Canada gives up on their military. I wonder who they're depending on now?

The BBQ Pit
101

Man, nothing like watching a bunch of dickheads bitch about why their countries don’t need to have guns aimed at each others’ heads.

The Canadian military is totally irrelevent in a US vs. Canada scenario, and I think everyone knows it.

Shit, kids, why SHOULD Canada bother with a military besides the aforementioned patrol and rescue duties?

Is Canada mooching off the US and avoiding the need for an unnecessary expense? Probably.

Does the need to “defend” Canada really cost the good old USA anything in the way of an increased military budget? Canada is protected by proximity to the USA.

-Joe

102

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAFCanada defending its own sovereignty is very much in the US interests because it makes anything happening in North America less likely.
[/QUOTE]

Your military interests, perhaps. Your economic ones?

103

Oh! Oh! I know this one. CANADA!!!

And dare I ask once again for you to answer the question of who the hell they are defending themselves against? War doesn’t happen in a vaccumm

104

And preparation for war doesn’t happen in a vacuum, either. Just because there isn’t a specific threat right now does not mean that you should wait for one and then wonder what happened when they beat the hell out of you because you were unprepared.

105

Airman, could you please just answer my previous post. The one with a threat horizon of 30 years?

106

Or maybe you should assess the situation, calculate and evaluate the costs and risks associated with a set of actions, weigh these against other things you could be doing (education, health care, etc.) and make spending decisions based on that. Call me crazy but that sounds like a better strategy then just spending money on the basis of some abstract threat.

107

I dunno. Neither do you. And that’s the point. Do you ever expect flooding? Tornadoes? Of course not. But you plan for it, right? Why should this be any different?

You know what, guys? This is taking on all the characteristics of a gun debate.

“Why do I need a gun?”
“To defend yourself from an attacker.”
“Well, that’s what the police are for. I don’t need a gun.”

Let me tell you something. There. Are. No. Police. There will be nobody to save you. Unless you consider the US your personal international police force, which of course we have to be, out of our own self-interest, and that shows so much arrogance I can barely stand to think about it.

108

OK. Let me tell you something. CANADA.DOES.NOT.NEED.TO. BE. SAVED.

109

Just out of curiosity, if Canada maintined a fighting force which met your standards and was still invaded, would you suggest not going to Canada’s aid militarily because they have the resources to handle it themselves?

110

Frankly, I’m not seeing a problem here. Yeah, Canadia is probably riding on the coattails of the US by expecting protection from foreign attackers. Big whoop. It doesn’t cost the US a cent to provide this protection, and frees the Canadians to use their troops as Peacekeepers, a roll that the US military is totally unsuited for. We have too much baggage to be effective as Peacekeepers. But who hates the Canadians? Nobody.

That said, the Canadians should treat their military better, up their pay and equipment, etc. Bind not the mouths of the kine, and all that.

I don’t think this is arrogant at all. So chill out Doors, and worry about something that matters…like how do we beat the Yankees, when they have bought up all of the talent in the league?

111

Assuming Canada doesn’t wish to partake in the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emption towards perceived threats or even in the remnants of the Marshall Plan, exactly how much of a military force does it require to protect itself and fulfil its treaty obligations?

In answering this, bear in mind the likelihood of this force being deployed in an act of military self-defence and the likely invaders in question. On a time-discounted and risk-adjusted point of view, I believe it is unlikely that Canada would need more than a bit of infrastructure and a smallish reserve force to achieve the self defence goals because the invasion of North America by a foreign nation is inevitable in the same way that the dissolution of Canada and the United States are also inevitable ie. It ‘will’ happen but that doesn’t mean that it is a significant issue right now. If a credible threat arises in the future then Canada’s requirement for self-defence will rise too but what credible threat is there now?

So that leaves us with what is required to fulfil its treaty obligations. Anyone know what that might be? In answering that, you might also bear in mind that treaty obligations are not permenant and nor are they unchanging. They are, just like any agreement, ultimately subject to time restraints, further negotiation and new treaties. What does Canada need to fulfil the agreements currently in place? Is it likely that Canada’s future obligations will (or should) increase?

112

Or it shows a completely different mindset.

The US is deeply involved around the world. You’ve come to expect a series of challenges and threats to materialize and challenge your geopolitical position. That entails defending that position. Fine, that means you need a military with global reach and consequently global entanglements and threats.

