Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[Cloud Cover]

I work in the public sector, and in our Ministry there is no policy for military leave. There is, however, leave to add professional or educational advice to social justice issues.

 

[Flavus101]

I work in the public sector, and in our Ministry there is no policy for military leave. There is, however, leave to add professional or educational advice to social justice issues.

Does the defence of Canada and her laws regarding personal rights and freedoms count as providing professional advice/assistance to a social justice issue?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Does the defence of Canada and her laws regarding personal rights and freedoms count as providing professional advice/assistance to a social justice issue?

For 'Social Justice' read 'Anti-Establishmnet' so probably not.

 

[Rifleman62]

daftandbarmy:

For 'Social Justice' read 'Anti-Establishmnet' so probably not.[/quote

I think you mean anti-conservative pro liberal.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Does the defence of Canada and her laws regarding personal rights and freedoms count as providing professional advice/assistance to a social justice issue?

not according to the OPSEU posters. Try LGBTQ (did I get that right?), women's rights (not the rights of men), anti-capitalism, anti globalism, climate change, criminal justice for the unjustly imprisoned, etc.

     

 

[Flavus101]

This generation needs a world event to happen that causes significant hardship.

There will be less worrying about whether or not buddy who murdered and then ate said person is receiving their chocolate bar at every jail meal and is having visits out to the town.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

This generation needs a world event to happen that causes significant hardship.

There will be less worrying about whether or not buddy who murdered and then ate said person is receiving their chocolate bar at every jail meal and is having visits out to the town.

This is absolutely not what we need. Give your head a shake

 

[Journeyman]

This is absolutely not what we need. Give your head a shake

I suspect that by "world event causing  significant hardship," he means Facebook and Snapchat both crashing at the same time. 

          anic:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I suspect that by "world event causing  significant hardship," he means Facebook and Snapchat both crashing at the same time. 

          anic:

For anyone under 25 this would likely lead to mass suicides....

 

[daftandbarmy]

For anyone under 25 this would likely lead to mass suicides....

OTOH, if we take away their 'Angry Birds' it seems that they might just make good Infantry

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/kids-turn-violent-as-parents-battle-digital-heroin-addiction/news-story/12292c2f5a1b779a56697594b871f57b

 

[MilEME09]

unfortunately we Canada need a threat, even my anti-military spending girlfriend believes we have no threats against Canada and do not need a significant military, despite my best efforts to convince otherwise. Very much I think this is the main opinion of most Canadians because they don't see a threat or a major function for the Canadian Forces in our current society. This is because of neglect of successive governments in my opinion.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

unfortunately we Canada need a threat, even my anti-military spending girlfriend believes we have no threats against Canada and do not need a significant military, despite my best efforts to convince otherwise. Very much I think this is the main opinion of most Canadians because they don't see a threat or a major function for the Canadian Forces in our current society. This is because of neglect of successive governments in my opinion.

But she is right... there are no REAL existential threats to Canada. North Korea, Russia, China, and ISIS/Taliban/terrorist organization x aren't existential, so its hard to justify military spending. That said, lets not pretend like us not having an existential threat is a bad thing.

 

[MilEME09]

But she is right... there are no REAL existential threats to Canada. North Korea, Russia, China, and ISIS/Taliban/terrorist organization x aren't existential, so its hard to justify military spending. That said, lets not pretend like us not having an existential threat is a bad thing.

oh I agree we have no threats however I firmly believe that given the size of our coast line we need a navy capable of patrolling and keeping those water ways safe.

 

[SRidders]

It's easy to prepare for the known, it's the unknown we need to be afraid of.

Given the speed of modern mobilization and technological advances, to not keep a standing military modern is potentially failing our future selves.

Which is why a properly funded reserve force is an important factor with dealing with the unknown. We train for the day the country will need us, hoping they will never need us. It's happened twice before in as little as 100 years. betting it will not happen again and thinking you can then raise a civilian military to deal with a world of professional forces is both short-sighted and reckless.

What do you expect from a political system which promotes short sighted goals.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No threats to Canada, at all, anywhere?  Not sure I believe that.  :2c:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

No threats to Canada, at all, anywhere?  Not sure I believe that.  :2c:

No EXISTENTIAL threats.

