Does Canada need a Military?

[c_canuk]

One thing that blows my mind is the attitude "The US will protect Canada"

That may be true, but it won't be because we are friends, it will be because there is something for them to gain for themselves. IE siezing Canada as a territory of the US for our protection, discarding our laws and sucking us dry of natural resources while US 50 state corporations get richer.

Don't forget the only country to ever attempt to invade Canada has been the US.

You want lower taxes? perhaps patrolling the North West Passage when it opens up will allow us to maintain our claim on that territory and charge a passage fee making us billions in revenue, if we do not patroll that area we cannot claim it belongs to us, we would be absolute fools not to do this, the economic gain to Canada we would loose from that alone would be a major loss.

Should Canada fall under attack the only reason that ANY country will come to our aid is because it benifits that country.

If the invading party agrees to provide the US with more natural resources at a cheaper price there is no reason for them to help us out, except the NATO treaties, which we would be violating by not having a military...

the NATO treaties are has basicly a deal that stipulates that we need to be able to provide certain military support should aany other NATO treaty country need help, we are slightly in violation of these treaties already because of our military budgets being slashed. if we do not have a force capable of defending ourselves we are not allowed to be a part of NATO and THEREFORE we are not subject to aid from other NATO countries...

The US is certainly going to take a dim view of us not providing for our own defense... what kind of lazy slob attitude is "We don't need a military the US will help us" why should they they spend trillions a year on their defense and protect us if we won't spend any money on our own defense? Why would we think they should help us out if we are too lazy and cheap to spend any of our money on defense?

For example if I lived next to you and I struck up a deal with you that in the event of one of us going on vacation the other would mow their lawn until they got back,

would you think it was fair if I stopped mowing my larger lawn, and left my mower to rust in the ditch and expect you to fertilize and mow my lawn out of your own pocket, just because you spend more and take pride in your lawn just because I'm too cheap and lazy to hold up my side of the deal?

Is this what canada is to become? a nation of deadbeats?

  What I mean is, if there are for example 3 small units in an armoury, and the nearest Reg force Unit is 2 RCR, then all 3 Units become Inf and are combined into one unit.   There are a number of armouries out there where there are 2-3 different small units that could combine to be 1 large Unit.  

that seems like a bad idea to me, there are reserve sigs units scattered accross canada, instead of concentrated in a few areas like Reg force units, that's becuase our role will be to provide comms in under 24 hours in the event of a crisis... ie, 722 can provide an HF net accross NB, 728 accross NFLD, 721 accross NS, and 723 accross PEI all in under 12 hours all of these nets can link giving us a blanket coverage of the maritimes in less than 12 hours.

If you combine us into what ever largest or closest supporting unit is there, all of the maritimes will be without that support. Also in the case of 722 we share the armouries with 31 SVC btln RNBR, and 3rd Field Arty... all three units have a Reg force counterpart in CFB Gagetown.

Also seeing as if you did this you'd loose a lot of augmentation to overseas as at the moment 72 Comm group has 30% deployed at all times.

I think keeping as much diversity in the reserves is a good thing, and keeping the trades dispersed greatly increases response time for a given requirement.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

First off i totally agree with your "streamling of HQ"  Harris, you have to make sure it is representative of the force it is commanding.  No need for 20 generals and 20 admirals when you only have 10'000 troops.(not true but you know what i mean). 

Secondly eliminate all of this fictitious units and HQ's that are around (kingston comes to mind)  Make sure that we have an accurate count of what capabilities we have and can use. 

Thirdly fix the procurement process for getting new equipment.  It makes no sense to spend 200 million studying a 80 million dollar purchase.

Fourthly make all the Bats full strength no more of this partially strengthened crap top them up then look at creating a new Brigade.

Fifth get the kit that is needed, not what may be politically acceptable.  If we need strategic heavy lift get it.  If we need MBT's get them..... and the list goes on.

