Does Canada need a Military?

[Grunt031]

A state which can not protect its territorial sovereignty ceases to be a state and surrenders its freedoms and right to self-determination.
And thus, we must remain strong. I am sick of the statement "We have the U.S." No, we don‘t. It is fortunate for us that the U.S. shares most of its security issues with us, but this can change in an instant, than who will defend us? Like I said above, no state can preserve its rights and freedoms without being willing to defend them, and if we want to give this duty to the Americans, we might as well pull down the Maple Leaf and add another Star to the Red, White and Blue.
If you still don‘t believe me, look at our National Anthem (if anyone knows it these days...). The True North Strong and Free. We must remain vigilant, especially in these days, with the insecurities and shifts in the balance of power on the world stage. Anyone who believes that peace for all time was secured with the fall of the Soviet Empire is either naive, dumb, or delusional. History is cyclical and war is not an abberation, but a norm of human society. If you think I am wrong, give me one year in recorded history in which humans did not fight with each other. Here are just a few of the areas that could pose a threat to us in the near future.

- Certain factions within the Chinese Government are becoming increasingly hostile to Western Political actions. The bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, the EP-3 incident, and the ongoing dispute with Taiwan only serve to add to these antogonisms. And they are only going to want to make our toys and socks for so long....

- Sure, Russia is democratic, but so what. Russia is often referred to as the "Second Weimar." Its domestic and international situation is in some instances very similar to that of the Weimar Republic prior to its seizure by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1932. Russia has a failing Ruble and economy, rising inflation, a military that has lost almost all stature, both to Russia and the rest of the world, corrupt politicians who consort (or are) gangsters, and a Western Alliance (NATO) encroching on their former "territories". Who knows would could happen here....

- Look to India to take a place among world powers in the next few decades. A member of the nuclear "club", India is a country half the size of the United States with three times the people. It also has old scores to settle with China and Pakistan.

- Don‘t expect the Middle-East and the Balkans to calm down anytime soon; recent news makes this statement moot. And anyone who believes that events here cannot affect us should go back to their history books and look up the origins of the First World War.

And these are only icing on the cake. Outside of the West, most of the would is a mess, like it has always been.

 

[Soldier of Fortune]

First of all, Canada and the U.S. have some of the best relations in the world, and also, im sure Britain would not forget about us.

 

[John Nayduk]

Good relations are one thing but as the U.S. has demonstrated, they come first and foremost. Britian has its own problems. If we aren‘t willing to defend ourselves then we have no one else to blame if someone else‘s flag flies over Ottawa.

 

[McG]

Originally posted by Pte. Silcox:
[qb]. . . for future refrence, we were at about this size military before WW2 and substantially less before WW1

so ease up there guy

re-take that history course in school, mabey you forgot Passchendaele, Ypres, somme, vimy, hill 70, dieppe, normandy, Liri valley, Melfa Crossing, our whole little "liberating holland" thing
[/qb]

Let‘s not forget Hong Kong; it was before we lifted our pants up from around our ankles. It takes time, and that is not always available in abundance. 6+ months to train a soldier is a long time. Armoured vehicles come out at an even slower pace. All these need to be in place before they are needed.

There will not always be an English Channel to hide across until we are ready to play.

 

[eddyfoubert@WEBTV.NET]

I totally agree with some of you and then disagree with some,I served in the army from 1942 to 1975 27 years in the active and PF forces and the other in the reserve,Do not tellme we are not prepared,When the Korean war broke out within days more than 15 thousand new men joined up half were world war 2 vets,I know I joined the army on Dec 5th 1050 for Korea at about 8.30 am at 8PM the same day I left for the est cost for Korea with a short stop over in Fort Lewis before sailing for the Far East,Why soraidly? it,s beacause like the other odd thousand we were ols vets from years ago,It,s like riding a bike or swim one yo learn you never forget it.So I hat is off to all the ones now serving either in the Reserve or the active force May the Good Lord watch over all of you as he watched over me for 75 years during war and peace,

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The thing about this is. Canada has no clear danger or no clear enemy. We are not placed geographically in an area near enemy countries. We haven't been updating the Armed Forces and the equipment is old and useless. Maybe if the Armed forces were made smaller it would be more economical for the country.

