Why Does Canada Have an Army?

[Markxxx]

If the USA invades it they are going to lose for sure. And if another country invades it they know the USA will come to their aid. So why bother wasting money on armed forces? Couldn't they get by with a small national guard type for internal matters?

[Omniscient]

Yes they could get by, but having a military serves many other purposes beyond defense of the homeland.

First and most importantly politically is that it creates a massive number of jobs for unskilled and generaly unemployable people. Second, it fuels the economy by creating jobs, and by propping up cities in which bases are located. Third, it makes other countries very happy when your willing to contribute men and equipment to UN/NATO joint forces. Kinda unfair to get tons of protection when your incapable of offering anything, but verbiage. There are lots more reasons, but you get the point.

[jayron 32]

Canada has, proportional to its population, the same military stregth as the U.S. They have nuclear weapons technology, though I'm not sure if they have produced any bombs. Canada was a large part of World War II (1/5 of the normandy invasion force, which means that they had twice as many D-day soldiers per-capta than the U.S.). While Canada has not, since 1814 or so, had to defend its territorial integrity, that is FAR from the only reason to support an armed forces. Like it or not, we live in a global economy, and in order to maintain economic buoyancy in the late 20th century, you need to think globally in all of your nation's endeavours, including militarily. It is neither unusual nor impractical for Canada to have a strong army.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[Sam Stone]

Unskilled or otherwise unemployable people?

You must be thinking of Napoleon's army. The modern armed forces generally require high school diplomas, and most jobs in the military are technical specializations that require hard work and extensive training. A growing number of military specializations require university degrees or extensive technical training (radar techs, pilots, airframe mechanics, air traffic controllers, etc.). Even the 'grunts' or infantry have extensive technical training because of the high-tech nature of the weaponry they have to use, and would probably rate at least 'journeyman' in any civilian job.

I used to fly on a military base, and I live several blocks from one of the largest bases in Canada. As a result, I know many, many military people. NOT ONE could be described as being either unskilled or unemployable.

As for why Canada has a military, that's easy. It's to provide for the common defense. In order to receive protection from the U.S. and other countries, we are required to do our part. During the cold war, Canada was strategically important because Soviet Bombers would pass over Canada on the way to the U.S. Thus we had the DEW line as a contribution to NORAD, huge military airfields that could stage B-52's on their way to the U.S.S.R, etc. The Canadian Navy at one time was quite large, and our airforce did a lot of patrolling of northern waters for Soviet submarines. Currently, the Canadian Forces do a lot of peacekeeping and humanitarian work, and the military here is responsible for drug interdiction, protection of international limits for fishing, etc. In the U.S., the Coast Guard does a lot of this work, but Canada's Coast Guard is not an armed service.
Canada's military also does a lot of domestic search-and-rescue (not insignificant in a country as sparsely populated as Canada).

Part of our requirement for being involved in NATO means that we have to keep a large force ready for overseas deployment. Canada flew F-18's and had two destroyers in the Gulf War, and we always have large contingents of peacekeeping forces in various areas of the world (several friends of mine are currently in Bosnia on peacekeeping missions).

Canada has actually had quite a large military in the past, and we played a large role in WWII (1.1 million Canadians served). At the time, Canada also had a large aerospace industry, and manufactured many bombers and fighter aircraft. The Avro company was a world leader in aviation until the 1960's. (For that matter, Canada once again has one of the largest aerospace industries in the world, I believe it is 2nd or 3rd largest).

You guys down south might think of us as Mexico North, but Canada is actually pretty strong militarily. We have 1600 pilots, many squadrons of aircraft, and over 90,000 personnel.

Moral: Stay away from our beer.

[Omniscient]

God damn it.The modern armed forces generally require high school diplomas, No they don't, neither the US or Canada's. I am going to guess that since we don't no other country could possibly. Now your misrepresenting what I said. By no means did I imply that the entire military is unemployable and unskilled, but that is where you go if you are. They take the public service of training these people in exchange for years of service. If you have no skills they will put him in the lowest ranking position, and train him to read etc.

