Canada is as feeble as the Ukraine, news at 11.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/20/matt-gurney-ukraine-crisis-shows-need-for-larger-canadian-military/
QuoteMatt Gurney: Ukraine crisis shows need for larger Canadian military
Republish Reprint
Matt Gurney | April 20, 2014 | Last Updated: Apr 20 8:14 AM ET
More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney
Though it feels absurd to say this — like a bad joke at a lame 80′s themed party — the Canadian government has announced that this country is sending reinforcements to our NATO allies in Europe. Six CF-18 fighter jets and necessary support personnel will soon deploy to an Eastern European location (expected, but not confirmed, to be Poland), to join other NATO forces in a "patrol" mission. Roughly 20 staff officers will join their alliance peers at NATO headquarters in Belgium, to assist in contingency planning. HMCS Regina, currently deployed in the Arabian Sea on anti-terror duties, may join allied warships assembling in European waters.
Whatever bland bureaucratic euphemisms these efforts will be saddled with, this is a military buildup in response to recent Russian moves against Crimea and its military mobilization across the border from the rest of Ukraine, as well as some posturing off the frontier of Estonia, a NATO member. NATO's Eastern European members, for whom Soviet domination is a not-too-distant memory, called for reinforcements, and after typical delays, the allies are responding.
At the risk of stating the obvious, any armed conflict between Russia and the West would be a very bad thing. Putin would have to be a mad man to provoke such a clash, with its literally apocalyptic risks. But, alas, NATO doesn't really have a choice. Yes, Putin would need to be a mad man to pick a fight with the allies. But our defence posture must accept the possibility that Putin is indeed a mad man. He may not be — indeed, he probably isn't. But the alliance would not be acting in a responsible manner if it adopted as its official response to this crisis a policy of, "Meh, we've probably seen the worst of it." So, yes. Reinforcements must be sent, and Canada is right to do its part.
But, gosh, that part sure is awful tiny.
We are a G8 nation, an economic giant. We have the second largest landmass in the world. Our population of 35 million may not be huge, but we're not exactly Andorra. And yet, the military commitment that has been announced or even hinted at — six jets, a few dozen officers and, maybe, a warship — constitutes a frighteningly large percentage of our total available military assets. The six CF-18s, in particular, represent a shockingly tiny contribution, and a major effort, at the same time.
Currently, Canada's air fleet includes 80 relatively recently modernized CF-18 jets. These aircraft are more than three decades old, but remain capable. Should it be necessary to fight the Russians, the CF-18s and their pilots would acquit themselves well. But there's still only 80 of them, and not all of those are actually assigned to combat squadrons. Some aircraft are needed for training and scientific purposes, and aircraft are always being rotated in and out of service for maintenance. Indeed, as of 2012, barely half of our 80 jets — 48 total — were actually assigned to combat squadrons.
Canada fields four squadrons of 12 jets each, two squadrons each to Alberta and Quebec. As if that wasn't bleak enough, those squadrons only maintain a "readiness rate" of 70%, at best (readiness rate meaning how many of the aircraft are actually immediately available for service at any given moment). Do the math on that — 48 x .7 — and you get 34 planes, rounded up to the nearest jet. Again, that's the best-case scenario, assuming that every squadron meets its readiness goal.
That's not enough to protect a country of this size. Even if you write off the vast swathes of Canadian territory that are only populated by moose and black flies, 34 jets still isn't enough to cover all of our population centres, and our military knows it. According to sensitive information publicized by WikiLeaks in 2012, Royal Canadian Air Force contingency planning assigns the available jets to cover four defence zones 24/7 — Vancouver, Calgary-Edmonton, Toronto, and Montreal-Ottawa. Saskatchewan, Winnipeg, Quebec City, all of Atlantic Canada and the entire Arctic — sorry, fellas. No jets for you.
Think of that for a minute. Thirty five million people — 34 jets. You need a city the size of Edmonton or Ottawa to keep one CF-18 in the air? Really?