 

[Blackadder1916]

No EXISTENTIAL threats.

What?  Sorry, what are you trying to say?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/existential-threat-the-birth-of-a-cliche/#

But if you want to get into philosophy, there's nothing better than https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

What?  Sorry, what are you trying to say?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/existential-threat-the-birth-of-a-cliche/#

But if you want to get into philosophy, there's nothing better than https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg

Neat article. However, ISIS, Russia, Iran, etc are no rusk to the US led liberal world order established post-1945. China could be a threat, potentially, at some point but they seem more likely to join said world order than destroy it. Germany challenged the world order and lost.

Either way, to the discussion  at hand (outside of international relations convos) there is little to no pressing reason for a military reinvestment in large scale forces at the moment.

 

[Flavus101]

This is absolutely not what we need. Give your head a shake

I gave it a shake, situation no change.

This world event does not necessarily have to be a global conflict with massive loss of life such as the world wars.

I am talking about an event that unifies Canadians (and to a greater extent Western civilizations) towards a common purpose. An event that forces people to start being accountable for their actions and not simply looking towards the state for handouts required from their poor decisions. I think that Western civilization has become stagnant and lacking in innovation and drive (not counting the yearly iPhone or other gadget release).

There is no denial that the US is still the predominant global power. However, there is legitimate cause to be concerned that the US no longer holds the same level of  global power it once had and that the world is breaking up into a situation where there are dominant regional hegemons that can dominant US power.

History has shown that global powers are never able to sustain themselves indefinitely due to a variety of reasons, perhaps stagnation is the most signifiant. I believe that the US is currently on a downward trend and that powers such as Russia, India and China will seek to assert themselves as significant regional powers willing to challenge the US in their spheres of influence as time progresses (this decay could be dragged out over the next 50 to 100 years).

As a single global hegemony starts to decay, those who gain power and influence will continually challenge and destabilize the global political landscape as they seek to become the predominant power (this does not necessarily have to be widespread open warfare, as we all know there are different ways to inflict losses). I believe that the United Nations will prove to be as effective as the League of Nations in stopping this new age of political instability.

 

[SRidders]

I am talking about an event that unifies Canadians (and to a greater extent Western civilizations) towards a common purpose. An event that forces people to start being accountable for their actions and not simply looking towards the state for handouts required from their poor decisions. I think that Western civilization has become stagnant and lacking in innovation and drive (not counting the yearly iPhone or other gadget release).

I think you are mistaking stagnation with other nation states catching up from a period in history (WW1 and WW2) that crippled them or drastically changed their political systems. Innovation today happens in the pharmaceutical and supply chain management sector (not easily visible to the naked eye).

There is no denial that the US is still the predominant global power. However, there is legitimate cause to be concerned that the US no longer holds the same level of  global power it once had and that the world is breaking up into a situation where there are dominant regional hegemons that can dominant US power.

It's expensive to have your fingers on all corners of the planet at all times. At the infancy of the current global economy, it was profitable to send out your armed forces to force you economic will in all major makets. As China and other emerging world powers caught up via developing economies, they naturally regained their influence over their immediate spheres of influence. The USA was no longer the default power and it would cost them too much to retain that power. So, they started to retract a lot of influence and concentrated on specific regions. This is where we are seeing a major battle for influence, namely the Middle East.

In short, the USA saw the writing on the wall and are now more focused on where they place their forces to gain influence.

As a single global hegemony starts to decay, those who gain power and influence will continually challenge and destabilize the global political landscape as they seek to become the predominant power (this does not necessarily have to be widespread open warfare, as we all know there are different ways to inflict losses). I believe that the United Nations will prove to be as effective as the League of Nations in stopping this new age of political instability.

This is Historically accurate if you look at it from a broad perspective. However, current world actors are too intertwined economically to truly inflict the historical destabilisation you are talking about. China would never go to war with the USA unless it was economically to their advantage. Nato would not institute blanket sanctions on Russia as Europe is too intertwined with their energy sector. If we ever saw a retraction of the current global economy, then your senario could happen. However, we're all done if that happens.