Canadian Armed Forces: 55,000 and holding steady

[Doomriser]

Most of the "anti-Canadian" [funny how you can have an anti-Canadian sentiment, but saying the same things about the U.S. over here in Canada tends to get one labelled as "Anti-American"] sentiment seems to boil down to this:

Canada leeches of the U.S. by not spending enough on the military.

1. Were we leeching in 1914? In 1939? IIRC, Canada consistently beat the U.S. to war by two or more years. We were fighting Hitler's forces when the U.S. was waiting for Britain to fall and selling oil to the Japanese.

2. How are we leeching off the U.S? What is the U.S. protecting us against? In fact, the U.S. proximity and military presence abroad is in fact a LIABILITY to Canada, since U.S. forces fund and stir up terrorists like Al Quaeda and now we have to pay to increase our security. If anything, the U.S. should be paying us more! Whenever the U.S. asks Canada to go along on some military adventure, our forces are there before it is even approved in parliament (in fact, it rarely is.) So where do you get off bitching about Canada's military?

[Admiral Piett]

the main tank employed by the russians in the european theatre was the T-72, and late version of the T 50 series. These tanks are and were horrible tanks in every respect. 19,000 pieces of crap that die out after 16 hours of operation are worthless. russian hardware and guidence systems till are a joke in the t-92 series, and are only slightly better in the t-80 series.

russian at the height of its might only had 150,000 troops in the entire union that could be consider proffessinal combat soilders. the rest only held a AK-47 during thier swearing in ceremony and were hauled off to dig ditches and roads. The only good things they had in their army was the AK assualt rifles, and the RPG-7s.

these ametuers would have been slaughtered at the first outbreak of war, as the tactical nukes took out the cream of thier forces. The rest would be no better than untrained miltia. thats why nations around the world who are facing conflict are rushing to buy american. why, cause it works.

sure the soviet union looked impressive on paper, but they were only a paper force that got slaughtered by a third world nation (Afganistan). You might want to cry vietnam, but we never lost a battle, let alone a major one. We weren;t forced to leave out of military neccessity. we wiped out th viet kong. it was only after we signed the peace treaty, and after senator ted kennedy cut aid to the south a year later did the south finnally fall, as it was runing out of bullets and gas to fight with. (otherwise it was kicking the crap out of the north's army)

The germans did similar considerations before Barbarossa...
Note that only a very tiny fraction of the Red Army was deployed in Afghanistan.
What is this 16 hours figure referred to?I tend to doubt that the whole Red army armor would cease to function after 16hours...
I have read that sometimes Abrams were not able to do more than 60 km during the gulf war between one refueling and the other.Does this mean that they are crappy tanks? Hell,of course no.
Russian tanks are not necessarily horrible.They are usually inferior to their western counterparts but they have some strenghts.The M60 for example is 3 meters tall.They could have written "Kill me" on the turret and it would have been the ultimate target.The silhouette of a T-62 is much more clever(at the price of crew comfort however).They took the threat of tactical nukes very seriously and all the tanks from the T-55 onwards have built in automatic NBC systems.Tactics were developed to counter the nuclear threat.Also do not overestimate the effect of nukes over armored targets.This if tactical nukes are used in first place,which was not a sure thing in the late 70's-early 80's.And then remember that if you throw nukes against them they will do the same with you
One to one an US soldier and an US tank would have beaten their soviet counterparts.But the strenght of the Red Army has always lied in its enormous numerical advantage,like the germans discovered in the hard way during WW2.Say what you want but WW3 would not have been a cakewalk for the NATO.

[ArmorPierce]

1. Were we leeching in 1914? In 1939? IIRC, Canada consistently beat the U.S. to war by two or more years. We were fighting Hitler's forces when the U.S. was waiting for Britain to fall and selling oil to the Japanese.

Irrelevant that was in the pass and really affect the here and now

2. How are we leeching off the U.S? What is the U.S. protecting us against? In fact, the U.S. proximity and military presence abroad is in fact a LIABILITY to Canada, since U.S. forces fund and stir up terrorists like Al Quaeda and now we have to pay to increase our security.

Why would terrorists attack Canada, has any major terrorist attack ever happened because of the US? Terrorists just uses Canada as a back door into the US because of Canada doesn't restrict entry into its country enough.

If anything, the U.S. should be paying us more! Whenever the U.S. asks Canada to go along on some military adventure, our forces are there before it is even approved in parliament (in fact, it rarely is.) So where do you get off bitching about Canada's military?

