[jullian]

It's no wonder the US has all the power. They have 2 oceans to the east and west. And the countries to the north and south have virtually insignificant militaries. I have a very strong feeling this will never change. The US would never allow a significant military build up in Mexico or Canada. Part of the reason the US is the world's only superpower is because there is no country within 5000 miles to contest them, and they wanto keep it that way. The US would never allow a country on its border to become a signifcant military power.

It didn't have to be this way. Canada once had the 4th strongest military in the world. But we have been dependent on US protection for so long we no longer have a choice in how strong our military can be.

I'm not saying I want to start an arms race with America . I'm just saying b/c of our long dependence on America, we lost the ability to determine how strong our military should be.

[Nate_7]

I dunno about that. Granted, if it ever got that far, the U.S. probably wouldn't be too pleased if ourselves or Mexico started pumping out hundreds of tanks, planes, and ships, with plenty of new recruits. But there's no way would that our military (or Mexico's, for that matter, on account of enonomic instability) would be able to grow that big. It's late and I'm too tired and lazy to go into the many reasons for this, but if you really would like to know then just ask.

[alanh]

well i think u are partially right jullian. i think canada has control over its military strength to a point. but if canada ever came to a point where our military became of a significant power on the world stage, the US would definitely intervene. no question.

[jullian]

Yes I do admit we do have control over our military strenght to a point.

The point I was getting at is right after WW2 Canada had the 4th or 5th strongest military in the world. But now there is no way we could ever reach that strength again because the US would never allow it.

[SprCForr]

How would they not "allow" it? Is this just another one of them Conspiracy Theorist wet dreams?

It is in their best interest to have a strong partner sharing their border. That is what they are railing about right now! They WANT us to strengthen our military. The rest of NATO is as well!

This is nonsense.

[Streaker]

Agreed! Another "wet dream" here is the one Americans have when they think of Canada beefing up its armed forces.

Haven't they been asking us to do this for years?

[F/sgt Cam]

jullian jullian:

Yes I do admit we do have control over our military strenght to a point.

The point I was getting at is right after WW2 Canada had the 4th or 5th strongest military in the world. But now there is no way we could ever reach that strength again because the US would never allow it.

You're a moron, sorry to be rude but I'm tired and not too nice. Like it was previously stated Bush is constantly telling NATO and Canada to increase defense spending. Also what would we do with the 4th largest army? We would have 600, 000 people sitting around Canada taking up valuable tax money. If you're willing to give 80% o money to taxes instead of the current 30% then be my guest guest but I would rather not.

[Nate_7]

$1:

You're a moron, sorry to be rude but I'm tired and not too nice.

Wow.
Okay, it's politics. Not everything is simple in this world, so you can't look at it that way. The U.S. WOULD like to see us beef up our armed forces, I'm not disputing that. But if, theoretically, tomorrow 3,000,000 people showed up at recruiting staitions across the country, and then the government increased defence spending to %20 GDP, then the current U.S. administration would not be too happy. That's like banging your best friend's girlfriend (couldn't think if a better simile, sorry). Basicly what I'm trying to say is that, allies or not, the U.S. would not want us to build up our military so that is is comparable or better than theirs. Especially if that ally is on the same continent as them. That is what the U.S. is famous for, major military capability larger than any other country's on this planet (maybe, in some aspects, with the exception of China). They would not be able to project the intimidation towards the world. Other countries would say, in a sense, "Well, if Canada's military is better than the U.S.'s, then maybe we can eventually build ours be that powerful too.". A ripple effect would start from that, countries would start to become less dependent on America, and the U.S. would loose any credibility of being the major power in the world, militaryily and economically. They would no longer be able to uphold the 'bully on the block' position

"Oh my God!...Can he really say 'bang my girlfriend' on TV!?"

[Arctic_Menace]

I believe that Canada should have a stronger military for the purpose of doing more efficient and more numerous peacekeeping missions. It does NOT however need to be a military in competition with America's. If America did intervene, Parliament should tell em to mind their own business and to not be so paranoid. A strong military is good if used for the right reasons and in moderation.

[alienofwar]

The only way Canada could build up a strong military is if healthcare was partly privatized and social spending was reduced. Also the economies of the disadvantaged provinces would have to be rejuvinated by lowering regulations and taxes so that they can pay there fair share in taxes and not depend on other provinces for money.

Come on Canada...time to get into shape!! Don't want to always be stepped on by the U.S...start pushing you welfare reciepients to motivate themselves and join the new Canadian military!!

[SprCForr]

The only way? Hardly. The cost of socialized healthcare is enormous, yes, but worth it. An increase in the military is achievable without scrapping it. Some of the current surplus is targetted to increase the Forces. Our primary problem is manpower followed closely by equipment relplacement. We have the equipment for the larger force (not in great shape), we just don't have the troops to fill them. This is true for every field unit.

Example: an APC carries 10 troops. We can only fill it with 7. Leaves space for 3, which can fit easily and is a substantial percentage of the strength of that rifle section, apply it forces wide and our numbers go up. Easily absorbing our target of an extra 5,000. We currently leave vehicles behind because there just aren't the troops to drive them.