The Air Force is too small. There's no way around that. We don't have enough jets to cover our own territory, even when we are using all of them at home. And that's almost never the case. Our jets often take part in important training exercises with allied nations. We assist the U.S. in patrolling the vast air approaches to North America — several years ago, after an accident grounded the U.S. jet fleet in Alaska, Canadian jets assumed temporary responsibility for the defence of that entire state. And now, of course, we're sending half a dozen of our precious few planes on an important mission abroad to support our allies and maintain international stability. This is what I mean when I said that our contribution is both tiny and a major commitment. As bleak as it is to admit this, our paltry six jets is probably more than we can really spare.
I've focused on the Air Force here, but the other service branches aren't much better off. The Army, which benefitted from new equipment and relatively lavish funding during the Afghan War, isn't in bad shape, and could probably put together a modest land battlegroup with a decent mixture of infantry, armoured vehicles and artillery if it was asked to. It would be light on helicopters, drones and would be using elderly supply trucks, but it could do it. But the Navy is a disaster. Michael Byers, a frequent contributor to the commentary pages of the National Post, recently wrote an oped for us where he took a close look at the state of our maritime readiness, with particular attention paid to tensions in Ukraine. Space constraints do not permit me to recap his findings in full, but suffice it to say, if the Russian Army decided to make a break for Paris tomorrow, Canada could probably send ... a ship. Maybe two, but probably not.
Canada is never going to be a major global military power, and when compared to many of our allies, a disproportionate percentage of our military power will always be needed here at home, looking after our gigantic landmass and the air and sea approaches that surround it. But even with only 35 million souls, a country this rich ought to be able to patrol its own coastline and vital ocean trade routes, provide adequate search-and-rescue services throughout its territory and provide minimal air cover to all of its major populated areas, while still possessing enough strength to contribute modestly, but meaningfully, to international operations. Right now, we fail, miserably, in each and every one of those categories.
The typically progressive Canadian response to talk of this nature is to scoff, and demand to know what Canada needs a military for. The absence of apparent international threats is held up as proof that Canada doesn't need a military, beyond what's required for domestic security. But make no mistake — first of all, Canada does not currently meet even the modest military thresholds required to provide said domestic security, and on the international scene, threats materialize faster than we can muster the strength to respond to them. On the morning of Sept. 10, 2001, the idea of Canada waging war in southern Afghanistan would have seemed ridiculous. In 2010, sending an air and naval group to Libya would have been science fiction. Mounting a major humanitarian intervention in Haiti after a devastating earthquake wasn't on anyone's radar until after the earthquake struck. And reinforcing NATO against Russian adventurism? As if.
And yet all of these things have happened, in recent memory, and with little or no warning. The world is not as nice or stable a place as millions of Canadians continue to pretend it is. We need a military capable of securing our home and helping out abroad. We don't have it. This should embarrass us all — but especially our "troop supporting" Tory government. It's great that the troops are so valued. Too bad there's so few of them.
National Post
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2014, 12:58:25 AM
Canada is as feeble as the Ukraine, news at 11.
We should send in troops to protect the rights of ethnic Americans in Canada. :shifty:
Canada cannot afford a military. Want a military? Either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. It is easy to say "let's buy more planes and hire more soldiers." It is more difficult to say "let's raise GST by 3% to buy more planes".
And Canada doesn't need a military in the first place.
Scotland can't afford a military either.
I can't afford a military either
I'm not sure I understand the argument. Domestic security in a liberal state is generally provided by the intelligence services, police and perhaps also civilian gendarmerie. Is the author worried about a Russian land invasion?
Canada is in a enviable position, it's only neighbors being the friendly Denmark and US (and France).
That beig said though it probably could use a diversion of funds from the army and into the navy and Air Force, what with global warming and the north west passage and off shore resources and all that
We don't have a big peace time military. We build it up for when war comes. We do need more boats to patrol the Arctic but 1st we need a port in said Arctic.
Our forces might be small but the American military is not & thanks to NORAD and the Ogdensburg Agreement there is no need to have a big one.