Yes, ventures out with a lot of American payed equiptment and undermaned, the US having to compensate for this. Pay you more?! For what? to pay for eveyone of that 55, 000 men military?

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Minor nitpick. Shouldn't "Steve Pretontaine" be "Steve Prefontaine"?

[Doomriser]

1. Were we leeching in 1914? In 1939? IIRC, Canada consistently beat the U.S. to war by two or more years. We were fighting Hitler's forces when the U.S. was waiting for Britain to fall and selling oil to the Japanese.

Irrelevant that was in the pass and really affect the here and now

Just giving the historical background.

"Why would terrorists attack Canada,"

Good question. We don't piss them off like you do.

"has any major terrorist attack ever happened because of the US?"

Uh... does 9-11 ring a bell? Howabout the U.S.S. Cole?

"Terrorists just uses Canada as a back door into the US because of Canada doesn't restrict entry into its country enough."

Proof? NOT ONE SINGLE HIGHJACKER FROM 9-11 CAME FROM CANADA, AFAIK - THEY CAME ON U.S. IMMIGRATION VISAS, PASSPORTS, ETC... MAINLY FROM U.S. ALLY SAUDI ARABIA. THE FBI EVEN HAD SOME OF THEM ON A "WATCH" LIST. It's not OUR fault that the FBI fucked up, so don't blame Canada.

"Yes, ventures out with a lot of American payed equiptment and undermaned, the US having to compensate for this. Pay you more?! For what? to pay for eveyone of that 55, 000 men military?"

We go and do your dirty work (e.g. mine clearing) with NO benefit to us. Even your Arab allies get paid off to quell the populations that absolutely hate the U.S. with a vengeance. Getting the right equipment to do your work for you, voluntarily, is not much to ask.

So you guys reallly think that Canada is leeching off the U.S. military to pay for our higher standard of living? Many developed countries in the Western world and others as well have better health care, education, etc... than what the U.S. has. It's not because they're leeching off U.S. money. France, G.B., Germany, etc... have capable armies too. But here's a little hint: They don't spend a billion dollars a day on their "defense" budget. If the U.S. took a portion out of its nuclear, or maybe biological or chemical, or steath bomber, or pork barrel, or $500 dollar toilet seat military budget, it could have all the great stuff Canada has. But the choice that American taxpayers and voters have made is to support Bu$h's spending (and even that it highly in dispute). In other words, Canada is a better place to live because of the way we spend our money, not because we're leeching of the U.S. Our military would be better off if the U.S. just left us alone, period. It is capable of fufilling Canadian tasks such as protecting our fisheries (when the government has the guts to do so) and emergency disaster relief (Quebec ice storm.) It runs out of money when it has useless overseas commitments to escort U.S. Carriers, clear mines for U.S. troops, and garrison places conquered by the U.S. such as Kosovo.

I mean, you guys are in a country that buys 2 billion dollar stealth bombers when people are starving in the streets. Canada has similar problems, but we still have a higher standard of living. How DARE you criticize the manner in which we run our government when yours is severely inferior in a number of serious categories.

[victorhadin]

Referring back to Sea Skimmer, yes the United States built up a formidable nuclear stockpile and in no way am I lamenting its efforts on that front at all; a large part of the oversized soviet military budget was likely directed towards nuclear weapons (though exactly how much I am unsure of).

However this misses the point, which was that Europe, unlike the United States, had the very real threat of a massive Soviet armoured invasion hanging over it constantly. France and Britain constructed our own nuclear arsenals as much out of desperate self-defence than to help the United States along, and can you blame us?

With regards to Europe, the big threat was always a massive conventional invasion, and with the buildup of nuclear stockpiles in Britain and France, alongside a few US missiles stationed in Britain and Germany, the USSR would be wise to be careful about throwing nukes about. Yet again, it all came down to conventional warfare in the case of an invasion. The USSR would be loathe to initiate nuclear war even just with Europe, knowing that hundreds of warheads would shortly be coming straight back at it. Europe was, and had to be, far more concerned about the conventional threat of invasion, which remained far more likely (this only after Britain and France recieved a sizeable nuclear capability of their own, naturally).

Now if you want to argue that the United States 'protected' Europe, you would have to point out that US efforts to build up its nuclear stockpile and strategic weapons was the primary motivator for collapsing the Soviet Union (since on the nuclear front Europe would be buggered in any eventuality and we acquired an ability to threaten major Russian cities with our own stockpiles, whereas immediate US nuclear reprisals would not be 100% assured). -After Europe became reasonably nuclear capable, the amount of warheads held by the US was less of a factor in the defence of Europe and the emphasis went to conventional warfare. The US, quite simply, did not 'protect Europe' in any significant sense in this regard.