As to flooding or earthquakes, well normally you’d sit down and consider past threats to you country and project them forward. Since Germany and Japan are allies there’s no threat there. Since Russia is crippled and we’re no where near their “near abroad” no threat there. China is interesting; however they’d need to get here. I don’t see a Chinese naval force capable of projecting across the Pacific, landing enough troops and maintaining the supply chain to control the northern portion of a continent over the next 20 years.

Could you at least build me a scenario where there’s the potential threat to us. The only threat is that our military becomes sufficiently atrophied to no longer allow us to be viewed as useful to American administrations. Given the need to secure American favour to maintain economic ties, that there is an immediate strategic threat that an enhanced military could address.

113

you said:

I see now that the even the swiss thing wasn’t meant as an example, but as part of the running joke. My bad.

RE: Costa Rica: And Japan has no army, but their “self defense forces” include airborne troops and has a yearly budget 5x that of Canada. [from CIA fact book, 7.8 billion v. 39.5 billion] Costa Rica’s National Guard has fought engagements with Nicaragua. IE… Costa Rica has been in conflicts and had to defend itself. Saying they have no army isn’t telling the whole story.

To understand the piece you’re reacting to here recall:

  1. It’s an anecdote told to a bunch of college students, and is overstating the actual dialogue that occurs.

  2. It’s best read with the rest of the though, reprinted below:

Now, I’m sure it’s not as blatant as that [we don’t threaten to nuke Canada for complaining about acid rain], but if you feel that Canada is being taken for granted now [we’re ignoring your environmental concerns now b/c of a big army], imagine what it will be like 10 years from now when the military you do have (and it’s apparently in bad shape now) is even worse.

See what I’m saying? If you let your ability to protect yourselves degrade to the point where the US is the only nation with an army that’s protecting the northern portion of North America (and Mexico’s large but underequipped army not withstanding, the rest of North America too) how much leverage does that give us in negotiations with you? A lot.

Not withstanding the arguements put forth by Canadian soldiers here about how the lack of funding hurts them, their families, and puts them at greater risk while perfoming the missions that Canada does ask them to undertake.

C

114

no prob

Also Japan’s population and GDP is about four times that of Canada’s. I think I’ve said as much about the Costa Rican national guard…it basically functions as the military. They just like saying they don’t have a military. This point, however, is instructive. They don’t have a huge amount of military spending but are able to defend their borders…seems reasonable to think the same would apply for Canada…especially since it does not have any political flashpoints on its borders.

You are conflating power, leverage and military ability. Germany and Japan essentially lost military ability at the end of WWII. They, however, have come back as world powers (which also includes military although it is only recently that German military forces have been deployed outside of the country). This comeback is essentially an example of economic power and shows in how the US negotiates with them not because they are military powers of note but economic power. Power is multi-faceted and although military ability is in the equation it is not the only factor…

In fact I would argue that a preoccupation on military power in the Soviet Union was an important element of it demise and the fall of its military power. Basically the economy of the Soviet Union was unable to sustain the massive investment in the military which helped bring down the stack of cards (It is much more complicated than that). I simply make the illustration to note that a pre-occupation on military power does run the risk of undermining the economic power upon which it is based.

115

Gee, Airman, why you want to start kicking the Canadians in the shins? All the things on our plate, all the stuff we got to deal with, and you want to argue about the Canadians not pulling thier weight militarily?

OK, lets suppose the ridiculous, for a moment. Let’s suppose the Airman Doors campaign sweeps Canada in a fever of martial spirit, Canadians rushing to the call, enlisting in droves, all that good stuff. What of it? They can’t afford it! Look at the OP, they are in trouble over a piddling 500 million! To us, that’s chump change! We spend that much on cost overruns for weaponry that never gets within a thousand miles of combat!

And for what? The last time Canada was under any meaningful threat of invasion was in the War of 1812, when England spanked our collective fannies. Invasion from us. Why in the world should a nation of comparatively modest means spend thier money to protect themselves from a non-existent threat?

Perhaps even more important is the service Canada provides the world just by being a comparatively pacific nation. Thier bona fides are recognized by other nations precisely because they have no super-power delusions and ambitions. They are recognized for being calmly deliberate and reasonable. Indeed, their foreign policy differences with America are a plus in that regard, they aren’t seen as America’s lap dog, hence, people who don’t trust us do trust them. They are kind of an international Jimmy Carter.

