Canadian Military

Canadian Military (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Arpig -> Canadian Military (8/28/2009 11:37:56 PM)
Yes, we do have a military[:)] Tonight I was doing a survey about the Canadian military, and I got to thinking about it. We have a Navy with some decent ships and a few outdated submarines we bought off the Brits for a shitload of money.We don't have anywhere enough ships to patrol our enormous coastline (we could probably cover the east & west coasts with some degree of effectiveness, but certainly not the northern coastline. And what possible use could we really make out of 4 outdated diesel subs in today's world...not only are they outdated,they seem to break down every time they sail. We have an Air Force with some (roughly 110) F-18s, but not nearly enough to even begin to protect our vast country. We have a few tankers, 3-4 converted airliners for airlift purposes,and a handful of ageing Hercules as well. Our helicopter fleet is so old it that they are often grounded for lack of spare parts. We have an Army,with infantry, armour and artillery, but again in such pitifully small numbers that they effectively serve little purpose. They certainly couldn't stop anybody from invading us, Hell even Poland could overwhelm our forces. Now we really don't actually need any armed forces for defence of Canada, the US simply would not allow anybody to invade us,they would defend us whether we wanted them to or not.. Already the majority of the air defence of Canada is handled by the US under the NORAD arrangements, as well the US Navy patrols Canadian waters regularly, and US nuclear submarines routinely travel through Canadian waters without our permission or knowledge (the Russians do so as well, but their subs are somewhat easier to detect,so we have caught them a few times). Canada spends very little on its military (roughly $19 billion in 2009), but much of that is wasted because the Navy wants subs so it can pretend to be a real navy, the Air Force wants fancy new fighters so it can pretend to be a real air force,and our army wants its pitiful number of tanks and big guns so that it too can pretend its a real army. The end result is a rather pathetic force with a small number of all the elements of a modern major power's military....but not enough to even begin to protect ourselves and not enough to really be of any use to our allies (our forces in Afghanistan rely heavily on US support and airlift capabilities). What we do have is roughly 60,000-20,000 dedicated volunteers (for years the Canadian air force in Europe regularly won the NATO competitions). I think they are being misused, and our military budget is being squandered and our allies let down just so that the admirals and generals can have their fancy toys and pretend they are a real military force. What I would do if it were up tome is I would scrap the whole organization as it stands and redesign it in light of the realities of the world and Canada's place in it. Since we really have no need to defend ourselves, I would design our military to be primarily a commando/special forces military. Our army would discard its tanks and howitzers and concentrate on developing highly trained light infantry along the lines of the SEALS or the Marine Force Recon. I would scrap the subs and larger ships (except for the supply and hospital ships) and concentrate the Navy on small patrol craft, so we could have more of them for the basic job of patrolling our coastlines, and ships designed for small scale amphibious operations. The Airforce I would concentrate on airlift for paratroops. This way we would have a truly valuable force to offer NATO, we wouldn't be an embarrassment, but rather a real asset, a force that would be especially valuable to our allies in today's world of low intensity irregular warfare. We could leave the defence of Canada to the Americans, they are doing it anyway, and develop a small well equipped and highly trained specialist force that could rapidly be dispatched where it was needed. This sort of force would still be usable for disaster relief and putting down civil unrest domestically, and would in fact probably be better at those duties.They would also still be usable for peacekeeping duties if required as well, though that would be a somewhat wasteful use for the sort of troops I envisage. All in all, this sort of radical makeover would turn our military from a sort of standing joke among our allies to a valued asset....imagine a force composed of 40,000-50,000 commandos....they wouldn't laugh when we offered to send troops then.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Canadian Military (8/28/2009 11:51:58 PM)
Sounds pretty reasonable on me. I would imagine that Canada doesn't like to admit is totally reliant on the USA for defense, and a proposal like this would go over like a lead balloon. I can understand reasonable people feeling leery of giving up so much sovreignity. In terms of an Integrated defense, if you just gave us fuel to help our military move it would be super helpfull. The reality is when the USA starts doing major combat operations, we really don't want any allies on the field. No offense, but you get in the way and it creates Friendly fire scenarios.

Arpig -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 12:25:08 AM)
You're right hippie,the idea of admitting that it is the US that keeps Canada free is very hard for most folks to swallow. What gets me is that it is so bloody obvious that they defend us. When you guys wanted to test your cruise missiles where did you do it? Why in Canada of course....the excuse was that Northern Canada is very similar to much of the terrain in Russia, but it was also a very handy way of practising blowing the shit out of anybody who was coming south as well. Its hard to admit you are any body's retarded little brother, but that's what we are. If our military was designed so as to offer the US something it could really use. From what I can gather, there are currently 8 SEAL teams and each is roughly 130 men, which gives a total strength of approximately 1000 men. Just how much use could the Pentagon make of 30 or 40 times that number? And yes, I envisage our forces being used primarily as a special adjunct to the US military, since we are for all practical purposes just that anyway, but at present we are a more or less useless adjunct. If NATO could deploy that sort of number of the type of soldiers I am talking about, then it would be a lot easier for NATO to make itself be taken very seriously. There is no point in Canada even trying to pretend that we can afford a regular military that can in any way influence events, that is why we are not generally taken very seriously in NATO or NORAD councils....we don't much matter because we can't really offer anything that is really needed. With my idea we would be taken very seriously, and Canada's support would be eagerly sought for its military rather than its propaganda value. The last time Canada was a serious military power was in WWII, and that time our forces were basically paid for and equipped by the UK and the US anyway. Ah well, just one of the things I plan to take care of when I take over up here.

