[Thanos]

I can't see what could even conceivably happen that's so catastrophic that would cause the Americans to ever abanon the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, or of Manifest Destiny, or of the line JFK drew in the sand during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US regards any encroachment on the physical territory of North America in the exact same way that the Russians did on their land after World War Two, in that any imminent threat will almost certainly be met with nuclear reprisal both against any invading force as well as against whatever homeland sent them.

I'm surprised that the author of this analysis appears to come from a serious organization. Just on the surface of it I would have guessed he was the same guy who wrote to script for the re-imagined "Red Dawn". Despite all the current pessimism, any rumours of the imminent death of the United States, or even remotely of American ability to literally inflict apocalyptic levels of destruction upon any assailant, are vastly overstated. I'd also wager that if it weren't for the current level of pessimism in the US right now, thanks to the economic situation as well as to the hyper level of political polarization that was deliberately created by the right-wing and the GOP, these sorts of analyses and studies wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone at all.

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

I'd also wager that if it weren't for the current level of pessimism in the US right now, thanks to the economic situation as well as to the hyper level of political polarization that was deliberately created by the right-wing and the GOP, Harper Govt, these sorts of analyses and studies wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone at all.

Sorry, but I think that's what this is about. He's a rightwing promilitary type (to invert Brock's logic) trying to beat the drum for us becoming a major power.

$1:

He believes failure to strengthen Canada’s demographic, economic, military and diplomatic capabilities in the coming years “could well result over the course of this less ‘lucky’ century, in a Canada that is a strategic cripple,” unable to advance its own interests, assert sovereignty or determine its own destiny.

Let's flood the country with people who can all pay military tribute so we can create a huge military force, that sort of thinking.

[andyt]

I just read Studin's actual article, and what he seems to be talking about is us being able to defend the north more than anything. And there I agree with him, we should make sure we're capable of defending our territory. Instead of arming ourselves to get involved in US adventures half way around the globe, or getting involved in civil wars like Libya's, we should be setting up a force that can patrol and protect our own soil. My guess is that would look different than the force are configured now, probably more reliant on the navy for instance. That could also be used to keep out floods of illegal immigrants, at least until the wave gets too overwhelming.

[fifeboy]

DanSC DanSC:

weaselways weaselways:

I'm somewhat surprised that 70 years ago several of the CA countries weren't admitted as 48th to 52nd states of the union.

Don't flatter yourself. If we're going to steal land for another state, we'll get somewhere nice like Baja California

Yep, ya can't have enough lizards

[fifeboy]

andyt andyt:

I just read Studin's actual article, and what he seems to be talking about is us being able to defend the north more than anything. And there I agree with him, we should make sure we're capable of defending our territory. Instead of arming ourselves to get involved in US adventures half way around the globe, or getting involved in civil wars like Libya's, we should be setting up a force that can patrol and protect our own soil. My guess is that would look different than the force are configured now, probably more reliant on the navy for instance. That could also be used to keep out floods of illegal immigrants, at least until the wave gets too overwhelming.

[DanSC]

fifeboy fifeboy:

DanSC DanSC:

weaselways weaselways:

I'm somewhat surprised that 70 years ago several of the CA countries weren't admitted as 48th to 52nd states of the union.

Don't flatter yourself. If we're going to steal land for another state, we'll get somewhere nice like Baja California

Yep, ya can't have enough lizards

Worth it for this

[fifeboy]

DanSC DanSC:

Worth it for this

So you just want the coastline.

[DanSC]

fifeboy fifeboy:

DanSC DanSC:

Worth it for this

So you just want the coastline.

That's where most people live, counting the banks of the St. Lawrence as a coast.

[bootlegga]

Yes, war could hit our continent by the end of the century.

That's definitely fair - after all, who can determine what sorts of alliances or even military technology will be around in the next 90 years? However, it's not something that's going to keep me up nights simply because I understand that as of right now, and for the foreseeable future (say the next decade), the only nations capable of seriously attacking NA are all NATO/Western allies (I'm talking conventional attacks, not nuclear attacks).

