PDA

View Full Version : Is Canada really spending all it can on its military?



Big Boss
08-30-2005, 06:20 AM
I know we don't have an America-level economy, but aren't we supposed to be a First World country? Doesn't that mean something along the lines of "we have money to spend"? What's this bull about us only having a mangy 12 billion dollars? Britain's military is trash compared to what it ued to be (or so I hear), and they can afford 32 billion dollars. The government probably either has the money, or can get it easily. Why is it that our men have to be stuck with American hand-me-downs the Yankees stopped using like 20 years ago? I think we can afford better than that. And what's this crap I hear about our soldiers being the best-trained in the world? I've seen "Truth Duty Valor!" and it seems that our soldiers screw up absolutely everything they try to do, even when they're only training and not actually being shot at. On a firing test range for tanks where they were pitted against Americans, the Americans scored something like 10 more points than we did (they, 43, us, only 33 or so). I'm aware that their tank is more advanced, but if our men were really the best trained, they'd realize that the man makes the machine-the machine does not make the man. I'm pretty sure that this thing about our soldiers being the best trained, or even competent is entirely made up.

Transmetropolitan
03-16-2006, 12:38 AM
Hey, could be worse...

You could be overspending on your nice little flashbangs.

And I should point out that chummy as our two nations are, a certain "we'll have help" mentality may prevail in budget councils.

Anyway, the man may run the machine, but consider:

No matter how good a driver you are, quick turns are easier if you have power steering, no?

TheQuestionMan
03-16-2006, 01:23 PM
Check Out Global Security's Lists

World Wide Military Expenditures
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

More Later

QM

PWalk
03-16-2006, 01:33 PM
Canada doesn't need an army. Every citizen owns a rifle.

TheQuestionMan
03-16-2006, 02:38 PM
I hope you are being facetious. I served in the Canadian Armed Forces from 1987 to 1991 and I do not own a rifle. Nor do I know anyone who does.

LOL :wink:

QM :?:

shaman
03-16-2006, 03:15 PM
I think it is really funny to see this post start to recieve replies so long after the member got banned. I remember him because he joined right around the same time I did.

Powersurge
03-16-2006, 03:53 PM
My thoughts exactly Shaman.

But for whatever it's worth, I alwayts thought that the Swiss model was the way for Canada to go. Except I would expand on it to include some basic first aid training and some firefighting training.

I so hate that savior-victim dynamic and all of the pompous nonsense tha goes along with. Everyone able bodied person has a responsibility to the security and wellbeing of the community they live in. No one is so lowly and inept, and no one is such a high and mighty "hero".

Snowsquatch
03-19-2006, 03:12 AM
Whoa, this thread was resurrected fast.

The "Swiss Army" concept has problems. Not everyone wants to be a soldier, or is fit enough, or is well suited.

As for Canada spending more: really, Canada just needs to spend smarter.

I am in the Reserves. The biggest waste is time spent travelling. There are no places to train in the Toronto area, so militia units are forced to travel up to Borden (1.5 hrs) or Meaford (3 hrs) to train. So troops usually work 2.5 days just to get 1 day of field training in. It's a bloody waste.

Toronto could easily house military training facilities for everything except live artillery fire. But they don't.

But that's just the Reserve force. How the Regular Force could improve I don't know. Better quality vehs would be a start. The LAV-III is a marvel, but most other military hardware in Canada is junk.

My 2 cents.

Obsidian3d
03-19-2006, 10:50 AM
Before I moved overseas I gave serious consideration to joining the reserves too, but the nearest training facilites were a minimum three hour trip. In the summer that's not a big deal, but in the winter...no damn way. I've never been able to figure out why they closed down the base in Calgary. I mean, there are over a million people within the city alone. Surely that's big enough to support at least SOMETHING.

Powersurge
03-19-2006, 11:21 AM
The "Swiss Army" concept has problems. Not everyone wants to be a soldier, or is fit enough, or is well suited.

Well, speaking as the son of a former master corpreal responsible for the physical conditioning of new recruits (back when Canadian military training was still considered amongst the best in the world), very few new recruits come into the army in anything approaching proper physical condition.

As for not being suited; well, after a certain point the ancient Roman thought the same. Things didn't work out to well for them, but how anyone can't be suited to standing up and defend their home (and their neighbours), and loved ones frm an invading force, I don't know. Such a person should be considered a second class citizen, though the present system presumes only a select few (military, police, firefighters) to be truly "worthy" and relegates the rest of us to (helpless) "victims".

Then again, not all people are suited to work either I suppose ...

Cheers mate!

Obsidian3d
03-19-2006, 11:34 AM
Yeah I'm not sure about mandatory military service, but it does have benefits. I know for sure that I'd have pissed and moaned about it were it enforced upon me, but at the same time I'm sure any of the skills I'd have learned would certainly have served me well later in life. Maybe it's something the government should start considering now. It might help slow down some of the problems we're starting to hear about with the number of obese (or borderline) young people. That's probably best saved for a whole other discussion though.

Powersurge
03-19-2006, 11:53 AM
I guess I really shoud've added to my response that I too have no particular interest in being a fulltime soldier, cop, or firefighter, but I do consider myself (lack of some training and proper gear aside) as capable and compotent, and certainly as courageous and upstanding as the next soldier, cop, or firefighter. Lotsa people are, but have simply chosen other occupations. And thats my point.

I don't know, maybe I've just spent time with the wrong types of cops and soldiers, but even health care workers have a certain notion that their choice of occupation makes them better than the masses. And too a certain extent, in the proper context, there is some truth to that. And htere is a certain resentment that is bred out of all of that ... on both sides.

