[BartSimpson]

CountLothian CountLothian:

My point is thus./ Once a country is held back in RD for the military machine it weakens it's ability to create a world class military.

Maybe this is your problem. Canada doesn't need a 'world class military'.

It simply needs the adequate capability to defend itself without US assistance. I say that because Obama has proved that our allies no longer can depend on us regardless of who is in the White House.

Absent having an adequate military Canadian sovereignty as of now hinges on who is the US President.

That's a very dangerous place to be.

[Strutz]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

CountLothian CountLothian:

My point is thus./ Once a country is held back in RD for the military machine it weakens it's ability to create a world class military.

Maybe this is your problem. Canada doesn't need a 'world class military'.

It simply needs the adequate capability to defend itself without US assistance. I say that because Obama has proved that our allies no longer can depend on us regardless of who is in the White House.

Absent having an adequate military Canadian sovereignty as of now hinges on who is the US President.

That's a very dangerous place to be.

What do you foresee?

[Thanos]

Obama hasn't abandoned Israel. He's loaded them up with weaponry, including bunker-buster bombs, turned a blind eye to their ass-whoopings on Gaza, and has been described as the best pro-Israel president of the last fifty years by Ehud Barak. He hasn't abandoned the Saudis either and has sold more weapons to them than any other American president. He didn't abandon Ukraine. In fact he led the effort to gather the recalcitrant Europeans to level the punishing sanctions that crippled the Russian economy.

Bart's right sometimes but he isn't on this. He just spreading manure that he keeps gathering on far-right websites and radio shows in America that have the sole interest of destroying the Obama administration, like they've been doing every day for the last seven years. The US isn't abandoning Canada under any circumstances or under any president, regardless of party affiliation. Russian encroachment in the far north would result in the same American response today as it would have during the Cold War.

[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yep, ignorance is part of it too.

Well, that's a reason to bring back conscription. You obviously need a broader segment of society being informed of what the military does aside from just those people with a sense of duty and service.

"Bring back" conscription would not resonate here at all with anybody. Our wartime armed forces have been overwhealmingly volunteer and the little bit of conscription that we had in both wars was a desperation fallback position to replace horrendous losses. Conscripts were not considered to be fit for combat and, in the Second WW anyway, mostly ended up guarding shitters on the Alaska Highway. "Bringing back conscription" in Canada would have everyone, soldiers and all here scratching their heads and going "What the fu...?... all mof those shurkers?"

[BartSimpson]

Strutz Strutz:

What do you foresee?

I think sooner or later we'll have a President for whom NATO and NORAD are anachronisms and he/she will simply ignore prior treaty obligations.

Obama has set the groundwork for this kind of thinking with his myriad decisions to simply ignore laws and obligations prior administrations committed the country to.

Ukraine is the big one right now. The US was supposed to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty in return for Ukraine dispensing with nuclear weapons. Yet Russia has occupied about 25% of Ukraine and the US hasn't done much of anything.

(The President at the time of the Ukraine agreement was Bill Clinton)

It's then not a far stretch to imagine a future US President deciding that an incursion into Canada's Arctic by (?) is not worth fighting a major war over.

Keep in mind I am not saying this about Obama and Canada. I'm just saying that Obama has set a pretty bad precedent where the US had committed itself in writing to an action and he chose not to follow through when it mattered.

And, like I said, I'm not saying you folks need some crazy military. You just need enough to bloody someone who tries to take what's yours.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

"Bring back" conscription would not resonate here at all with anybody. Our wartime armed forces have been overwhealmingly volunteer and the little bit of conscription that we had in both wars was a desperation fallback position to replace horrendous losses. Conscripts were not considered to be fit for combat and, in the Second WW anyway, mostly ended up guarding shitters on the Alaska Highway. "Bringing back conscription" in Canada would have everyone, soldiers and all here scratching their heads and going "What the fu...?... all mof those shurkers?"

Weirdly enough your comment makes my case.

[Jabberwalker]

"One volunteer is worth ten pressed men" and that is probably why Canadians and other Commwealth soldiers made so much better soldiers that their British and American counterparts. They were rough-and-ready outdoorsman volunteers from Canada, New Zealand, Oz, South Africa and they made motivated and resourceful soldiers who wanted to win, not hide from Sarg. They were the English speaking allies shock troops and the Brit and Yank conscription armies contributed the dumb cannon fodder that occupied territory.

Canadians and our Commonwealth cousins are all urbanites, now and we will never field armies like that, again.

[llama66]

I too think we need to build a military that doesn't need the American's (or Brits) to assist it. Canada has the opportunity to build a very responsive and mobile navy, all we need is the intestinal fortitude to build that navy.