Should geopolitics change, we'll probably have plenty of time to build up - years at least, maybe even a decade. That is when it will be time to piss our pants and decide to either build up and fight or meekly capitulate.

But the idea of spending gobs of money on platforms that will likely never be used (like carriers for example) is stupid and wasteful. The CF needs weapons systems to fulfill its missions (as mandated by the government and Canadians), not on systems so they can match cocks with our allies.

I'd far prefer we spend on platforms we can use right now, like ones to patrol our airspace and coastlines instead of a white elephant that will spend most of its time in port. The problem (as Harper learned AFTER he released Canada First), is that those systems cost a damned fortune, and he, like previous PMs, don't see the need for a $30 billion defence budget.

[weaselways]

Whatever invasion will happen from the south. Viva Aztlan. The Chicanos will take back Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona & Nevada. At least according to "La Voz de Aztlan"

[Praxius]

martin14 martin14:

OK, let's have a real look at your statement.

Commonwealth:

Britain - soon to have armed forces as small as ours, massive cuts coming.

What's your point?

Armed forces as small as ours? Ok.... yet we still send our troops to go in fight in wars that don't really concern our nation, considering how "small" our forces are.

$1:

Australia - as small as we are, and very far away.

You're using the term "Small" again as if that's some sort of argument. As proven in my previous sources and proven through history, the size of a nation or its military has no relation to their capabilities & accomplishments.

If the size of a military force really made that much of an impact in the overall grand scheme of things, then NATO would have wiped out the Taliban in Afghanistan years ago.

$1:

India / Pakistan - wouldn't send, too busy keeping troops facing each other.

An assumption

$1:

In case of a Chinese attack, they would be too afraid of a land counter attack.

Another assumption.

$1:

The African Commonwealth countries aren't worth mentioning as far as military capability.

We might get some equipment from the Commonwealth, it wouldnt be enough
to make a difference.

There are over 50 nations within the Commonwealth. If one knew how to be diplomatic, resourceful & put some effort into it, I'm sure a few of those nations would come to assist.... that is if we needed it.

$1:

NATO:

seriously, you must be kidding. These countries were completely unable to even
take care of anything in Yugoslavia, and that was much more recent than WW1 or 2.

Proof that the size of your military has no direct relation to you winning a conflict.

$1:

All the heavy lifting in that war was done by the US. As usual.

Oh as usual.... right... and the US also won WWI & WWII all on their own and we all have to kiss their ass for all eternity because of it.

Let's not forget that prior to the US entering the war, many in the US, including some in the government, were not just turning a blind eye to what the Germans were doing, but openly trading & dealing supplies, equipment, weapons and vehicles to the Germans while the rest of the allied nations were fighting them head on.... and suddenly when the Germans' advance was stopped and began to be pushed back, suddenly the US decides to tag along & fight along with us.... and then when the whole thing was over, we're constantly bombarded with "The US saved us all, the US won WWII, the US is the Greatest nation in the World!!"

Just to drag you back into reality, if it wasn't for Hitler making the dumb mistake of attacking the Russians and thus, the Russians entering the war and dominating them, things could have been very different in regards to the outcome of the war..... the Germans could have not attacked the Soviets when they did and just maintain what they already gained during the war.... creating a stalemate for years following.

The point being is that the US's "heavy lifting" is either generally exaggerated when looking at the contributions & sacrifices of other involved allies.... or the conflict in question was created by the US in some manner, and thus, their heavy lifting is justified.

By the way, in regards to your Kosovo War you referenced:

"In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization.....

..... In 2000, a BBC article stated that Nato at War shows how the United States, which had described the KLA as "terrorist", now sought to form a relationship with it......

..... Responding to criticism, he later clarified to the House Committee on International Relations that "while it has committed 'terrorist acts,' it has 'not been classified legally by the U.S. Government as a terrorist organization.'" On June 1998, he held talks with two men who claimed they were political leaders.....

