Does Canada need a military?

[Tribble]

Topic came up in lecture the other day, let's just say it became rather... heated.

In a nutshell here were some reasons for / against Canada maintaining a military:


Some arguments for:

Being able to defend territory is a critical component of a nation state, and cannot be ignored

Armed conflict is always a possibility, and Canada should always be prepared

It is part of Canada's treaty obligations to the USA and NATO; if we don't pull our weight it will have a negative impact

Canada has valuable land / resources that may come under increasing threat the easier it is to access (especially as the North opens up due to climate change)

Canada should not have to rely on the US for protection

Canada still makes important contributions to NATO / peacekeeping missions

Canada's military does more than just fight - peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, search and rescue, snowplowing (in Toronto) etc

If Canada dissolves its military it will give up sovereignty to the US/ Russia, China etc.

Although Canada's military is relatively small, it is well trained

If Canada eliminates its military it will lose valuable skills which, if needed later, will take time to replace.

Canada is a military nation with a proud history of taking a stand when necessary (e.g. ww2)

The Canadian military still represents a fairly sizeable chunk of the workforce and the economy (~1% GDP)


Some arguments against:

Barring nuclear deterrence (which is an options most Canadians are against), due to its geography (2nd largest landmass, largest in overall coast) and small population (which is concentrated in the US border) Canada is practically indefensible. The only countries which would conceivably invade Canada (Russia, USA, China etc) are also far greater than Canada in terms of population and military strength, making Canada's military ability a moot point. No matter how much money was spent Canada would be swept away in a conflict.

That being said, it is highly unlikely that any country would actually invade Canada - the US has no reason to, and they would prevent any attempts by China and Russia to establish a military presence on North American soil

Canada's military is obsolete in design - it is meant to maintain a small standing force that can train recruits in a major conflict. However, if there was a major conflict in the 21st century big enough to require a mobilization, it would likely be over (due to tech / WMDs etc) before mobilization could even begin.

While Canada's military is well trained, most of its equipment is horribly obsolete. Replacing that equipment would require a massive commitment and funding, far more than the public would be willing to tolerate.

The biggest threat to Canada is terrorism and crime, not foreign invasion. The money spent on the military would be far better spent on border patrol, coast guard, security services, spy agencies, policing etc

As for other functions, again funding would be better spent on actual organizations dedicated to search and rescue, humanitarian aid, snowplowing etc. than having the military do it

Canada's role in NATO is relatively insignificant; Canada no longer has an meaningful impact on modern military affairs

Canadians are generally against warfare in the 21st century, and do not see why Canada should be getting involved

Canada might have a bigger impact in the world by becoming the first G20 nation to completely demobilize than by continuing to go on NATO missions

Funding could also be redirected towards social services and reducing poverty - again, something that is having a far bigger negative impact on Canada today than the threat of foreign invasion

Jobs lost via eliminating the military can be offset by retraining members in other fields (such as navy personal being redeployed as coast guard, airforce as search and resource etc)

Canada would have a greater impact on the world stage by specialising in humanitarian aid - there are already plenty of much more powerful countries that have the ability to blow things up far better than Canada can.

Canada is a post nation state, and thus does not need a military as we conventionally view it.



Thoughts?

[The Romulan Republic]

Arguably we don't need one.

We have a land border with only one nation- the United States. And if the United States turned on us, its unlikely we'd be able to make much more than a token defence in any case, unless we developed our own nuclear arsenal (and I oppose nuclear weapons in general for a number of reasons). We also have strong allies, and the US would probably not tolerate any attack on Canada (though God knows what the US will do, now that its leadership is driven more by greed and ego than geopolitical concerns). That leaves terrorism/internal instability, which is unlikely to grow beyond something law enforcement can deal with in the near future. Canada is one of the more stable and peaceful countries on Earth, thankfully. The only scenario where we are likely to be attacked is a full-scale world war, in which case we get nuked along with everyone, weather we have a military or not.

Now, its a fair point that we might need a military in the future, and that if we don't have one, we'll lose capabilities that would take time to replace if we ever needed them. But we don't really need a military now for our own defence. Their are situations where we might wish to deploy forces overseas, as part of a UN Peacekeeping mission, for example, or against Somali pirates, or whatever. But these are optional, not existential necessities.

However, we do have NATO treaty obligations we are obliged to meet, until such time as we choose to leave NATO.

So I would say that we should maintain sufficient forces to meet our minimum treaty obligations until such time as we withdraw from said treaties, and a small navy to patrol our coastlines and act in a support role for international missions, but nothing more.

Well... I wouldn't be opposed to investing a bit more in missile defence, just in case.

We don't need a large army or marine corps, though. Canada isn't going to be unilaterally invading any countries any time soon.

