[BartSimpson]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Sigh. It would honestly be wonderful if Canada had some nice nuclear submarines, but why should we kid ourselves? The sheer idiotic fight over the F-35 acquisition between the political parties during the last few elections basically highlights why Canada won't ever properly equip our military to meet the defensive needs of Canada. Admittedly, the poor global economy makes military investments look rather excessive, but even during good times, most Canadians still have their head up their asses about the status of the Canadian military and the reasons why one is necessary. Canadians won't be willing to pay more in taxes, and any cut in any social program in this country, be it subsidies for political parties, to art subsidies for Quebec will raise a bad PR shitstorm.

The only way we'll really change is the day that Canada is directly threatened, and the Americans don't immediately come to our support. Good odds, it'll be over the Arctic, with the Chinese or the Russians pissing on our sovereignty, and the Americans not giving a damn because they're tempted to do the same thing. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, Canadians will admit the need for a stronger military, but even then, I doubt it. We'll just yap about soft power and remind ourselves of how we're peacekeepers, and how generations past were great military men, and somehow their legacies will come to our aid in time of need.

The US may some day all too soon be embroiled in a domestic uprising and, if so, you folks will be on your own dealing with opportunists sniffing around to see what they can take.

Seriously, if things get ugly here we'll have a divided military and all of the good toys (jets, subs, ships) will end up secured so as to prevent defections to state militias or re-enactments of the Potemkin.

Any problems you get during such a time will be your own.

[bootlegga]

quote="martin14"]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Another thought I had, unrelated to the nuclear deterrent debacle...

I read in an article awhile ago, I believe it was actually a Macleans article, that due to it's one-child only boy prefferred policy, China has something like 30 million more males than females from the 10-30 year old demographics. Knowing the Chinese on human rights, and just their general viewpoint as viewing people as a resource, that is an awefully large resource. And I doubt they'd let it go to waste if it could be in any way beneficial too them.

Lots of young unmarried men they can throw away without much worry.

Who knows, they may be happy to go ?[/quote]


India suffers from the same problem (families preferring male offspring over females) and actually has a higher proportion of males to females than China does (1.07 to 1.06).

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

martin14 martin14:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Another thought I had, unrelated to the nuclear deterrent debacle...

I read in an article awhile ago, I believe it was actually a Macleans article, that due to it's one-child only boy prefferred policy, China has something like 30 million more males than females from the 10-30 year old demographics. Knowing the Chinese on human rights, and just their general viewpoint as viewing people as a resource, that is an awefully large resource. And I doubt they'd let it go to waste if it could be in any way beneficial too them.

Lots of young unmarried men they can throw away without much worry.

Who knows, they may be happy to go ?

Been a while but I recall reading a paper in the past few years that spoke to chatter in PLAAMS about deliberately staging a wasting (losing) war with India with the dual purposes of disposing of millions of excess males and of gaining contested territory from India. Territory victory being accomplished with 100:1 casualties.

While that may be just a thought from a war game exercise, it's also China we're talking about here so the idea has to be given more than just a cursory dismissal.

Meaning as outrageous as the idea is, you just can't rule it out.

Given that India also has close to 30 million more men than women in the 15-64 demographic and has an overall much younger population than China, it would likely be a stalemate - unless the West jumped in on the side of the democracy (India).

$1:

15-64 years: 65.2% (male 406,071,850/ female 379,152,490)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/in.html

$1:

It is expected that, in 2020, the average age of an Indian will be 29 years, compared to 37 for China and 48 for Japan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6911544.stm