Now again the US's nuclear capabilities I am not shrugging aside here; it was necessary and key to the solution of the Cold War. However in the direct protection of Europe you contributed rather less than some of the more militant Americans, notably Azeron, would like to think. Aside from the few nuclear weapons the US thoughtfully stationed in Europe, we were largely left to bear the initial brunt of a future invasion on our own, pending possible 'US assistance' should we be able to hold the forces of the USSR at the Rhine.


And regarding present-day capabilities; yes, European nations could in many respects stand to pay a bit more for defence and the ERRF needs moving along to completion to solve the problem of divided leadership, but equally the US could stand to put a far larger portion of its own troops in international operations and peacekeeping, as Canada and European nations do. Fair's fair.

[Knife]

Sigh. Yes your right, the US military has just been a waste of money for 50 some odd years. The United States had nothing to do with the security of the world, and our noble brothern in Europe stared the evil Soviets square in the eye and dared them to attack, and asured the peace and security of the region. And when it was all over, they took their peace dividend "cough, choke" and build a lovely socialist system that people from all over the world flock to, both legally and illegaly.

My bad, I am sorry. "cough, choke, gag".

[phongn]

However this misses the point, which was that Europe, unlike the United States, had the very real threat of a massive Soviet armoured invasion hanging over it constantly. France and Britain constructed our own nuclear arsenals as much out of desperate self-defence than to help the United States along, and can you blame us?

[/b]

Not at all.

The USSR would be loathe to initiate nuclear war even just with Europe, knowing that hundreds of warheads would shortly be coming straight back at it. Europe was, and had to be, far more concerned about the conventional threat of invasion, which remained far more likely (this only after Britain and France recieved a sizeable nuclear capability of their own, naturally).

I'll have to disagree with this here. From what I've read/heard, nuclear war was inevitable if the WARPAC decided to go West. Something like 24 hours maximum until the nukes start flying on one side or another. That pretty much means that the USSR would be loathe to start a war period, though they had large plans to fight one.

Now if you want to argue that the United States 'protected' Europe, you would have to point out that US efforts to build up its nuclear stockpile and strategic weapons was the primary motivator for collapsing the Soviet Union (since on the nuclear front Europe would be buggered in any eventuality and we acquired an ability to threaten major Russian cities with our own stockpiles, whereas immediate US nuclear reprisals would not be 100% assured). -After Europe became reasonably nuclear capable, the amount of warheads held by the US was less of a factor in the defence of Europe and the emphasis went to conventional warfare. The US, quite simply, did not 'protect Europe' in any significant sense in this regard.

Some minor points here: the UK had enough firepower to destroy one Soviet city, that being Moscow (which apparently was a decoy at any rate). France's deterrant probably would be tasked elsewhere.

Under the "Eisenhower Doctrine," strategic weapons fielded by the United States and conventional forces fielded by regional allies (Europe, Thailand, ROK) would be the primary motivator in forcing a collapse of the USSR. That policy was abandonened from the 1960s-1970s, though arguably Reagan's plan was a modified continuation of it.

[Knife]

Well, I actually agree with Queen of Denmark. Canada leaches off America

How so? Would America reduce the size of its military if Canada increased the size of ours to a per-capita ratio equal to theirs? Our military would still be only one tenth of theirs, and they would still feel the need to maintain the same military forces anyway, because their enemies are usually half a world away. The Americans don't worry about land invasions, for obvious reasons.

You seem to be arguing that Canada is a drain on America because America is forced to defend us both against the large-scale impossible amphibious invasion that will never come. What kind of logic is that?

If you want to look at a military "leech", look at Israel. We're not the ones demanding billions of dollars a year in advanced military hardware and more in economic aid. We may have a small military, but we take care of it ourselves.

and have heard that all the second world countries and even some 3rd wrold countries would be able to defeat Canada in a war if it didn't have US protecting it.

Really? There are 2nd and 3rd world countries out there that could mount a large-scale amphibious invasion of Canada across thousands of miles of ocean or (worse yet) Arctic tundra? They could establish a beach head in the harsh rocky Maritime provinces and then extend an already hideously expensive logistical train through hundreds of miles of sparsely populated overland territory to the populated core of the country, and then conquer our nation by defeating its military forces? That's quite impressive; which 2nd or 3rd world country in particular has this capability? Have you laid out campaign plans for this ambitious operation?