If you want a Canada armed to the teeth in anticipation of an invasion from Belgium or Gabon, are you willing to pay for it? Because they sure as hell can’t.

You want the Canadians nuclear armed? They are very smart, high-tech people, they could do it. Hell, if Pakistan can do it, anybody can. Does it make sense to have another nation join that club for no good reason?

And anything short of that don’t count for much. A massive, heavily armed conventional army isn’t squat any more, an armored division can be pulverized by one well-placed nuke.

The Canadians have been our friends, maybe even our very best friends, for generations. Friends who are willing to look us in the eye and tell us we are dangerously full of shit. They have done more good for us than any ten armored Canuck divisions could ever do.

116

Its actually more about how we are seen dealing with our security that Washington will be looking at , rather than having a specific military counter measure for. No matter what you may think of army requirements , having Frigates put into mothballs and the officers beached with half-pay , plus the airforce not having aerial surveillance platforms (p-3 orion) will leave us looking naked.

We have three oceans , two all season and one summer weather accessible. While I don’t expect Al Q death commandos to land in little rubber boats , up in Hudsons bay, its something that a competent military planner would not miss. While its possible Al Q folks would most likely land at pearson in commercial a/c’s , they cannot bring their hardware with them, which makes a seaborne landing desirable.

The army has its own requirements , but I would not be unhappy if the present or the future gov of Can , rotated all troops home from current deployments and just give the boys and girls , some much needed time to rest , refit and spend some time with their families in Garrison.

Its no longer about tanks , apcs , rifles and what not , the building infrastructure is falling apart , the current base housing would be condemmed , in a normal city enviroment ,and the CF folks should be paid a bit better.

Declan

117

An as yet unanswered question: Accepting for the nonce that the US is currently defending Canada, is the US spending a single cent to do so that it wouldn’t have to spend if AirmanDoors got his way? Would the US be able to cut its defence budget by a cent if we ‘met our obligations’ in the way he suggests?

I think that we should increase defence funding enough to ensure that our equipment works, that we can participate effectively in the peacekeeping for which we have become famous, and that our soldiers aren’t living in dilapidated houses. But frankly, I regard having a half-decent foreign policy as much more cost-effective than raising an armada.

118

And remarkably enough, matt, I agree with pretty much everything you said in your last paragraph, except for the armada thing. I never envisioned a half-million strong army for Canada, and neither did you. I was thinking in terms of something like Japan’s Self-Defense Force. Not crushingly expensive, but very adequate.

I do believe that a secure North America would result in the ability to cut our defense spending. I also believe that we should pretty much stay home, which would result in massive savings. Bush ran as an isolationist (which he’s clearly not, although that’s one of the reasons I voted for him), and that’s what I think we should be. Let’s pack it up and go home. That would be the ideal situation. This overseas intervention stuff is getting out of hand. Afghanistan I understood. Iraq, I thought I did, but I was wrong. North Korea? Fuck 'em. Let’s leave South Korea and let the UN deal with it, since it’s still their deal. There are other countires in the UN that would pick up that slack, right? Taiwan? Let them deal with China. Europe? Are we still in Europe? We shouldn’t be. Let’s finish Iraq up, bring 'em home, and be done for a while.

Again, that’s just my opinion.

119

Psst! Matt! I don’t really think they care what we do… I think they just want to bitch about having to protect the world, so they look like heroes. They’ve been fed enough of the crap from their own country, now they want the rest of the world to thank them for our existence. It’s got nothing to do with us.

It’s something in their own psyche that makes them believe that they are so great, they must maintain power, control and “justice” because they are “king of the world”. It’s impossible to burst their bubble. They’ve been taught this since they were itty bitty babies. It’s their culture. America is the best country in the world. Shhhhhhhh. Don’t ruin it for them.

120

Wow. Just wow.

I’ll admit that Airman’s OP was a little too confrontational, and I personally don’t care what you guys decide to do except, as I said before, insofar as it adversely affects NORAD. I agree that you need to take better care of your personnel, but again that’s an internal Canadian matter and sometimes we’re not in much of a position to throw stones.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder. I’d really like to know how you developed such a deep resentment for Americans in general, because at this level it comes off as almost pathological…