Canada only has 28k soldiers in it's army

[Queenmandy85]

17 hours ago, Aristides said:

I was paying attention. All you do is quote gospels. Name one woman who had anything to do with writing any of them.

We don't know her name, but a significant part of Genesis is believed to have been written by a woman. 

On the topic of the military, we are advised by one of our friends on this forum that if the 24 million people who regularly listen to the CBC, they should be the ones who pay for it. Perhaps, following the same logic, that should be applied to defence. If we increase defence spending to 2% of GDP, we will have a defence budget of $40 billion. Support for military spending is much lower than support for the CBC. The defence budget is largely a waste of money because it is directed at  conflicts which  are unlikely to occur and which are unachieveable with the resourses at Canada's disposal. As I was recently told on this forum, if the US were to invade Canada, the Canadian Forces cannot stop them. If there is a war with Russia or China, the conflict will be nuclear and we will not survive in any case. If people want to spend money on defence, using CdnFox' reasoning, let them pay for it out of their own pockets. 

I spent decades trying to convince people we need a viable military that can defend Canada, independent of foreign support. In the last year, I have been struggling with the personal revelation that war causes more problems than it solves and the cost is way off the scale. I am reminded of Gwynne Dyer's comment on his series on war, presented on CBC's Ideas in (about) 1979. IIRC, his opening statement was, "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a defence budget."

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We don't know her name, but a significant part of Genesis is believed to have been written by a woman. 

On the topic of the military, we are advised by one of our friends on this forum that if the 24 million people who regularly listen to the CBC, they should be the ones who pay for it. Perhaps, following the same logic, that should be applied to defence. If we increase defence spending to 2% of GDP, we will have a defence budget of $40 billion. Support for military spending is much lower than support for the CBC. The defence budget is largely a waste of money because it is directed at  conflicts which  are unlikely to occur and which are unachieveable with the resourses at Canada's disposal. As I was recently told on this forum, if the US were to invade Canada, the Canadian Forces cannot stop them. If there is a war with Russia or China, the conflict will be nuclear and we will not survive in any case. If people want to spend money on defence, using CdnFox' reasoning, let them pay for it out of their own pockets. 

I spent decades trying to convince people we need a viable military that can defend Canada, independent of foreign support. In the last year, I have been struggling with the personal revelation that war causes more problems than it solves and the cost is way off the scale. I am reminded of Gwynne Dyer's comment on his series on war, presented on CBC's Ideas in (about) 1979. IIRC, his opening statement was, "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a defence budget."

We cannot defend ourselves alone from all threats and that is true of most NATO countries. That's why we need allies and if you want allies, you have to be able to offer something that contributes to their security as well as your own.

CdnFox should leave Canada then and not sponge off those who would be forced to defend him as well as themselves. Same goes for health care and every social program. Why would defence be any different.

[I am Groot]

On 4/12/2024 at 10:26 AM, 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 compare our military strength to our military strength in 1971, when our population was about half what it is now while our military was twice the size of its 'stated' strength now. It was also better equipped. 

So in context with our present population our military was four times larger.

[Aristides]

In 1960 Canadian defence spending was over 4% GDP and didn't drop below 2% GDP until 1973. Between 1983 and 1987 it recovered to just over 2% and it has been mostly downhill ever since.

[I am Groot]

17 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I spent decades trying to convince people we need a viable military that can defend Canada, independent of foreign support. In the last year, I have been struggling with the personal revelation that war causes more problems than it solves and the cost is way off the scale. 

The war in Ukraine would not have happened if Russia had realized how hard it would be. It happened because they thought Ukraine would be a pushover. Just as it had been the last time. Just as Georgia had been. 

The only reason there isn't war in Taiwan is because China thinks it would be too costly right now. Because the US is determined to defend Taiwan at least until it gets its own chip plants up and operating. 

Weakness in the face of warlords like Putin and Xi almost invites war. 

What would be the cost of a properly sized and equipped NATO vs the cost of an invasion by Russia and the war that would follow? Because right now there are only a handful of countries in Europe with decent-sized and equipped militaries. And Canada is certainly not among them. We are freeloaders relying on the Americans. Just as Europe has until very recently. But that American factor that deters the warlords might disappear in another year. And then where will we be? Defenseless. 

