Does Canada need a military?

[TimothyC]

How about sticking to that F-35 buy so we keep sending you the Subassembly contracts (I seriously don't remember what the current state of your buy is).

Last I heard, a month or so ago, it's "on hold". The current thinking is that a squadron or so of Super Hornets might be acquired as a stop-gap. I just looked it up, and the plan is to pick up 18 of them and kick the can of wholesale replacement down the road for another few years.

Don't blame me, I'm just reporting the news.

That is quite possibly the dumbest path that results in aircraft actually being bought, as the price difference between Super Hornets and A model F-35s is such that the F-35A is less expensive to buy on a per plane basis (77.3M USD vs 76.8M USD).

Oh that's only the tip of the iceberg, just off the top of my head:
<Snip issues and reasons>
Of course, IMO at the end of the day it's largely Canadian citizens who are at fault here. Do a poll, and a majority of Canadians support the military... only as long as no money is spent on it. And as long as we don't actually do anything with it.

First, thank you for the more comprehensive list. I was aware of all of those issues, but I was mostly trying to put together something fast as I had hit Submit early and was working against the edit clock.

Secondly I think Canadians should probably have a long look at what they want their military to be able to do. Do they want to do blue water patrols in support of international actions (say, off of the Horn of Africa)? Do they want to patrol in or under the Arctic? Do they want to have a global reach for deploying men and materiel? Do they want to be able to protect their cities and patrol their own airspace by contributing to NORTHCOM? These are questions that should probably be answered before further defense planning is done in conjunction with the NATO target levels.

My sense was that it was an implication of hypocrisy or dishonesty on my part.

Naw, I was being snarky because I could be. I probably should not have been, but I was.

That or just nationalist clap trap to the effect that I wasn't a real American because I'm a duel citizen.

I've underlined a critical word. Do you mean you are a 'duel' citizen like Aaron Burr dueled with Hamilton, or are you a dual citizen like a Dual engine Centaur has two RL-10s?

You do realize part of the question is whether Canada should continue to have any NATO obligations, right?

That (Canada should be out of NATO) is a valid position to hold. I personally think it's dumb but it is a valid opinion to hold.

[Ralin]

Unlike the USA it is now legal for a province / territory to secede from Canada. It's also legal for a province / territory to be divided, the last time being when the Northwest Territory was split into two pieces with the addition of Nunavut. Quebec has held two referendums on it already, and although at present the desire for Quebec independence seems to have largely subsided (the separatist party was smashed in the last election when they campaigned on holding another referendum) things could change. The only other area I can think of which occasionally has a separatist streak is Alberta, as they sometimes feel like they are Canada's Texas and sometimes muse on going independent / joining the USA. IIRC it's never come close to reaching the point where a referendum was likely though.

Point being that since seceding became legal its kind of removed a lot of the motive for violent rebellion. While we do have violent protests on occasion, the police have been more than capable of handling it. Of far more concern is the risk of domestic terrorism or the occasional mass shooter, which the military isn't really designed to handle; that's the police and intelligence services job.

A minority of the population can have make a go at illegally seceding and potentially succeed through violence if they're sufficiently better armed and organized than the rest of the population. Or for that matter declare that the local government has been replaced by regime of the Duke of Calgary and that elections are henceforth suspended and all dissenters will be sentenced to hard labor in the death mines.

I'm not saying this is likely to happen in Canada, but it's one of the reasons why countries keep standing national armies and it seems odd that no one seems to think it's not at least a potential issue for a post-military Canada.

[LaCroix]

A minority of the population can have make a go at illegally seceding and potentially succeed through violence if they're sufficiently better armed and organized than the rest of the population. Or for that matter declare that the local government has been replaced by regime of the Duke of Calgary and that elections are henceforth suspended and all dissenters will be sentenced to hard labor in the death mines.

I'm not saying this is likely to happen in Canada, but it's one of the reasons why countries keep standing national armies and it seems odd that no one seems to think it's not at least a potential issue for a post-military Canada.

