NationStates Jolt Archive

i read from the cbc today that ottawa is about to spend c$15b on military equipment, mainly transport planes, trucks, supply ships, and helicopters.

my question is, since canada 1) is unlikely to face a land-based incursion, 2) is mostly involved in international security operations that are far away from north america, and 3) has territorial disputes mainly involving arctic sovereignty, shouldn't she emphasize naval capacity over land forces?

i'm genuinely curious to what canadians think of this issue. i'm sure there are many pacificists in the crowd who will weigh in and say to cut back most military expenditures, and i respect those opinions, but that won't really answer my question.

cefcom and cansofcom seem to be gainfully occupied, so probably shouldn't cut that. but shouldn't a country with such a huge coastline and maritime jurisdiction have more than just three operational submarines? some more icebreakers perhaps? a carrier group? maybe incorporate current land forces into a naval infantry or marine unit?

(disclosure: i am not canadian)

canada 1) is unlikely to face a land-based incursion
They have oil. So don't count on it.

Much as I'm not a fan of the Conservative government, for the most part the purchases this $15 B has been earmarked for are muchly needed. And, for that matter, would be useful domestically as well as overseas. There are damn few Canadians these days who'll say that the CF don't need new helicopters, for instance.

Yes, Canada needs to invest in Arctic sovereignty, so doing more arctic training, and getting more naval icebreakers to patrol would be excellent, and I sure hope it happens. But the truth is that the CF have been struggling with underfunding for over a decade and there are a lot of areas that need funding.

they're probably worried about their huge border with the worlds biggest rogue state :p

i read from the cbc today that ottawa is about to spend c$15b on military equipment, mainly transport planes, trucks, supply ships, and helicopters.

my question is, since canada 1) is unlikely to face a land-based incursion, 2) is mostly involved in international security operations that are far away from north america, and 3) has territorial disputes mainly involving arctic sovereignty, shouldn't she emphasize naval capacity over land forces?

i'm genuinely curious to what canadians think of this issue. i'm sure there are many pacificists in the crowd who will weigh in and say to cut back most military expenditures, and i respect those opinions, but that won't really answer my question.

cefcom and cansofcom seem to be gainfully occupied, so probably shouldn't cut that. but shouldn't a country with such a huge coastline and maritime jurisdiction have more than just three operational submarines? some more icebreakers perhaps? a carrier group? maybe incorporate current land forces into a naval infantry or marine unit?

(disclosure: i am not canadian)Navel Forces are great, Air capacity is also great, but you cannot send a frigate or a fighter to rescue civilians held hostage.

They have oil. So don't count on it.
regarding canada's vast oil reserves, it would be much much less expensive for the usa to trade for the oil rather than conquer the land. plus, america can maneuver for an economic/business takeover more quickly than a military takeover.

Navel Forces are great, Air capacity is also great, but you cannot send a frigate or a fighter to rescue civilians held hostage.
hence my suggestion to expand/incorporate naval infantry, and keep expeditionary and special forces.

hence my suggestion to expand/incorporate naval infantry, and keep expeditionary and special forces.
unfortunately, there are places were Navel forces cannot go. thus Navel infantry becomes Limited. However Land forces, working with unity with the other brances of the military, are flexable and versitle.

Also Land forces are trained differently than Navel Infantry. to forgo an infrantry/Army and concentrate only on Navel Infantry will actually weaken those land forces.

Oh, Canada, your army is so strong
In Canada, no one has to mow their lawn

No criminals or taxes
And Visa never phones
Elvis is alive in Moosejaw but we leave him alone

Oh, Canada, your leaders are so well
In Canada, no one ever goes to hell

unfortunately, there are places were Navel forces cannot go. thus Navel infantry becomes Limited. However Land forces, working with unity with the other brances of the military, are flexable and versitle.

Also Land forces are trained differently than Navel Infantry. to forgo an infrantry/Army and concentrate only on Navel Infantry will actually weaken those land forces.
i admit my understanding of the canadian military structure is a bit weak. your point is well taken. would the cefcom (expeditionary forces) fulfill most land force needs though? i was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that canada has little need for domestically deployed ground troops. isn't cefcom responsible for foreign operations?

i admit my understanding of the canadian military structure is a bit weak. your point is well taken. would the cefcom (expeditionary forces) fulfill most land force needs though? i was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that canada has little need for domestically deployed ground troops. isn't cefcom responsible for foreign operations?
dunno really, I don't know much about Canadian Military structure myself, but as a wargamer, I had to deploy forces from time to time and having three seperate yet well coordinated Military Units allowed for more flexability and versitility.

A huge Canadian millitary build up? Fireproof Washington, and get out the nukes. Time to give the Canucks what they have coming to them. You've been manipulating the world behind the scenes too long, Canada! Don't think I didn't see the real message behind 'How Star Trek Changed the World'!

I know that Shatner's merely an advance agent.

equus, thank you for your well thought out post, by the way.

equus, thank you for your well thought out post, by the way.

De nada. That's more or less the thought process I had when I saw the spending announcement. I too was disappointed by the lack of targeted funds for arctic sovereignty. But I couldn't look at the other purchases and honestly say that they were inappropriate.

my question is, since canada 1) is unlikely to face a land-based incursion, 2) is mostly involved in international security operations that are far away from north america, and 3) has territorial disputes mainly involving arctic sovereignty, shouldn't she emphasize naval capacity over land forces?


Just curious, but doesn't your point b) fairly clearly explain why a budgetary consideration is geared towards the primary operational use of our military?

