What kind of military should Canada have

[Army Guy]

I know most Canadians do support our military, there concerned for our safety, how we are equipped, and what type of missions we are sent on. And for that, we serving in the military are grateful. What is frustrating for those that serve is that we have no real direction,what i mean by that is, there is no white paper giving us a clear and concise area of focus. be it training or for that matter purchasing new equipment The people of Canada have not clearly made thier chioce on what they want us to do.

Yes there is a broad statement issued by the government on what our job is, which covers everything from defense of the Nation, to peacekeeping, disaster response and now peace enforcement.

So i guess my question is what message do we send the government on what type of military do Canadians want ?

My Webpage

My next question is how do we pay for all of it, are Canadians willing to spend thier tax dollars on our military. or are we fighting a lost cause ?

My Webpage

[Hydraboss]

I would like to see our presence overseas reduced. Not cut-off, just reduced. It's not that I don't believe in the campaigns, but I do believe that we should not have personnel on active duty without sufficient training and equipment. Canada should reduce troop deployments to the point where only fully and properly trained personnel are outside our borders. As funding increases (and I am willing to support this fully) and troops are given what they need (not what some politician thinks they need) then, and only then, can we consider increasing worldwide presence.

If we want them (you) to do a job, give them what they need to do it.

[fixer1]

I believe Canada has an obligation to help out any where in the world, that it can do so, as long as it has a goal to bringing the lands that they are in, to a better understanding and position for emerging nations. We have been blessed with having a country that is peaceful and non aggressive. Our own borders have beenneglected for many years and today our military can not enforce our sovereign rights to much our our nothern lands. We need a larger military and one that is artic capable and patrolling these lands.

We can not just let the north go its own way, as that will be the saving growth areas in the coming years. If we can not enforce our own borders, how will we be able to make claims of lands that we never get to visit.

Our military needs to be at least double the size it is presently and it should also have a contingent that is only for domestic disasters, like flood and fire etc.. We need a policing force for mostly foreign service and we need a protecting force for our own sovereignty. Yes that means larger forces, and better equipment. I would like to see the military manufacture its own equipment and become more self sufficient, but that would be a long way off. We need ships capable of transversing the artic, yet we have let our countries shipyards go to other nations. We need helicopters, yet we are destined to buy for foreign nations, when we have the talent and materials all at hand here in Canada. I would like to see the military be a force we can be proud of. Yes it will take money, but if we invest the money in Canada, we will all benefit

[Army Guy]

Hydraboss:

I'd like to dispell some rumours, The training we recieve before going to AFGAN is second to none, over 6 months of intense training on all aspects of military operations prior to leaving the country. That being said actual training dollars have shrunk with everything else, so we don't do as much training as we would like when not gearing up for Afgan. As for having the equipment we need over in afgan the military has gone to great lengths to ensure we have it over in Afgan, it's here in Canada were equipment shortages are critical.

From my perspective the only reason our government has purchased some of the new equipment is because of our mission in AFgan.

And i do like your statement about the military should buy equipment that it needs, not what some politician wants. within reason of course.

fixer1 :

Problem with manufacturing our own equipment, is that we are already cashed starved, research and development is very costly adventure, the only way to recupe those monies is thru sales to other countries. it's a big gamble and sometimes with no pay off. Buying someone elses product saves on the R&D costs, building a plant, etc etc. and allows you to purchase an already proven machine. Last time Canada built a military machine we got burned, the AVRO project pretty much ended Canada's visions of building anything else. Soldiers actually don't care who built it as long as it works.

[Leader Circle]

We need a military that, first and foremost, will defend our country's interest at home & abroad. The Afgan mission is as vital to us as it is the rest of the world. If we can slow the growth of terrorist regimes, we save our country & others from future attacks. We need to bolster our troops in Afganistan to make the transition smooth and hopefully ensure less casualities.

Canada has been a peacekeeping country for years now and if we shrink our army like the past governments have, we will suffer. We are well respected around the world for the army contributions over the years and we can't afford to change that.

We also need to supply our troops with up to date equipment so that when they enter a conflict, they are not going in empty handed.

We need our military to defend our sovereignty in the north and keep countries like the US from trying to claim neutral status of OUR land. It's not necessary for Canada to be a superpower, we just need them to think we are not a pushover!

Lets build a military we can be proud of! For all of the peace protestors, they need to realize the reason we have peace, is because we have a military and we have to fight to protect our freedom. The sixties are long gone!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

I think we need a marauding army that funds itself with plunder. There is no greater motivator than personal gain. With people like Osama Bin laden, a price on their head (such as the weight of his head in gold to the person that brings it in) leaves them little time for foolishness.

Truthfully, I think Canada should have a militia, with everyone doing 2 years service, from 18-20, or 20-22. Some income could be made through engineering projects done on the country's infrastructure. Jails and some provincial/federal police work could also be contracted to the military.