Like in the US (or anywhere with a functional police force independent of the military), that would be a job for police to handle. Even a small country like Austria ( 8mil inhabitants) can pull together a couple hundred police officers on a whim, and thousands if they want to, not counting the standing SWAT teams (or equivalent service).

It's hard to immagine how a radical group too big to be handled by the police should form up without getting noticed by said authorities.

[Tribble]

A minority of the population can have make a go at illegally seceding and potentially succeed through violence if they're sufficiently better armed and organized than the rest of the population. Or for that matter declare that the local government has been replaced by regime of the Duke of Calgary and that elections are henceforth suspended and all dissenters will be sentenced to hard labor in the death mines.

I'm not saying this is likely to happen in Canada, but it's one of the reasons why countries keep standing national armies and it seems odd that no one seems to think it's not at least a potential issue for a post-military Canada.

Like in the US (or anywhere with a functional police force independent of the military), that would be a job for police to handle. Even a small country like Austria ( 8mil inhabitants) can pull together a couple hundred police officers on a whim, and thousands if they want to, not counting the standing SWAT teams (or equivalent service).

It's hard to immagine how a radical group too big to be handled by the police should form up without getting noticed by said authorities.

The degree of armaments, supplies, organization and number of people required to successfully pull off something like that (especially against the local population's will) is what makes it impractical. Our police and intelligence services have already stopped a number of terrorist attacks from occurring, ranging from "lone gunman" to the "Toronto 18". Not all of them obviously, but most so far. The odds of a massive radical group managing to get themselves into a position where they are able to try something like becoming the "Duke of Calgary" without being noticed and dismantled by police, border security and intelligence services long before they are ready is practically nil. If a bunch of would-be terrorists can't plan a paintball game without being infiltrated and tracked beforehand, what are the odds of dozens / hundreds of people trying to stockpile massive amounts of military grade weapons (which are mostly illegal in Canada btw)? And I would imagine this would be the case in most jurisdictions in the world which have effective policing / intelligence services. The police / intelligence services / border patrol are much better suited for this kind of situation than the military as they are designed to detect and deal with such threats before they have the opportunity to establish themselves.

And even if they did somehow pull that off without being detected and dismantled beforehand and overwhelm the local police, there are still tens of thousands of police officers elsewhere (including ETF teams) which are capable of being redeployed to the area if necessary. Canada is not a third world country and its police forces are considerably larger than its military already.

[the atom]

Difference being that apart from nuclear deterrence, Canada cannot in any way hope to defend itself from the likes of the USA, China or Russia. We could spend 10x the amount we do right now on the military and it wouldn't matter. Is there a point to spending money to prepare for a Potential conflict that's inherently unwinnable? We'd be curb stomped just as badly.

You know neither China nor Russia have that much in the way of power projection right? If we upped our spending and invested in Scandinavian style coastal defence systems and fighters instead of these naval boondoggles we would make any attempt to escalate matters very, very painful. With nukes, American aggression would be simply out of the question.

[Lone Browncoat]

I haven't read all the posts here {yet} but before you go too deep, get some reference from here;
http://www.legionmagazine.com Support OpenMedia.ca
a cut & paste from my .sig file at airsoftcanada, and try to locate the link to Richard Rohmer's <sp?> novel on
a fictional invasion by the U.S. and the likely strategy they would use, of course, his protagonist won by boxing
in the US forces. Search the back issues for the abridged edition. This was way back in the 70s but with modern search techniques
you should be able to locate it. {holy **** the story is even older than I thought, I did the work for you.........
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2837744-exxoneration but first the prequel, Ultimatum, as it sets up many of the characters. }
One point, by a poster here, well made, even conservative governments have let us/them down in procurement, going as far back as the Arrow.

I voted yes, of course, long time member of the RCL, since the 70's .
To be edited later, or addendum if need be, once I catch up on the posts.
D'oh! just remembered, there is a time limit here to edit, for adding URLs, data and such.