[Ike Witt]

IT seems to me that the last time Canada and the US were on different sides of a conflict Washington was burned to the ground.

[Monty]

Omniscient
Member posted 08-18-1999 01:04 AM
God damn it.
quote:
The modern armed forces generally require high school diplomas,
------
No they don't, neither the US or Canada's.

Wrong.
http://www.navy.com

[Pooch]

God dammit, Omniscient, you are right. Well, the military does prefer a high school diploma. When I joined my recruiter insisted that I take the GED (I was kicked out of high school towards the end of my senior year for having a 'bad attitude'). Also, you must pass an armed forces entrance examination. It really depends on how the military is faring. If the military is going through a popular stage, they will likely snub drop outs. When only desperados, losers and fellows given the choice of jail time or green fatigues seem to want to join up they will not only blow off the high school diploma--they will (or used to) fudge their own examination for you. We were severely hung over when we took the test and must have passed somehow, but the poor country boy sitting next to me--sweating and scratching his head during the entire test--was sent back to the farm.

[Sam Stone]

I did a bit more research into the Canadian Forces, and you're right. They don't *require a high school diploma for non-officer positions. However, depending on the number of applicants for a specific job posting, that's one of the first things that will get you disqualified.

When I thought about joining the forces in the 80's, I was told that a diploma was mandatory. That's probably because they had far more applicants than jobs at the time.

[Markxxx]

The point being is any attack on Canada will HAVE to be defended by the USA, due to the long border etc.

Thus if Canada said tomorrow, we aren't having any armed forces the USA would have to come up with plans to defend it. If the USA invaded Canada it would lose, simple.

Canada only needs then a simple home or national guard for internal problem. Which are much less than the USA.

Lastly, the money used for Canada's military could be spent on the private sector to produce better jobs and more industry. No matter how many jobs the military produces the private sector can do better. Remember all the talk in the USA about the peace factor after the cold war ended and all the military bases that shut down.

[Pooch]

Monty, your link only confirmed what Omni said. Click the FAQ and read the requirements. Still, at least during the 80s, I'd say 'generally required' is closer to the truth.

AFAIK Germany has a mandatory military service or other social work (2 years?) requirement. I believe Israel has mandatory military duty for everybody. During the 70s our ranks were pretty ragged compared to the German troops. I have always thought that the draft made for a better military (not that I would want to be drafted) because it mixed up the ranks better. As in Catch 22, there are times when only crazy people would want to be in the military; the draft keeps things in balance---a fair draft that is.

I always wondered how Richard Gere got into flight school in An Officer and a Gentleman.

[Omniscient]

Damn, I get called a liar (or idiot depending on your perspective) and before I realize it, and therefore get to act all indignant and throw facts in their faces, you guys back me up. Well thanks i guess, I was looking forward to acting indignant. :)

Its all is relative, and the less qualified you are the lower your rank and freedom of choice, but eventually they'll take anyone.

Markxxx, yes the USA would do anything and everything to protect Canada's borders, but if you chose to disolve the military and depend on us when not absolutely necessary you would do severe damage to the nations relationship. In turn the USA would make restictions and use our economic power to make life quite miserable for you, the USA and Canada are quite dependant on one another, if one goes into a depression so does the other, and if one gets pissed at the other it hurts both. The US however can afford the strain, Canada can't.

Also, the country can't just say hey, we'll pour money into the private sector and make jobs. It doesn't work that way. The only reliable way to make jobs is to create work. The only way to really do this is militarily. The military acts as a bit of a saftey net from depression too. The private sector increases jobs when there is a demand (supply/demand), a surplus of money isn't going to cause more jobs, just raise salaries. The economic effect of maintaining a military is far to complicated to explain (not that I realy could anyways), but rest assured without one, unemployment would sky rocket and cause a major depression.

[DougC]

- - - X-File No. 374F.559-22R: Canada is building up its military in order to invade Greenland.
-
-
-
-Don't say I told you so- MC

[kellibelli]

I hope I can truly answer the question of "why does canada have a military"?
here is why...