And the naval capacity HAS been the primary recipient of previous year's budgets with significant earmarks for the new surface ships launched over the past decade, the purchase of leaky submarines from Britain, a recent earmark for military icebreakers, as well as upgrades to our AWACs fleet overflying the north.

It has been the army getting shafted the most lately - with the exception of the new Coyote APCs - and so they are far more in need of immediate attention given our current operational commitments to places such as Afghanistan where increased naval capacity is irrelevant.

where is a ship going to take you that an airplace can't?

really, look at your neighbors - any disputes you have are going to be settled at a negotiating table and if you ever really got in deep we'd bail you out

Don't get me started on the Quebec fantasy of having a huge international military force.

Just curious, but doesn't your point b) fairly clearly explain why a budgetary consideration is geared towards the primary operational use of our military?

And the naval capacity HAS been the primary recipient of previous year's budgets with significant earmarks for the new surface ships launched over the past decade, the purchase of leaky submarines from Britain, a recent earmark for military icebreakers, as well as upgrades to our AWACs fleet overflying the north.

It has been the army getting shafted the most lately - with the exception of the new Coyote APCs - and so they are far more in need of immediate attention given our current operational commitments to places such as Afghanistan where increased naval capacity is irrelevant.
regarding the army being shafted at the expense of the navy, i didn't know that was happening already. and you're absolutely right about support and supply, and probably offensive land capabilities. my thought process was focused more on transporting personnel and materiel to the sites where they are deployed, and less on what happens from that point on. that being said, can anyone comment on the role of land force command (army) vs cefcom (expeditionary forces)?

shouldn't she emphasize naval capacity over land forces?
Right now, Canada's main concern is our losing reputation as a world leading peace keeper. We have done so preciously little on the world stage that it's going to take some time for us to get the #1 peace keeper reputation back.

As for Arctic sovereignty, there is no way Canada can catch up to the technology of the Americans, the Russians, and the Europeans in these few years, maybe even a few decades. There are a number of VERY strong contenders in the Arctic, and Canada will not stand a chance against any of them, let alone all of them. The naval technology would take decades and billions of dollars to develop and impliment. Considering Canada's unstable political situation right now, it is much more advisable to go for the more short-term target, eg Afghanistan. I hope that answers your question.

Right now, Canada's main concern is our losing reputation as a world leading peace keeper. We have done so preciously little on the world stage that it's going to take some time for us to get the #1 peace keeper reputation back.

As for Arctic sovereignty, there is no way Canada can catch up to the technology of the Americans, the Russians, and the Europeans in these few years, maybe even a few decades. There are a number of VERY strong contenders in the Arctic, and Canada will not stand a chance against any of them, let alone all of them. The naval technology would take decades and billions of dollars to develop and impliment. Considering Canada's unstable political situation right now, it is much more advisable to go for the more short-term target, eg Afghanistan. I hope that answers your question.

Ahem. The world's number one peacekeeper (as in sends troops to the most peacekeeping missions) is a tossup between Sweden and Fiji. No joke. It's been that way for over 20 years.

Ahem. The world's number one peacekeeper (as in sends troops to the most peacekeeping missions) is a tossup between Sweden and Fiji. No joke. It's been that way for over 20 years.
Yeah, I know that. It's kind of sad. But before that, Canada had quite a reputation for it. The reputation kind of just died when we came into the 90's. So now many poor patriotic Canadians (yes, I do realize the oxymoronic nature of that phrase) want that reputation back, since we can't always depend on beer to be our #1 pride.

Yeah, I know that. It's kind of sad. But before that, Canada had quite a reputation for it. The reputation kind of just died when we came into the 90's. So now many poor patriotic Canadians (yes, I do realize the oxymoronic nature of that phrase) want that reputation back, since we can't always depend on beer to be our #1 pride.

Beer is a good thing to be proud of though. :)

As for Arctic sovereignty, there is no way Canada can catch up to the technology of the Americans, the Russians, and the Europeans in these few years, maybe even a few decades. There are a number of VERY strong contenders in the Arctic, and Canada will not stand a chance against any of them, let alone all of them. The naval technology would take decades and billions of dollars to develop and impliment. Considering Canada's unstable political situation right now, it is much more advisable to go for the more short-term target, eg Afghanistan. I hope that answers your question.
that seems to be the best politico-economic explanation so far on this thread...

Probably going to use the helicopters in the war on grass.

Beer is a good thing to be proud of though. :)
Except Canadian beer is only good compared to American beer, which is basically piss water.

PS for the OP: Also, you might want to blame it on the fact that Stephen Harper is insane and is secretly a minion of George Bush to destroy Canada so the Americans on invade. :p

As for Arctic sovereignty, there is no way Canada can catch up to the technology of the Americans, the Russians, and the Europeans in these few years, maybe even a few decades. There are a number of VERY strong contenders in the Arctic, and Canada will not stand a chance against any of them, let alone all of them. The naval technology would take decades and billions of dollars to develop and impliment. Considering Canada's unstable political situation right now, it is much more advisable to go for the more short-term target, eg Afghanistan. I hope that answers your question.
Canada doesn't need to match their technology; we just need a decent presence to maintain our claims.

Unless we want to lose the northern islands or automatically give up the 'northwest passage' as international waters.

Except Canadian beer is only good compared to American beer, which is basically piss water.
i dunno, the blanche de chambly and the éphémère i tried last summer in montreal were easily on par with the world's best.

on a tangent, i think poutine is delicious. it could be your #1 pride if it wasn't so unattractive. and cholesterol-laden.

Except Canadian beer is only good compared to American beer, which is basically piss water. HEY... I resent that...

my Piss Water looks and probably tastes better than Beer! :D

(I don't drink beer of any sort... Really...) and neither do I drink piss water... for free anyways.

