[Canadaka]

$1:

No nation on earth has an army that is made just for peacekeeping and disaster relief.

exactly! that what i was saying, is that right? I think Canada should show the world that this is what a militarys prime purpose CAN be.

$1:

It is nearly impossible to ramp up a force that is designed, trained, and equipped for peacekeeping to fight in a war effectively

exactly, what war do we have to fight

$1:

Armies train for war not for peace, what happens if 10-30-50 years down the road our nation is thrust into war

i just don't agree with training for war. And i don't think there will be another "world war" with China. And if there were, we change our policy, how prepared was Canada for WW1 or 2? If drastic circumstances needed it, the war machine could be put into motion.

[putz]

$1:

exactly! that what i was saying, is that right? I think Canada should show the world that this is what a militarys prime purpose CAN be.

I don't believe that we live in such stable times that we can stop training our army for war. Who knows where our nation could get involved in a conflict. Afterall it only took Hitler 6 years to take a nation broken from WWI and make into a frightning war machine. Really who knows when we will go to war.

$1:

i just don't agree with training for war. And i don't think there will be another "world war" with China. And if there were, we change our policy, how prepared was Canada for WW1 or 2? If drastic circumstances needed it, the war machine could be put into motion.

This was a common notion after WWI. "Never will it happen again'". The honest truth is that it most likely will happen again (maybe not in our lifetime). Also what if the nation came under attack from more indirect sources, say like terrorists? Special Forces are nice but this day and age its apparent that you can't rely on them to fight your battles all the time.

[Canadaka]

I dont disagree that there are threats out ther, and that a certain amoount of Home guard should be kept, but we also have RCMP, coast guard ect.

Todays supposed big treat is terrorists where a conventional armed forces that you speak of are not effective against. So have primary mission as peace keepping, with small specialized units that are effective against terrorist.

Why do we need tanks, subs missile launchers and "missile shields".

We do need a certain level of naval and air force to get peacekeeping troops to locations and to support them. I dont think we should have to rely on other nations to do this, like has had to been recently.

[putz]

$1:

Why do we need tanks, subs missile launchers and "missile shields".

Missle shields we don't need. The rest we do! We are in danger of losing some our national Soverignty right now. Look at the Arctic we have lands that are in dispute with other nations (Denmark, Russia, US) the military is the force that we use to secure our national intrests. Military exercises in the North show the world this is our land this is our stake in it so back off.

You also have to understand as a nation of peacekeepers we would be VERY restricted in what we can do militarily. A nation of peacekeepers would be unable to defend itself, be unable to attack any foregin threats (ie terrorists). You cannot have a national army based on peacekeeping and disaster response and expect to keep our national and international intrests free from threats abroad or even internaly

[SprCForr]

...I think Canada should show the world that this is what a militarys prime purpose CAN be...

You are viewing this from the perspective of a country that hasn't fought for it's life in the last half-century. Would you expect say, for example Kuwait, to adopt the idea? Or South Korea? Nope. The primary role of the Army is to fight to protect the country. You know this. Peacekeeping and disaster assistance are viable secondary roles and should never be the primary.


"...we change our policy, how prepared was Canada for WW1 or 2? If drastic circumstances needed it, the war machine could be put into motion."

No, it can't. Not if you want to win. The ramp up for both those wars wasted resources, resulted in shoddy training and equipment, and if we hadn't been able to properly retrain in Britain, cost lives. To create a basic soldier fit for todays combat environment takes the best part of a year. Anything less is simply cannon-fodder. Leaders effective in combat take even longer. Sorry, the day of building up slowly is past. It is now and has been a "come as you are" war environment.

[dgthe3]

Either way you cut it, Canada will need some sort of armed force in the future and that will cost money. I think that we should have enough to support our ground pounders, the infantry. The ramp up for the two world wars was only possible back then. With the technology of todays fighting machines, you cannot produce them in any effective numbers durring a war, look waht happened to Germany with the King Tiger in WWII. Training soldiers for peace keeping operations is, i assume, harder than to do so for conventional operations because of the increased number of factors involved. Peacekeeping was designed to help prevent wars before they get too big, or at least delay them long enough to get all of your major forces in.