    There once was a nation that thought like this, and saved its money when its neighbors built tanks, secure in its alliance with great powers that would never let it come to harm, it slept its way into the grave.  One day, a wakeup call came as Uncle Joe and Cousin Adolf rolled their tanks acacrosshe plains and over the bodies of cavalrymen (on actual horses) who had been so betrayed by their nation as to be left practically unarmed in the face of aggression.  The great powers that had sworn its protection sent no troops, and while a phony war resulted, that was of little help to the conquored nation who would not draw a free breath for generations.  Polish Mig-29 pilot, can you guess what nation I'm speaking of?  Canada has seen what comes of relying on your historic allies to protect you, one day, someone will ask them to look away and it will be done.  Take a look at the Falkland Islands, sovereign British territory was taken by force of arms, and its cicitizensonquored.  The UK is a signatory of NATO, but that alliance was more than willing to let Britain swing (both the US and Canada can plead guilty to that one).  Alliances are nice, but in the end, it is only your own forces that can be counted on to defend you.  If your allies are forced to protect you, you will swiftly find life as a protectorate a far cry from independence

 

[Pte. Bloggins]

Whoa, way to resurrect a four-year old thread. 

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Might be a reserection.

But the message in the Post should not be lost on any of the readers of the thread.

To truly have a sovereign nation you must be able to maintain that sovereignty independent of so called alliances and "friends".  Something this nation cannot do.  Rick Mercer said it perfectly it is like the kid in grade three not being worried about getting picked on because he has a brother in grade six who is 6 feet tall and weighs 200 lbs.  Our geographical closeness to the Americans has made us lazy when it comes to our defence spending.  "we don't have to worry the Americans will save us"  This should not  be so.  we should be able to protect our selves.

 

[Inch]

mainerjohnthomas, just a little info, when someone's username shows up in white with no link to a profile, that means that that person is no longer registered on the forum so posting a response to them is of no use since you won't get a reply.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Maybe not but it was a good way to re activate this thread.

it might be best to not get a reply that way your opinion rules ;D ;D

 

[Cpl.Banks]

The Canadian army is here to stay, I for one dont think that the US will be our big brother for long either: 1. Their troops are over extended(Iraq,Afganistan....eventually Syria) and the Chinese invade or: 2. The Us runs out of ressources and look who has plenty, ill give you a hint its not Mexico... Canada then 36 hours later is raising the red white and blue in Ottawa, we need to build up our forces if not just for protction but also to raise a bit of clout and make us more than a medium power, I will soon be serving and I cant stand people who always say that the good ol' US of A can protect Canada...that Bs we shoudl fight our own battles and kick some ass!

 

[Blue Max]

I am firmly of the opinion that the root of many of our trade issues (softwood lumber, beef...) is due to our over reliance on the Americans. Of course they are going to want something in return for their so called protection, and the fact that we struggle to setup even a small expedition in our northern territories reinforces to the Americans that we are not serious about our sovereignty.

MHO

 

[Whiskey_Dan]

This is more of a no brainer question. Canada not only should have a military, it NEEDS its military. Over the years since WW2, many Canadians have set their mind on the thought that our big brothers to the south will protect us. Let's not forget that the Americans have had Manifest Destiny since the French-Indian war. If we allow our military to slip into disarry, then we will on longer be able to assert sovereignty over our own country. Unless Canadians want to be flying the red, white, and blue over their lawns, they better rethink the support they have for the men and women of our armed forces.
Pro Canada


Dan

 

[pbi]

I agree that we need to have a military (surpriiii-iiise!). However, I have read a statement that I will throw out here for discussion. While Canada should doubtlessly have "a" military, it is in fact impossible to state conclusively how big or how capable this military should be, since the threats to Canada cannot adequaetly be defined. So?