To go in and dig out toronto after a couple inches of snow...

oops, fell off my chair laughing.See I am from the maritimes, where unless you cant see the tops of the houses, it really hasnt stormed yet and (holding my sides) a couple of winters ago, the m m mayor..oh god...giggle, giggle...hhhhad to call in the a a army t t to dig out the c c city...
ooooooh I hurt!

on a serious note though, they also did some search and rescue of swiss air off peggy's cove, and helped out the people of Quebec after the terrible ice storm a few years back. We also have the boatloads of immigrants dropping on our shores, illegal drug smuggling, all kinds of stuff for them to do.and those boys look FINE in those uniforms!!

[Pooch]

Or, is it to save Nell from Snidley Whiplash?

[matt_mcl]

Beg to differ about the uniforms... IMHO, the American military looks much more fetching in uniform than ours. Parking commissionaires look smarter in uniform than our soldiers.

But then, this is coming from me, who believe that all armies and guerrilla units should be taken off of "kill people" duty and put on "make porn movies" duty. Yeah!

[AWB]

Because they're going to invade the US! That's why 90% of them live within 100 miles of the US border. They're waiting for the Y2K bug to immobilize the US, then they'll come marching in. And us 'merkins will be blotto on cheap Canadian beer and whiskey, while the subliminal messages that have been implanted in our minds via shows like "Star Trek" & "Spin City" will make us mindless zombies that will offer no resistance to the horde from the north.

[kellibelli]

you wanna talk handsome...mounties.
'nuff said.

[BunnyGirl]

Adam says:
IT seems to me that the last time Canada and the US were on different sides of a conflict Washington was burned to the ground.
Yes, and if I recall, Canada was still ruled by Britain at the time, whom we'd already booted out. Couldn't really call it the Canada we all know and love today, could you?

[smegmum V]

See the Canucks have been infiltrating us for years. the Illegal aliens that take all our jobs are the canadians. their master plan is to buy guns in the US stockpile them and then roll over the border while the infiltrators sow confusion.
I predict that before long, you favorite TV show might star a Canadian, One of the top grossing movies will star a Canadian, and The Nightly News will be read by a canadian.
Call me a crackpot but I see it coming

[Alphagene]

Ever try to hitch a ride somewhere in Europe or the Middle East with a big old American flag on your back ?? Now try it with a Canadian flag.

Ah, this very topic led to a huge flame war on alt.folklore.urban not too long ago. Got reaaal annoying. I think the jury's still out on the actual benefits of being a faux Canadian while abroad.

[Sam Stone]

Omnicient: The military does not increase the amount of jobs in the country - it decreases it. Taxes used to provide the military hurt economic growth, which cuts down on the number of jobs created elsewhere.

This is the big myth of government job creation. When the government 'creates jobs', it kills jobs across the country to make new ones in a specific place. No one sees the effects that the taxes had on say, the corner grocer who had to let his extra stockboy go because he couldn't afford him. But they see that nice government building project with all those workers swarming around...

Here's the ultimate in make-work schemes: Tax the economy, and use the money to hire half of the the unemployed to dig a big hole, and the other half to fill it. There, we've just created thousands of new jobs! But money was spent, and nothing of value was created. Net effect on country: disastrous.

There is no question in my mind that having a military is an economic drag on a country, and therefore contributes to unemployment and/or a lower standard of living. But that's the price you must pay to keep the huns at bay.

[Markxxx]

I don't agree that the military helps the economy. I will agree in rough economic time the military is ONE way to increase jobs etc. Bit these are excellent times and the money spent in the military could be spent elsewhere?

And sure the Americans would be mad at Canada if they stopped the military. Would they do anything. Not really. Look at Japan (granted different situation). But how long has Japan resisted a military soley because they want to use the money in the private sector.

[Sam Stone]

Japan has the 4th largest military budget in the world, after the U.S., Russia, China, and the U.K.

If Canada dropped its military other than for local security issues, we might save 25% or so, at the cost of damaging our reputation in the world. We'd have trouble enforcing trade agreements (or even making them). There would be many, many other side effects. And, we'd be parasites. Perhaps we have too much pride for that.