Arpig -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 12:33:45 AM)
quote: In terms of an Integrated defense, if you just gave us fuel to help our military move it would be super helpfull. I seem to recall reading somewhere years ago that in the NATO/NORAD planning for a confrontation with the USSR, that all strategic materials in North America would be pooled anyway, so our oil, uranium, copper, zinc, etc., etc. would be freely available for use by the US. Only makes sense really.

Politesub53 -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 1:33:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie Sounds pretty reasonable on me. I would imagine that Canada doesn't like to admit is totally reliant on the USA for defense, and a proposal like this would go over like a lead balloon. I can understand reasonable people feeling leery of giving up so much sovreignity. In terms of an Integrated defense, if you just gave us fuel to help our military move it would be super helpfull. The reality is when the USA starts doing major combat operations, we really don't want any allies on the field. No offense, but you get in the way and it creates Friendly fire scenarios. Without allied troops helping in Afghanistan, the US would struggle to cope. Allied troops make up almost half the total number.

hlen5 -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 3:13:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig .........(1).What gets me is that it is so bloody obvious that they defend us......(2) Its hard to admit you are any body's retarded little brother, but that's what we are.............(3) If our military was designed so as to offer the US something it could really use. ...(4) There is no point in Canada even trying to pretend that we can afford a regular military that can in any way influence events.......... 1) I haven't really been aware of the state of your (Canada's) military (probably like most US citizens). 2) This made me laugh out loud! I see our Northern neighbors as more polite than we brash "Americans" and certainly not "retarded"!! And frankly, if the US is spending our own money to keep Canada safer, who's the foolish one?? 3) On a more serious note, I love the idea of pooling our defence (defense, in American english) resources. 4a) We spend ridiculous sums on our military ( I don't begrudge a penny to our men and women in uniform that they need to get their job done and their mission accomplished!! ). I wouldn't mind it so much if I knew we weren't spending it on $600. hammers. 4b) Canada doesn't need the military that we have to have because after all, who could possibly take offense to you like they do to us (US)?

Starbuck09 -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 3:23:18 AM)
Arpig I think you're being very harsh on your military. I don't know much about canada's air force and navy but the army is extremely competent and it's efforts are greatly appreciated in Afghanistan they have certainly not let down their allies.

WyldHrt -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 3:44:47 AM)
quote: 2) This made me laugh out loud! I see our Northern neighbors as more polite than we brash "Americans" and certainly not "retarded"!! And frankly, if the US is spending our own money to keep Canada safer, who's the foolish one?? We are spending our own money, and it is not even remotely foolish. Arpig nailed it rather well in his OP. The US will not and cannot permit Canada to be invaded by a foreign power, full stop, for obvious reasons. quote: 4b) Canada doesn't need the military that we have to have because after all, who could possibly take offense to you like they do to us (US)? I really hope this was a joke that I missed due to the lateness of the hour.

hlen5 -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 5:02:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt quote: 2) This made me laugh out loud! I see our Northern neighbors as more polite than we brash "Americans" and certainly not "retarded"!! And frankly, if the US is spending our own money to keep Canada safer, who's the foolish one?? We are spending our own money, and it is not even remotely foolish. Arpig nailed it rather well in his OP. The US will not and cannot permit Canada to be invaded by a foreign power, full stop, for obvious reasons. quote: 4b) Canada doesn't need the military that we have to have because after all, who could possibly take offense to you like they do to us (US)? I really hope this was a joke that I missed due to the lateness of the hour. Wyld (Great new pic!!) - 1) If the US is using US defense money to keep Canada safer, I'd say Canada's coming out ahead. I totally agree that the US can't and shouldn't let Canada be invaded. 2) Yes, that really was (supposed to be) a joke!! My whole previous post was *mostly* tongue-in-cheek.

DomImus -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 5:15:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig You're right hippie,the idea of admitting that it is the US that keeps Canada free is very hard for most folks to swallow. It's a two way street. A safe and free Canada is paramount to a safe and free USA. Send us one more Celine Dion, though and that situation may change. quote: Its hard to admit you are any body's retarded little brother, but that's what we are. That's pretty harsh. Take that one back.

domincharge -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 5:20:43 AM)
ummmmmm who is lining up to invade Canada? the only country with even the slightest possibilty of doing so is the US. no one else in the world has the sea or airlift capability to bring in even a division and land it in Canada much less keep it supplied. no else has a land border with Canada but the US. to say we would ever invade canada is silly. now if your whole purpose is to really discuss whether or not Canada needs as much military as it has that is fine and a worthy subject but lets not go off on silly thought expeditions.