..... All of the NATO members were involved to some degree—with the exception of Greece....."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

Reading through the link, I don't see much that makes the US stand out more then any other NATO member.

And keep in mind that afterwards, Canada sent over a number of troops under the UN banner to do peacekeeping.... I knew a few of those soldiers myself.

$1:

Remember who was the lead in '99 with the Serbs, again a European situation ?

The Euro pussies would do nothing but whine and wring their hands.

Really?

You need to read more. I'd suggest starting with the above link to see what actually happened, because at this stage, you're only speaking from your experience in fantasy land.

$1:

In case of a Russian attack, they would too afraid of a counter in Europe
to do anything at all.

To think anything else about our 'allies' is nothing more than a Dippers wet dream.

You are welcome to try and prove me wrong.

Ah wonderful.... trash all our allies, imply that they're all completely useless, couldn't do a better job then what we could and then toss out your political partisan crap as if that somehow wins the argument..... while not actually supplying any sources or facts to back up your assumptions.

And then you ask me to prove You wrong?

You haven't proven anything other then that you know how to toss ignorant opinions around.

But I'll play along with your twisted logic for a bit.

So we can't rely on any of our allies to help us out in a time of need. Ok, then why do we bother helping them out when they need it?

$1:

Oh really ? Please tell me where are the shipyards and expertise to build ships ?

Where they always were & still are..... I lived a few minutes drive from one of these shipyards for the last decade. Google it.

Here, I'll even make it easy for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sh ... rds#Canada

There are 10 major shipyards across Canada, and that's just for starters.

$1:

The factories to produce almost a million trucks for the effort in WW2 ?

I can think of three in Northern Nova Scotia alone just off the top of my head.

$1:

Facilities to produce aircraft and train pilots ?
Tanks ?

The same factories that produced the vehicles for our troops during WWII also built tanks, aircraft parts, cannons for ships, etc. etc.

One such factory was Trenton Works in Pictou County (for starters) which produced many of the above during WWII, which moved into building mostly train cars & parts.

Here's a question for you:

Where were all these factories, shipyards & training facilities prior to WWII?

Why weren't they employing millions of Canadians during the Great Depression??

Oh that's right.... because there wasn't a war and there was a Great Depression going on, which meant very little work.

Funny how once a war starts, there's all kinds of jobs for just about everybody which pop up out of nowhere. The same would happen today if a war broke out.

$1:

Oh hey, hows about telling me where we have the factories to produce bullets for the infantry ?

Where they always were.... and please don't give me the impression that you don't think new factories & new jobs wouldn't be created & created quickly if a war broke out.... because if you really believe that, then you really don't know much about what you're talking about.

$1:

I don't doubt Canadian fighting spirit. I also don't doubt any real invasion from either Russia or China would be much more massive than anything we could defend against. Barbarossa style.

As Joe Stalin said, " quantity has a quality all its own. "

Again, quantity doesn't equate to victory..... nor does technology superiority equate to victory. Quantity to Quality does not equate to Victory.... and that's what matters in a war.

If Quantity truly counted, then the Americans would have lost against the British Empire, the Soviets would have dominated in Afghanistan, the Argentinians would have easily been taken care of in a week or two by the British in the Falklands War.... need I go on?

$1:

The only thing holding these countries back is they know any seaborne invasion attempt would be immediately chopped to bits by those US carrier groups..... today.

Gee you sure know a lot about what others are thinking.

$1:

We should at least be able to defend ourselves for a couple of weeks,
until the US can get itself involved. That is our only chance.

I guess we would just have to see won't we?

[commanderkai]

Praxius Praxius:

What's your point?

Armed forces as small as ours? Ok.... yet we still send our troops to go in fight in wars that don't really concern our nation, considering how "small" our forces are.

As much as I think our soldiers do an amazing job with the task at hand, our forces aren't equipped enough to operate on their own. We lack a lot of equipment that the British, Americans, and even other NATO states like Germany have to properly defend our borders. Even though we contribute to NATO operations (and they do concern our nation, for the most part), we still need to rely on the Americans or British, or other allies for proper support, like attack helicopters.