By streamlining our HQ and eliminating fictitious units and fixing the procurement process the savings would probably be enough to buy the heavy lift choppers without an increase in budget.

And my last point is that if we decide to do this then we must continue to fund it or it all becomes a waste of time as it was a bandage on busted artery, instead of an actual fix.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

On the Navy side I think we require 2 platforms that can tpt a Cbt team in one go, including acting as a flight deck for the heavy lift helos and acting as a resupply/hospital ship.  We of course will also need the necessary protection (I'm a little fuzzy here on what is needed) but I'm guessing a C&C ship and 3-4 axillary frigates/destroyers?  Honestly I don't think we require submarines unless we go nuclear.  They need to be able to operate for extend times below the surface and in the North under the ice and our current batch obviously cannot.

As always when the Navy is brought up I will add my 2 cents. Harris, the problem I see with your naval outlook is this. We need more then 2 ships that provide both sealift and resupply needs. If one of these ships is engaged in sealift it won't be able to carry that much in stores and fuel for itself and its escorting units or any other unit that may require a RAS (Replenishment at Sea) vice versa if one of these ships are configured for RAS and not sealift. 3 JSS is still too few but its a start. With one JSS ideally you will have a AAD destroyer (which will also be your command and control unit) plus 2-3 frigates, 3 being preferred with an SSK as well. Naval warfare is 3 dimensional and as I stated in previous posts for the need of submarines you take away the below the water participant and you lose probably the most powerful weapon in your arsenal. The three dimensions being on. above or below the surface. Having submarines also means that we tend to know more about the movements of other nations submarines to avoid that possibility of an underwater collision. Without that knowledge and without submarines we give up a part of our sovereignty, that being underwater.

 

[Acorn]

Secondly eliminate all of this fictitious units and HQ's that are around (kingston comes to mind)   Make sure that we have an accurate count of what capabilities we have and can use.  

What fictitious units or HQs in Kingston?

Fourthly make all the Bats full strength no more of this partially strengthened crap top them up then look at creating a new Brigade.

What bns are understrength?

Acorn

 

[Stirling N6123]

Why does Canada need a military?

If I may be allowed to add the following link:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/kcic3/peacekeepers.html

I think I will refrain from adding anything to this post. A worthy question in this day and age?




I don't think so.

 

[oyaguy]

Fascinating forum.

Just out of curiosity, if everyone here is so worried about protecting Canadian sovereignty, why don't we have nuclear weapons?

Afterall, nuclear weapons seems to be the only conceivable defense against our biggest defense threat, the United States.
All of the conventional forces that Canada could muster together would never be enough against the United States. Almost any scenario a person can think of, the US still outweighs Canada.

Everything else could be dealt with by a beefed up constabulary, like the RCMP on rabies, and we could get a real coast guard, though I suppose we will probably need to keep the airforce.

 

[Blue Max]

Oyaguy, the chasam between RCMP on rabies and nuclear weapons is larger then the Grand Canyon. It is just that sort of rationalisation that has left Canada standing in a position that if another Korean conflict arose or a massive natural disaster (more than just shoveling snow in Toronto) occured we would have to go begging for help. That would be a shame for all that Canada has but refuses to use to most advantage.

What is wrong with meeting ones commitments to NATO or controlling ones own wilderness frontiers and borders?

Be carefull in assuming that a great number of people are worried that the US would invade us, some people in Canada swear after recent federal elections that worst things could happen then to be part of US.

Personally I would prefer to make Canada a better country, coast to coast.

B M.

 

[winchable]

You sparked something in my mind there Blue Max.

Let's say there were another conflict similar to the Korean war..how would Canada react?

 

[Blue Max]

Lets take a shot at this scenario... ;D

1. Canada would dither on what to do internationally until majority of UN agreed to intercede, and then we would be last to voice our support.

2. Initially we would send only a small team (as little as 2 personnel) to observe, until the political heat in Ottawa became too embarrassing.