Canada doesn't need to match their technology; we just need a decent presence to maintain our claims.

Unless we want to lose the northern islands or automatically give up the 'northwest passage' as international waters.
I wouldn't put it past the Americans if there is profit involved. They've already broken Nafta and screwed over our loggers pretty badly. Who knows if they'll claim the northwest passage for their own? I mean, I thought that during the Alaska Boundary Dispute, those land obviously belonged to Canada, but that didn't stop the Americans from fighting for it and getting it. At this point, I'm not so trusting of them not to screw us over again.

i dunno, the blanche de chambly and the éphémère i tried last summer were easily on par with the world's best.

on a tangent, i think poutine is delicious. it could be your #1 pride if it weren't so unattractive. and cholesterol-laden.
Oh yes, Canada's pride: things that are deep fried, sugar coated, or deep fried THEN sugar coated (think Tim Hortons donuts)

Is US beer really only 2%? I know English beer is around 3.3% and the rest of the EU ranges from 4.5% on up to madness levels. Probably why the hooligans go off so much in Europe, 4 pints is actually 6.

Is US beer really only 2%? I know English beer is around 3.3% and the rest of the EU ranges from 4.5% on up to madness levels. Probably why the hooligans go off so much in Europe, 4 pints is actually 6.

Ever tried Tiger?

If not, don't.

HEY... I resent that...

my Piss Water looks and probably tastes better than Beer! :D

(I don't drink beer of any sort... Really...) and neither do I drink piss water... for free anyways.
No...just no...your piss water doesn't even count as beer, so stop trying...how much? ;)

No...just no...your piss water doesn't even count as beer, so stop trying...how much? ;)

Well...I'd worry if it had head...:eek:

No...just no...your piss water doesn't even count as beer, so stop trying...how much? ;)
never said it was... just that it's probably still better than american beer. ;) make an offer...

Well...I'd worry if it had head...:eek:
I don't get it. :confused:

(in an attempt to not get off topic, I shall try to introduce an OP related topic): Do you think Harper is doing a good job as PM right now?

Well...I'd worry if it had head...:eek:
I work in a Hospital... so I pick up all sorts of weird trivia... Diabetic's (too much sugar in their system) does foam.
but I feel we should not go in that direction... else we get this thread closed... ;)

never said it was... just that it's probably still better than american beer. ;) make an offer...
Now you're talking my language. Darn, now I want vodka. :( I think 10...cents. :P

I don't get it. :confused:

(in an attempt to not get off topic, I shall try to introduce an OP related topic): Do you think Harper is doing a good job as PM right now?

I cannot tell you directly. I'd get banned...

And, he's doing...he's...

Okay, put it this way. I live in Alberta, a Blue Province, and I bashed Harper in my English Diploma. If I'm not tossed out of the province because of it, I'll be suprised.

However, I agree with raising the age of consent, which is the big issue right now.

I do not think the gay marriage issue should be re-opened, those damned Conservatives. Bastards. *shakes fist*

I work in a Hospital... so I pick up all sorts of weird trivia... Diabetic's (too much sugar in their system) does foam.
but I feel we should not go in that direction... else we get this thread closed... ;)

At least you understood :D

I cannot tell you directly. I'd get banned...

And, he's doing...he's...

Okay, put it this way. I live in Alberta, a Blue Province, and I bashed Harper in my English Diploma. If I'm not tossed out of the province because of it, I'll be suprised.

However, I agree with raising the age of consent, which is the big issue right now.

I do not think the gay marriage issue should be re-opened, those damned Conservatives. Bastards. *shakes fist*
teehee. You can always come to hippieville when you get kicked out. :p

Well, I really don't think age of consent should be as big as it is right now. I admit it is a little low in Canada, but don't you think we have more important things to worry about, like education, child care, health care, environmental issues, and budget planning? Okay, granted, if the Tory government got on these issues, I would be forced to murder Harper, but still.

No it shouldn't be reopened. There really aren't that many people in Canada screaming for gay marriage to be banned again, unlike our how loudly our southern neighbour is screaming.

I wouldn't put it past the Americans if there is profit involved. They've already broken Nafta and screwed over our loggers pretty badly. Who knows if they'll claim the northwest passage for their own? I mean, I thought that during the Alaska Boundary Dispute, those land obviously belonged to Canada, but that didn't stop the Americans from fighting for it and getting it. At this point, I'm not so trusting of them not to screw us over again.

Frankly, I don't either, which is why we need to maintain our presence in the Arctic, and 'give permission' to foreign ships and submarines going through the passage.

The US in particular has been obstinate in not accepting our claim to the northern islands, as that would assist our claim that the 'passage' is domestic Canadian waters and not international, as they prefer.

It helps that we have precedent; all the maps show the islands as Canadian. Although some do show that Hans Island is disputed with Denmark.

Canada has a lot of oil and natural resources, both of which are much desired by China. Also, Canada is a competitor with Russia, which undermines Russia's bid to become a superpower again. They've got two major enemies already, both of whom would love to invade and occupy were the US preoccupied somewhere else.

Strong Canadian defenses could give the US and its allies vital weeks to prepare and retaliate, as well as cost the Russians or Chinese manpower and resources.

Canada has a lot of oil and natural resources, both of which are much desired by China. Also, Canada is a competitor with Russia, which undermines Russia's bid to become a superpower again. They've got two major enemies already, both of whom would love to invade and occupy were the US preoccupied somewhere else.

Strong Canadian defenses could give the US and its allies vital weeks to prepare and retaliate, as well as cost the Russians or Chinese manpower and resources.
In other words, we're screwed.