If, hypothetically, the British decrease their standing military forces to modern Canadian levels, it would limit the sheer force that the British military can project currently. As such, saying that the British can properly defend such a massive landmass like Canada with a relatively small military force, even with ours along with them, is

$1:

You're using the term "Small" again as if that's some sort of argument. As proven in my previous sources and proven through history, the size of a nation or its military has no relation to their capabilities & accomplishments.

If the size of a military force really made that much of an impact in the overall grand scheme of things, then NATO would have wiped out the Taliban in Afghanistan years ago.

Yes and no. A highly trained, technologically advanced, but numerically smaller military force can lay waste to a more numerous military force with poor tactics and equipment. Even so, Western rules of engagements limit our ability to destroy the Taliban, due to our concern for civilian collateral damage.

$1:

An assumption (about India and Pakistan)

India and Pakistan are at each other's throats over Kashmir, and, unless there is a resolution to their conflict, will be highly unlikely to cooperate with one another due to mutual distrust. That's also assuming that they'll be willing to contribute at all.

Of course, they are "assumptions" because, once again, we can all play guessing games over the future. However, predictions based upon current political realities are common place over any future wargame scenarios.

$1:

Another assumption. (about not getting involved due to China)

Actually, considering that China also has a claim upon the Kashmir region, and, assuming, that India and Pakistan didn't destroy each other, or are willing to cooperate to protect Canada from a Chinese invasion, the fact that China wants a chunk of the Kashmir region, India and Pakistan will not want to move their forces away from their immediate interests.

$1:

There are over 50 nations within the Commonwealth. If one knew how to be diplomatic, resourceful & put some effort into it, I'm sure a few of those nations would come to assist.... that is if we needed it.

Britain, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand are most likely to have the same technological advancement and extensive training as the Canadian forces, with India and Pakistan, and some of the more stable African countries as being possible to our technological and training capabilities. Even so, 22 of the Commonwealth nations have populations smaller than 1 million, and will be very unlikely to be able to send anything more than a token military force.

$1:

Oh as usual.... right... and the US also won WWI & WWII all on their own and we all have to kiss their ass for all eternity because of it.

Let's not forget that prior to the US entering the war, many in the US, including some in the government, were not just turning a blind eye to what the Germans were doing, but openly trading & dealing supplies, equipment, weapons and vehicles to the Germans while the rest of the allied nations were fighting them head on.... and suddenly when the Germans' advance was stopped and began to be pushed back, suddenly the US decides to tag along & fight along with us.... and then when the whole thing was over, we're constantly bombarded with "The US saved us all, the US won WWII, the US is the Greatest nation in the World!!"

Well that's a pretty skewed version of history too, at least dealing with World War II. America's contribution to World War I isn't as impressive as they play it up to be.

To start off, the Americans sold to everybody. Pre-Pearl Harbor, the Americans supplied Canada and Britain, but they refused to risk American merchant shipping. All allied countries, even Canada, turned a blind eye to German atrocities, like the Holocaust. Canada has a very black mark over refusing tens of thousands of Jews trying to escape Nazi clutches before the war. Look up the MS St. Louis as one of the examples of Canada's piss poor treatment of escaping Jews.

Second, we were not pushing the Germans back in late 1941. That even ignores the fact that Japan joined the war after Pearl Harbor, attacking British and other allied colonies in the Pacific. The Russians only were in their second day of their counteroffensive before Pearl Harbor.

Also, saying the Americans "suddenly" joined the war effort is a crock of shit. Pearl Harbor wasn't just some change in policy for the Americans. The Americans played a critical role in World War II, specifically in the Pacific where they were the dominant allied force to keep the Japanese back.