3. The PQ and NDP would argue as to why we are getting involved in someone else's war.

4. Without a large pool of veterans to sign up quickly, Canada would be forced to look in all corners to put together 1,600 troops
(vs 27,000 in 1950) for a strained 1 year commitment.

5. UN forces would eventually prevail with Canadian troops showing great courage and resourcefulness for not having proper kit.

6. Upon returning home veterans would have trouble for years with Fed Gov regarding disability and acceptance of sacrifices made.
Probably will be argued in Parliament whether it was a real war thus denying vets full benefits.

7. 40 years later veterans would be remembered by PM of day laying wreath at memorial initially built by vets themselves. :'(

B M

 

[foerestedwarrior]

Blue Max, that is sad, but unfortunatly probably realistic

 

[karl28]

Canada most definitely needs a military .  The wars  of the future will be fought over Reasources . Canada as a  nation has a large supply of fresh water something all humans needs .It may be in short supply some day so we  need to protect what we have . Hopefully where are long way off from it being in short supply but we still need to protect are selves and the military is the best option for that .

 

[pbi]

Wow-did I ever provoke something! Maybe I should be more careful next time!.

Anyway: a few observations:

a) while this thread (as usual) contains much excellent thought, it is interesting to note that nobody, as far as I can tell, has been able to answer the question I originally threw out. As well, it is interesting (and perhaps indicative...) that much of the discourse below has not much to do with the forces required for the direct territorial defence of Canada, and lots to do with the idea of overseas force projection. Has our military focus shifted completely away from "doorstep defence"? Again not a judgement merely an observation;

b) we were once a nuclear power, under the Liberals. Subject to a double-key system with the US, Canada had the Genie air-to-air missile, the Bomarc SAM, and the Honest John artillery missile. All were nuclear systems for which warheads were stored, including some on Canadians soil ('nuff said...). I suggest that politically nukes would be a non-starter today;   and

c) for those who so aggressively trash the Area HQs, I would ask that you explain what you think an Area HQ actually does, and why all of those functions would be better shifted upwards or downwards. I used to feel the same way about Area HQ until I served in one and realized what it does, and realized that many other countries have similar Army regional commands in order to do similar things. If you scrub the Area HQ, you will release a whole bunch of spiders that are now kept in one bag under one chain of command. My suggestion is not to remove or weaken the Area system, but to strengthen or expand it such that all Army units are fully embraced by it, and we get away from this wretched cross-command support system. In 38 CBG, for example, of our 16 integral and OPCON units in ten armouries, one unit in one armoury is actually supported by 1 ASG-the rest by the Air Force. Supporters should be owned by and answerable to the Ops chain of command.

Otherwise great debate going on, as per SOP.

Cheers

 

[Rick_Donald]

Why is it that ever since the Iron Curtain has fallen, the scenario of Canada being used as a staging area for the invasion of the US, has been thrown out with the Communist bathwater? Are we as Canadians so naive as to believe that everyone on this big blue marble loves us so much and would never wish any harm on those laidback, peace keeping Canadians? Wouldn't some foreign cultures see these values as weaknesses to exploit or are they already being exploited?
The US has done a good job of throwing the evil axis off balance for the last 5 years or so but they too are stretching their resources too the point of breaking. They couldn't enter into any other conflicts now in Iran, Korea, China if needed so that leaves it in our's and the rest of the free world's hands.
Yes we need an army. I don't see the rest of the world holding hands and singing Kumbaya in the near future so we best be prepared for any thing.

 

[c_canuk]

Awsome point! China and North Korea have a good buddie system worked out and aren't that far geographically from where we feared the Soviets might have advanced from

 

[oyaguy]

Does anyone here actually believe any nation in the world {other than the states} could pull off a invasion of Canada?

 

[big bad john]

As for the defense of Canada, is there any plans by our NATO allies, aside from our southern neigbours, of reinforcing Canada in the event of foreign invasion? I don't know, but I sincerely doubt it.

There are plans to reinforce Canada in the event of an emergency.  Please remember that other NATO nations have Troops stationed in Canada now.