[Lone Browncoat]

Addendum:
I got into a real knock-down on another forum when I encountered another Yank who believes in this MYTH!

I admit I'm torn. I like having you guys be weak and helpless on our northern border and unable to make trouble for the US on the geopolitical stage, but I'd also like for the US to not having to subsidize your defense. Maybe we could bill you the 20B USD/year that you agreed to spend that you don't. It'd be pocket change to the US budget, but a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Consider it realpolitik. Canada gets free defence from the US, because there's not too much the US can do.

http://www.norad.mil/Portals/29/Documen ... 02014).pdf
this board seems to have trouble with the above, keep getting 404 but it works from the other forum.
Try this;
https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate ... of%20NORAD

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... e17995276/
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/181/63_keddy.pdf

My comments over there, and I won't repeat his ramblings here but it soon degraded to swearing and name calling. :

>>I can't believe you DARE to sit there in your miserable, third rate country sitting under the American nuclear umbrella we paid for...<<
>Where'd you get that little myth? From Fox News?
Again I ask, where is your source for this MYTH? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn <sp?> Beck? It sure sounds like those pundits.
You and they make it seem that it was a free ride but it hasn't. If Diefendorfer and piss-pot Pearson had told Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnston
to go jump in the lake, you would have built it anyhow using a backup plan.

WE PAID.
Let me put this in terms you'll understand, would you have made California or New York [states with a comparable growing population] pay 50 % for it?
No, you wouldn't, their Governors would have been livid, up in arms if that was even tried. No, they paid according to population and the tax base.
Instead, the agreements were made so we could keep an eye on you{uncertain, just rumour} and be a body of sober second thought {most definitely} to avoid any "Doctor Strangelove" scenarios. Indeed, I hope the technology stays in the 1960's, no W.O.P.R. or Colossus/Guardian [at least in the Silos] where it takes two persons turning two keys [wish it were more than just two] and the "Red Phone" stays maintained and connected. For despite CW's "The 100", there is no surviving a nuclear war. The silo sites are the most vulnerable targets anyhow. An umbrella is supposed to keep you dry, but your umbrella has holes in it and we're getting soaked.

Originally the agreement was 10% based on Canada's growing population, but the costs have steadily increased over the decades.
In the recent modernization programme though we PAID 50% for the hardware and installation and are contributing 40% for maintenance,
see page 37 for details on the North Warning System.
(see the third URL)
A steady 3% of our defence budget compared to 1% of yours.

As well what we pay to NATO and the UN, it tends to drain the coffers pretty quickly.
Money that could have been spent keeping the Avro Arrow going, to buy helicopters, a more aggressive warship building programme, including
our own submarines, rather than those rust-bucket British bathtubs, which the Conservatives stuck us with.
Now on this point I can't still find any documentation, but in the 1980s, a group of RCN veterans tried to convince the Moroney Govt. that Canada
doesn't need big, mobile missile platforms, instead, given the coastlines, a fleet of small, fast and manoeuvrable hunter-killers, say 12-26 with crews of three to seven, mostly they'd be navigators and engineers and powered by LFTRs, rather than dirty diesel [the first such reactors were built in 1960]. {think Gerry Anderson's Stingray, but a more practical and realistic design} No, we got stuck with diesel-electrics again.
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.gle ... ear-power/

That is what's weird about Canadian politics, it is always the Conservative party that screws us in the end and willing to surrender our sovereignty.
Can't remember but it was either Arnold Schwarzenegger or his successor that said 'you can only tax 36 million people so much before they snap back at you or something similar, ditto about us and our foreign commitments.

What other country in the world, with less than 40 million people, busts its balls to maintain some kind of navy or air force or both? The geography demands this of us. Most other sizeable nations maintain only a domestic army, in many cases though, it is used to oppress the people, rather than try to represent them on the international stage. Switzerland? they still have the Alps as a shield and never fought in modern times except in "Independence Day" one and two. Well there is Australia, less than 25 million and going it alone. Same problem of coastline and geography.
Israel? don't have the population stats for them but I will say that is what partly got Harper defeated, echoing the Bush line, but they have seen combat over and over. within our time.