The Russians will invade, then the Americans will invade to get rid of the Russians, set up military bases to 'protect' us from future Russian invasions, and then help themselves to all of our natural resources. You know, to help recoup the cost of repelling the Russkies.

Awesome.

teehee. You can always come to hippieville when you get kicked out. :p

Well, I really don't think age of consent should be as big as it is right now. I admit it is a little low in Canada, but don't you think we have more important things to worry about, like education, child care, health care, environmental issues, and budget planning? Okay, granted, if the Tory government got on these issues, I would be forced to murder Harper, but still.

No it shouldn't be reopened. There really aren't that many people in Canada screaming for gay marriage to be banned again, unlike our how loudly our southern neighbour is screaming.

This is why the issue is being re-opened.

Education is a provincial matter. Take it up with Campbell, because we all know how much HE likes to listen...

Why is this issue considering age of consent so large right now? Because it's something distract the people from the pertinant issues. Plus, Harper's Evangelical, so this is a PM's personal beliefs blending quite well with his job. It gives the masses something to discuss; something that is acessible to all. It will also make parents think about their teenagers and how they are bringing them up. This will give sexual education a boost too, as kids will be talking about it, and finding out more information about sex. It's a strategic political move, and is being implicated in a smooth manner. By the time this issue is over with, future generations will be more informed about sex, and the whole nation will be blind to what the Harper government has done in the meantime.

i read from the cbc today that ottawa is about to spend c$15b on military equipment, mainly transport planes, trucks, supply ships, and helicopters.



Im not familiar with Canada's policies on deploying troops within her borders in case of natural disasters and other non-war emergencies. If Canada does use her military forces in that way then these are exactly the kinds of equipment that will help in civilian emergencies. Transport planes trucks and helicopters seem to be pretty reasonable purchases

Frankly, I don't either, which is why we need to maintain our presence in the Arctic, and 'give permission' to foreign ships and submarines going through the passage.

The US in particular has been obstinate in not accepting our claim to the northern islands, as that would assist our claim that the 'passage' is domestic Canadian waters and not international, as they prefer.

It helps that we have precedent; all the maps show the islands as Canadian. Although some do show that Hans Island is disputed with Denmark.
Well, the big thing right now, like the OP said, is that our navy is basically a floating fleet of scrap metal. They're shit against American warships. We can't assert our authority anywhere even if we tried. And it's not like we can put economical pressure on the US either. The Nafta dispute had Nafta rule in our favour, but that didn't affect the American tariffs one bit. I really don't think precedents will help much in this case either.

Arctic sovereignty? You mean Hans Island? I say just give it to the Danish, we don't need some puny piece of land when we already have so much land...

Well, the big thing right now, like the OP said, is that our navy is basically a floating fleet of scrap metal. They're shit against American warships. We can't assert our authority anywhere even if we tried. And it's not like we can put economical pressure on the US either. The Nafta dispute had Nafta rule in our favour, but that didn't affect the American tariffs one bit. I really don't think precedents will help much in this case either.
Which is exactly why I'd like to see some cash go towards arctic sovereignty.

I'm not kidding myself into believing that we can beat the US if it came to actually conflict over the passage; I seriously doubt we could prevent them from using it even once we beefed things up. But presence and precedent will help maintain Canada's claims in the international community. And even though the US has a long record of not ratifying UN or other international treaties that don't serve its best interests, we're still better off if OTHER countries recognize our claim. And Russia and China and the EU don't want the US to claim the northwest passage either, though they'd probably be just fine with the international waters thing.

Anyway, we can't just give it up as a bad job; there are a lot of resources that we don't want to lose in the north.

Arctic sovereignty? You mean Hans Island? I say just give it to the Danish, we don't need some puny piece of land when we already have so much land...
You're not paying attention. This is much bigger than just Hans Island.

Worst case scenario, this is losing all of the northern islands and their resources as well as the 'northwest passage'.

Worst case scenario, this is losing all of the northern islands and their resources as well as the 'northwest passage'.

You really think that will happen?

You're not paying attention. This is much bigger than just Hans Island.

Worst case scenario, this is losing all of the northern islands and their resources as well as the 'northwest passage'.

I can hear the first rumblings of an expansionist platform in Canada's political future.

I say give all disputed properties to the aboriginal bands while signing a treaty with them that leaves the Northwest passage right of way in the possession of the First Peeps and the jurisdiction of the right of way in the hands of Canada.

Since Hans Island's real value is tactical rather than economic perhaps a deal could be struck with Denmark. Canada could trade a more monetarily valuable piece of property for Denmark's claim on Hans Island. I realise that giving up any Canadian land to another country sounds like a terrible idea, but lets face it, Canada has plenty of other property and quite a few islands it could spare without much harm being done.

You have to understand how Canadians see their armed forces. There are two major roles we see them in:

Peacekeeping (even if were are not the most numberous contributors overall) and civic engineering during disasters.

We do hear about our air and naval forces. But mostly when they are being used in some operation of the American's that we're along on to earn brownie points with DC. I don't think the average Canadian considers them a good use of money, _even though_ there are strong geopolitical and military science arguments for maintaining them.

However, as far as I can tell, the Canadian forces are held in high regard by civilians. There is even a dim awareness that there is a significant tradition of excellence in our ground forces from the middle of WW I on. Every year on Remembrance day there's ALWAYS something on Vimy Ridge and the Canadian Corps. On the anniversary of Vimy, that always makes the "A" section of the paper too.

