Adding Canada to the civ world

[frekk]

So then what do you do when someone decides to invade that has ten or more times your numbers??

Threaten to sell a couple of Candu reactors to their enemies, or maybe just ask them to dispose some of the enormous quantities of enriched plutonium that is a waste product of Candu technology and which we have in abundance.

Who is going to invade us anyway? It would be about as easy for the US to invade Canada as it would be to re-institute slavery of blacks or put a crown on George's head and call him Emperor. All talk of an American invasion is lips flapping in the wind, because it's politically impossible, a joke. Besides, if a primitive, compact nation situated in ideal terrain for M1's, consisting of goat farmers and camel drivers with WW1 rifles and little homemade bombs, can give the US a bloody nose, well, we aren't exactly shaking in our boots!

Nobody else has the capability to project force this far, except perhaps Russia and it's certain that Russia has no need to do so (having all the same resources themselves and much more important uses for whatever military capabilities they do retain).

 

[Brian Mc]

Mastertyguy Ay, I am a Sens fan and am very much looking forward to the new season. Season tickets have been slashed here, so those would be a good possibility this time around.

 

[Pounder]

I don't think canada should be a civ. It was nothing more than a civ based on british and canadian colonies. True, america was once a colony too, but america has a larger population,a unique culture, and has been a major world power for over 150 years. Canada is not a major power, it was only 4th because the militaries of the axis and their victims (france, china, etc.)were destroyed. 45,000 is nothing in the sense that tens of millions of people died in world war 2.

Canada was in WWII more than 2 years before the USA, fully mobilized.

1.5 Million men serving is not a small number by any count even in todays armies and this was out of a population of 11 million at the time, that's 14% of the total popultaion never mind the adult male poplution.

It was the largest 100% volunteer army in WWII (that's means without any conscription), which says something about the culture of Canadians and there belief in freedom.

Sure Canada's population has tripled since WWII and the miltary spending has decreased, but they are still involved in the most dangerous of military tasks, peace keeping. They still do get involved in wars, Canadian pilots executed 1/6 of tall the sorties in Serbia for example, they are still sending troops to Afghanastan, etc, etc, etc..

As the USA has found out, keeping the peace is harder than steam rolling over a country. The US takes over IRAQ for example without any casualties caused by the enemy (most deaths were accidental or friendly fire). After they try to maintain control, the casualties are over 1500.

 

[jkp1187]

Nope. 1931.

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

The Constitution Act of 1982 was more or less a formality and one which simply could no longer be ignored, though it was definately in the Canadian interest to ignore it.

Pshaw. You still had to run to Parliament to get approval to amend the British North America Act. That is not independence.

 

[frekk]

Pshaw. You still had to run to Parliament to get approval to amend the British North America Act. That is not independence.

As I mentioned, that was in the interest of Canadian federalists ... it effectively made the constitution unamendable by separatists or regional factions in the West. It is no coincidence at all that Canada's unity problems really begin to multiply only after 1982.

The only reason 1982 even happened at all was the FLQ crisis. Federalists saw that without giving separatists a potentially fruitful purpose to peaceful political expression, they could expect that frustrated political sentiments would ultimately find expression in terrorism. But, as the history of the last 20 years in Canada has shown, the Constitutional Act, by making secession a possibility, has given enormous leverage at the national level to separatists and regional factions. Before 1982 a Westerner who threatened separation as a bargaining ploy would be hung out to dry, but after 1982 he'd be given a pat on the back and handed a fistful of gold.

Curiously enough, then, the "independance" of 1982 has actually eroded federal power in Canada.

 

[henry k c]

Canada was in WWII more than 2 years before the USA, fully mobilized.

1.5 Million men serving is not a small number by any count even in todays armies and this was out of a population of 11 million at the time, that's 14% of the total popultaion never mind the adult male poplution.

It was the largest 100% volunteer army in WWII (that's means without any conscription), which says something about the culture of Canadians and there belief in freedom.

Sure Canada's population has tripled since WWII and the miltary spending has decreased, but they are still involved in the most dangerous of military tasks, peace keeping. They still do get involved in wars, Canadian pilots executed 1/6 of tall the sorties in Serbia for example, they are still sending troops to Afghanastan, etc, etc, etc..

As the USA has found out, keeping the peace is harder than steam rolling over a country. The US takes over IRAQ for example without any casualties caused by the enemy (most deaths were accidental or friendly fire). After they try to maintain control, the casualties are over 1500.

To be honest, the canadian peacekeeping missions are small and insignificant, and the only reason they are on those missions are because they are a member of the UN. The US had over 20 milloin troops fighting in all military branches, 20 times the number canada had. But the united states didn't have 20 times canadas population, did it?

 

[Nyvin]

This is simply incorrect. The British economy was far larger, encompassing about a third of the planet's population, including several important markets, an enormous industrial base and possessing the most advanced industrial technologies in the world (such as the highly prized Bessemer Converters used in the Sheffield steel industry)..

It's a simple fact that the USA had a larger economy in the year 1900. They didn't build up military or anything, because of the isolation policy they had back then. So they didn't have much projection power on the planet, but they still had more manufactering and production then anyone else on the planet. The only area in the brittish empire that had industry was britain itself, that's not enough to compete with the entire USA at the time.