When it comes to invasion, Canada has no worries. Anyone else has to cross an ocean to do so, and that has never been done.

I don't know, gee, Invasions in the Pacific and North Africa come to mind.

Please do your research before ranting and use the spell check.

 

[48Highlander]

Does anyone here actually believe any nation in the world {other than the states} could pull off a invasion of Canada?

You kidding?  The only thing that might concievably stop them is the US navy.  China has a pretty decent fleet though, and using the element of surprise it's quite possible they could land enough troops to overwhelm our defenses before the US had a chance to position their own ships.  If it wasn't for the yanks being worried about their own soverignty, we'd be utterly defenceless.

 

[Stirling N6123]

The thread has turned interesting, so I think I would like to contribute, contrary to my earlier thread.

With the instability presently sweeping the globe, the national defence of any country, should be left up to the individual country. Our reliance on an American response to the invasion threat of Canadian soil has dictated the way we govern our military. On the cheap. While most of our land is barren, forrest or mountainous, they are packing them in three deep in parts of Asia. The population is expanding at an enormous rate, and with that, we all know, consumable resources, lumbar, wood, and yes, the black gold, Oil takes on a new luster. But of more importance is, are we as a nation going to allow a marauding army the ability to attack us in our land, on their terms?

I do not like to keep referring to this date, but, it is a major turning point in our history. September 11 showed everyone that it is better to deal with an enemy in a barren dessert, jungle or ocean, thousands of miles away from your homeland, on your terms, than it does around the corner from your house on theirs.

And I think it is ashame that the political steam rollers in Ottawa take on a wait and see attitude with everything they do. Lets wait and see if anybody catches us wasting money on a sponsorship program. Lets wait and see what Americans do with the potential Health risk from Avian FLU. Lets wait and see how many people complain about our health care system before spending our surplus on it. Lets wait and see what happens to our military when the subs catch fire, the choppers fall from the sky, and the troops have to go to a food bank to feed the family because we do not pay them enough for risking their lives.

We need a military to defend my 2 year old daughter, my wife, my family, friends, my job, my way of live, and my Charter of Rights and Freedoms, from Dictators, Murderers and thugs like KIM Chong-il, Mohammad Khatami, Osama Bin-Laden, and many others who lurk just below the pond scum.

That is why we need a military

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

When it comes to invasion, Canada has no worries. Anyone else has to cross an ocean to do so, and that has never been done.

I don't know, gee, Invasions in the Pacific and North Africa come to mind.

Please do your research before ranting and use the spell check.


     Since our friends on the other side of the North Pole invented the idea of the Air Mobile Division, it is actually possible for a force that can secure a window of air superiority to air deploy really large conventional forces rapidly. Since our own forces are so dispersed, and our own ability to patrol and interdict our borders are so limited, we would be in a bad position.   Denmark is currently contesting our claim to the northwest passage, Russia has never acknowledged it, and Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are currently developing some of the most promising diamond mines this side of South Africa.   Yes the US would stop any invasion of Canada that threatened their interests.   Would they risk a confrontation over Nunavut, especially if a sweet enough deal for access to those resources was offered them?   10% of the worlds fresh water is in the Northwest Territories, at some point, that may be worth more than our friendship.   As far as sea invasion, those nifty RORO car carriers that Japan keeps turning out seem to make seaborn invasion a ton easier than our assaults on Normandy, North Africa, Anzio; : :threat: and China really seems to be ramping up for a run at Taiwan that they seem to believe that a) will be possible, and b) the US will either permit, or be unable/unwilling to stop.   Seems the sea is not the protection it used to be..... :crybaby:

 

[Stirling N6123]

Sorry, were you referring to my post on the spell check? I did spell check, or so I thought. :crybaby:

And would I be wrong in saying that an Invasion across the Pacific has been done? Did the US not cross the Pacific, the long way, over 60 years ago with plans under their arm for a Japanese Mainland invasion?