pearson was a toady in the sense Justin Trudeau is a toady - Trudeau's decision to continue outfitting dictatorships like Saudi Arabia is reminiscent of Pearson's decision to proceed with a decision Diefenbaker made.  

No argument about JT but I'm not clear about what you mean by "Pearson's decision to proceed with a decision Diefenbaker made. "

Diefenbaker refused to arm the Canadian Forces with nuclear weapons. Pearson's first act as PM was to load nukes into the Bomarc missiles in North Bay Ontario. Kennedy aided the grits in the 1963 election. It was the very thing the Democrats accuse Putin of doing in the 2016 US election.

[?Impact]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Pearson was a toady in the sense Justin Trudeau is a toady - Trudeau's decision to continue outfitting dictatorships like Saudi Arabia is reminiscent of Pearson's decision to proceed with a decision Diefenbaker made.  

Ok, so Pearson and Trudeau are toady's. What are Diefenbaker and Harper, the ones that actually made the original decisions?

[?Impact]

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Kennedy aided the grits in the 1963 election. It was the very thing the Democrats accuse Putin of doing in the 2016 US election.

This might be a worthwhile topic to start. I agree there are certainly parallels between the 1963 Canadian election, and the 2016 US election. While the players and tactics differ, there is unmistakable interference by a foreign government to influence the outcome of a democratic election.

[Queenmandy85]

47 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What are Diefenbaker and Harper, the ones that actually made the original decisions?

I'm sorry, I still don't know what decisions you are referring to that  Diefenbaker made. Help me out with that, if you get the chance. The Chief almost went out of his way to stay independent from the US. 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm sorry, I still don't know what decisions you are referring to that  Diefenbaker made. Help me out with that, if you get the chance.

I saw your earlier response to eyeball, I will let him answer. I was only referencing the logic he expressed, not the actual history.

 

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Chief almost went out of his way to stay independent from the US. 

I think that brings us into the territory of NORAD and A.V.Roe and a lot of other things that happened at the time.

[Queenmandy85]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I think that brings us into the territory of NORAD and A.V.Roe and a lot of other things that happened at the time.

The Arrow was cancelled because it was going to cost $15 million CDN per unit.in 1958 dollars. That's 16.5 million US in 1958.( Source: Colonel Allen MacKinnon, Canadian Forces Air Element.) Even if the USAF could afford to buy it, they had a policy of buying American exclusively. I may be wrong, but to my knowledge, the only foreign build aircraft deployed by the US is the Harrier.

The short answer is the RCAF could not afford to buy the Avro Arrow nor could anyone else. It was a tragic ending, but it was too expensive in a time when the manned bomber was seen to be obsolete. On the bright side,the people who built it went on to put Neil Armstrong on the moon. 

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

reminiscent of Pearson's decision to proceed with a decision Diefenbaker made. 

 

36 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm sorry, I still don't know what decisions you are referring to that  Diefenbaker made.

Eyeball, if you have a chance?