$1:

Just to drag you back into reality, if it wasn't for Hitler making the dumb mistake of attacking the Russians and thus, the Russians entering the war and dominating them, things could have been very different in regards to the outcome of the war..... the Germans could have not attacked the Soviets when they did and just maintain what they already gained during the war.... creating a stalemate for years following.

$1:

Lots of assumptions here. There was no guarantee that the Russians would join the war, there is certainly no guarantee that the Soviets would "dominate" the technologically advanced and better trained Nazi forces, and not having the Eastern Front as a massive meat grinder for the Germans would have put the Commonwealth at a disadvantage when we began to engage their forces in Africa, and later in Europe.

$1:

The point being is that the US's "heavy lifting" is either generally exaggerated when looking at the contributions & sacrifices of other involved allies.... or the conflict in question was created by the US in some manner, and thus, their heavy lifting is justified.

Uh, when you talk about World War II, it wasn't really exaggerated. The Americans contributed a majority of the forces in the Pacific, and consisted of a large part of the Western European theater. Did they win on their own? Of course not, the British/Commonwealth certainly had a major part of World War II, and of course, the USSR, but downplaying the American contribution to the war effort is as faulty as saying they won the conflict on their own.

[DerbyX]

Praxius Praxius:

martin14 martin14:

OK, let's have a real look at your statement.

Commonwealth:

Britain - soon to have armed forces as small as ours, massive cuts coming.

What's your point?

Armed forces as small as ours? Ok.... yet we still send our troops to go in fight in wars that don't really concern our nation, considering how "small" our forces are.

$1:

Australia - as small as we are, and very far away.

You're using the term "Small" again as if that's some sort of argument. As proven in my previous sources and proven through history, the size of a nation or its military has no relation to their capabilities & accomplishments.

If the size of a military force really made that much of an impact in the overall grand scheme of things, then NATO would have wiped out the Taliban in Afghanistan years ago.

$1:

India / Pakistan - wouldn't send, too busy keeping troops facing each other.

An assumption

$1:

In case of a Chinese attack, they would be too afraid of a land counter attack.

Another assumption.

$1:

The African Commonwealth countries aren't worth mentioning as far as military capability.

We might get some equipment from the Commonwealth, it wouldnt be enough
to make a difference.

There are over 50 nations within the Commonwealth. If one knew how to be diplomatic, resourceful & put some effort into it, I'm sure a few of those nations would come to assist.... that is if we needed it.

$1:

NATO:

seriously, you must be kidding. These countries were completely unable to even
take care of anything in Yugoslavia, and that was much more recent than WW1 or 2.

Proof that the size of your military has no direct relation to you winning a conflict.

$1:

All the heavy lifting in that war was done by the US. As usual.

Oh as usual.... right... and the US also won WWI & WWII all on their own and we all have to kiss their ass for all eternity because of it.

Let's not forget that prior to the US entering the war, many in the US, including some in the government, were not just turning a blind eye to what the Germans were doing, but openly trading & dealing supplies, equipment, weapons and vehicles to the Germans while the rest of the allied nations were fighting them head on.... and suddenly when the Germans' advance was stopped and began to be pushed back, suddenly the US decides to tag along & fight along with us.... and then when the whole thing was over, we're constantly bombarded with "The US saved us all, the US won WWII, the US is the Greatest nation in the World!!"

Just to drag you back into reality, if it wasn't for Hitler making the dumb mistake of attacking the Russians and thus, the Russians entering the war and dominating them, things could have been very different in regards to the outcome of the war..... the Germans could have not attacked the Soviets when they did and just maintain what they already gained during the war.... creating a stalemate for years following.

The point being is that the US's "heavy lifting" is either generally exaggerated when looking at the contributions & sacrifices of other involved allies.... or the conflict in question was created by the US in some manner, and thus, their heavy lifting is justified.

By the way, in regards to your Kosovo War you referenced:

"In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization.....

..... In 2000, a BBC article stated that Nato at War shows how the United States, which had described the KLA as "terrorist", now sought to form a relationship with it......