From that point on it just got degrading and I won't repeat it anywhere.
However, it did really go off-topic that was originally about socialised health care [and how we still need to cover prescription drugs, pointed out on a recent CBC episode of The Fifth Estate].
I threw in a few more tidbits, things both Canucks and Yanks should know, if they've been reading.

Third-rate?
Try saying that to these Americans:
http://afghanistan.nationalpost.com/wai ... 30-metres/

Or these:
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=824444
If you see no location, or spelling without the 'U' in colour, honour or neighbour, those posts are made by Americans.

In contrast to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no4 ... re-eng.asp


Third-rate?
Say that to these rescued Americans:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... -emergency


A great source of Canadian History:
http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/2014/11/…

Want to talk about going to the moon?
Technically, it was an international effort, captured German Scientists excepted, but even there Canada was well represented:
http://www.history.nasa.gov/maynard.html

Was only a part of my incensed reply to being called "third rate".

The last part also explains my affection for Star Trek TOS-TUC AND Firefly, there was good representation of Canada both in front and behind the camera, you just need the right books to read.
Let me know of broken URLs, 404s etc and I'll try to fix them but the above is partially why, not all, that I feel that Canada should have a military and to dismantle it would be a betrayal to all those that gave up so much.

" If you love your freedom, thank a soldier … AND A PROTESTER, because we need both."

[Lone Browncoat]

Have I got egg on my face!
Realised the day after I wasn't finished but forgive me, I'm a sick old man, well actually still getting better but won't be running any marathons soon, keep forgetting the time limit for editing.

Any members here from Newfoundland and Labrador?
I meant to close my last sentence with this excerpt, it should go under 'things both Canucks and Yanks should know'.
In addition to my remark that it would be a disservice to those who came before to dismantle The Forces.
How many here know of Vimy Ridge? The sacrifices made and the meaning of the memorial?
Canada became a country on that day, though it would take another thirty years to make it official.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... orld_War_I

Kaiser Wilhelm <sp?> called Canadian troops "The British Empire's Storm-troopers" because of the unconventional way we fight.
Old Adolph carried that further by forming a special Waffen-SS group to protect the Vimy Ridge memorial in France.
http://south.greyfalcon.us/vimy.htm

Yet it would take another two years and Joey Smallwood to bring in Newfoundland and Labrador into the fold and personally I feel we are better for it.
This is for you;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knxR-Q2VoBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSrAa9iM2qs

Thank your grandfathers, if they're still among us, and be proud of yourselves Newfoundlanders!
Thanks for joining us Mainlanders!

Now I'll shut-up.

[xerex]

I mean it was hard to see Germany ever becoming an enemy to France . . .

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. France and Germany were at each others' throats since before Germany was a thing until 1945.

In any case, yes, every country that wants to be a country has to have a military of some kind, because without the means to enforce and defend your borders you don't really have any. It would be better if there weren't any countries but we're not going to be living like that any time soon.

Well . . . pick a country that nobody thought Germany would invade.

erm...........Germany was basically born in war. Bismarck went to war against Austria, then Russia, then France all to get the space to transform Prussia into Germany.

[Korto]

This reminds me a bit of what was said some years ago of the position New Zealand was in. Due to its location, any power able to actually reach New Zealand with an invasion force would be so powerful that there was no way NZ could defend themselves from them even if they poured everything they could into defence.

So NZ (apparently, I'm just parroting) has reduced their standard military back to just what is needed for your routine kind of "policing" work, and then poured their effort into training elite special forces to fulfil ANZUS obligations. Which is apparently cheaper for them, while filling a vital role.

Has there been a suggestion of Canada doing something like that? Pulling back their military to what they'd need when they got the US right there, and specialising in something important?

[The Romulan Republic]

That would be a reasonable strategy now.