Cheers

 

[Harris]

The threats to Canada?

I suggest the following, in no particular order:

1.  I was informed a while ago that Canada was the only country mentioned specifically by Al-Queda who has not yet had an attack carried out on it's soil
2.  Sovereignty, especially in the North where there are vast untapped resources
3.  Internal security issues such as the PLQ crisis
4.  Numerous domestic aid to civil power events such as Ice storms, flooding, shovelling Toronto's sidewalks (sorry I couldn't resist)  A statistic: Natural disasters have accounted for 69.9 percent of all disasters in Canadian history. Flooding has been, by far, the greatest cause of disasters in Canada in the 20th century, followed by severe storms.
5.  I suspect that sooner, rather than later our fresh water supply will need to be protected as other parts of the world run out
6.  And of course another conventional war is bound to happen at some point given our past history

For the govt's take on threats to Infrastructure go here: http://www.ocipep.gc.ca/opsprods/other/TA03-001_e.asp

Anyone have anything to add?

 

[pbi]

OK, Roger that. Now, using your factors, state conclusively what size of military we must have, and why bigger or smaller would not work. It may not be as easy as we might think.

Cheers

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I agree that we need to have a military (surpriiii-iiise!). However, I have read a statement that I will throw out here for discussion. While Canada should doubtlessly have "a" military, it is in fact impossible to state conclusively how big or how capable this military should be, since the threats to Canada cannot adequaetly be defined. So?

Well, in tactics we are moving from "threat-based" planning to "effect-based" planning, so it follows that we might do the same for planning of defence policy.   The question then becomes: what effect do we want our military to be able to have?

Dave

 

[Harris]

I cannot list what fighting forces we need to have as I do not have the knowledge necessary to determine what size force goes with what type of task.  However I Will state my opinion on what the solders/seamen/airmen filling those roles need to be able to do as follows:

1.  The Military should break all of the forseen tasks into two scaled lists:  most likely to least likely to happen and highest amount of damage to least amount of damage caused if it does happen.
2.  Next they should then determine the amount of manpower/equipment needed to deal with the tasks that are above the %50 likely to happen list that also are above the %50 mark in amount of damage caused.  They should consider those tasks that are very unlikely to happen (say the bottom %10 or so) but which will cause a great deal of damage, if there are any.
3.  Next on the to do is then decide which of those forces can be multi tasked so that they are not simply available for the %10 least likely to happen but will cause a lot of damage list.
4.  Some things to consider in coming up with the above list will be:
    chrun (troops coming into the system and also leaving) as neither group will be effective in dealing with these tasks
    leave periods (the troops have to be given time to take leave)
    unforeseen tasks (maybe put in a %5 or so fudge factor)
    professional development periods (again troops on this are not avail for tasks)
    capital replacement/acquisition requirements
    and I'm sure a number of other things I have no knowledge about
5.  Once all the above is done I'm sure the military will come up with a number that our current fiscal situation just cannot handle.  Then they should start at the highest pri task and work downwards until the $ runs out.  Everything below that mark becomes unfunded and un-doable unless more $ comes our way.

Personally if I had to make a guess at the manpower needs we currently have today I'd say we need the fol (Please consider I am Infantry so don't beat me up too bad if I miss some things   )

4 Full Strength Combat Teams including MBT's and all the other goodies that go with them.  One for each Reg Force Regiment and one that contains the kit but which is mainly dedicated to trg Reserve force troops only so that they can provide replacements/augmentation on relatively short notice.  And 4 organizations of all of the various support trades that are needed to actually run and maintain these organizations.  Again, the 4th one could be used as a training aid for Reserves to use.  If a Regular Force Unit gets tasked with a mission, they take the equipment they need from their own stores.  If more of a specific type is needed then that is drawn from a central reserve (not the 4th Combat Team)  I think we also need the Airborne back as a quick reaction force.