[hansel]

Imagine public opinion in the U.S. if the Canadian government announced that it was disbanding the Canadian military because "dat U.S. down sout dere, dey'll take care of us, eh?"

I put the question of the size of Japanese military in relation to restrictions placed on it following World War II to my boss, who's Japanese. He replied that the Japanese built a pseudo-military to exceed the limits, labeled and described on paper as things like "special cars" (tanks).

As for the relative merits of a publicly Canadian identity versus American, the Mossad sure likes Canadian passports.

Given the current state of the Canadian military (of which I was once a member), I doubt it's useful for more than local security issues and the token presence it keeps in peacekeeping and security forces around the world. Military spending in Canada since the 1960s has rarely gone above 2% GDP, while our Nato allies have averaged 4.5%. We're not militarized enough to worry about the chunk its taking out of our economy.

[Sue Duhnym]

kellibelli said:

you wanna talk handsome...mounties

Mmmm, yum! :)

[Lumpy]

I did read a while back that the Canadians were p.o.'d at the U.S. for not accepting Canada's sovereignty over the straits between the arctic territories. That they were seriously considering buying some nuclear subs from Britain or France to patrol the disputed waters.

[mr john]

Ok we now know why Canada has an army,eh?and why there are mounties(in dress reds I presume),but why does Bolivia have a navy?
BTW do they have American Dry in Canada?

------------------
"............"-Marx

[hansel]

Another reason that Canada has an army, despite being a basically useless army for preserving territorial integrity, is to retain the kind of current war-fighting skills and experience that would permit it to field a reasonable armed force in the event of war, with enough time to train. Canada's military is small, but has some of the latest technology in almost all areas (F-18s, brand new frigates, Leopard II tanks). I could be wrong, but as I understand it, Germany's army prior to World War II was a model of a peacetime army: small, but trained and equiped well enough to withstand a rapid expansion without a significant degradation in the quality of the troops.

The U.S. has an active military. Canada is simply retaining the capabilities.

[Sam Stone]

The U.S. and Canada also undergo a lot of joint training exercises. Canadian pilots regularly flew at Top Gun and other U.S. training facilities, and exercises like Maple Flag get the troops working together at the same level of readiness. And Canadians have always scored very high in these joint exercises.

I'd take exception to the idea that Canada's military isn't 'active'. There are thousands of Canadian troops deployed around the world right now in hostile environments, and Canada has been involved in all kinds of military conflicts since WWII.

[Omniscient]

Damn rabelrousers!!

[bantmof]

Canada's military may be small compared to the US, but it well trained and generally high quality.

Also, Canada and the US cooperate to a large extent: NORAD is a joint thing, for example, and there are common defense plans, sharing of intelligence data, etc.

Probably Canada isn't at too much risk any more. The biggest risk in the recent past was probably from Russia, since Canada stands between Rus & the US. But that threat is small now. Canada's armed forces probably are quite adequate for any current threat without even needing US help. And if a threat came along that was much larger, the US would surely defend Canada, so there's basically an insurance policy.

--
peas on earth

[hansel]

While Canada does take part in almost every U.N. peacekeeping operation (indeed, Canada originated peacekeeping itself under Lester B. Pearson), and fielded troops not just in Korea but in the Persian Gulf War as well, the Canadian presence in worldwide military operations since World War II has been of a token nature, compared to the contributions of others.

I don't mean to denigrate Canadian participation, which has generally been of the highest standards (notwithstanding Somalia) and disproportionate in effect if not numerically, but Canada is simply not a nation that projects military force the way the U.S., Britain, or France does. The Canadian military is stretched to the limit fielding thousands of troops, while the U.S. maintains brigades around the world.

The single effective argument in Canada for maintaining what dhanson calls active military participation in geopolitics, is the opportunity for training and experience. As long as that continues, Canada retains real military expertise, without the expense of using the military as an enforcer of government policy worldwide.