Encompassing about a third of the world doesn't mean much when more then three quarters of that is in the area of India/Pakistan/Bangladash/Burma. That area made up most of the infamous 'one third of the world'.

Incorrect ... Germany was struggling because they did not have cheap access to the raw materials to facilitate a diverse industrial base, nor did they have the guaranteed preferential exports markets of the Commonwealth.

Stop saying incorrect...it's rude. Anyway, maybe at the moment Germany was the leading military power, but it certainly was building up fast, and wasn't all that far behind Britain to say that Britain was the 'sole superpower of the world....'

Britain's free trade network made it so that everyone else benefited from the empire just as much as britain did for the most part. It's something that is generally looked at as a mistake by britain. That would explain the cheap access stuff. They also traded significantly with the US and latin america.

Incorrect. In some respects they were advanced in others they were vastly inferior (for instance, simply compare the British use of tanks in WW1 to the German use of tanks). At any rate, the Royal Navy put them head and shoulders above everyone else ... the effect of a powerful navy on a global power's military prospects at that time was very similar to having overwhelming airpower today..

Don't say incorrect, just state your claim. British ww1 tanks were nothing amazing, they didn't contribute vastly to the war, they were more of an experiment then anything. The reason they became commonly noted is that they were the experiment that lead to the development of modern tank warfare, not because they were amazing in the war itself, most of the war was trench warfare, with tanks having a very minor role.

The navy was bigger yes, but that still doesn't make it the 'sole superpower' of the world. There were other navies out there, and the reason they had a huge navy was because they had virtually no large land army to speak of.

England wasn't. Britain was. It was the only nation on the planet with any force projection capabilities to speak of in 1900.

Then why did France, Germany, Belgium, the US, Russia, Japan, Italy, and the Netherlands build up world empires also at the time?

 

[Superkrest]

To be honest, the canadian peacekeeping missions are small and insignificant, and the only reason they are on those missions are because they are a member of the UN. The US had over 20 milloin troops fighting in all military branches, 20 times the number canada had. But the united states didn't have 20 times canadas population, did it?

i belive in fact that it did...your numbers are wrong..1.5 million troops versus 11 mill in population..and 20 mil versus 150(?) isnt ten times. i dont think that this proves canada should be on the 18 list..but i think if an expansion of future versions have lots(around40) they...along with others should be there. not to mention the smallest country in population with a trillion dollar economy..that must say something.

and why field an army in the present? you share an unprecedented friendship with the two of the largest powerhouses in the world(uk and america) and the only ones who could rival them are russia and they only want to compete in the hockey arena. why waste the money on anything other then nato requirements...they give more in aide (percentage of economy) then most countrys would dream

 

[Atrebates]

The British economy was very powerful pre WWI. Discounting India et al is failing to understand the economy of that period- India's produce was very, very valuable (tea, spices and fine cloth). It was called the jewel of the Empire for a reason.

And without effective air travel control of the seas meant control of trade and arms deployment - no-one can move without your say so. Had WWI taken place (in force) outside of Europe it wouldn't have even been a competition.

 

[Nyvin]

The Britiish economy was very powerful pre WWI. Discounting India et al is failing to understand the economy of that period- India's produce was very, very valuable (tea, spices and fine cloth). It was called the jewel of the Empire for a reason.

And without effective air travel control of the seas meant control of trade and arms deployment - no-one can move without your say so. Had WWI taken place (in force) outside of Europe it wouldn't have even been a competition.

It nearly did between France and Britain over the Sudan though. Germany was building up a navy to rival britain's at the time also. And Russia was an empire based on land entirely, not sea. It could threaten India without navy. And had the USA not been an isolation state at the time, it could've easily built up a navy to match britain's, it's just there never was a reason to until the cold war.

India did have valuable trades, but just about every imperial power had possessions in India (coastal cities) That they used to trade with India itself. Britain only saw a small portion of the profit from that colony.

 

[Atrebates]

The point was if you had to travel by sea to make war with Britain you were in trouble (and of course naval blockades of home waters are crippling too).

And Britain held the lion's share of India, making it more advantagious to them than to their rivals - others had trade posts, they actually owned (or held in dominion) most of India.

PS. I'm sure the USA could have built a sizeable navy, thing is they didn't. It probably would have taken a while too, huge drydocks are needed and steel must be made to the right size and shape - such expertise may not exist. The ship must also be engineered, which may take some time and the USA might not have had the expertise for this either and then you need crews and captains, skill is vital here...
This is not knocking the US in any way, its just navies are complex things.

 

[mastertyguy]

It was the largest 100% volunteer army in WWII

Where have you seen that? I heard exactly the opposite, and poeple marying and injuring themselves to avoid to go to the front (at least in Quebec) doesn't seem to me as volunteering (or as strange volunteering). The Maurice Richard was supposed to go, but got injured in a game, and stayed.

