Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army

[Moonlight Graham]

Good golly Miss Molly

 

[August1991]

Misleading title.

With Navy, Air Force -our military has about 50,000.

By comparison, the US with 10x our population has about 1.4 million active military. IOW, the US has about 3x our numbers.

I favour our way of doing things.

=====

In Canada and the US, soldiers now choose to join. (In Canada, we have always had a voluntary military. Since Nixon, the US has not had conscription.)

IMHO, when a State resorts to military conscription, its leaders are imposing a tax - a weird tax.

 

[August1991]

With all that said, wars usually involve foolish young men, between the ages of 17 and 21.

Who is in Gaza now? In Donetsk?

[ExFlyer]

Why is this a surprise?

I was in the Military (Air Force) for 35 years and during that time we hovered around 60K (regular force) members. We had several force reduction programs to get the numbers down during my tenure.

The Military was never a priority for either Liberal or Conservative governments. As for the reserves, they are quite often regular force members (in the Airforce anyway) or members that have quit for personal reasons but still want to be active.

Anyway, we are where we are because we chose to be there.

[Aristides]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

Misleading title.

With Navy, Air Force -our military has about 50,000.

By comparison, the US with 10x our population has about 1.4 million active military. IOW, the US has about 3x our numbers.

I favour our way of doing things.

=====

In Canada and the US, soldiers now choose to join. (In Canada, we have always had a voluntary military. Since Nixon, the US has not had conscription.)

IMHO, when a State resorts to military conscription, its leaders are imposing a tax - a weird tax.

 

You mean like all the Scandinavian countries, Finland and Switzerland?

 

Good old Canadian sense of entitlement. We have a right to be defended. By someone else

Edited April 12 by Aristides

[ExFlyer]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

Misleading title.

With Navy, Air Force -our military has about 50,000.

By comparison, the US with 10x our population has about 1.4 million active military. IOW, the US has about 3x our numbers.

I favour our way of doing things.

=====

In Canada and the US, soldiers now choose to join. (In Canada, we have always had a voluntary military. Since Nixon, the US has not had conscription.)

IMHO, when a State resorts to military conscription, its leaders are imposing a tax - a weird tax.

 

You forget Space Force, American Reserves, Army and Air Force National Guard, Coast Guard.

The Air Force reserve has more members than all of the CAF.  The US Army reserve has nearly 4 times the number of CAF total members. National Guard has over 400K members.

Point is, comparing is fruitless.

[myata]

Nothing bad can happen. Sleepwalking never hurts.

[Aristides]

The US population is 8.4 times that of Canada. If our military was 8.4 times larger, it would still be a million short of the US's 1.4 million regular military members.

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The US population is 8.4 times that of Canada. If our military was 8.4 times larger, it would still be a million short of the US's 1.4 million regular military members.

Comparisons are fruitless and not necessary.

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Comparisons are fruitless and not necessary.

We will never make the same level of commitment as the US but it doesn't hurt to point out the disparity.

[ExFlyer]

23 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We will never make the same level of commitment as the US but it doesn't hurt to point out the disparity.

Why not make comparisons with China then? Or India? Or Mexico?

My point is comparisons of military strength, to one of the largest, most powerful military in the world is, for so many reasons, dumb.

Edited April 12 by ExFlyer

[Aristides]

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Why not make comparisons with China then? Or India? Or Mexico?

My point is comparisons of military strength, to one of the largest, most powerful military in the world is, for so many reasons, dumb.

We can’t compare in strength but we can compare commitment.

[ExFlyer]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We can’t compare in strength but we can compare commitment.

No.

Are you even a little bit aware of all of Canadian Military commitments? The US commitments??

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

You mean like all the Scandinavian countries, Finland and Switzerland?

 

Good old Canadian sense of entitlement. We have a right to be defended. By someone else

In order to defend this country, we need a viable military. That requires conscription and an annual trillion dollar budget. Try selling that to Canadian voters / taxpayers.

 

[Nationalist]

I think what we "need"...is the ability to use and protect the northern passage.

[ironstone]

The military has a serious recruitment problem. I wonder why?

https://obbc.ca/menstrual-products-now-in-mens-washrooms-at-canadian-military-bases-soon-at-all-federally-regulated-workplaces/

[Aristides]

35 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In order to defend this country, we need a viable military. That requires conscription and an annual trillion dollar budget. Try selling that to Canadian voters / taxpayers.

 

No need to be extreme. No one is trying to sell that to anyone. Finland has one of the most powerful militaries in Europe with a population the size of BC. Surely we can find something between what we have now and your hysterical trillion dollars. 

Conscription is regarded as a good thing in many countries. In 2013, Switzerland had a referendum on abolishing conscription. 73% voted to keep it.

[Queenmandy85]

 I'm not arguing against conscription. I just don't believe Canadian voters would support it. 

I see three alternatives. The first is a conventional force large enough to defeat any enemy. That is my trillion dollar solution.  It requires conscription and we remember Conscripption Crisis of 1944. 

The second is enough nuclear weapons to turn any enemy into ashes and a glass plate, thus being an effective deterrent. The problem with that is convincing the world that we would use it without hesitation.

The third solution is based on a proposal by a Swedish political party to disarm and have a telephone answering machine that can give the message in 102 languages that "We surrender."

The third option may actually have merit. No major war has ever accomplished anything that could not be achieved at the conference table. The 100 years War, the 7 Years War, the American Revolution, and the Great War achieved nothing.