The big concern is that one cannot see the direction future events will take, and that we might lose capabilities that we will need later.

[Elheru Aran]

That would be a reasonable strategy now.

The big concern is that one cannot see the direction future events will take, and that we might lose capabilities that we will need later.

On the other hand... thanks to geography, realistically there are very few nearby threats. You have Russia and China... and that's about it, considering there's Alaska as a buffer zone.

Now if someone knocked off Denmark and turned Greenland into some kind of massive forward base? Well then sure, but the odds of that are pretty darn remote.

So I would say it's a pretty safe calculated guess that Canada simply doesn't have much to worry about. The most likely scenario, frankly, is that the US tries to invade Canada, and in the case of such, well, there's pretty much nothing Canada can do anyway.

[Coop D'etat]

This reminds me a bit of what was said some years ago of the position New Zealand was in. Due to its location, any power able to actually reach New Zealand with an invasion force would be so powerful that there was no way NZ could defend themselves from them even if they poured everything they could into defence.

So NZ (apparently, I'm just parroting) has reduced their standard military back to just what is needed for your routine kind of "policing" work, and then poured their effort into training elite special forces to fulfil ANZUS obligations. Which is apparently cheaper for them, while filling a vital role.

Has there been a suggestion of Canada doing something like that? Pulling back their military to what they'd need when they got the US right there, and specialising in something important?

The principles are broadly similar, but Canada is an order of magnitude larger than New Zealand and occupies territory that is more strategically important in one critical respect so there are important differences. For one thing, Canada has an economy about the size of Russia, India or Italy so even a minimalist investment of 1% of GDP affords a decent sized force.

With the current state of technology and military investment, an invasion by even China or Russia is not a serious threat in the slightest. They are too far away over terrain too inhospitable to make projecting force at all viable. China can't project force over the Pacific ocean, full stop. Russia theoretically could do something in the arctic, but the distances involved up there are absurd, the logistics are ludicrous, and the territory to fight over is basically worthless. No sane Russian leader would look at the cost-benefit analysis of doing something there and see any point to it.

The only non-American threat is the Russians using our airspace to attack the United States. Because of this, its important to have "a" military to prevent the Americans from rolling in and demanding to base forces here. Basically the whole thing exists to defend the country by means of avoiding giving the Americans any excuse to come up here. This means the Costa Rica option isn't viable.

This does not mean that the country requires a "good" military though. Beyond a certain basic level, the thing becomes wasted resources that doesn't make the people living in the place any safer, or worse its existance becomes a temptation to get too involved in other people's problems overseas or our current hegmon's latest ill-conceived adventure. So the force structure doesn't need to be much better than the vistigial level to maintain organizational continity and traditions in case we ever need a big force again. As far as alliances go, NORAD is actually essential and NATO is a "might as well." This is in contrast to the Cold War, when the USSR was such a threat to the liberal democratic order that we had a compelling interest in collective security. Modern Russia, despite Putinist pretentions, isn't the USSR though.

Hence modern Canadian defense policy. We have what we have because we can easily afford it. On the other hand, there's no compelling national interest in having more of it. The people who want that are far to invested in the dubious gains and glory of being American auxilairies in the latest stupid foreign fight du jour.

[The Romulan Republic]

That would be a reasonable strategy now.

The big concern is that one cannot see the direction future events will take, and that we might lose capabilities that we will need later.

On the other hand... thanks to geography, realistically there are very few nearby threats. You have Russia and China... and that's about it, considering there's Alaska as a buffer zone.

Now if someone knocked off Denmark and turned Greenland into some kind of massive forward base? Well then sure, but the odds of that are pretty darn remote.

So I would say it's a pretty safe calculated guess that Canada simply doesn't have much to worry about. The most likely scenario, frankly, is that the US tries to invade Canada, and in the case of such, well, there's pretty much nothing Canada can do anyway.

Under normal circumstances, I'd have probably laughed at the idea of the US invading Canada as a paranoid, jingoistic delusion.