..... Responding to criticism, he later clarified to the House Committee on International Relations that "while it has committed 'terrorist acts,' it has 'not been classified legally by the U.S. Government as a terrorist organization.'" On June 1998, he held talks with two men who claimed they were political leaders.....

..... All of the NATO members were involved to some degree—with the exception of Greece....."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

Reading through the link, I don't see much that makes the US stand out more then any other NATO member.

And keep in mind that afterwards, Canada sent over a number of troops under the UN banner to do peacekeeping.... I knew a few of those soldiers myself.

$1:

Remember who was the lead in '99 with the Serbs, again a European situation ?

The Euro pussies would do nothing but whine and wring their hands.

Really?

You need to read more. I'd suggest starting with the above link to see what actually happened, because at this stage, you're only speaking from your experience in fantasy land.

$1:

In case of a Russian attack, they would too afraid of a counter in Europe
to do anything at all.

To think anything else about our 'allies' is nothing more than a Dippers wet dream.

You are welcome to try and prove me wrong.

Ah wonderful.... trash all our allies, imply that they're all completely useless, couldn't do a better job then what we could and then toss out your political partisan crap as if that somehow wins the argument..... while not actually supplying any sources or facts to back up your assumptions.

And then you ask me to prove You wrong?

You haven't proven anything other then that you know how to toss ignorant opinions around.

But I'll play along with your twisted logic for a bit.

So we can't rely on any of our allies to help us out in a time of need. Ok, then why do we bother helping them out when they need it?

$1:

Oh really ? Please tell me where are the shipyards and expertise to build ships ?

Where they always were & still are..... I lived a few minutes drive from one of these shipyards for the last decade. Google it.

Here, I'll even make it easy for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sh ... rds#Canada

There are 10 major shipyards across Canada, and that's just for starters.

$1:

The factories to produce almost a million trucks for the effort in WW2 ?

I can think of three in Northern Nova Scotia alone just off the top of my head.

$1:

Facilities to produce aircraft and train pilots ?
Tanks ?

The same factories that produced the vehicles for our troops during WWII also built tanks, aircraft parts, cannons for ships, etc. etc.

One such factory was Trenton Works in Pictou County (for starters) which produced many of the above during WWII, which moved into building mostly train cars & parts.

Here's a question for you:

Where were all these factories, shipyards & training facilities prior to WWII?

Why weren't they employing millions of Canadians during the Great Depression??

Oh that's right.... because there wasn't a war and there was a Great Depression going on, which meant very little work.

Funny how once a war starts, there's all kinds of jobs for just about everybody which pop up out of nowhere. The same would happen today if a war broke out.

$1:

Oh hey, hows about telling me where we have the factories to produce bullets for the infantry ?

Where they always were.... and please don't give me the impression that you don't think new factories & new jobs wouldn't be created & created quickly if a war broke out.... because if you really believe that, then you really don't know much about what you're talking about.

$1:

I don't doubt Canadian fighting spirit. I also don't doubt any real invasion from either Russia or China would be much more massive than anything we could defend against. Barbarossa style.

As Joe Stalin said, " quantity has a quality all its own. "

Again, quantity doesn't equate to victory..... nor does technology superiority equate to victory. Quantity to Quality does not equate to Victory.... and that's what matters in a war.

If Quantity truly counted, then the Americans would have lost against the British Empire, the Soviets would have dominated in Afghanistan, the Argentinians would have easily been taken care of in a week or two by the British in the Falklands War.... need I go on?

$1:

The only thing holding these countries back is they know any seaborne invasion attempt would be immediately chopped to bits by those US carrier groups..... today.

Gee you sure know a lot about what others are thinking.

$1:

We should at least be able to defend ourselves for a couple of weeks,
until the US can get itself involved. That is our only chance.

I guess we would just have to see won't we?

Only one other person has so thoroughly and intelligently destroyed that specimen, or at least taken the time to do it since everybody can do it.

Kudos.

[DanSC]

There's only way to settle this.

[DerbyX]

This was a MUCH better game: