[llama66]

desertdude desertdude:

I've been saying all along Canada doesn't need a military, its waste of billions for no reason.

No, we need a military.

[bootlegga]

llama66 llama66:

bootlegga bootlegga:

llama66 llama66:

Too much. Its sad, I think about the Canadian Forces of old, and how the Germans in two world wars trembled at our arrival. Now, now we barely can defend what we got. I respect the states, but how can we be independent and rely on a foreign power for our protection?

It's a myth that we rely on the US for protection - there is no nation in the world that could successfully invade Canada, even if the US stood by and ignored it.

Nobody has enough sealift to put more than a division or two on Canadian soil - and for most nations, that would involve shipping them here on freighters/cruise ships or highly vulnerable airliners.

While that matches the entire Canadian Army, our membership in NATO, long supply lines, the huge territory that Canada covers prevents such a small force from doing anything other than temporarily holding a small piece of Canada until we mobilize and push them back into the ocean. If an invader landed near a major city, it probably wouldn't even be able to take over that city, because cities and armies just don't mix.

The truth is we rely on two huge oceans and a friendly neighbour to avoid conflict.

As long as the US remains friendly, we don't have to worry about an invasion...but who knows where Cheeto is heading with his love of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. T

I get that, our Geography would make invading Canada as much fun as invading Russia. But you have to admit, we do base a large part of our defense strategy on the idea that the United States will come rushing to our aid.

Apparently you don't.

Your statement was certainly true in the Cold War, when the Soviets had the ability to land five to ten divisions of troops and equipment wherever they wanted, but it has been false since the mid-90s.

China doesn't even have the sealift to take Taiwan, nevermind Vancouver. Russia is in about the same boat, and other possible belligerents (North Korea) can't even come close to threatening us with a conventional attack (a nuclear attack is another story).

So who is the US protecting us from then?

If there is no one capable of attacking us, it stands to reason that if no other nation can really attack us, there is no need to rely on the United States rushing to our aid from an attack that cannot really happen.

[llama66]

I think you misunderstand, sir.
I want less of our defence policy relying on the states.

[bootlegga]

llama66 llama66:

I think you misunderstand, sir.
I want less of our defence policy relying on the states.

Then feel free to explain how we depend on the US, because it still sounds like you think they are protecting us from an attack that can only come from the US themselves.