Now, in the age of Trumpolini... well, I still think its unlikely in the immediate future, by I also don't think that we can rely on the US to protect us, given Trump's contempt for any ally that isn't Vladimir Putin.

That said, I'd rate the likeliest military threats (barring WWIII or a major shift in the global balance of power/redrawing of national boundaries) as an increase in terrorism, either domestic or international, and large scale civil unrest. Even in somewhere as placid and stable as Canada generally is, I'd rate those as more likely than a US invasion. After all, it was only a few decades back that we had martial law declared due to separatist terrorism in Quebec, and we've had jihadi attacks, probably most notably the Parliament gunman a couple of years back.

Invasion from other countries hardly seems a possibility worth considering right now- no one else has a land border with us, and who besides the US has the naval power/force projection capabilities for a conventional invasion of Canada by sea/air?

I suppose if the global situation went completely to hell, we'd get nuked along with everyone else, but that's about it.

[Elheru Aran]

Under normal circumstances, I'd have probably laughed at the idea of the US invading Canada as a paranoid, jingoistic delusion.

Now, in the age of Trumpolini... well, I still think its unlikely in the immediate future, by I also don't think that we can rely on the US to protect us, given Trump's contempt for any ally that isn't Vladimir Putin.

That said, I'd rate the likeliest military threats (barring WWIII or a major shift in the global balance of power/redrawing of national boundaries) as an increase in terrorism, either domestic or international, and large scale civil unrest. Even in somewhere as placid and stable as Canada generally is, I'd rate those as more likely than a US invasion. After all, it was only a few decades back that we had martial law declared due to separatist terrorism in Quebec, and we've had jihadi attacks, probably most notably the Parliament gunman a couple of years back.

Invasion from other countries hardly seems a possibility worth considering right now- no one else has a land border with us, and who besides the US has the naval power/force projection capabilities for a conventional invasion of Canada by sea/air?

I suppose if the global situation went completely to hell, we'd get nuked along with everyone else, but that's about it.

Yeah, internal issues and terrorism are probably the primary concerns for Canada after meeting international obligations. Now that said, internal issues are a situation (ideally) for the police to contain. In case of natural disaster...? that's something that the US military has been useful for in the past, as a rapid-response source of extra manpower during emergencies. Of course, Canada doesn't have *that* much in the way of natural disasters compared to the US.

One notion might be maintaining a small standing military (smaller even than the one you currently have) and building a larger force of Reserve/National Guard types who maintain civilian lives, but in time of need can be called up. Bulk up any gaps in national-security requirements by enlarging police, border-guard and Coast Guard type forces. Would that work?

[The Romulan Republic]

Agreed. That would probably be well-suited to our needs.

Of course, if we do operate from the premise that Canada cannot rely on the US to defend it, much less that the US might become hostile, then a strong argument could be made that the only way to secure ourselves is to develop our own nuclear deterrent.

I wouldn't personally make that argument, because I oppose nuclear weapons on principle. I feel that they pose too great a risk of being used to catastrophic effect, due to either a mad man gaining control of them or human error. I also am of the opinion that a deterrent you are unwilling to use is dangerous because someone might call your bluff, and that if you were to use them... well, their only realistic use would be as a final act of genocidal spite against whoever destroyed your country, and if my country was going to fall, I'd rather its last act not be genocide. I'd also rather face occupation than use nukes to avert it, because at least an occupier can be someday overthrown, but once MAD is invoked... well, your country's fucked regardless.

However, were one an advocate of nuclear deterrence, the logical conclusion of Canada not being able to rely on the US to defend it would be that it should develop its own nuclear arsenal.

[Elheru Aran]

Meh. A nuclear deterrent against other countries honestly isn't necessary because the Americans' is RIGHT THERE. And as I said, if the US decided it wanted Canada, there's really no way the Canadians could stop them, nukes or not. Unless Canada built an ICBM or something and hit DC first thing.

