Canada's military ceasing to exist
- Thread starter Desmond Hawkins
- Start date
Modern Singapore's founder (Lee Kuan Yew) takes a lot of things seriously.
He's lived thru the Japanese Occupation, and knew firsthand what it's like to be invaded and ruled by an foreign power. One of Singapore's first priorities after separation fr Malaysia in 1965 was and still is to have a formidable military force on hand for national defence, so that the Japanese scenario will never be repeated.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in the early 90s served to reinforce that lesson.
Whatever may rock the region, but at least Singaporeans and residents know they can count on their national army.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
The Canadians have a military?! OK, own up. Who's been giving the Canadians guns?
Same thing's happening in Sweden... all 200+ AJ/JA-37 Viggens are going to be scrapped, our incompetent defense minister wants to get rid of our 160 Leopard 2A4's (they aren't really ours, we're leasing them from Germany), less than every fourth 19-year old gets to do the mandatory military service... the list goes on.
Our defense forces are being dismantled, piece by piece.
Our defense forces are being dismantled, piece by piece.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Iowa has a bigger army than that!
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Well, I certainly hope Canada could depend on the US if the need arose. But, that really is no excuse to have nothing in the way of national defense.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Originally posted by Xen
since your neaer theborder then I am, then in the name of kin (not king
Are you kidding? Minnesota is half Canadian! And Northern Iowa is half Minnesotan! Statistically, that makes us 1/4 Canadian!
well, the way I see it, is is the Canuks want the u.S to cover there ass's then thats fine- BUT- either Canada shoudl -offically- become the 51-hmmm.. well 55 states (or wouls a full 60 be better?) OR start paying up- yes, in effect that means a mercenary American army- but A) we are still in control of that army B)it will opay for itself
We are'nt threatened like Singapore, we're also a NUCLEAR
power and have been since the 1950's. Nothing better for
cookin' up nukes than a CANDU reactor. You don't think the
US would fart around with N. Korea if not for their reactors.
Iraq HAD a big army in 91, big and crappy is only good if you
can swamp'em. A small properly equiped force is all we need,
if that ain't enough, nuke'em.
Maj
Emperor
While I'm in favour of maintaining a state-sponsored mililtary in the interests of sovereignty and integrity I find the idea of requiring a huge army to protect our borders ludicrous. The days of massive expeditionary forces crashing against the beaches of foreign soil are over. Any notion of acquiring land and resources through conquest have been dashed by the advent of nuclear weapons. True, Canada's geography gives it a greater defense advantage, being nestled beside the world superpower -- but Canada or no Canada the United States would still command the world's largest armed forces. If anything, Canada is mooching posterity.
The Canadian government should give its military the cash infusion many say it so desperately needs. But first there should be a more serious assessment of the military's role not only at home, but abroad. If we're going to be forking out our tax dollars I'd like to ensure they go to good use and not to three leaky submarines recently purchased from the British Navy. (Those who recommended the buy were audacious enough to suggest the treasury splurge on a boomer!).
The face of warfare is dynamic with advents in technology and societal pressures perenially warping its nature. Today, small pockets of lightly armed warriors have single-handedly destroyed the lives of thousands and decimated an economy within a period of hours. The increasing crucial importance of information and its vessels is bringing that aspect of life into the arena of combat. The United States has some grasp on the concept of war-in-flux and doles out its funding accordingly, with a large chunk delivered to the doorstep of military R&D.
The Canadian military needs money. But it also needs purpose directed by wise analytical and spending choices.
The Canadian government should give its military the cash infusion many say it so desperately needs. But first there should be a more serious assessment of the military's role not only at home, but abroad. If we're going to be forking out our tax dollars I'd like to ensure they go to good use and not to three leaky submarines recently purchased from the British Navy. (Those who recommended the buy were audacious enough to suggest the treasury splurge on a boomer!).
The face of warfare is dynamic with advents in technology and societal pressures perenially warping its nature. Today, small pockets of lightly armed warriors have single-handedly destroyed the lives of thousands and decimated an economy within a period of hours. The increasing crucial importance of information and its vessels is bringing that aspect of life into the arena of combat. The United States has some grasp on the concept of war-in-flux and doles out its funding accordingly, with a large chunk delivered to the doorstep of military R&D.
The Canadian military needs money. But it also needs purpose directed by wise analytical and spending choices.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
GM Canada, Bombardier, McDonnell Douglas.
Who builds the C7, C7A1, C8, etc.
Alright, who has been giving the Australians computers?
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Originally posted by thestonesfan
I suppose our intelligent, highly trained personel might put us even with Iowa though
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Not with the Iowa, though. 
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Did I suggest buying 4000 T-72s? No, but we do need a minimal manpower to garrison and prove some legitimacy.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Not with the Iowa, though.
Maybe they will give us one, they don't seem to want them
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
So you propose aquiring nuclear battleships to fight illegal fishers? . Keep those money and build some schools instead.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
An adequate number of frigates and patrol boats should do it.
It would be nice to be able to completely get rid of the armed forces to pay for education, but that is not feasible. What happens if a wider spread FLQ sprung up in an otherwise peaceful Quebec, and starts taking out anglophones and francophone "sympathizers"? What if groups of vigilantes start to spring up in the west to take the place in the power vacuum left by the Canadian Forces? Would you make the RCMP fight all these battles? What if a significant terrorist threat arose that needed more than just police.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
You don't need ultra high-tech military apparatus for policeing duty. And the time of operations involving troop maneouvers and artilery barrages has set.
Edit: But after "Due South" I would have though an RCMP would be able to take out the Abrams tank