The Second World War was a result of the Great War and it was necessary. It was an exception, but it only occurred because of the Great War. Had the Great Powers met at the conference table in 1914, Hitler may have become a set designer at the Vienna Opera House.

A number of friends of mine served in Viet Nam. Now, Viet Nam is a vacation destination resort for American tourists.

War is folly. That being said, I cannot completely let go of options 1 & 2. It would be very expensive, but it dramatically increases the probability we will not be involved in war for a long time. Too bad many Canadians disagree with me. 

 

 

 

 

[blackbird]

One reason few want to join the Canadian Forces is because of their DEI and LGBTQ policies.  Mixing women with men in the CAF was a mistake.  Men and women should be in separate branches of the armed forces.  I think that is the way it was in WW2.   It is unnatural to mix men and women together and not expect sexual abuse and other problems.  

[Dougie93]

33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

War is folly. That being said, I cannot completely let go of options 1 & 2. It would be very expensive, but it dramatically increases the probability we will not be involved in war for a long time. Too bad many Canadians disagree with me.

it just doesn't make any logical sense

the only threat of invasion to Canada is America

but America has so much leverage over Canada, America would not need to invade to bring Canada to its knees

so a large standing army is useless

in terms of a massive thermonuclear deterrent, America already defends the entire hemisphere with that

so there is no need for Canada to duplicate the American deterrent

in terms of not being involved in wars ; Canada has always fought other peoples wars overseas

so the defence of Canada itself never precludes Canada from being involved in war, roughly one every generation

[herbie]

Draft the homeless....

[Dougie93]

bear in mind that there is a limit as to how much you could expand HM Canadian Army in this day & age

that limit is the number of personnel available to be instructors

and the number of formations within the chain of command

you're looking at 5 Regular Force & 10 Reserve Brigade Groups

which would be about 75,000 troops when fully mobilized, roughly 5,000 per Brigade Group

and it would probably take at least one year for Canada to mobilize that, even under wartime conditions

it's not like the First World War when you just had to train them to charge with bayonets

the amount of technical skills required now; limits how many troops you could train

this is the problem for Ukraine, there's a limit to how many troops they can train to use NATO kit

it's all technology dependent now, it's not industrial warfare anymore, this is post industrial war

as of right now, the deciding factor is drones

it is already a drone war which renders large formations of troops extremely vulnerable

NATO tanks are getting blown up left and right by drones

they can fly right up and drop a hand grenade down the hatch of your tank with a drone

so its basically a stalemate at this juncture, and neither side has figured out how to break it

Edited April 12 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

Misleading title.

With Navy, Air Force -our military has about 50,000.

By comparison, the US with 10x our population has about 1.4 million active military. IOW, the US has about 3x our numbers.

I favour our way of doing things.

=====

In Canada and the US, soldiers now choose to join. (In Canada, we have always had a voluntary military. Since Nixon, the US has not had conscription.)

IMHO, when a State resorts to military conscription, its leaders are imposing a tax - a weird tax.

 

when it comes to great power security competition

to wit, China & Russia vs the Anglosphere & Western Europe

the deciding factor is rather maritime power

he who rules the waves rules the world

ground forces are not really decisive in this strategic confrontation to control the global sea lanes

so Canada should really invest in the navy at the expense of the army anyways

ideally acquiring nuclear submarines, which are the arm of decision on the high seas

now obviously America & Britain do not trust Canada to be a partner in AUKUS at this juncture

but Canada does have another option, which is to court the French

Canada could buy into the French Naval Group Barracuda SSN program

although as soon as Canada did that, the Americans & British might change their minds and invite Canada into AUKUS

 

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

when it comes to great power security competition

to wit, China & Russia vs the Anglosphere & Western Europe

the deciding factor is rather maritime power

he who rules the waves rules the world

ground forces are not really decisive in this strategic confrontation to control the global sea lanes

so Canada should really invest in the navy at the expense of the army anyways

ideally acquiring nuclear submarines, which are the arm of decision on the high seas

now obviously America & Britain do not trust Canada to be a partner in AUKUS at this juncture

but Canada does have another option, which is to court the French

Canada could buy into the French Naval Group Barracuda SSN program

although as soon as Canada did that, the Americans & British might change their minds and invite Canada into AUKUS

 

Once gain, give your head a shake.

Why have a nuclear sub that can stay underwater for weeks and only have pea shooters onboard?

Canada is a non nuclear country and will never have ballistic missiles.

Stay with your 200 year old British army tributes because you clearly are way behind LOL

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Once gain, give your head a shake.

Why have a nuclear sub that can stay underwater for weeks and only have pea shooters onboard?

Canada is a non nuclear country and will never have ballistic missiles.

Stay with your 200 year old British army tributes because you clearly are way behind LOL

Ship Submersible Nuclear ( SSN ) is the Fast Attack Submarine

Ship Submersible Ballistic Missile Nuclear ( SSBN ) is the ballistic missile submarine

the SSN Fast Attack Submarine puts Canada in the big leagues of global security competition

this is really what Canadians desire from their military, to be a player in the big leagues

the SSBN ballistic missile submarine is another role, that's only for the Superpowers

you worked at NDHQ and you don't even know the difference between SSN and SSBN

typical NDHQ, what a bunch of clowns

Edited April 12 by Dougie93