I'm not sure if things have slid since the late 80's when those of my friends who were in air and sea cadets (2 or 3) told me that at NATO training exercises the Canadians did quite well. Considering that's a field of 16, and all of them with larger and longer established military traditions....(well, except Luxembourg, but they are an oddity)

(and if anyone mentions the war of 1812, that was the BRITISH REGULARS. I had to do an essay on that in university. All the Canadian militia was good for (almost every time, there was one partial exception in the theatre on the St. Lawrence) was making the Americas mis-count the number of British invovled, which did sometimes make them too cautious.)

My point is that in the public mind, the armed forces are useful and respected, but only in the land forces capacity. Even though our other services have served with distinction at times and competence as a general rule.

Also, the air force and the naval forces are primarily instruments of foreign policy. A carrier (we did have one till about 1972) is for projecting military power to provide political leverage (in practice) or for a strategic advantage in a full out shooting war. The same for large numbers of submarines or surface vessels. Or large air wings.

Canadians hate the idea of getting involved in shooting wars. Partly because there is disgruntlement at the lack of benefit to us of WW I and II and Korea. Partly because there is a strong vein of internationalism in the federally dominant Liberal party since Lester Pearson in the 50's. Partly because we've become pretty mellow and are generally fairly anti-war. (And this is a visceral position, not a rational one, so far as I can tell. So whatever it's logical shortcomings it is very intractable.)

Basically, the Canadian government of the last 30 years has regarded the armed forces as a waste of money. They could never wrest enough money from program spending to support a _meaingful_ capacity to project air and naval force. And peacekeeping and civil engineering is remarkably cheap, esp if you decide to be downright cheap in providing materiel for those operations.

There was no political incentive to take any other course but benign neglect.
Our whole history has taught us that since we cannot protect ourselves against the Americans should they get hostile, and because it would (and did in the past) take HUGELY expensive measures to swing our military weight around beyond our shores.....our foreign policy makers do not regard the military as an important part of foreign policy beyond the political favors accrued by peacekeeping operations. (in the last fifty years or so, it was a more mixed consensus in previous years)

(as to arctic sovereignity, I strongly suspect the fix is in on selling our assets in the Arctic Ocean islands (effectively, if not de jure) with the major international companies. I figure the gov't looked at the cost of protecting those assets till we could develop them and decided they were better off taking bribes to look the other way till then. Though I have no proof. I just know our government has a lot of dry rot in it at the federal level.

It might also be related to the fact that we aren't _that_ inviting to foreign investment and our domestic economic exploitation of the assets north of the artic circle in mainland Canada is still sporadic with decades of potential for growth at our current rate of development.)

(and in case you're wondering, using peacekeepers for brownie points with Europe and the UN sits far far better than using the navy and airforce to earn brownie points with US. Not all Canadians are anti-american by any means...but pleasing the pro-US supporters pays puny political dividends domestically compared to pleasing the considerable anti-US sentiment. Even though the basis for much (though less now than before) of the anti-American sentiment is hypocrisy.)

Occasionally, there would be big ticket purchases to modernize things...for example, our acquisition of F18's in the early 80's or the revamp of our frigates in the late 80's through to the mid 90's. But we have not in the last 30 years conceived of expanding our deployable forces. And we show no sign of doing significantly more than arresting the slow attirtion of our ground forces.

(In practice most of our big military contracts are seen as patronage spending and military pork barreling sits relatively poorly here for some reason....maybe we prefer our quid-pro-quo to be quieter, I'm not positive.)

There may be logical reasons to behave differently, but for the reasons above, that's just not going to happen in the forseeable future.

This is why the issue is being re-opened.

Education is a provincial matter. Take it up with Campbell, because we all know how much HE likes to listen...

Why is this issue considering age of consent so large right now? Because it's something distract the people from the pertinant issues. Plus, Harper's Evangelical, so this is a PM's personal beliefs blending quite well with his job. It gives the masses something to discuss; something that is acessible to all. It will also make parents think about their teenagers and how they are bringing them up. This will give sexual education a boost too, as kids will be talking about it, and finding out more information about sex. It's a strategic political move, and is being implicated in a smooth manner. By the time this issue is over with, future generations will be more informed about sex, and the whole nation will be blind to what the Harper government has done in the meantime.
Grr...don't get me started on Campbell. :headbang:

Well, that's stupid. I really don't think I lack sex education, especially since planning now is mandatory in ever BC school, and half the course is on STI's and pregnancy. You know about it even if you DON"T listen. As for the political move, in time of the election, I hope people will realize that he would have done nothing real, only the stupid age of consent thing that isn't an issue anyway.

Also, the air force and the naval forces are primarily instruments of foreign policy. A carrier (we did have one till about 1972) is for projecting military power to provide political leverage (in practice) or for a strategic advantage in a full out shooting war. The same for large numbers of submarines or surface vessels. Or large air wings.
you may be right about the carrier, but wouldn't submarines be excellent for patrolling the arctic and maintaining a military presence there? as equus said, there is still symbolic and legal value just to show up and hang around.

(and in case you're wondering, using peacekeepers for brownie points with Europe and the UN sits far far better than using the navy and airforce to earn brownie points with US.
i see how the air force, participating in norad and all, could be considered america-friendly. but wouldn't the navy be more of an assertive statement on canadian sovereignty and power that is independent of the usa?

And we show no sign of doing significantly more than arresting the slow attirtion of our ground forces.
a question of mine that has yet to be answered is the distinction between the roles of the expeditionary forces vs the army. an additional, related question is whether the erosion of the ground force budget is limited to the army, or also includes the expeditionary forces?

The Hans Island Liberation Front

The current troubles on Hans Island
The people of Hans Island yearn to breathe free! Free from the oppression of Canadian and Danish interlopers!