The head of CSIS recently told the inquiry into foreign interference that China does it because there is no cost to it. It faces no opposition from Canada. Its agents are not arrested and there is no bad publicity to worry about. 

If you make it the same way for the world's warlords to take what they want there will be war everywhere.

Edited April 14 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

On 4/12/2024 at 1:21 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

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 fourth option is you have sufficient military strength to make it unpalatable to attack you. 

The fifth option is you have sufficient military power to contribute to an alliance of like-minded nations which makes it far too dangerous for an enemy to attack any of them.

You forgot those options.

On 4/12/2024 at 1:21 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The third option may actually have merit.

Belgium and the Netherlands tried the third option after WW1. Didn't do them much good. Didn't do Norway any good either. Switzerland did the same, but armed themselves to the teeth, even to a ridiculous degree, carving all kinds of military redoubts out of mountains. Germany stayed away.

 

 

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The war in Ukraine would not have happened if Russia had realized how hard it would be. It happened because they thought Ukraine would be a pushover. Just as it had been the last time. Just as Georgia had been.

the problem for both sides in Ukraine is called "the transparent battlefield"

both sides can see deep into each others rear areas

so nobody can achieve any sort of surprise

if they mass their forces to attack, the other side has plenty of time to reinforce their defences

so it's right back to World War One, where nobody can achieve a breakthrough of the lines

[I am Groot]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:51 PM, Army Guy said:

Normally it take s more than 10-20 support pers to service one infantry guy...thats your cooks,logies, mechs,admin,medical pers, etc etc...

That is a terrible tooth to tail ratio. 

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The fourth option is you have sufficient military strength to make it unpalatable to attack you. 

The fifth option is you have sufficient military power to contribute to an alliance of like-minded nations which makes it far too dangerous for an enemy to attack any of them.

You forgot those options.

who is going to attack Canada with military forces and from where ?

it's 9 million square kilometres of territory, with an ocean on three sides, plus General Winter

even the US military is not capable of invading and occupying Canada

so there is really no conventional military threat to Canada at all

[Queenmandy85]

7 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

What would be the cost of a properly sized and equipped NATO vs the cost of an invasion by Russia and the war that would follow? Because right now there are only a handful of countries in Europe with decent-sized and equipped militaries.

A year ago, I would have agreed with you. Deep down, I am still inclined that way, but reality paints a different picture. The only nations that are equipped to face Russia are France, Britain and the United States. Tanks and infantry were critical in previous wars. What deters Russia is the absolute certainty that any conflict against a NATO member will result in a nuclear holocaust. By the same token, if Russia were to invade Europe, they would open their offensive with a tactical nuclear barrage. That has been Russian military doctrine since the days of Khrushchev. Ukraine avoided that scenario because Russia and the United States both guaranteed Ukrainian independence and security in exchange for them to give up their nuclear weapons. We see now, that was a mistake for the Ukraine. 

When considering how to spend Canadian money on defence, the reality is, the most cost effective weapon systems are tipped with nuclear weapons. They are cheaper than tanks and high performance combat aircraft and done require the level of personnel to operate.

[I am Groot]

On 4/12/2024 at 10:07 PM, Army Guy said:

Many women have served in the Canadian infantry, in combat without any issues...although in Afghanistan we did not face any hand to hand combat, but lots of close combat.ranges of less than 50 feet......It only takes less than 5 lbs of trigger pull to fire a 5.56 round into someone's fore head or center of mass.....anyone can do it.... 

But anyone can't hump eighty or a hundred pounds of gear for days on end on field operations. And women who can do it when superbly fit are few and far between and face all kinds of physical issues if they try. US Marine Captain Katie Petronio wrote about this a decade ago. There are basic issues with trying to make females infantry, starting with them having less muscle mass, thinner bones, smaller frames, and lower lung capacity. They take physical damage more easily, recover more slowly, and don't have the speed or stamina of men.

