• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Should Canada pay the United States to defend us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter McG
  • Start date Start date
If we changed some things, there would be no reason why we would have a failing military. Some of the Navy's equipment ( i don't know much about the Navy) like some of there ships will never be used. Ships who's main job is to protect against enemy subs, is quite useless. Most if not all countries that we will deploy to, will not even have a Navy, let alone Subs, but if it was a major country that we had to deffend against, then i don't thing our Navy would be very helpful. If we sold these things, and stopped spending money just to attempt to keep them operational, and put this money towards the Army, which is the main deployable force, then we would no longer have a failing Military. And we would not need to disban our Forces, and pay for some other country to deffend us.
 
Q.Y. Ranger said:
If we changed some things, there would be no reason why we would have a failing military. Some of the Navy's equipment ( i don't know much about the Navy)

You should have stopped there. If you don't know "much" about the Navy how can you decide that they should sell ships?

Acorn
 
Acorn said:
You should have stopped there. If you don't know "much" about the Navy how can you decide that they should sell ships?

Acorn


It's sad that the army, navy and air force are forced to argue amongst themselves for bread crumbs....that being said, isn't dropping troop levels in our army the biggest threat to our security?

Also, I don't see how another country would be legally obliged to defend anything, no matter how much you paid them, because they control their own laws.
 
The mere thought of the concept disgusts me. We are allies and I love my Yankee brothers. But any money should be spent so WE can defend Canada. THE REGS and RESERVES will defend this nation. We are trained for it. Just give us the tools. (MOUNTED NADE LAUNCHES, Hell even good ammo for the C7. You know the kind I am talking about) :cdn:
 
I can't believe someone actually thought about removing the CF... Its just disappointing.
 
WHAT KIND OF TOPIC IS THAT! I don't think that will be necessary!
 
You should have stopped there. If you don't know "much" about the Navy how can you decide that they should sell ships?

I so agree Acorn... go back to cadets QY Ranger as you just proved your out of your league by not knowing what you are talking about.
 
I can't believe so many people, that have shown so much intelligence on other threads, are getting so bent out of shape over such a non starter fantasy. ::)
 
To start, dumb idea. Paying the US to defend us. I'm a fairly left leaning underdog lover, but even I recognize that's a dumb idea.

Still though, lets take this idea of "outsourcing"{Soon to be a banned word} Defence to the US.

First, threats to Canada. What are they? Natural disasters, terrorism, internal dissent, nuclear weapons, invasion...

1. Natural Disasters. Apparently B.C. is overdue for a big earthquake. Maybe we could station a battalion in B.C. and beef up the Reserves. I don't think US help would be necessary. Besides, if Vancouver and area is dealing with a Big One, the US will be busy with Seattle.
2. Terrorism, in my own opinion, is a problem for intelligence and police agencies. The very nature of terrorists mean the frontline will be our own neighbourhoods. The heroes of September 11th, afterall, were emergency personal who helped evacuate the Twin Towers. The methods of September 11th also means there a repeat performance would be difficult to pull off. The passengers probably won't wait for the terrorists to fly their plane into a building. For Canadians, maybe we should have more fighter jets stationed closer to major cities for quick response. For terrorism, more money for the borders, and inspection of shipping containers would be useful. I doubt how the US could help their, because in general they seem to be having as hard a time as Canada, in getting our respective acts together.
3. Internal Dissent. I believe that the official term is Giving Aid to the Civil Authorities. This has happened in Canada. I put it down as Internal Dissent, to distinguish it from Natural Disasters where aid would be give to the civil authority{the ice storms}. The biggest deployments of Canadian soldiers since the Second World War, has been on Canadian soil. The FLQ crisis, Oka. on both occasions the CF performed magnificently , so for a future crisis, we probably won't need US help.
4. Nuclear Weapons. Okay, this is probably where we do freeload off of the Americans. We don't have nuclear weapons, even though there are probably nuclear weapons aimed at Canada in the Former Soviet Union. Still, in the event of another "great power melee"(Gwynne Dyer, his new book Future Tense), whether Canada has an extra 100 nukes to lobe at the other guy or not, the outcome is still the same, hundreds of millions dead. The threat of nuclear proliferation kind of goes under terrorism as we don't want terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. As for rogue states {Iran, North Korea} we could join the US's missile defence and hope it will work in my lifetime{I'm 19 so it's a fair chance}. So one for outsourcing Canadian Defence. I think most Canadians, and the military, can live with the fact we don't have a nuclear arsenal.
5. Invasion. However much the media, people on this forum, and Canadians in general bemoan our Armed Forces, there isn't as single country in the world that could successfully invade Canada. Except, the United States, another democracy who we have good relations with, so they wouldn't invade Canada anyway. Everyone else, even Norway {You bowtie wearing d**k}, will have to reconcile themselves that either their geography or armed forces aren't good enough, and the CF isn't bad enough, for them to pull of an invasion.

*I know I could have added more examples and topics, but A) I'm doing this off the top of my head, B) I think I got the really big ones. Don't bother bringing more examples to my attention unless it would reveal a hole in my logic. Thanks.

What I'm getting to, is that for the purpose of defending Canada, the CF is more than adequate{like all things, there can be improvement}, so whatever people think, outsourcing our defence is neither a good idea, or even necessary.

But {there is always a but} for Canada to be real player on the world stage, we need a military that can go places. We need a military that can go halfway around the world, take the other guy's head off, and then patrol a city, or countryside. We need a military that could do that, and not have to beg and borrow for a ride their and back, and to ship over supplies.
I personally think Canadians are starting to wake up to this idea, that for Canada to shine in the world, we need a better military. I even think politicians are waking up to the fact, Canadians want a better military. Why else would Paul Martin make a campaign promise for 5000 more peacekeepers {semantics, in my mind the Canadian lexicon equates peacekeepers as soldiers}. Whether Paul Martin can carry this out is another question.
 
ToRN said:
...but stil dishartening that 16% did vote yes.

They are prob' Americans reading the Glob and mail online from their Summer cottages here in Canada. ;D
BTW: The analogy of renting  vs owning a house is a good point.

Also on another note since when does the public have any control of where our taxmoney goes?
It's our (lib) Government that is gutting the military, not the average Joe.

Cheers!
P.
 
CT554 said:
No offense to you old guy but, we would'nt wanna make your army stronger, look at Rommel what he said

If I had American supply lines, British planes, German officers and Canadian troops, I could take over the world"
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

In regards to this quote...  You won't find it substantiated anywhere, as he never said it.  It was a compilation of a discussion he was having regarding the various strengths of the other forces...  He believed the americans' strength was its supply lines, the Brits, their planes & pilots, the germans, their officer training, and the CDNs, the rank & file soldier.  (I remember doing a paper on this...  I'm digging it up, and I'll post where I got that info from ASAP, but it's an old paper, bear with me)

T
 
Might have made Germany stronger, but who would have wanted to become Nazis?

And like wise I can't see how watering down the last bit of our Canadian culture will make us stronger.
Methinks we are too dependant on others as it is.

Cheers!
P.
 
Same post on MapleLeafWeb.com. Here's my opinion

I'll try to translate an article I read when I did my Military Law OPME: Any armed forces that does not carry the same social values becomes a threat for its own country and citizens".

Using the US for defending our territory would eventually turn against us as we are definitely not sharing the same social values.

To your question I answer NO!
 
canuck101 said:
How do we increase the ability to train soldiers in the short-term. Could we ask the US to help us in the short-term with trainers. If not what do you think we can do.

This actually sounds like a decent idea - if we were attempting to drastically increase the size of our military.
 
Back
Top