[Tribble]

That raises a good question: does Canada need to be a part of NATO? One could argue no - Even with Trump the US is probably far more concerned with potential terrorists coming from Canada more than anything else, and would probably agree to keep protecting Canada even if we demobilise provided our borders are secure. On the other hand, what would happen massive resources like oil was discovered in the far north? Would that change the dynamic?

[The Romulan Republic]

Its hard to see the US ever becoming an enemy to Canada, and the US would probably not tolerate anyone else muscling in on Canada because it would be a threat to them and their sphere of influence. Though in the age of Trump, all things are possible, and its arguable that "America's sphere of influence" and "Russia's sphere of influence" are becoming increasingly one and the same, though I don't really want to rehash that debate here.

In any case, part of the job of a military is to be prepared even for unlikely threats. I see arguably little point in preparing for the possibility of a hostile US, because Canada does not have the means to defeat the US, and won't for the foreseeable future. But at least having plans for a US that is indifferent to our security would be wise, I would think.

Edit: In all seriousness, some of Trump's comments reg. NATO do raise the possibility of weather we can rely on the US in the future.

[General Zod]

Its hard to see the US ever becoming an enemy to Canada, and the US would probably not tolerate anyone else muscling in on Canada because it would be a threat to them and their sphere of influence. Though in the age of Trump, all things are possible, and its arguable that "America's sphere of influence" and "Russia's sphere of influence" are becoming increasingly one and the same, though I don't really want to rehash that debate here.

In any case, part of the job of a military is to be prepared even for unlikely threats. I see arguably little point in preparing for the possibility of a hostile US, because Canada does not have the means to defeat the US, and won't for the foreseeable future. But at least having plans for a US that is indifferent to our security would be wise, I would think.

Edit: In all seriousness, some of Trump's comments reg. NATO do raise the possibility of weather we can rely on the US in the future.

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

[Tribble]

Its hard to see the US ever becoming an enemy to Canada, and the US would probably not tolerate anyone else muscling in on Canada because it would be a threat to them and their sphere of influence. Though in the age of Trump, all things are possible, and its arguable that "America's sphere of influence" and "Russia's sphere of influence" are becoming increasingly one and the same, though I don't really want to rehash that debate here.

In any case, part of the job of a military is to be prepared even for unlikely threats. I see arguably little point in preparing for the possibility of a hostile US, because Canada does not have the means to defeat the US, and won't for the foreseeable future. But at least having plans for a US that is indifferent to our security would be wise, I would think.

Edit: In all seriousness, some of Trump's comments reg. NATO do raise the possibility of weather we can rely on the US in the future.

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

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.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I suppose you could have a Canadian insurgency, although Canada seems like one of the countries that culturally is least likely to spawn a successful insurgency.

[SCRawl]

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.

[TimothyC]

Edit: In all seriousness, some of Trump's comments reg. NATO do raise the possibility of weather we can rely on the US in the future.

I love it. You're a Canadian when it suits you (this), and an American when it suits you (the election).

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.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am a duel citizen, you dumb shit. I am simultaneously an American and Canadian, at all times, and must consider the interests of both countries. I speak from a Canadian perspective here because that is the topic of this thread. Though I would say much the same (that I cannot rely any longer on the protection of my government) as an American.

Question the legitimacy of my citizenship, or my right to express an opinion as either an American or Canadian, again, and I will react the same way I would to a racist comment or any other form of prejudice based on origin. You have been warned.

[Gandalf]

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.

[General Zod]

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.

[SCRawl]

I am a duel citizen, you dumb shit. I am simultaneously an American and Canadian, at all times, and must consider the interests of both countries. I speak from a Canadian perspective here because that is the topic of this thread. Though I would say much the same (that I cannot rely any longer on the protection of my government) as an American.

Question the legitimacy of my citizenship, or my right to express an opinion as either an American or Canadian, again, and I will react the same way I would to a racist comment or any other form of prejudice based on origin. You have been warned.

You might as well stop huffing and puffing, you look ridiculous.

I will admit, though, that I don't understand the point behind TimothyC's snark: as a dual citizen you can have a perspective as a citizen of both countries. You can be a Canadian one minute and an American the next minute, or both at once, no hypocrisy required. I suppose it's meant as some sort of insult, but I just don't understand it.

[Tribble]

Well, I suppose you could have a Canadian insurgency, although Canada seems like one of the countries that culturally is least likely to spawn a successful insurgency.

Domestic terrorism is far more likely based on our history; IIRC the last major insurgency was the North-West Rebellion in 1885, whereas we still get the occasional terrorist attack / mass shooting today. A conventional military is essentially useless against such attacks unless we went the police state route (and even then, wouldn't it be better to let the police handle it? That's what they are for).