[JumP Zero]

...and speaking of Canadian WWI military, don't forget who shot down the legendary Red Baron-it was Roy Brown...a Canadian

(at least I'm pretty sure that was his name)

[Jodi]

Hey, don't try to fool us Americans -- we know Snoopy shot down the Red Baron -- and Snoopy is undeniably an American. Jeez, get up to speed. ;)

[Patricinus Scriblerus]

I don't think that Canada needs to worry about invasion from a foreign force (other than the Americans). Ever try to hitch a ride somewhere in Europe or the Middle East with a big old American flag on your back ?? Now try it with a Canadian flag. Your docile northern neighbors are generally more well liked in the international community (we tend to walk softly and carry a medium sized stick; a big one is too obvious). we don't piss too many other countries off..when was the last time you saw a group of Iraqui's burning a Canadian flag??

------------------
You sound reasonable....it must be time to up my medication

[According to Pliny]

Jodih is right, Zero. Snoopy has just as valid a claim to downing the Red Baron as Roy Brown does. Historians have long since credited Australian ground troops with the kill.

If there was a war between the US and Canada, how would the troops be able to weed out infiltrators:

Sentry: "Who goes there? Freind or foe?"

Infiltrator: "Friend!"

Sentry: "Alright then, who played third base for the Blue Jays in 1993?"

[BobT]

Regarding the password from an earlier post

"Ed Sprague"

Do I get to go through?

[Sam Stone]

Canada fielded 26,700 troops in Korea, but the war came at a time when Canada was going through a phase of military downsizing. If the war had happened a couple of years sooner or later, Canada probably would have committed several times that number of troops.

You're right that Canada hasn't 'projected' military power around the world, simply because the U.S. was doing that, and Canada was taking a somewhat passive but supportive role in that. As part of our agreement with NATO, Canada's Navy was developed mainly as an anti-submarine force. But Canada actually did have the ability to project power if needed. We even had 3 modern aircraft carriers at various times until 1969, complete with fighter jets (Banshees) and Sikorsky helicopters.

[zoony]

Fact is, neither the US nor Canada are vulnerable to "enemy invasion." I mean who's gonna invade us? The places in the world that get invaded are little piss-ass places like Kuwait that have lots of oil and are far away from outside intervention or protection.

If the US or Canada were targetted for invasion, it would necessarily take the form of a nuclear or non-conventional invasion. Not the sort of D-Day invasion of 50 years ago - modern defence systems and world politics make such an attempt impossible.

Markxxx, why're you worried about whether or not we have an army? Why do the Swiss have an army? They're neutral on every subject that can't be assigned a bank account number. The primary usage of every G8 country's military might is for peacekeeping in the backwaters of the world, not for domestic defence.

p.s. hansel, Germany's pre-WWII army was small (<100,000) due to treaty impositions, and was almost entirely without a trained officer corps. The rapid expansion which did occur was based on fewer than 10 fully-trained divisions successful in re-occupying the Ruhr and violating Versailles only through sheer gaul. The Army leadership was opposed to any type of aggressive war on even a moderate scale until 1943.

[hansel]

Zoony, perhaps you could cite a source. I'm only two hundred pages into The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, but the impression I've got from the narrative is that the preservation of the officer corps was key to the military action of WWII, and that the generals were quite excited about flexing their muscles.

If I finish the book tonight, I'll cite some passages, but don't hold your breath.

[Patricinus Scriblerus]

If Canada was ever invaded we could always trade land for time (retreat while we let you come to us and slowly pick you off). SO if you are thinking of invading stard with Quebec and we'll start backing up from there.


------------------
You sound reasonable....it must be time to up my medication

[Sam Stone]

We also have a secret weapon. We have thousands of giant loudspeakers located strategically along the border. Our Prime Minister has a panic button he can push at any time, causing these speakers to start playing William Shatner singing "Mr. Tambourine Man".

You have been warned.

[bantmof]

causing these speakers to start playing William Shatner singing "Mr. Tambourine Man".

Have you people no concept of "cruel and unusual" for god sake?

Barbarians.

--
peas on earth

[zoony]

Far be it from me to impugn the journalistic observations of Bill Shirer, but according to Alan Bullock's Hitler:a study in Tyranny, as well as the biographical essays of John Toland and Robert Payne, Hitler was constantly at odds with his field Generals, especially prior to his assumption of Supreme Military Command.