[SprCForr]

Actually it's vice versa. Peacekeeping training for soldiers is watered-down warfighting skills. By far, the warfighting skills are the ones used in daily UN ops. Non-traditional military skills such as negotiating, etc is conducted as run-up training. Remember the farther down the food chain (at the troop-loop level), there is way less political posturing BS when talking with the belligerents and more common sense. A competant, properly trained leader can do that easily. If more depth is required, then you'll attend the applicable training course (i.e. at the Peace Support Centre in Kingston) prior to departure.

[Canadaka]

you obviously are all military types. i like the military too, i am a huge WW2 buff. im just saying maybe the odl way of doing things and loking at a military is wrong.

You can't compare the military rols of south korea and Canada

$1:

The primary role of the Army is to fight to protect the country

im syaing should we not question this, Canada could and is a leader in changing this.


Sure it takes time to ramp up for a war effort such as it did in WW2, but your saying to always be at that state of readyness, If Canada was at that state for the last 50 years, imagine how much money that would have cost!

plus Canada has its allies, i can never see another nation attacking Canada on the north american continent, and if this did happen, do you think they would just stand by and watch.

$1:

Look at the Arctic we have lands that are in dispute with other nations (Denmark, Russia, US)

these are small disputes, you think anyone would goto war over? no.


I realise that having a strong military protects a states Soverignty, but that is a very old way of thought, things will and have to change at some point. Some europian countries have a very small military, you see anyone going, hey they don't have a military, lets go take them over and plant our flag! I think the state of geopolitics is past that, in the west anyway.

[WarHawk]

Canadaka Canadaka:

BUT WHY does our military have to be a war military ready for total war, so what if thats the way things were done. Canada should be a leader.

Who do we have to goto war with, who would attack Canada.

I agree more money should be spent on military, but not an old military, with old ways. but on peacekeeping and special ops like JTF2 when there needs to be a little dirty work done.

I just dont see it logical anymore for Canada to try and maintain a full army, navy and air force, then i disgree with spending the money, we have more important things that need fixing within the country, or just send the money as direct aid to the places that need it, or even raise the amount of Canadian soldiers in the UN.

What are you? A communist? Get rid of those notions of a flowery, rainbow, sunshine peace loving world. As long as humans exist as a species, we shall never be rid of war.

[Canadaka]

$1:

What are you? A communist? Get rid of those notions of a flowery, rainbow, sunshine peace loving world. As long as humans exist as a species, we shall never be rid of war

well not with people liek you around. im not talking about drastic change here, its bascially almsot where Canada is at now.

yes i am a Communist pirate robot from mars!

[WarHawk]

Canadaka Canadaka:

$1:

What are you? A communist? Get rid of those notions of a flowery, rainbow, sunshine peace loving world. As long as humans exist as a species, we shall never be rid of war

well not with people liek you around. im not talking about drastic change here, its bascially almsot where Canada is at now.

yes i am a Communist pirate robot from mars!

And it is the wrong direction we should be going. Like I said, war will never go away, so we should be prepared.

[Canadaka]

conflict will never go away, but i think war as we have known it in the past will.

sure it would be grand to have a huge army navy air force, special ops peacekeeping force. But with what money. I sure don't agree with spending that kind of money, we have more importan domestic issues, or the money could be put to use helping poor parts of the globe in other ways.

With the funding we do have, we need to narrow the field, concentrate on a few key rolls, not the whole spectrum.

[WarHawk]

Canadaka Canadaka:

conflict will never go away, but i think war as we have known it in the past will.

sure it would be grand to have a huge army navy air force, special ops peacekeeping force. But with what money. I sure don't agree with spending that kind of money, we have more importan domestic issues, or the money could be put to use helping poor parts of the globe in other ways.

With the funding we do have, we need to narrow the field, concentrate on a few key rolls, not the whole spectrum.

How naive.

[Canadaka]

$1:

How naive.

how so, mr. almighty war god

[WarHawk]

Canadaka Canadaka:

$1:

How naive.

how so, mr. almighty war god

how you "think war as we have known it in the past will" go away.