A reserve force that is twice as large ar the Regular Force component above manpower wise so that there will be sufficient replacements/augmentation available if/when it is needed.  And as part of that ALL (just an opinion, please don't bomb my car) Reserve units should be aligned to mate with one of the Reg force units.  What I mean is, if there are for example 3 small units in an armoury, and the nearest Reg force Unit is 2 RCR, then all 3 Units become Inf and are combined into one unit.  There are a number of armouries out there where there are 2-3 different small units that could combine to be 1 large Unit.  The savings in support staff and leadership would be significant I suspect.  Care would have to be taken that the Reserve units eventually boil down to roughly the same ratio as the Reg force ones.

We require enough heavy air lift to move a Combat Team in one go anywhere in the world.  That includes in-flight refuelling, and fighter escort.  Another duty for those same fighters would be home defence and ground attack.  Therefore I see 4 Sqns of these as well.  On per Cbt Team.  Perhaps rotating them through the 4th (Reserve Cbt Team( as a bit of a break.  We also need a Sqn of ground atk helos for both obs and support for the Inf.  We require heavy lift helos (again 4 Sqn) that can be used for troop tpt and resupply.  We need to be able to move at least a company in one lift as a min.  And we should keep our maritime patroll aircraft and expand their role to include more northern patrols.

On the Navy side I think we require 2 platforms that can tpt a Cbt team in one go, including acting as a flight deck for the heavy lift helos and acting as a resupply/hospital ship.  We of course will also need the necessary protection (I'm a little fuzzy here on what is needed) but I'm guessing a C&C ship and 3-4 axillary frigates/destroyers?  Honestly I don't think we require submarines unless we go nuclear.  They need to be able to operate for extend times below the surface and in the North under the ice and our current batch obviously cannot.

What we don't need is the outrageous numbers of HQ's that we have today.  Take the organization above, form it into manageable organizations and assign a field HQ and add a Garrison HQ to deal with the day to day stuff.  No "Area" HQ's.  Make a Brigade HQ a real Brigade HQ.  Then have a Div HQ or 2 and finally a streamlined NDHQ.  Make all of these organizations have the proper number of troops under them, otherwise they are not needed.  Do the same with the Navy and Air Force.

OK.  I've killed way to many brain cells just thinking about this stuff.  Please note this is all my own opinion and hey if you disagree please feel free to do so.  But at least have a better idea and explain why you disagree.

 

[Blue Max]

Harris, I like your thoughts on the subject. ;D
There may be two area's to strengthen to greater degree, Engineering and Medical support.

The West coast is geologically overdue for a large earthquake that would probably compare to the SE Tsunami in destruction, and I am not convinced Canada is ready to deal with such an event.

Canadians are perhaps overly PC and thus will always prefer to help with such expeditions as DART for which we probably gather most resources from said groups ENG and MED.

My $0.02,
B M.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Harris hit the nail on the head for most of the post, I would make a few observations though.  Firstly, I don't see MBT coming soon. I would rather concentrate on getting a modern integrated combat force using tools that we can get, than dreaming of kit we won't be permitted.  Likewise the attack helo's are not coming.  Canadian politicians have a problem putting guns, missiles, torpedoes, or dipping sonar on our helo's, regardless of their mission. 
    Since our CF18 fleet is being downsized in modernization, we should be looking at what new craft should be added to make our air force commitments.  For a minimum I think we need new modern patrol craft, a bomber or ground attack platform, refueling aircraft, and heavy airlift sufficient to deploy and support a combat team overseas.  If the airforce are going to be relegated to bus drivers, get them a new bloody bus.....
    For the army, if we do not have local reserves able to handle disaster relief in each region, at a bare minimum we need the heavy airlift ability to deploy a batallion worth of troops and equipment from our nodal locations to the widely distributed cities that would require assistance.  We need sufficient strength to honour our current peacekeeping commitments, with a battlegroup in reserve for emergency local or foreign deployment, a second working up for deployment, while the battlegroup back from peacekeeping duties stands down for recovery and regular training and resupply.