To wit:
"Blomberg's first directive to the unorganized armed forces in May 1935 had ordered the preparation of plans [to occupy the Rhineland]. None the less, it was a proposal which thoroughly alarmed Hitler's generals. German rearmament was only beginning and the first conscripts had only been taken into the Army a few months before,
...According to General Jodl, the German occupation forces which moved into the Rhineland consisted of approximatel 1 division..."

Hitler's own account was thus:
"What would have happened if anyone other than myself had been at the head of the Reich! Anyone you care to mention would have lost his nerve. ... I threatened unless the situation eased to send six extra divisions into the Rhineland. The truth was, I had only four brigades."

Hilter fired Field Marshals von Fritsch and von Blomberg in 1938 after the opposition they had expressed to his posturing with the as-yet untried and undertrained Army.

Also compare Churchill's first volume of The Second World War, and E.H. Carr's volume on European international relations between 1919 and 1939.

Lastly, the Versailles Treaty proscibed a ten division army, with no more than 4,000 officers, including supply and technical officers. A very low number for even a timy army. Many of the officers maintained their positions with the various private armies (freikorps) abundant in Germany between the Wars.

Z

[Markxxx]

Zoony - I really don't care if Canada has an army or not. It just seems that it would be more beneficial to not have one and spend the money on the private sector.

Since the USA has to protect Canada from an invastion, why should the Canadian bother to do it. The only country that could threaten Canada is the USA. And if that happened Canada couldn't win anyway, so what is the point.

Why do the Swiss have an Army? Good question for another thread.

[Jophiel]

The Swiss have an army because they need to protect their neutrality. From what I've read, they in fact have one of the best trained and equipped armies in the world, solely to make sure some other country does not invade them and violate their neutral status.

------------------
"I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."

[zoony]

Markxxx, if it came down to a question of axing the military to save money, then there couldn't be a worse fiscal decision. Not only does the military provide many thousands of jobs - not only within the forces, but for the many podunk towns that owe their existences to their neighboring bases and installations - it also allows Canada to pull its own weight in such important international organizations such as NATO and the UN. Peacekeeping missions and UN security forces were virtually born in Canada.

As for invasions of Canada's sovereignty, that's not really an issue in today's political and technological climate. The US is about as likely to "invade" us as they are to institute socialized medicine.

And don't get me started on Swiss neutrality.
Any country the launders money for the Nazis has some nerve claiming neutral status.

"In a struggle between Good and Evil, there is no such thing as neutrality." - Alan Bullock

Z

------------------
abusus non tolit usus

[elbow]

Canada has an army because they have cleverly discovered that it provides a very safe place to house those people who are inevitably gun obsessed.They tend to keep each other occupied and it keeps them all out of the general population which just makes everybody feel a lot safer.

[Jophiel]

Ok, we're getting off topic here, but what the hell. Granted, I'm not for laundering Nazi money, but I was speaking of neutral in a "we don't shoot you, you don't shoot us" status, as opposed to lending aid or whatever. The United States didn't have any qualms saying that they were neutral as they funneled arms and money to the UK for years.

Regardless of which, the question really boiled down to "Why would a neutral country (regardless of the country) require an army?" The answer is: To ensure they stay neutral and aren't run over by the first nation that decides a neutral country is easy taking. Hmm.. this makes me think of something that applies to both the neutral countries and Canada. Why have your own army? Because after someone runs over you in two days, it's a hell of a lot easier if you had your own army to hold them back than to wait for your allies to come in and try to run the invaders out of town.

------------------
"I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."

[zoony]

The US didn't turn over Jewish refugees to the Nazis either. The Swiss did.

Providing money and arms to a country under attack by an aggressor state is a little less morally represhensible than shipping arms to a regime bent on conquest and racial extermination. Something the Swiss also did.
I guess that's neutrality in more of a "Please don't shoot us and we'll give you whatever you want" vein.

Oooh, I love getting off topic...

Z

------------------
abusus non tolit usus