Over the past months, there has been an escalation of aggression from both the Danes and the Canadians, following the traditional Arctic warring rituals of building ornate rockpiles (called cairns or "inukshuks"). Whilst the Canadians and the Danes try to win the war by building the largest and most elaborate inukshuk possible, the people of Hans Island suffer.

"Our island is small," said Hans, one of the indigenous residents. "There isn't really room for all of these rockpiles. I can hardly get from one end of the island to the other without stubbing my toe on something."

"He's right," said the other resident, also named Hans. "Plus, they're using up all the best rocks. It's not fair. How can we compete, with our militia of two unarmed volunteers (me and him), against the might of the world's two greatest military superpowers, Canada and Denmark?"

Before the recent resurgence in interest in Hans Island, Canada and Denmark fought to establish sovereignty by leaving bottles of their respective national spirits, Canadian rye whiskey and Danish aquavit, on the island.

"That we didn't mind" said Hans.


http://www.hansislandliberationfront.com/struggle.htm

The Hans Island Liberation Front



http://www.hansislandliberationfront.com/struggle.htm
*twitch*

This is pathetic.

*twitch*

This is pathetic.

By pathetic you mean hilarious, right?

By pathetic you mean hilarious, right?
Pathetic AND hilarious. We're fighting the Danes over a tiny little island with beer bottles...I'll bet no other country can even think of claiming that. :p

*twitch*

This is pathetic.

Yep.

Hey, I could go up there and conquer the whole island with a butter knife and really become king DM. Not sure if there is much to tax on my soon to be island, but I'll find something. Maybe form my own military....:)

In other words, we're screwed.

The Russians will invade, then the Americans will invade to get rid of the Russians, set up military bases to 'protect' us from future Russian invasions, and then help themselves to all of our natural resources. You know, to help recoup the cost of repelling the Russkies.

Awesome.

You grossly overestimate the ability of Russia to project power.

Pathetic AND hilarious. We're fighting the Danes over a tiny little island with beer bottles...I'll bet no other country can even think of claiming that. :p

I wonder if Canada has tried trading Quebec to the Danes for Hans Island?

I wonder if Canada has tried trading Quebec to the Danes for Hans Island?
The Danes probably don't want Quebec on account of it's French-ness. :p

Pathetic AND hilarious. We're fighting the Danes over a tiny little island with beer bottles...I'll bet no other country can even think of claiming that. :p

Unfortunately no. The US and Russia have pissing matches over God forsaken barren little pieces of rock in the Aleutians too. Japan and Russia also enjoy the sport.

If a new volcanic island suddenly formed in any of these places then the hot air and smoke expelled by politicians and diplomats claiming the new island would exceed that expelled by the actual volcano I reckon

you may be right about the carrier, but wouldn't submarines be excellent for patrolling the arctic and maintaining a military presence there? as equus said, there is still symbolic and legal value just to show up and hang around.


Look at this way. Submarines main puprose would be for stopping other nations from sending subs under the ice pack. Because if there are surface vessels whom were are concerned are violating our territory, then we can use surface vessels to interdict them. Also, you have to understand...while the 3 Upholder class subs we got from Britain have turned out to be lemons (or at least to not live up to their specifications, which are actually fairly impressive)....they cost the same as roughly one older style nuclear powered submarine or 1/2 of one of the newer ones.

I may be wrong on this, but I don't think even the Upholders (much less the ancient Oberons we finally scrapped) can go under the pack ice. And the point is that really tight sovereignity isn't just about detecting but projecting overwhelming force at intruders to make it clear if they don't leave you can sink their ass quickly. So we would need to have two or three subs for every intruder because in pack ice conditions, only subs can threaten other subs.

Because the main folks we're worried about, the Americans, have higher technology and much better crews in this arm. (because they can devote more money to training them, and the institutional aspect below). I may be incorrect about this, but I don't think our submarine arm is particularly distinguished for operational efficiency. Not particularly bad, but the Americans are pretty much the masters of submarine on submarine warfare.

Forty years of playing tag with Soviet hunter killers and the odd ballistic missile sub was a big part of that...people are much more invested when they know that their performance stands between their homeland and possible _nukes_ incoming. Rather than solely for advancing their career or looking good on NATO exercises.

And remember what I was stressing: it might arguably make good sense to spend the outlay required for enforcing our territorial waters and claims to the Arctic Ocean islands...(but that would be a BIG outlay. like we'd easily need to triple our overall budget for forces. The navy (unless you're playing with cutting edge stealth aircraft) is still the most expensive arm.) is too abstract an issue for the general public for them to emotionally support this sort of increase.

Maybe we're being foolish, but people don't decide stuff like this based on facts. I refer you to the time in the late Mulrooney gov't when they thought of getting 8 nuclear subs. The Liberals made _great_ political hay off that and scuttled that as soon as they took office and there wasn't a murmur of public opposition. (I'd admit, you'd need about 8 to cover the whole ice pack, I think. Esp since traditionally only 1/3 to 1/2 your fleet is at sea at a given time...)




i see how the air force, participating in norad and all, could be considered america-friendly. but wouldn't the navy be more of an assertive statement on canadian sovereignty and power that is independent of the usa?


That isn't how most Canadians see it, though. The last two high profile uses of the navy were _both_ on behalf of the US (during Gulf War I and (I think) II), and they did, IIRC, stretch our operational capacity to the limit. Even during the "Turbot war" in the mid 90's, people didn't connect the dots and realize that a stronger navy would mean more say in issues of coastal waters, much less territorial sovereignity.