Aneirin -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 6:13:52 AM)
What was it I heard, Canada has a shit load of oil under it, if that is so, you be better building your defences, as greedy eyes will be looking. After all the present aquisitions are proving to be very expensive in terms of finance and political goodwill.

Lucylastic -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 6:45:33 AM)
Aneirin The US already gets at least 17% of their oil from Canada and 18% of U.S. natural gas demand, (2.001 million barrels per day) in june of 2009 according to the EIA http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html More interesting stuff here http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm and here about the NAFTA rules we have with the USA regarding pricing etc http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0633-e.htm Regarding the OP I havent done much research into the military, , I know we have lost too many service men and women in afghanistan. But then im against wars, but not the troops. Thanks Arpig for the info, interesting stuff Lucy

hlen5 -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 10:20:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domincharge ummmmmm who is lining up to invade Canada? the only country with even the slightest possibilty of doing so is the US. no one else in the world has the sea or airlift capability to bring in even a division and land it in Canada much less keep it supplied. no else has a land border with Canada but the US. to say we would ever invade canada is silly. now if your whole purpose is to really discuss whether or not Canada needs as much military as it has that is fine and a worthy subject but lets not go off on silly thought expeditions. If this was in reply to me, where did I say we would should or might invade Canada? We love you guys!!!!

rightwinghippie -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 10:33:16 AM)
Arpig. Canada can be considered our little brother, but not retarded. Polite sub, which is why I included the qualifier "Major Combat Operations" in what I wrote. You do understand the difference, right? It is usually important to read all the words in a post in order to understand it. There were severall major Friendly fire incidents durring the invasion of Afghanistan. Our Allies provide an invaluable service in helping us with the Occupations. But Frankly get in the way durring the Invasion.

Politesub53 -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 11:03:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie Arpig. Canada can be considered our little brother, but not retarded. Polite sub, which is why I included the qualifier "Major Combat Operations" in what I wrote. You do understand the difference, right? It is usually important to read all the words in a post in order to understand it. There were severall major Friendly fire incidents durring the invasion of Afghanistan. Our Allies provide an invaluable service in helping us with the Occupations. But Frankly get in the way durring the Invasion. I read your post and assumed you would consider Afghanistan a major combat operation, thats unless you think 60,000 plus troops is a minor affair. You do understand the numbers, right ? As for getting in the way of friendly fire, are you on crack ? There are plenty of instances of American pilots dropping bombs on their own troops. It happens with close air support and also high altitude bombing, to suggest its "foreign troops getting in the way" would be laughable but for the casualties.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 11:22:33 AM)
Am I on crack? Hmm, naw I will just let that slide. No, I am not on crack Polite sub, thanks for asking. No, Polite Sub Afghanistan is not a major combat operation. Afghanistan is a theater. In which a variety of operations (of many different sorts) have been taken. Many operations taken by our allies who fight valiantly, in difficult situations. Taking Kabul was a Major Operation (coordinated joint fighting, close air support, artilery, as well as ground troops, moving around the field, people on ships hundreds of miles away firing at things they can't see, ect). Patroling the road to Khandahar in a Humvee isn't. You are correct, we even sometimes hit our own people when the major operations are occurring. It happens. And the more freindlies on the field the more chances of it. And it causes huge problems. Surely you don't think that because we sometimes hit our own people, it means its not a problem when we hit yours. I just don't understand how what you wrote means anything. That we sometimes target wrong and hit our own people means?? Laughable? How dare you suggest I think it is laughable?!?!?! The more targets on the field the more chances for a FF incident. The more targets not under our direct controll, even more chances. Why don't you get that? And why are you taking offense to such a basic and obvious fact? I am sorry you have no idea what a major combat operation is, and have to resort to insults to make a point.

Politesub53 -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 11:33:45 AM)
You stated friendly fire is caused by foreign troops getting in the way. I pointed out that is incorrect and would be laughable IF IT WASNT FOR THE CASUALTIES. Dont put words in my mouth and suggest I am calling US casualties laughable, thats really ignorant of you. As for insults, you are the one who started that, suggesting I didnt read or comprehend your post. As for major combat operations, take a look at the very recent and very costly operation panthers claw. That seemed major enough to me, and i suspect almost everyone else.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 11:49:17 AM)
Panthers Claw is great, but its guys in humvees securing Bridges and clearing IEDs, and providing security to civilains. It's vital. And its dangerous. HTe men doing it are very brave. But its not Major Combat. Cruise missles are not being launched every 30 seconds. 500lb bombs are notbeing dropped. Patriot batteries are not shooting down anything they do not track as ours. Panthers Claw is VITAL...but it is not MAJOR COMBAT. I am sorry you do not see the difference.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Canadian Military (8/29/2009 11:55:18 AM)
Politesub, Where on earth do you think I am sugessting you think US casualties are laughable? Come on, you are just making shit up now. I do think when we are firing the big guns we we want as few freindlies as possible, in the area we are blowing the shit out of, because we don't want to hurt them. In Afghanistan there was an issue where a partriot locked onto a canadian chopper and blew it away. It wasn't properly identified in our computer as a friendly. It wasn't where we thought it was supposed to be, so it got blown up. We want that to happen as little as possible.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.21875