[Black Dog]

It's hard to talk about increases in military spending when a) Canada already spends a significant portion of its budget on the military (1.2 per cent of GDP in 2004) and when there are plenty of domestic concerns that require urgent attention.

Like AG said, let's have a comprehensive policy reveiw before we decide to start shelling out big bucks.

[politika]

A military is extremly important and is having more of effect what is goign on in the 21st century. I think Canada needs to spend billions on a new Canadian military machine one that is close or matches the power of the United States.

I think Harper is the way to go for this new direction in our military's future. I believe by time he has left office he will have fixed or come pretty close to fixing our military's problem.

[geoffrey]

A military is extremly important and is having more of effect what is goign on in the 21st century. I think Canada needs to spend billions on a new Canadian military machine one that is close or matches the power of the United States.

I think Harper is the way to go for this new direction in our military's future. I believe by time he has left office he will have fixed or come pretty close to fixing our military's problem.

We'll never match the US power for a few reasons.

1) They are 10 times bigger country, with a considerably higher GDP and disposible income per capita.

2) They run major deficits to pay for this military.

3) Most of their tax dollars go to the military, and all the other social institutions suffer.

A strong military? Yes. On par with the Americans? Unneccessary.

[politika]

A military is extremly important and is having more of effect what is goign on in the 21st century. I think Canada needs to spend billions on a new Canadian military machine one that is close or matches the power of the United States.

I think Harper is the way to go for this new direction in our military's future. I believe by time he has left office he will have fixed or come pretty close to fixing our military's problem.

We'll never match the US power for a few reasons.

1) They are 10 times bigger country, with a considerably higher GDP and disposible income per capita.

2) They run major deficits to pay for this military.

3) Most of their tax dollars go to the military, and all the other social institutions suffer.

A strong military? Yes. On par with the Americans? Unneccessary.

The key word in my statement was close We can cloely match their military by joining the USA, France, Britain and other NATO countries in the nuclear club. Along with more propaganda aimed at geting young recruits to join out forces and although we cannot get as much recruits becasue of our population we can focus on geting our forces the latest in hi tech equipment in the world, it could be like a new avero aero except without all the politics that led to its demise with it.

Also how much is our GDP anyway just curious?, I would like to see what they make compared to us.

[Black Dog]

The key word in my statement was close We can cloely match their military by joining the USA, France, Britain and other NATO countries in the nuclear club. Along with more propaganda aimed at geting young recruits to join out forces and although we cannot get as much recruits becasue of our population we can focus on geting our forces the lates in hit ech equipment in the world, it could be like a new avero aero except without all the politics that led to its demise with it.

And what damn good would any of that do? Seriously: nukes? Why?

[politika]

The key word in my statement was close We can cloely match their military by joining the USA, France, Britain and other NATO countries in the nuclear club. Along with more propaganda aimed at geting young recruits to join out forces and although we cannot get as much recruits becasue of our population we can focus on geting our forces the lates in hit ech equipment in the world, it could be like a new avero aero except without all the politics that led to its demise with it.

And what damn good would any of that do? Seriously: nukes? Why?

Not saying we over load ourselves with nukes like the US but lets say 20 war heads would do us good, it would send a message to those who oppose western civilizations to back off. Thats what the US has done all these years and if a country pisses them off they go to war. Why cant we have a roll in the world leading a war like in Afganistan against terrorism? It would be possible if we had the technological capabilities and power.

[geoffrey]

Politika,

Here are some figures about our economy compared to the states as you requested. These are 2004 figures as those are the last available from the world bank (worldbank.org):

All-figures in US dollars:

Canada GDP: $979.8 billion

USA GDP: $11.7 trillion (so 12 times Canada's)

Canada GDP per capita: $30,714

US GDP per capita: $39,864

That is why we can't afford a bigger military, we have 25% less GDP per capita then them, and only 8 or 9% of the total GDP of the US.

That is why we will never be a major player, unless we are a leader (ie. the Pearson days).

[politika]

Politika,

Here are some figures about our economy compared to the states as you requested. These are 2004 figures as those are the last available from the world bank (worldbank.org):

All-figures in US dollars:

Canada GDP: $979.8 billion

USA GDP: $11.7 trillion (so 12 times Canada's)

Canada GDP per capita: $30,714

US GDP per capita: $39,864

That is why we can't afford a bigger military, we have 25% less GDP per capita then them, and only 8 or 9% of the total GDP of the US.

That is why we will never be a major player, unless we are a leader (ie. the Pearson days).

Thank you for the figures.

We may not have a large military but we CAN have a strong force with technology if we spent a lot more on it maybe cuting back a little bit on some stuff such as foreign aid and money we throw away to aboriginals who dont want to work.

If our govenment was smart we can make hi tech weapons and sell them to the world and equip our forces with them to show the world what we are made of even if we are small.

[geoffrey]

Maybe. I'd personally like to leave the defense research to the Americans who are far more capable.