Franky, despite our anti-Americanism, most Canadians basically think (about losing resource rights in the Arctic) "They wouldn't DARE!"....or as someone else put it "Canada is the world's most smug nation, the Americans, it's most arrogant, and thus we have the longest undefended border ". By the time the Americans do enough to make people feel this is a concern, it will probably be too late to do anything.

I mean, logically, if we think the Americans are so bad (and there's lots to hate about the direction they're going in the last 20 years) and we're saying rhetorically they're a bunch of fascist war mongers (which isn't quite true), we should be seeing agitation to build up Swiss-like levels of armed forces. But obviously, the public does not truly believe they are a threat. Fear should be our reaction stemming from our beliefs, but instead our reaction is just sanctimanity (which is not entirely unfounded as we are a more equitable and fair society by far).


a question of mine that has yet to be answered is the distinction between the roles of the expeditionary forces vs the army. an additional, related question is whether the erosion of the ground force budget is limited to the army, or also includes the expeditionary forces?

The army has yet to be used in a manner analogous to the Air Force or Navy. And it thus is not tarred with the same brush of "a tool for sucking up to the Americans". (Though possibly I am over reading how widely held a perception this is.) We didnt' send ground troops to the Gulf War, we didn't send them to the conquest of Iraq and we have resisted all calls to send them to the occupation.

The mission in Afghanistan, is definitely a typical peacekeeping mission (albeit under atypically harsh conditions, Bosnia was a cakewalk compared to this one)...and yet either a large minority or some degree of a majority of Canadians don't think it should be there...largely because the Americans are still the dominant force in that country. The attitude seems to be "If the Americans are doing it, it's bad". (Whether it's invading Iraq or breathing (wry look)) It remains to be seen if the shift of burden to NATO will change our perception of the mission.

I think a lot of Canadians are still miffed over the time an American pilot (mostly unrepentantly) bombed a half squad of ours. We seem to carry a collective grudge a long time....

The army as a whole has been shorted on equipment for ages. During the height of the cold war, when the conventional military threat to NATO was at its zenith and there was a dim but conceivable chance we might have to fight in a stand up knock down war....we were using equipment 30-50 years behind the times.

Leopard I tanks (essentially heavy, slow, conspicuous recon vehicles in the mid 80's battlefield) were our strongest system. Otherwise we had M113 APC's (which were getting _damned_ long in the tooth, everyone else was trying hard to upgrade or already had) and 1948 small arms and I think artillery too. Definitely no self propelled guns, which would be far more likely to survive counterbattery fire.

And in the intervening years, we haven't done much to chagne the picture. Most importantnly, our logistics infrastructure has collapsed from overuse. You have to understand how many spare parts and how much wear and tear a military force takes on its gear just marching around. The Americans had to plunder their stockpiles of pre-positioned gear in Europe (for fighting Russia) in order to keep the effort in Iraq going because their military industrial base wasn't designed to keep forces in the field at this scale this long. They're probably ramping that up, but for about a good 6-12 months there recently they were effectively unable to deploy anything anywhere else in the world ground force wise for lack of spare parts.

We have had our battalions of infantry in continuous use since the early 90's. There has been problems retaining personnel for long term service. (I think we're now five years older than the Americans for our maximum recruitment age) Recent campaigns to try and fill the gaps have run into a problem that at the current pay grades we simply cannot find enough volunteers. And we can't raise recruit pay _too_ much without p*ssing off the long term soldiers we _do_ still have.

The soldiers are tired of serving in distant lands (with huge tolls on their marriages back in Canada if they have a spouse) with substandard tools and overly ambitious operational parameters (that is, we send a battalion to do the job of two battalions often, because we have shorter leave and less time for rest and refit and the foreign ministry doesn't talk to the forces much to assess if the promises being made are feasible).

We could throw high levels (in historical terms) at them for a long time without seeing our capabilities dramatically increase. We are getting close to a breaking point, and we will not be able to send an all volunteer army to the ends of the earth to win international popularity without giving them the proper tools and probably a hefty raise in pay scale.

I do like the CADPAT though...

i read from the cbc today that ottawa is about to spend c$15b on military equipment, mainly transport planes, trucks, supply ships, and helicopters.

my question is, since canada 1) is unlikely to face a land-based incursion, 2) is mostly involved in international security operations that are far away from north america, and 3) has territorial disputes mainly involving arctic sovereignty, shouldn't she emphasize naval capacity over land forces?

i'm genuinely curious to what canadians think of this issue. i'm sure there are many pacificists in the crowd who will weigh in and say to cut back most military expenditures, and i respect those opinions, but that won't really answer my question.

cefcom and cansofcom seem to be gainfully occupied, so probably shouldn't cut that. but shouldn't a country with such a huge coastline and maritime jurisdiction have more than just three operational submarines? some more icebreakers perhaps? a carrier group? maybe incorporate current land forces into a naval infantry or marine unit?

(disclosure: i am not canadian)

-The reason for the transport planes is that the current Hercules they use are getting outdated. Most of the parts are becoming obsolete and the people who are fixing them are dying off.

-The reason for the trucks is cause of all the roadside bombs we face in Afghanistan and that the previous trucks might as well have come with complimentary coffins cause they had no protection for troops

-supply ships (not sure about this though I would suspect it is so we can transport supplies though not sure what we are currently using now)

-helicopters (oh gosh, this is for sure NEEDED)! We currently use the Sea King which was part of the government's plan for top notch technology back in the 1960s. They were excellent choppers (in the early 1960s) and had a MAXIMUM life of 40 years (note it is past that now in 2006). In recent military reports it was noted that for every hour in the air these things now need 30 hours of maintenance. Furthermore there have been a few deaths of Canadian troops who have died because of crashes of the Sea King within the last 10 years. The choppers were to be replaced by the Mulroney government (conservative 1984-1992) with a newer helicopter however when the Liberal Chretien government came to power that plan was scrapped. So search and rescue and surveillence is done with these historical museum pieces when we need real choppers to do these jobs.