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.

What would be more beneficial to the US though - spending $20 billion on a military that would swept aside almost in an actual conflict as it would now, or having Canada use that on coast-guard, border patrol, intelligence services etc to improve domestic security? Again, Canada is indefensible from a population / geographic standpoint in terms of conventional military forces (barring nukes) no matter how much money is thrown at it.

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.

IIRC Costa Rica disbanded its conventional armed forces a long time ago, though they still keep border patrol and special forces.


More to the point though, Canada does not have the ability to enforce and defend its borders from its potential military aggressors, and due to population and geographical constraints trying to do so is impractical. The only countries which could / would conceivably invade Canada would be also able to smash whatever forces we have in short order no matter how much we tried to build them up.

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

Again, that has nothing to do with Canada's situation. The only potential invaders Canada has would curbstomp it without effort, even if Canada decided to embark on a massive military buildup. Short of nukes, Canada cannot defend itself against its potential aggressors. What is the point of having a military which cannot serve its primary function which, given the situation, cannot serve its primary function in any realistic manner?

Btw just being devil's advocate, I'm kind of on the fence here.

[SCRawl]

I suspect that the $20b we should be spending would be more along the lines of troops ready to defend other NATO allies in the event that hostilities break out. In 2014 Canada agreed (like all other NATO countries) to spend 2% of GDP, and we're at just under half of that. (The US spends well over 3% of GDP on its military, or about 37 times what Canada spends, in absolute terms.)

[Sidewinder]

A lot of military equipment is dual-use, but their civilian counterparts are not. You can use a Navy frigate to perform search-and-rescue, but you can't use a Coast Guard cutter for air defense or anti-submarine warfare. Better to have and not need, than to need and not have, after all.

[Sidewinder]

As for humanitarian aid, how will you get the aid to where it's needed? How will you then distribute it? How will you prevent local criminals and warlords from seizing this aid for their own use?

All these are reasons to have military aircraft to deliver the aid, soldiers to guard the aid supplies as well as distribute them. Can you replace those service providers with civilian contractors? I doubt civilian cargo aircraft are willing to fly into a potential or actual war zone, and I doubt it's cost effective to hire PMCs to guard the Red Cross workers who're distributing the aid supplies.

[TimothyC]

I am a duel citizen, you dumb shit.

You try to have one half shoot the other?

Yes, I went for the low hanging fruit with that joke. Now, as you have said that you consider both sides, why don't you consider the American side of Canada shirking the NATO obligations?

SCRawl, I went snarky because I go snarky in threads about NATO defense spending. It is just what I do.

As for what they could spend the money on, how about a navy that doesn't have the underway replenishment ships catching fire at sea and having to be decommissioned early (relatively speaking + she was already long past her expected retirement age). How about some more stockpiles of usable PGMs. 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).

[SCRawl]

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.

[SCRawl]

Yes, I went for the low hanging fruit with that joke. Now, as you have said that you consider both sides, why don't you consider the American side of Canada shirking the NATO obligations?

SCRawl, I went snarky because I go snarky in threads about NATO defense spending. It is just what I do.

Incidentally, the low hanging fruit is not always the best. And you might consider making an attempt to resist your snark tendencies once in a while.

Having said that, TRR, if you haven't already made the suggested consideration, I think it's worth making, no matter what conclusions are ultimately reached.

[Tribble]

I am a duel citizen, you dumb shit.

You try to have one half shoot the other?

Yes, I went for the low hanging fruit with that joke. Now, as you have said that you consider both sides, why don't you consider the American side of Canada shirking the NATO obligations?

SCRawl, I went snarky because I go snarky in threads about NATO defense spending. It is just what I do.

As for what they could spend the money on, how about a navy that doesn't have the underway replenishment ships catching fire at sea and having to be decommissioned early (relatively speaking + she was already long past her expected retirement age). How about some more stockpiles of usable PGMs. 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).

Oh that's only the tip of the iceberg, just off the top of my head:

Still flying Sea King helicopters from the 1960s as the civilian helicopters rebuilt for military use are proving insufficient (surprise).. of course, billions were spent on the useless project. Sea Kings need 100+ hours of repair time for every hour in the air.

As our destroyers are no longer in service and they carried most of the(limited) anti-aircraft weaponry, our remaining ships no longer have sufficient anti-air protection and need to be escorted. No replacements for the foreseeable future.

Are submarines are still rusty and broken. No replacements for the foreseeable future.

No working supply ships, as noted. No new ones for the foreseeable future

No icebreaker warships, despite spending billions on them. Will not be getting any for the foreseeable future.