Since the economy is in pretty good shape not many potential recruits are lining up at the door. So we have to compete with the private sector and that's tough to do when you're trying to keep a grip on the budget. Since the equipment problem has started to be taken into hand, the biggest challenge is now to attract quality recruits to backfill the needed positions. That'll get our numbers up.

We are looking for quality not necessarily quantity. Forcing welfare recipients into the military is the surest way to destroy it. Grab a clue.

[kerfuffled]

Just how big could our military get with ,what,32 million citizens? The US has over 300 million. They would love us to increase spending because we would be buying stuff that they make, i'm thinking. If they thought we were getting too strong they would just increase their spending.Bingo! Everybodys happy! Seriously, though, I believe that sooner or later we will have to become closer to the US whether we like it or not.

[Scape]

Mexican Military on Standby in Response to Minutemen

$1:

Mexico's President Vicente Fox is preparing to respond militarily to a group of U.S volunteers who plan to patrol the U.S.-Mexican border starting tomorrow, positioning more than a thousand troops nearby, according to an Arizona TV station.

"The Mexican military is on standby," reports NBC's Tucson affiliate KVOA. "One unit has about a thousand soldiers. They're located just across the border."

[hormel26c]

Wow. There are a lot of thoughtless comments being tossed around.

Obviously some have never seen the look of abject disappointment on the faces of US commanders when Canada has announced a reduction in the CF size an capability. Additionally, every time we have reduced the size of our armed forces the US has had to assume a burden for which they had not planned nor did they want to take on.

In the 1960s the combined Canadian armed forces maintained a strength of approx 120,000 well-equipped personnel with a balance that was the envy of NATO. It was the turmoil created by Hellyer and the subsequent treatment of the armed forces by Trudeau which led us to the current situation.

With regards to "peacekeeping" one would be well advised to examine the results of peacekeeping operations in the past to determine the value of such missions. More end in ultimate failure than produce success. Further, if a country is intent on maintaining an expeditionary army, which Canada needs to do to maintain influence in today's world, then it MUST be capable of a primary fighting role. The best peacekeeping units are those trained to fight under any conditions.

The idea of expanding the Canadian military to become closer to the US is counter to the reality of such an enlargement. Yes, Canada needs to expand its military capability. In doing so we become more independent and rely less on US protection. Further, a well-equipped, properly manned, highly trained Canadian Forces becomes a desirable inclusion in international expeditions. Such a force is a tool in many ways but it has the effect of tempering US foreign policy, particularly when Canada refuses to include it questionable expeditions. Visualize, if you will, the effect on the US had Canada would have had when we refused to participate in the Iraq adventure. At most we witheld moral approval. Had we been possessed of a highly capable 15 infantry battalion army, 6 destroyer/frigate squadron navy and an air force with 3 expeditionary multi-role wings, the witholding of such forces would have impaired the US ability to move on Iraq and would have sent a powerful signal to our allies.

The concept of recruiting welfare cases has already been addressed but let me add that a force full of lazy, half-educated malcontents is generally what Canada's forces encounter on peacekeeping missions.

The idea of expanding the militia and reserves to fill out a "too small" regular force doesn't wash either. Reservists have no combat liability without a declaration of hostilities and the selective and discretionary nature of their service blurs the effectiveness of such personnel. It is wrong to count the reserves as a part of Canada's expeditionary forces. The army in particular has stated that reserve and regular forces now receive the same training. More BS has never been written. Reservists receive less than 1/10th the training of regular forces. Notwithstanding that, the reserve forces of the army and air force have always been considered "territorial" units. Part-timers do not constitute professional soldiers, sailors or airmen, nor should we expect them to. The truth is, for all the sunshine blown up peoples asses when reservists are included in a regular force body for an expeditionary operation, they do not do the "great job" we all hear about. They have a longer period of adaptation to become inculcated to the culture and ethos of the regular unit.

Does the US want us to get bigger? Yes. And it could turn around and bite them on the butt if it ever happenned. Can we afford it? Yes, but something will have to give... perhaps the proposed national babysitting service.

[Scape]

hormel26c hormel26c:

In the 1960s the combined Canadian armed forces maintained a strength of approx 120,000 well-equipped personnel with a balance that was the envy of NATO. It was the turmoil created by Hellyer and the subsequent treatment of the armed forces by Trudeau which led us to the current situation.

Hellyer didn't create the problem, he was trying to manage it. He was never given a free hand to do so and eventually was dismissed. He was the axe man but he was not chopping away to kill the military but to save it from itself as the ego's in ivory towers were getting out of hand. Trudeau saw little use in the military and left Hellyers ideas, keeping what he wanted which was to humble Admirals and Generals who needed to be reminded that their duty was to the country not to their branch of service.

Hellyer introduced the idea of a combined arms approach but was never allowed to complete it. The refit of the Bonnie and then scrapping her just a few years later is evidence of this. His intent was to make a more efficient use of resources instead of the petty squabbling with the army stealing from the navy to pilfer from the air force and each branch thinking they were superior to the others. The size of the military has been shrunk and we have been living on the good graces of the Americans but such dependence has a cost. This trend must be reversed and we must create a credible fighting force that can work effectively, expediently and on budget.

Our standing in the world needs the numbers to back them up. Saying this is all Hellyers and Trudeaus fault is to ignore the last 30 years. They may have set the course but we have had ample time to correct it.