Finally for the record, the only reason we have the 3 diesel powered subs is for war game activities with the US. That is the ONLY reason the Liberal government acquired them. Sure former defense minister Graham will spout other reasons including maritime surveillence however the choppers we should have would do a better job at this.

So in closing to answer your question. We definetly need the new transport planes, trucks, and choppers. The supply ships I need more data on before making a final opinion. Now if you want to argue that we should not be in Afghanistan but instead should be using our forces to protect our home borders (which I agree with) then the trucks are no longer needed (however the planes and choppers would be).

For the record, I am a teacher, researcher, and a Canadian. :)

I feel that the arguments that some are making about how the Canadian Navy "can't stand up" to the US Navy is patently absurd.

There isn't a Navy on Earth today that could stand up to the US Navy, or to the US military in general, except as a long term insurgency.

Any traditional conventional force would be targets.

Unless you plan on spending as much over time on your defense budget (or more) than the US, you're never going to be able to "stand up" to the US military.

Don't waste your money and time. Think of a more realistic mission for the Canadian armed forces, and pay for that.

i read from the cbc today that ottawa is about to spend c$15b on military equipment, mainly transport planes, trucks, supply ships, and helicopters.

my question is, since canada 1) is unlikely to face a land-based incursion, 2) is mostly involved in international security operations that are far away from north america, and 3) has territorial disputes mainly involving arctic sovereignty, shouldn't she emphasize naval capacity over land forces?
It's not a matter of where to employ forces, it's a matter of practicality. Old equipment breaks down, people get hurt and time and money is wasted. With new equipment, the instances of those happening will be lessened.

Sorry i read Canadian Forces and it took me 5 pages to stop laughing long enough to be able to type.

The Canadian Forces were badly neglected under the previous government. These initial investments are designed primarily to replace the stuff that we either don't have at all (transport aircraft), or is so old and rusted out that it's dangerous to use (Sea King helicopters).

Also, the main function of the Canadian Forces is to participate in military operations with our allies. We're so far behind most of them in technology that it's mostly just a pain to bring us along.

The Canadian military used to be an asset. In the '60s, Canada leveraged its military power to get the US to sign the AutoPact.

they're probably worried about their huge border with the worlds biggest rogue state :p

Rofl

It's worth noting that a navy won't do squat against what I think is the most likely threat to arctic sovereignity.

Namely, why go in and try to take it lock stock and barrel when you can just use NAFTA to force "Free competition" for who gets to develop it.

All of the commodities except water in the far north are "on the table". If we tender a contract for government industries (not that there are many if any) the Yankees have to be allowed to compete. And they have WAY better industrial espionage than we do. A couple inside "helpers", some judicious cheating and it's hard not to get a bid if you really want it.

And otherwise, they have an equal right to lease mineral rights like any Canadian firm.

"Yes" you cry "but why would they want to pay taxes when they don't have to if they just _take_ it"...

Because Canadian industry is conservative and reluctant to break in new investments. The US can offer to develop sites long before we would on our own...and given how thirsty governments are for direct investment, I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't get long, long tax holidays. Esp since full employment in the arctic is very far off, but if it were reached, it would relieve a lot of burdens from the federal government.

And beyond which, if we're talking about getting access to strategically important minerals, paying the taxes and being able to maintain the veneer that America is a fundamentally law abiding counry, commercially....the US government would probably count that a decent trade off.

i read from the cbc today that ottawa is about to spend c$15b on military equipment, mainly transport planes, trucks, supply ships, and helicopters.

my question is, since canada 1) is unlikely to face a land-based incursion, 2) is mostly involved in international security operations that are far away from north america, and 3) has territorial disputes mainly involving arctic sovereignty, shouldn't she emphasize naval capacity over land forces?

i'm genuinely curious to what canadians think of this issue. i'm sure there are many pacificists in the crowd who will weigh in and say to cut back most military expenditures, and i respect those opinions, but that won't really answer my question.

cefcom and cansofcom seem to be gainfully occupied, so probably shouldn't cut that. but shouldn't a country with such a huge coastline and maritime jurisdiction have more than just three operational submarines? some more icebreakers perhaps? a carrier group? maybe incorporate current land forces into a naval infantry or marine unit?

(disclosure: i am not canadian)

I'm Canadian, and a military brat (both parents were in the RCAF) with a definite militaristic streak in me. I'm of a divided mind over the new military spending-- one the one hand, after so many years of spending cuts and neglect towards our military, I see new spending as a good thing. They want to boost recruiting and procure more contemporary technology to make our military more prepared and effective. That, I can't argue with. What I'm not so crazy about is how the current government a) portrays itself as "we're the only party that cares about the country because we're spending all this money on the military" when that money wouldn't be there for them to spend if it weren't for 13 years of Liberal budgeting, and the Liberal party was planning to start diverting approximately the same amount of money back to the military at long last; and b) I question the role that the Conservative government wants our military to fill. They seem to want to risk Canadian lives doing a lesser impression of US military foreign policy, which I don't really see the virtue in. I want a military that's ready to defend Canada domestically (the prime purpose of any nation's defensive forces), and when there's no imminent threat that needs them ready to repel aggression, I can live with us sending small peace-keeping contingents to places where they could do some tangible good. But sending them to chronically dysfunctional bits of geography to try and deal with people who-- even if they're captured or killed-- are just going to be replaced by more of the same (if not worse) seems like an inefficient and reckless endangering of our troops.