I know I'm dreaming, but I'd love to see some Subs that were made in Canada

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

CountLothian CountLothian:

My point is thus./ Once a country is held back in RD for the military machine it weakens it's ability to create a world class military.

Maybe this is your problem. Canada doesn't need a 'world class military'.

It simply needs the adequate capability to defend itself without US assistance. I say that because Obama has proved that our allies no longer can depend on us regardless of who is in the White House.

Absent having an adequate military Canadian sovereignty as of now hinges on who is the US President.

That's a very dangerous place to be.

-

Meh. Who would attack us that the US wouldn't come to the rescue? Russia? China? What country would the US sit still for while it invades its northern flank? The greatest danger we face is from the US itself.

We need to be honoring our NATO commitment, fund the military at 2% of GDP. But it's delusional to think we could ever go toe to toe with the big boys no matter how much we spent on our military. We need enough overseas forces to be respectable in NATO, after that we need a military that can keep our coastline safe from small incursions.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yep, ignorance is part of it too.

Well, that's a reason to bring back conscription. You obviously need a broader segment of society being informed of what the military does aside from just those people with a sense of duty and service.

Conscription didn't fly in WW1 or WW2 and it wouldn'the fly in peacetime. Besides, conscripts are useless in the modern world, because of the complexity of weaponry and other military technologies.

[bootlegga]

herbie herbie:

No Prime Minister before has let the Navy degrade to the point there's no destroyers.
Which might not even matter if there was even a formal plan to model it like Australia's navy with smaller ships. And let me point out Australia has ACTUAL threats and concerns not ones that are entirely imaginary.
Bootlegga's pointed out the main concern, total bullshit politics that have hampered any military maintenance or buildups.
My ex and I were affected by that in the early 80s when they shut down the Freghtliner and Kenworth plants and built a factory in Quebec to make trucks for the army. Then ordered so many they rotted away. Even went to an auction a few years back to bid on a Iltis for an offroad toy. Same thing, built them in Quebec for four times the cost from VW. There's this mindset that we HAVE TO arm ourselves with anything but what the Americans use, even though we could get stuff for half the cost or less and get it tomorrow.

So yeah, until the gov't gets its shit in order it's not a priority for most Canadians. My pension, health care and daycare for my grandkids is.

Often American equipment isn't cheaper, because they have every bell and whistle.

Take a look at the M1A2 Abrams, the Apache gunship or on this case, the DDX destroyers the USN is building. They are all more expensive than similar European equipment without having a significant increase in capabilities. The DDX is projected to cost about 2 BILLION each. At that price, we might be able to afford two...maybe.

And often, their equipment doesn't meet our needs anyways. The Americans have different needs than we do because of the difference in the roles we play globally.

[CountLothian]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Congratulations. That is definitely your most moronic post ever.

Ah the mindless fodder knee jerk reaction without a nary of thought to what they could have read.

[herbie]

You just mentioned three items we have no need of. They're still the world's largest arsenal to choose from. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't look elsewhere.
I'm just reacting to things like if you need a Jeep, why not buy a damn $20,000 Jeep and modify it for another $10,000? Why build a factory to make a handful for $250,00 each? Why buy a G-wagon when half the kids on my block have more capable toys just for fun?
We don't have a base in Germany like in the Cold War. Do we even need tanks? Do we need more than frigates and patrol boats?
Come out with a comprehensive policy, let the public accept it and do it.

[CountLothian]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Maybe this is your problem. Canada doesn't need a 'world class military'.

Well the thread is about a shrinking military. Hence Our views on why.

$1:

It simply needs the adequate capability to defend itself without US assistance.

If Canada wishes to continue being a part of the war machine and military economic my ideas are sound.
I would like to see an uber neutral Canada as stated before.

But alas , lessons from non violent Tibet are in order.

$1:

I say that because Obama has proved that our allies no longer can depend on us regardless of who is in the White House.

We don't understand your post BartSimpson

$1:

Absent having an adequate military Canadian sovereignty as of now hinges on who is the US President.

That's a very dangerous place to be.

We see some sort of political agenda underlining your statement. Some wish for a stronger war mongering president of your country. More wars and less diplomacy.

[Freakinoldguy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yep, ignorance is part of it too.

Well, that's a reason to bring back conscription. You obviously need a broader segment of society being informed of what the military does aside from just those people with a sense of duty and service.

Conscription didn't fly in WW1 or WW2 and it wouldn'the fly in peacetime. Besides, conscripts are useless in the modern world, because of the complexity of weaponry and other military technologies.

Sorry but you're mistaken.

If you're willing to waste enough lives to win a war then technology isn't exclusively tantamount to success. During WWII the Russians proved that no matter how much technology advances you still need voluntolds to act as meat shields in order to protect said technology and deplete enemy resources