With all due respect sir, just because the US would have a large military despite the size of a Canadian one should not be an argument for such a small military. Nor should we, your allies feel comfortable with a small military when we are involved in defense treaties with you. Not questioning patroitism nor nationalism, just the size of your military.

[Oberleutnant]

With all due respect sir, just because the US would have a large military despite the size of a Canadian one should not be an argument for such a small military. Nor should we, your allies feel comfortable with a small military when we are involved in defense treaties with you. Not questioning patroitism nor nationalism, just the size of your military.

Give me a good reason why Canada needs to increase the size of its military. I fail to see how the "small" size of their military threattens the American interests. Unless I'm mistaken, even now Canadian armed forces have trouble getting enough people to join. Maintaining a professional military is a lot easier for a big nation such as USA, and even they have had problems with the lack of new recruits. Even if Canada is an ally of USA, doesn't mean that over 4% their GDP should go to military expenditures like in US of A. This also applies to 17 other members of the NATO. Its their own business and if they are comfortable with it, then fine. No other western nation in the world spends as much on defence as USA, with the expection of Israel. The average for the western world is between 1-2% of the GDP.

Sure, you can blame Canadians for relying too much for their southern neighbour, but if this logic is used, it could be said that USA is neglecting its defence because it doesn't have troops stationed on its northern border.

[ArmorPierce]

I won't even bother debating Lord Wong, cause he would give me the Imperial smack down so quick it wouldn't be funny. That and the fact that I agreed to much of what he said and just wanted to show how weak Canada was compared to the US

[ArmorPierce]

The Soviets were considered a second world nation? I guess I never thought of it that way (although I don't think that's what the original poster meant; I suspect he was thinking of places like Iraq).

Yeah thats what I meant but I didn't mean in a real world scenario. I meant something like the Iraq Army magically appearing at their border or (more realistic) a battle in the deserts of Iraq.

[ArmorPierce]

has any major terrorist attack ever happened because of the US?"

Uh... does 9-11 ring a bell? Howabout the U.S.S. Cole?

Oops I meant has any major terrorist attack ever TO CANADA happened because of the US?"

[Doomriser]

has any major terrorist attack ever happened because of the US?"

Uh... does 9-11 ring a bell? Howabout the U.S.S. Cole?

Oops I meant has any major terrorist attack ever TO CANADA happened because of the US?"

No, but authorities state that the risk is higher. Areas are being declared "sensitive" that weren't before 9-11.

[victorhadin]

Phogn, the idea that Britain was required merely to assault Moscow is a fallacy. That would assume a degree of reliable missile-defence over Moscow which simply did not exist, and a rate of attrition of incoming warheads or missiles that simply would not have occured.

After the nuclear forces of the British Isles was largely moved over to submarine-based launch systems we had more than sufficient firepower to take out numerous Soviet cities. Your argument could almost be said to hold water before the introduction of the submarine-based nuclear force, since assault via long-ranged bombers became steadily more difficult as the Cold War progressed, hence the transition to submarine-based ballistic missiles. After the introduction of the SLBM fleet, however, the 'one city' idea just doesn't hold water.

[phongn]

Phogn, the idea that Britain was required merely to assault Moscow is a fallacy. That would assume a degree of reliable missile-defence over Moscow which simply did not exist, and a rate of attrition of incoming warheads or missiles that simply would not have occured.

Ah, but Moscow did have a reliable missile-defense system. From all indications, the British deterrant was aimed more or less at Moscow for whatever reason.

After the introduction of the SLBM fleet, however, the 'one city' idea just doesn't hold water.

The problem was that Polaris suffered from some severe problems, namely having a subsonic reentry profile, making the RVs rather easy to destroy (a conventional SAM might do the trick). Later missiles (ie Trident) would rectify this, but it the UK's deterrant was still pointed towards Moscow. All of the UK's several hundred RVs, really, were pointed there to ensure total destruction.

In fact, the UK's nuclear assault plan was more flexible in the V-Bomber's prime, but advances in SAMs (not to mention their lengthy reaction time) pretty much negated that force.

Or at any rate, that's what various ex-Cold War people involved have said (don't interpret this as an appeal to authority - I'm not doing that, just stating what my source is).