Edited April 14 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

On 4/13/2024 at 7:36 AM, ExFlyer said:

I , in the airforce, have worked with many women in the trades and they have almost always been as good as the men. I have also had men that were as good as the women.

I challenge you to tell us when close combat at bayonet range warfare is happening except in movies OL

 

How much weight could those women in the air force carry and how far could they carry it?

Edited April 14 by I am Groot

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

When considering how to spend Canadian money on defence, the reality is, the most cost effective weapon systems are tipped with nuclear weapons. They are cheaper than tanks and high performance combat aircraft and done require the level of personnel to operate.

Canada already possesses a nuclear deterrent by way of NORAD & NATO

the American Triad already defends the entire continent

Canada has access to NATO B61 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe through the NATO nuclear sharing agreement

 

[I am Groot]

20 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the problem for both sides in Ukraine is called "the transparent battlefield"

both sides can see deep into each others rear areas

so nobody can achieve any sort of surprise

if they mass their forces to attack, the other side has plenty of time to reinforce their defences

Only if they already have those defenses. It certainly doesn't give you time to whistle up the construction of warships or tanks or fighter planes or anti-aircraft or anti-armor missiles or, for that matter, trained soldiers, sailors and airmen. If you don't have it then it really doesn't matter that you can see an enemy massing their troops for attack.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Only if they already have those defenses. It certainly doesn't give you time to whistle up the construction of warships or tanks or fighter planes or anti-aircraft or anti-armor missiles or, for that matter, trained soldiers, sailors and airmen. If you don't have it then it really doesn't matter that you can see an enemy massing their troops for attack.

same problem for both sides, so again, it's a stalemate

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

How much weight could those women in the air force carry and how far could they carry it?

this is always where the girls ended up falling to the side of the road and quitting

they just couldn't keep up with the men while carrying rucksacks

women can perform many military tasks, particularly service support trades

but they just aren't built for the infantry

[I am Groot]

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A year ago, I would have agreed with you. Deep down, I am still inclined that way, but reality paints a different picture. The only nations that are equipped to face Russia are France, Britain and the United States. Tanks and infantry were critical in previous wars. What deters Russia is the absolute certainty that any conflict against a NATO member will result in a nuclear holocaust.

I disagree. That is far from certain. The US, UK and France will not nuke Russia if it decides to gulp down the Baltics, for example. That's especially so if Trump becomes President. He's already given strong indications the US wouldn't fight for the Baltics at all. With that done, Russia might decide to gulp down a couple more ex-Russian republics to its south. Then it could officially incorporate Belarus back into the fold and then take back Georgia. Then maybe declare some disputed waters up north to be Russian and start drilling for oil.

Those would be waters Canada claims, btw.

It really depends on how patient Putin is and how far he goes. He could wait a few years, then have another go at Ukraine - once Trump gives his official blessing to his ownership of the lands Russia already occupies. 

A slow, incremental move west would not require or cause the response of nuclear weapons.

 

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

same problem for both sides, so again, it's a stalemate

It's not a stalemate if they have such things and you do not.

Edited April 14 by I am Groot

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada already possesses a nuclear deterrent by way of NORAD & NATO

the American Triad already defends the entire continent

Canada has access to NATO B61 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe through the NATO nuclear sharing agreement

 

That capability depends on the Americans. It is a valid system for the next nine months and six days. Beyond that, our alliance with our neighbour depends on who is taking the oath at the inauguration. The likely result is that it will be President Trump. At that point, the US will no longer be a reliable ally and the potential for an American invasion, while still remote, becomes much higher on the scale of probability. I recall the reaction of the Trump Administration after a meeting when a remark made by the Canadian Government was taken out of context and caused a response that was way out of proportion. I am sure President Trump still has that video of a half dozen leaders discussing the President's behaviour and laughing. We can be certain each of them has their photo red circled. On Jan. 21, 2025, all bets are off...except my bet that Donald J. Trump will be elected President.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It's not a stalemate if they have such things and you do not.

the Russians are not the Soviets

they don't have what the Soviets had

Europe is not what it used to be neither in terms of the military industrial base

so neither side has enough to achieve an overmatch

the only way to break this stalemate would be with American air power

only the Americans could win this war, by air land battle

[I am Groot]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

the Russians are not the Soviets

they don't have what the Soviets had

Europe is not what it used to be neither in terms of the military industrial base

so neither side has enough to achieve an overmatch

the only way to break this stalemate would be with American air power

only the Americans could win this war, by air land battle

Assuming the Americans didn't stay home. 