I think that an expanded Swiss model (requiring but a few weeks from each able bodied citizen every year, with considerably smaller standing forces) that includes basic firefighting and first aid would be succesful on numerous levels, from rising the ambient level of civic responsibility, to empowering the general masses, to decreasing the drain on the national coffers, and even reshaping our values and view of guns and their use .... not that murders and such would still take place, but they wouldn't invovle guns.

Damn I can get to rambling ...

Cheers!

Powersurge
03-19-2006, 12:06 PM
Yeah I'm not sure about mandatory military service, but it does have benefits. I know for sure that I'd have pissed and moaned about it were it enforced upon me, but at the same time I'm sure any of the skills I'd have learned would certainly have served me well later in life. Maybe it's something the government should start considering now. It might help slow down some of the problems we're starting to hear about with the number of obese (or borderline) young people. That's probably best saved for a whole other discussion though.

Definitely. While exercise for 3 or 4 weeks out of the year might not seem like much, anyone who knows that will be coming up once every year will probably develope health and fitness habits that account for that.

And I'm not sure how much grumbling there would be once something like that got up and running for a generation or two. After that point it would just be part of one's way of life ... like going to school. You would get paid time off of workj for a few weeks a year to do your training and bond with your countrymen.

Switzerland boasts the ability to mobilize a fighting force of around 1 million within 24 hours!!!

Transmetropolitan
03-19-2006, 01:11 PM
Definitely. While exercise for 3 or 4 weeks out of the year might not seem like much, anyone who knows that will be coming up once every year will probably develope health and fitness habits that account for that.

You've got more faith in your fellow man than I do.


And I'm not sure how much grumbling there would be once something like that got up and running for a generation or two. After that point it would just be part of one's way of life ... like going to school. You would get paid time off of workj for a few weeks a year to do your training and bond with your countrymen.

Tell that to members of die-hard pacifist religious sects.

Snowsquatch
03-24-2006, 01:48 AM
Well, speaking as the son of a former master corpreal responsible for the physical conditioning of new recruits (back when Canadian military training was still considered amongst the best in the world), very few new recruits come into the army in anything approaching proper physical condition.

Speaking as an active reserve sergeant, I can tell you many of those who make it through the recruiting system still aren't capable.

Why waste the military's time (and taxpayer money) on individuals who have shown little interest in personal fitness? We're not running a fat farm here.


As for not being suited; well, after a certain point the ancient Roman thought the same. Things didn't work out to well for them....
Pardon me, but how is any of this relevant?


but how anyone can't be suited to standing up and defend their home (and their neighbours), and loved ones frm an invading force, I don't know. Such a person should be considered a second class citizen, though the present system presumes only a select few (military, police, firefighters) to be truly "worthy" and relegates the rest of us to (helpless) "victims".

Then again, not all people are suited to work either I suppose ...
Canada is very selective about who we train in peacetime. Some characteristics of unsuitable applicants include: health problems, drug use, criminal pasts, racism, high school drop-outs.

Your talk about "victims" and "second class citizens" is a lot of hyperbole.

When it comes to "invasion," Canada can create a strong offensive force out of volunteers in less than 2 months. We were one of the most effective mobilizers during both world wars. We don't need mandatory service to defend Canada.

Ask yourself a question. Who would you prefer to be covering your back: a volunteer or a conscript?

Snowsquatch
03-24-2006, 01:54 AM
Definitely. While exercise for 3 or 4 weeks out of the year might not seem like much, anyone who knows that will be coming up once every year will probably develope health and fitness habits that account for that.
You're in la-la-land. Reservist today face problems going away on exercise for a single week, never mind 3 or 4.

As for "developing habits," that isn't the case for reservists now. It is quite common for reservists to show up for summer training unfit.

Powersurge
03-24-2006, 02:25 AM
Reservists in Switzerland don't face those problems. It's a different system. One that works, rather than one plagued with problems and chronically out of shape citizenry.

shaman
03-24-2006, 02:34 AM
Remember not to let tempers flair. I'm not saying they are but I don't want this to end up like another discussion about the colour of Thor's hair :roll:

Ben
03-24-2006, 02:38 AM
Keep in mind that he who started this thread was banned for troublesom behaviour. He took relish in starting threads that got tempers high, and insulting people's beliefs and differeneces.

Ben

Powersurge
03-24-2006, 11:55 AM
Remember not to let tempers flair. I'm not saying they are but I don't want this to end up like another discussion about the colour of Thor's hair :roll:

Actually, it was more about the colour "red" (Old Norse rauth, as in Erik the Rauth or Erik the Red/Bloody) and the range of colour it represented in Old Norse, but point taken.

And here I was taking great-great-great-great granddaddy's sword down from wall and lining up the monitor! ;-)

DelBubs
03-24-2006, 03:39 PM
Remember not to let tempers flair. I'm not saying they are but I don't want this to end up like another discussion about the colour of Thor's hair :roll:

Actually, it was more about the colour "red" (Old Norse rauth, as in Erik the Rauth or Erik the Red/Bloody) and the range of colour it represented in Old Norse, but point taken.

And here I was taking great-great-great-great granddaddy's sword down from wall and lining up the monitor! ;-)
My dad's bigger than all your dads.

Barnacle13
03-24-2006, 05:15 PM
My dad's bigger than all your dads.

Learn something new every day! Del is the offspring of Galactus! I mean who else could be bigger than all of our dads?

DelBubs
03-24-2006, 05:38 PM
My dad's bigger than all your dads.

Learn something new every day! Del is the offspring of Galactus! I mean who else could be bigger than all of our dads?
Galactus and the Wasp are my parents. Anyone with too vivid an imagination take two prozac and call me in the morning :-)