[Queen of Denmark]

Interesting responses and sub-points being made here. Now. How many of you (especially Americans for obvious reasons) are holding back on how you feel or not posting because this vaunted Mr. Wong is Canadian?

[Darth Wong]

Interesting responses and sub-points being made here. Now. How many of you (especially Americans for obvious reasons) are holding back on how you feel or not posting because this vaunted Mr. Wong is Canadian?

Here's another question: how many of you noticed the Queen of Denmark's blatant "appeal to motive" fallacy? Shouldn't she be looking at flaws or errors in arguments rather than trying to chalk everything up to a desire to suck up to me?

[Sea Skimmer]

Interesting responses and sub-points being made here. Now. How many of you (especially Americans for obvious reasons) are holding back on how you feel or not posting because this vaunted Mr. Wong is Canadian?

Here's another question: how many of you noticed the Queen of Denmark's blatant "appeal to motive" fallacy? Shouldn't she be looking at flaws or errors in arguments rather than trying to chalk everything up to a desire to suck up to me?

You should know better then anyone what can happen when you mix logic and anti logic in attempting to analyze a trollish posts.

[Stuart Mackey]

Interesting responses and sub-points being made here. Now. How many of you (especially Americans for obvious reasons) are holding back on how you feel or not posting because this vaunted Mr. Wong is Canadian?

I think you will find that people here will speak their opinion regardless of what Mike might think.

[Knife]

With all due respect sir, just because the US would have a large military despite the size of a Canadian one should not be an argument for such a small military. Nor should we, your allies feel comfortable with a small military when we are involved in defense treaties with you. Not questioning patroitism nor nationalism, just the size of your military.

Give me a good reason why Canada needs to increase the size of its military. I fail to see how the "small" size of their military threattens the American interests. Unless I'm mistaken, even now Canadian armed forces have trouble getting enough people to join. Maintaining a professional military is a lot easier for a big nation such as USA, and even they have had problems with the lack of new recruits. Even if Canada is an ally of USA, doesn't mean that over 4% their GDP should go to military expenditures like in US of A. This also applies to 17 other members of the NATO. Its their own business and if they are comfortable with it, then fine. No other western nation in the world spends as much on defence as USA, with the expection of Israel. The average for the western world is between 1-2% of the GDP.

Sure, you can blame Canadians for relying too much for their southern neighbour, but if this logic is used, it could be said that USA is neglecting its defence because it doesn't have troops stationed on its northern border.

Sure, reason number one, if the US and Canadian relationship turn sour or even hostile, or if we just ignore you would you feel safe with your military.
Reason number two, your part of NATO right? Your defense is our defense and so on. God forbid if we get our asses kicked, what will that leave you. Sure, land invasion of the west is extremely unlikely under current conditions in the world but do not use that as a crutch for the future.
Again nothing against the people of Canada, just my opinion on this particular policy in the goverment. People do it all the time against Bush, so I guess I get a turn too. On a side note, why can't you people have satellite dish's. I don't get that.

[victorhadin]

I think I shall take this argument to logical extremes and state that Ireland should beef up its military and protect its own damn airspace as throughout the Cold War Soviet bombers and reconnaisance aircraft had to be turned away by the RAF when in the region of the Republic of Ireland. Damn them for leaching from us!*






*Yes. This is a joke.

[Knife]

I think I shall take this argument to logical extremes and state that Ireland should beef up its military and protect its own damn airspace as throughout the Cold War Soviet bombers and reconnaisance aircraft had to be turned away by the RAF when in the region of the Republic of Ireland. Damn them for leaching from us!*

It could have reduced the UK's defense budget from 12 something billion to 11 something billion, just think what they could do with all that money.




*Yes. This is a joke.

Yeup!

[XPViking]

Ha! Israel is nothing to Japan! It doesn't even feild a respectable military. Essentially it's a military protectorate of America. So while America spent it's money in protecting Japan after WWII, Japan built the worlds second largest economy! Man I love that country! - Crown

That's because the Japanese constitution after WWII had build-in limits in regards to how large its armed forces could grow. That was done in order to ally fears amongst its neighbours. Do you have any numbers showing that US military spending for Japan exceeds that of Israel?

XPViking

[XPViking]

God forbid if we get our asses kicked, what will that leave you. Sure, land invasion of the west is extremely unlikely under current conditions in the world but do not use that as a crutch for the future. - Knife

If the USA military got its ass kicked, and I'm assuming here that all of it gets curb-stomped, then I fail to see how any amount of Canadian military spending will make up the shortfall.

XPViking