 

[Superkrest]

Where have you seen that? I heard exactly the opposite, and poeple marying and injuring themselves to avoid to go to the front (at least in Quebec) doesn't seem to me as volunteering (or as strange volunteering). The Maurice Richard was supposed to go, but got injured in a game, and stayed.

thats the frencies...sooo kidding of course.. there was no "formal" draft in canada. i imagine that one would be thought of very lowely for not going. maybe thats the cause for any exuse to not volunteer."why arent you fighting you *&&$" type thing.

 

[mastertyguy]

Well, I hope if I had the choice, I would say "no" rather than braking my arm (or worse) to have an excuse.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

ive said it once ill say it agian....

CANADA IS THE SLEEPING GIANT.(like in civ3, where everything is going your way, but u decide to wait, and let ur country flourish, avoiding any war because all the resouces in the game are yours,,, then suddenly, an urge.... call it an instinct....but immediatley you start building Modern Armour, AGIS Cruisers, and Radar Artillery... and then we all now what happens next)

Well said, but don't you need like a larger population first? Canada would only have like 4 cities with more than 14 inhabitants. That wonldn't produce those Tanks, and Cruisers fast enough. The other world powers today are much larger; USA has 300,000,000 people, European Union has 500,000,000 Russia: 150,000,000, India: 1,100,000,000. China: 1,400,000,000!!!! China won't even be a regional power, not as long as USA is powerful.

 

[Superkrest]

as an argument to your point...china would get smolted by any one of the european countries(germany france uk) in a heads up fight(untill they get their act together)...population does not equal power..only in a war of attrition..which..with just over 30 million...canada would surely avoid..and canada has the capability of producing more industrial output then india and china

 

[searcheagle]

Well said, but don't you need like a larger population first? Canada would only have like 4 cities with more than 14 inhabitants. That wonldn't produce those Tanks, and Cruisers fast enough. The other world powers today are much larger; USA has 300,000,000 people, European Union has 500,000,000 Russia: 150,000,000, India: 1,100,000,000. China: 1,400,000,000!!!! China won't even be a regional power, not as long as USA is powerful.

Making a tank or a ship isnt a matter of just grabbings some metal and throwing it together. The designs have to carefully tested and materials carefully chosen. Canada doesnt have this experience as it buys most of its aircraft (and prolly fleet) from the US and other NATO countries. THis experience doesnt just grow on trees.

 

[mastertyguy]

Well said, but don't you need like a larger population first? Canada would only have like 4 cities with more than 14 inhabitants. That wonldn't produce those Tanks, and Cruisers fast enough. The other world powers today are much larger; USA has 300,000,000 people, European Union has 500,000,000 Russia: 150,000,000, India: 1,100,000,000. China: 1,400,000,000!!!! China won't even be a regional power, not as long as USA is powerful.

China's population is amazingly uneffective. They are just a lot. Because they are 1,4 billion, they produce mor than Canada, but I'm pretty sure 1 Canadian produces more everything than 1 Chinese. Same for India. Canada is not a power of it's own, it is a power by it's multiple allies. Officially, we are under the power of the Queen of Canada (also Queen of Great Britain, Australia, ...). This Queen is in the EU. This makes of kinda allies of Great Britain, Australia, France, Germany, etc. Just South of us, we have the actual #1 country, which has needed us quite a bit in the past. We have no need of a big Canadian force, have already have the British army, the American army, the French army, the German army and lots of others to protect us. The only thing we have to fear is one of our allies attacking us, but it shouldn't happen.
We couldn't react if someone attacked us and we are alone? Look at this: we have a large source of oil, we have iron, we have important aluminium production, we have water, we have food, we have coal, we have uranium, we have copper, we have high tech industries, ... We have mountains on the coast, which would be easily defendable in case of a theoriacl invasion from the Pacific.

 

[Corvex]

China's population is amazingly uneffective. They are just a lot. Because they are 1,4 billion, they produce mor than Canada, but I'm pretty sure 1 Canadian produces more everything than 1 Chinese. Same for India. Canada is not a power of it's own, it is a power by it's multiple allies. Officially, we are under the power of the Queen of Canada (also Queen of Great Britain, Australia, ...). This Queen is in the EU. This makes of kinda allies of Great Britain, Australia, France, Germany, etc. Just South of us, we have the actual #1 country, which has needed us quite a bit in the past. We have no need of a big Canadian force, have already have the British army, the American army, the French army, the German army and lots of others to protect us. The only thing we have to fear is one of our allies attacking us, but it shouldn't happen.
We couldn't react if someone attacked us and we are alone? Look at this: we have a large source of oil, we have iron, we have important aluminium production, we have water, we have food, we have coal, we have uranium, we have copper, we have high tech industries, ... We have mountains on the coast, which would be easily defendable in case of a theoriacl invasion from the Pacific.

The man has a point...when World War II began, Canada's army, navy, and airforce were even more dilapidated then they are now (relative to the other countries of the earth), but we were able to build them up with extraordinary swiftness. And, in addition, Canada's terrain is extremely well-suited to Guerilla warfare (mountains, forests, etc.)

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Just South of us, we have the actual #1 country, which has needed us quite a bit in the past.

What? The Americans needed you? When was that?