Short on torpedoes, and remaining ones are becoming obsolete. No word yet on replenishment / replacements

Short on missiles, and remaining ones are becoming obsolete. Still shooting them off fighting ISIS and whatnot. No word yet on replenishment / replacements.

We're short on ammo in everything, now that I think of it. The entire training budget for our infantry is a mere 49 rounds per soldier per year.


No large cargo aircraft, and we frequently have to rent out civilian aircraft when shuttling troops. Remaining cargo aircraft are so old we have to raid our museums for spare parts to keep them running.

F-35 project is essentially abandoned after spending billions. Supposedly we will be purchasing Super Hornets instead, but don't hold your breath, we'll be using our 30+ year old fighters for some time yet

Many of our land vehicles are in such poor shape they put tarps underneath them when parked to catch all the leaking oil / fuel.



Plus were ~6,800 personnel short of our official quota... with no real efforts at trying to boost recruitment.


And when it comes to funding, it doesn't seem to matter which party is in power:

The Conservatives deliberately withheld at least $4 billion + worth of funds which was already budgeted (they did this with vet benefits too btw- that's an entirely different story, and an incredibly disgusting one at that). This is in addition to blowing billions on ships/ helicopters/ planes with nothing to show for it.

The Liberals are well known for making cutbacks when in office, and are already planning on doing so again by aiming a "leaner" military now that they are in power.

The NDP openly state they want to cut the military budget by at least half, and do not want Canada to be involved in world affairs.

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.

This is why I wonder sometimes whether we should bother with the pretense if we are choosing to let the miltiary to get into this state (and it will get worse over the next few years).


This is not to spite the people who serve of course, whom despite all the crap thrown their way remain hard-working, dedicated well trained, and a hell of a lot braver than I'll ever be. Kudos to hem for trying so hard. Seriously if there was one army that was handed a toothpick and a piece of string then told to go conquer a country with it, it would probably be the Canadian military.... mostly because they're pretty much asked to do that all the time already.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am a duel citizen, you dumb shit. I am simultaneously an American and Canadian, at all times, and must consider the interests of both countries. I speak from a Canadian perspective here because that is the topic of this thread. Though I would say much the same (that I cannot rely any longer on the protection of my government) as an American.

Question the legitimacy of my citizenship, or my right to express an opinion as either an American or Canadian, again, and I will react the same way I would to a racist comment or any other form of prejudice based on origin. You have been warned.

You might as well stop huffing and puffing, you look ridiculous.

I will admit, though, that I don't understand the point behind TimothyC's snark: as a dual citizen you can have a perspective as a citizen of both countries. You can be a Canadian one minute and an American the next minute, or both at once, no hypocrisy required. I suppose it's meant as some sort of insult, but I just don't understand it.

My sense was that it was an implication of hypocrisy or dishonesty on my part. That or just nationalist clap trap to the effect that I wasn't a real American because I'm a duel citizen. That's why I took such offence.

As to his supposed argument... I'm not sure what the fuss is about. I already said that, while I think Canada arguably doesn't need a military, it must honour its treaty obligations. Said it in my first damn post in this thread.

Honestly, I wonder if half the arguments I get into on this board are just a matter of people not bothering to read what I say and then assuming I said the worst/stupidest possible thing.

Edit: I will add, though, that since America elected to play global superpower... well, part of the cost of taking on that role is paying for other peoples' wars. And to be blunt, the US is more capable of defending Canada than Canada is. That said, we'd be a piss poor ally if we didn't help out, and like I said, I do believe in governments meeting their treaty obligations, in general.

[Ralin]

Yes, I went for the low hanging fruit with that joke. Now, as you have said that you consider both sides, why don't you consider the American side of Canada shirking the NATO obligations?

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

I mean, there is no inherent reason I can see why Canada needs to stay in NATO indefinitely. They benefit from it (I assume) but ultimately NATO is an alliance originally aimed at a country that no longer exists and that has morphed into an alliance aimed at...problems that don't really directly threaten Canada.

Like, I'm not up on the arguments back and forth on the subject, but it's only 'shirking' if Canada continues to agree to accept those obligations in the first place.

Back on topic: I find it interesting that no one seems to think "Groups within Canada will try to secede, rebel or otherwise violently give the finger to the Canadian government and do their own thing" is a potential issue here.

[Tribble]

Back on topic: I find it interesting that no one seems to think "Groups within Canada will try to secede, rebel or otherwise violently give the finger to the Canadian government and do their own thing" is a potential issue here.

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.

[The Romulan Republic]

Agreed.

I'm not saying it couldn't change at some point in the future, but right now, Canada is one of the last places on Earth I'd expect to see widespread domestic political violence, beyond the scope of what law enforcement could handle.