I'm with you that we need to show the world that Canada is a leader in peace and social justice though. This is especially true in areas like Sudan or in Rwanda where our help could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

We don't need more technology, we need people on the ground and a solid policy to back them.

[Black Dog]

Not saying we over load ourselves with nukes like the US but lets say 20 war heads would do us good, it would send a message to those who oppose western civilizations to back off. Thats what the US has done all these years and if a country pisses them off they go to war. Why cant we have a roll in the world leading a war like in Afganistan against terrorism? It would be possible if we had the technological capabilities and power.

Why would we want that? Based on your posts, it seems you view military strength as a sort of dick-measuring thing.

[geoffrey]

There is an argument in favour of size BD.

That being said, nuclear weapons are a completely waste of our resources. It doesn't send a message because everyone knows we would never use them.

[Black Dog]

There is an argument in favour of size BD.

And some who say it's not the size, but how you use it. Er..what are we talking about? Oh right: the military.

It's not the size thing I find risible so much as the belief that military expenditures should be predicated on the degree to which they raise our status, like we're talking about a new SUV or a trophy wife.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I know most Canadians do support our military, there concerned for our safety, how we are equipped, and what type of missions we are sent on. And for that, we serving in the military are grateful. What is frustrating for those that serve is that we have no real direction,what i mean by that is, there is no white paper giving us a clear and concise area of focus. be it training or for that matter purchasing new equipment The people of Canada have not clearly made thier chioce on what they want us to do.

Yes there is a broad statement issued by the government on what our job is, which covers everything from defense of the Nation, to peacekeeping, disaster response and now peace enforcement.

So i guess my question is what message do we send the government on what type of military do Canadians want ?

My Webpage

My next question is how do we pay for all of it, are Canadians willing to spend thier tax dollars on our military. or are we fighting a lost cause ?

My Webpage

I think we should develope our military to complement our allies in small but meaningful ways - kind of like the "Canadarm" in the space shuttle.

[Argus]

Truthfully, I think Canada should have a militia, with everyone doing 2 years service, from 18-20, or 20-22. Some income could be made through engineering projects done on the country's infrastructure. Jails and some provincial/federal police work could also be contracted to the military.

I definitely think we need a larger militia. But we need a solid core group of regular military people, as well.

The current deparmtment is badly run, and has been for decades. The soldiers might starve for proper equipment but the brass, both military and non-military, have plenty of money. DND is known around Ottawa area vendors (who I deal with) for rich taste in everything they buy. Some departments are frugal, and buy cheap stuff. Not DND. Only the best office furniture, computers, etc. for DND offices. DND is notorious for wasteful projects and a bloated bureacracy. And a fact which stuck in my mind from when I heard it a year or two back - there are more people in HR than in the combat arms. We have too many officers, too many bureacrats, in uniform and out, and not enough soldiers, sailors or airmen.

I think we need to fire several thousand DND bureacrats, uniformed and civilian, and hire more soldiers, sailors and airmen. We need more small coastal patrol boats, some light patrol aircraft to also patrol along the shorelines, and at least two more regiments of regular infantry. We need new low profile APCs and a lot more LAVs.

[FTA Lawyer]

I know most Canadians do support our military, there concerned for our safety, how we are equipped, and what type of missions we are sent on. And for that, we serving in the military are grateful. What is frustrating for those that serve is that we have no real direction,what i mean by that is, there is no white paper giving us a clear and concise area of focus. be it training or for that matter purchasing new equipment The people of Canada have not clearly made thier chioce on what they want us to do.

Yes there is a broad statement issued by the government on what our job is, which covers everything from defense of the Nation, to peacekeeping, disaster response and now peace enforcement.

So i guess my question is what message do we send the government on what type of military do Canadians want ?

My Webpage

My next question is how do we pay for all of it, are Canadians willing to spend thier tax dollars on our military. or are we fighting a lost cause ?

My Webpage

I think we should develope our military to complement our allies in small but meaningful ways - kind of like the "Canadarm" in the space shuttle.

This is the most sensible response on this thread.

I mean, politika was being funny right? We should have a military which rivals that of the U.S. in terms of power and capabilities? We could do this by out-doing the technology of the U.S. military?

Wow...

In my view, Canada has in the past had made very valuable military contributions, but we must work within our means. We might have taken Vimy Ridge when no-one else could, but if we think for a moment that we could have won a World War on our own, we are sadly mistaken.

Trying to take the reigns from countries with much larger and more prevalent militaries is wasted effort. We ought to solidify our military on a general scale for domestic purposes and work at developing highly advanced units in very specific contexts for foreign participation...so that we can maximize our potential impact as specialized parts of larger multinational forces, rather than struggling to participate in a meaningful way on a large scale in foreign deployments.

These are my thoughts.

FTA

[Army Guy]

I think everone has agree expansion is what is needed ,but expansion and equipment cost money just getting a few new transport aircraft the bill is looking more around 4 to 5 bil. Can cuts be made in the budget, just how do we pay for all this.