Which would be an interesting situation; I doubt the US' anti-missile defences are capable of handling a ballistic missile from so near. Hmmm.

Anyway, no. If Canada acquired nukes, there would be pretty much only one possible target, and said target would be all 'So WHAT exactly are you going to do with those... neighbor?' Bit of a provocative move, to say the least.

[Ralin]

Meh. A nuclear deterrent against other countries honestly isn't necessary because the Americans' is RIGHT THERE. And as I said, if the US decided it wanted Canada, there's really no way the Canadians could stop them, nukes or not. Unless Canada built an ICBM or something and hit DC first thing.

Which would be an interesting situation; I doubt the US' anti-missile defences are capable of handling a ballistic missile from so near. Hmmm.

Anyway, no. If Canada acquired nukes, there would be pretty much only one possible target, and said target would be all 'So WHAT exactly are you going to do with those... neighbor?' Bit of a provocative move, to say the least.

I thought the atom's summed it up pretty well. There's a lot that Canada could potentially do to make America invading a bad idea and almost certainly not worth it, especially with nukes. This wouldn't stop the US from destroying Canada if the government really wanted to, but that's even less likely than a war between the US and Canada already is.

[Elheru Aran]

Meh. A nuclear deterrent against other countries honestly isn't necessary because the Americans' is RIGHT THERE. And as I said, if the US decided it wanted Canada, there's really no way the Canadians could stop them, nukes or not. Unless Canada built an ICBM or something and hit DC first thing.

Which would be an interesting situation; I doubt the US' anti-missile defences are capable of handling a ballistic missile from so near. Hmmm.

Anyway, no. If Canada acquired nukes, there would be pretty much only one possible target, and said target would be all 'So WHAT exactly are you going to do with those... neighbor?' Bit of a provocative move, to say the least.

I thought the atom's summed it up pretty well. There's a lot that Canada could potentially do to make America invading a bad idea and almost certainly not worth it, especially with nukes. This wouldn't stop the US from destroying Canada if the government really wanted to, but that's even less likely than a war between the US and Canada already is.

The thing is, like I said, if the US wanted to invade Canada, there's nothing that Canada could really do to stop it. Nukes would make hurting the US easier, but I don't think it would particularly STOP the US. All that acquiring nukes would do is escalate tension between the two countries, and frankly, neither country needs that at the moment.

[Ralin]

The thing is, like I said, if the US wanted to invade Canada, there's nothing that Canada could really do to stop it.

I think that a policy of nuking any parts of the American military that make it onto Canadian soil would be a pretty good way of stopping an American invasion of Canada, personally.

Nukes would make hurting the US easier, but I don't think it would particularly STOP the US.

I have to disagree. Yeah it might still be possible for the US to successfully invade Canada if we really, really wanted to or to just hang back and nuke the country into a giant parking lot, but at that point we've gone from the already unlikely scenario of an US/Canadian war to a scenario where the US is willing to lose hundreds of thousands or millions of people for the all important goal of conquering or destroying Canada. While this is theoretically possible I think it's only slightly more likely than a continent-wide invasion of Graboids.

[Solauren]

We don't need a large military.
As mentioned, our land border is with the US, and short of nuclear weapons, or somehow building a larger miltiary then them, we are not going to stop a land invasion from them.
(Mind you, I'm pretty sure any attempt at a land invasion by the US would result in total anarchy in the streets of the US)

As mentioned, terrorism is a concern, but that's what the RCMP is for.

That leaves sea/aerial. For that, I'm in favor a fleet of minimal-cost, but operationally effective helicopters and drones.

[SCRawl]

As has been pointed out, though, we still have NATO obligations which are largely unmet by our current levels of military spending. The ethical choices would seem to be either to increase spending to comply with these (which would roughly double our current levels) or to opt out of the NATO benefits we currently enjoy. The third (and default) option is to remain a free rider in the system along with most other NATO member nations.