The Russians are not the Soviets. But they are led by a man who said the greatest catastrophe of the 20th Century was the breakup o the Soviet Union. Note, not WW2 or WW1, but the breakup of the Soviet Union. He wants to put it back together again. And while Russia is not as powerful as it was then NATO is far less powerful than it used to be. The state of the German military is almost worse than Canada's, for example. The British military is in deplorable state. And Russia is rapidly expanding its arms manufacturing while countries like Germany are still busy fighting lawsuits about the contracts to build up their arms manufacturing. They devoted billions to it years ago and none has yet even been spent.

 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That capability depends on the Americans.

that is the nature of being Canada

you can't fight America

America could simply impose a naval blockade on Canada, and Canada would immediately collapse

so you are stuck with the Americans as your patrons, no matter what

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Assuming the Americans didn't stay home. 

The Russians are not the Soviets. But they are led by a man who said the greatest catastrophe of the 20th Century was the breakup o the Soviet Union. Note, not WW2 or WW1, but the breakup of the Soviet Union. He wants to put it back together again. And while Russia is not as powerful as it was then NATO is far less powerful than it used to be. The state of the German military is almost worse than Canada's, for example. The British military is in deplorable state. And Russia is rapidly expanding its arms manufacturing while countries like Germany are still busy fighting lawsuits about the contracts to build up their arms manufacturing. They devoted billions to it years ago and none has yet even been spent.

they're still not powerful enough to overmatch Ukraine, so long as Ukraine is willing to fight

the only way the Russians win, is if Ukraine capitulates

tho there could be a point where Ukraine can't hold in the east, so the Ukrainians withdrawal across the Dneiper

then we are really into Cold War Two on a trace at the Inter Ukrainian Border

Russian forces in East Ukraine, NATO forces in West Ukraine

Edited April 14 by Dougie93

[Queenmandy85]

8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I disagree. That is far from certain. The US, UK and France will not nuke Russia if it decides to gulp down the Baltics, for example. That's especially so if Trump becomes President. He's already given strong indications the US wouldn't fight for the Baltics at all. With that done, Russia might decide to gulp down a couple more ex-Russian republics to its south.

As you say, it all depends on who is POTUS. If Russia believes the west's nuclear deterrent is a paper tiger, then a third world war becomes more likely. If Canada had its own independent nuclear deterrence, we would be in a position to prevent Russia from such folly. But, that is not going to happen. 

So, it all comes down to the question, Would I rather live as a slave, or die a free man. That was an easy question when I was young and stupid. Now I am old and I have a tremendous desire to live longer than my great uncle Jack who lived to be 104 and was fit both mentally and physically when he died. When we talk about war, we forget about the majority of people (millions) who will suffer or die in a conflict they have nothing to do with. 

 

[I am Groot]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

they're still not powerful enough to overmatch Ukraine, so long as Ukraine is willing to fight

They would have crushed Ukraine a year and a half ago were it not for Western countries feeding hundreds of billions in cash and armaments to Ukraine. And many countries, like Canada, have depleted their supplies of missiles and artillery shells and will need years to replenish them. The US has depleted its own supply of missiles, as well, and is trying to increase production so it doesn't have to wait years to replenish. 

Russia can increase its arms production much faster than Western countries because they have fewer lawyers.

 

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 The likely result is that it will be President Trump. At that point, the US will no longer be a reliable ally and the potential for an American invasion, while still remote, becomes much higher on the scale of probability

again, America does not need to invade Canada to impose its will upon Canada

the Canadian economy is totally reliant upon access to the American markets

thus all Trump needs to do to force Canada to capitulate, is impose tariffs at the border