I'm not sure why the 2% of GDP spending is where it is, but as long as it's the benchmark and we're not meeting it, we're gaming the system to our advantage. I'm also not sure where the extra $18 billion would come from if we were to start complying, so I'm definitely not trying to say that I have all the answers.

[Elheru Aran]

As has been pointed out, though, we still have NATO obligations which are largely unmet by our current levels of military spending. The ethical choices would seem to be either to increase spending to comply with these (which would roughly double our current levels) or to opt out of the NATO benefits we currently enjoy. The third (and default) option is to remain a free rider in the system along with most other NATO member nations.

I'm not sure why the 2% of GDP spending is where it is, but as long as it's the benchmark and we're not meeting it, we're gaming the system to our advantage. I'm also not sure where the extra $18 billion would come from if we were to start complying, so I'm definitely not trying to say that I have all the answers.

It strikes me that there should be some way for Canada to go 'hey, guys, turns out we can't afford to give as much as we're supposed to, can we redraw the terms of this contract just a bit...' and rearrange their involvement in NATO to a point where they can actually meet their obligations.

To be frank, I don't know why Canada is still in NATO at this point-- it was created as a counter to the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact, which isn't... really a thing anymore. And there's the United Nations and all. It's not like Canada has much to fear, ISIS isn't about to sail an oil tanker into the port of Vancouver anytime soon or anything like that.

[The Romulan Republic]

As has been pointed out, though, we still have NATO obligations which are largely unmet by our current levels of military spending. The ethical choices would seem to be either to increase spending to comply with these (which would roughly double our current levels) or to opt out of the NATO benefits we currently enjoy. The third (and default) option is to remain a free rider in the system along with most other NATO member nations.

I'm not sure why the 2% of GDP spending is where it is, but as long as it's the benchmark and we're not meeting it, we're gaming the system to our advantage. I'm also not sure where the extra $18 billion would come from if we were to start complying, so I'm definitely not trying to say that I have all the answers.

It strikes me that there should be some way for Canada to go 'hey, guys, turns out we can't afford to give as much as we're supposed to, can we redraw the terms of this contract just a bit...' and rearrange their involvement in NATO to a point where they can actually meet their obligations.

To be frank, I don't know why Canada is still in NATO at this point-- it was created as a counter to the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact, which isn't... really a thing anymore. And there's the United Nations and all. It's not like Canada has much to fear, ISIS isn't about to sail an oil tanker into the port of Vancouver anytime soon or anything like that.

NATO arguably ought to be serving as a counter to Vladimir Putin's Russia, but it is likely to be incapable of doing so since the most powerful NATO member is now well on its way to being a Russian client state.

[Tribble]

As has been pointed out, though, we still have NATO obligations which are largely unmet by our current levels of military spending. The ethical choices would seem to be either to increase spending to comply with these (which would roughly double our current levels) or to opt out of the NATO benefits we currently enjoy. The third (and default) option is to remain a free rider in the system along with most other NATO member nations.

I'm not sure why the 2% of GDP spending is where it is, but as long as it's the benchmark and we're not meeting it, we're gaming the system to our advantage. I'm also not sure where the extra $18 billion would come from if we were to start complying, so I'm definitely not trying to say that I have all the answers.

It strikes me that there should be some way for Canada to go 'hey, guys, turns out we can't afford to give as much as we're supposed to, can we redraw the terms of this contract just a bit...' and rearrange their involvement in NATO to a point where they can actually meet their obligations.

To be frank, I don't know why Canada is still in NATO at this point-- it was created as a counter to the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact, which isn't... really a thing anymore. And there's the United Nations and all. It's not like Canada has much to fear, ISIS isn't about to sail an oil tanker into the port of Vancouver anytime soon or anything like that.

NATO arguably ought to be serving as a counter to Vladimir Putin's Russia, but it is likely to be incapable of doing so since the most powerful NATO member is now well on its way to being a Russian client state.

Trudeau openly admires people like Castro and China's "basic dictatorship". If you are going to go that route, then it must be acknowledged the biggest threat to Canada sovereignty by far is its current PM.