QuoteThe typically progressive Canadian response to talk of this nature is to scoff, and demand to know what Canada needs a military for. The absence of apparent international threats is held up as proof that Canada doesn't need a military, beyond what's required for domestic security. But make no mistake — first of all, Canada does not currently meet even the modest military thresholds required to provide said domestic security, and on the international scene, threats materialize faster than we can muster the strength to respond to them. On the morning of Sept. 10, 2001, the idea of Canada waging war in southern Afghanistan would have seemed ridiculous. In 2010, sending an air and naval group to Libya would have been science fiction. Mounting a major humanitarian intervention in Haiti after a devastating earthquake wasn't on anyone's radar until after the earthquake struck. And reinforcing NATO against Russian adventurism? As if.
I think this makes a good case for why Canada does need to maintain a larger and more effective military, even for humanitarian reasons, let alone the sudden military needs.
Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2014, 05:13:31 AM
I can't afford a military either
Soldiers don't accept beets as pay.
Danelaw.
Quote from: KRonn on April 24, 2014, 06:41:43 AM
QuoteThe typically progressive Canadian response to talk of this nature is to scoff, and demand to know what Canada needs a military for. The absence of apparent international threats is held up as proof that Canada doesn't need a military, beyond what's required for domestic security. But make no mistake — first of all, Canada does not currently meet even the modest military thresholds required to provide said domestic security, and on the international scene, threats materialize faster than we can muster the strength to respond to them. On the morning of Sept. 10, 2001, the idea of Canada waging war in southern Afghanistan would have seemed ridiculous. In 2010, sending an air and naval group to Libya would have been science fiction. Mounting a major humanitarian intervention in Haiti after a devastating earthquake wasn't on anyone's radar until after the earthquake struck. And reinforcing NATO against Russian adventurism? As if.
I think this makes a good case for why Canada does need to maintain a larger and more effective military, even for humanitarian reasons, let alone the sudden military needs.
The sudden military need of 2001 was for special forces and deployable air power, given how the US chose to prosecute Enduring Freedom - and rather successfully at that.
There was no sudden military need in 2005, which is when Canadian, British and Dutch politicians carved up southern Afghanistan between themselves and committed far too few troops for the task of state-building and counter-insurgency.
So the 9/11 isn't really a compelling argument for having large armed forces given the demonstrated limitations of nation building over the last few years...
There is a compelling argument that a military is like an insurance policy - you don't need it for the threats already here, but for the ones that haven't yet materialized, because there may not be time in the modern world to build up in advance of a military need. I would support increasing military spending, within reasonable limits.
That said, Canada is always going to be a bit player, particularly compared to the US, in projecting force around the globe. We are only one-tenth the population. It would make sense to co-ordinate with the US and develop some speciality that we could take charge of, as part of NATO or simply as a US ally, rather than developing full capacity in every military area ... but such close allignment may be politically unacceptable, on both sides; the price would naturally be greater Canadian say in US/NATO foreign policy on the one hand, and closer allignment (read: mostly subordination) of Canadian military goals to US/NATO ones on the other ... it has always been my opinion that gradually NATO (or some such military alliance between the advanced democracies, centered on the US and Europe - and right now that is NATO) should develop to become the effective version of the UN.
Quote from: KRonn on April 24, 2014, 06:41:43 AM
QuoteThe typically progressive Canadian response to talk of this nature is to scoff, and demand to know what Canada needs a military for. The absence of apparent international threats is held up as proof that Canada doesn't need a military, beyond what's required for domestic security. But make no mistake — first of all, Canada does not currently meet even the modest military thresholds required to provide said domestic security, and on the international scene, threats materialize faster than we can muster the strength to respond to them. On the morning of Sept. 10, 2001, the idea of Canada waging war in southern Afghanistan would have seemed ridiculous. In 2010, sending an air and naval group to Libya would have been science fiction. Mounting a major humanitarian intervention in Haiti after a devastating earthquake wasn't on anyone's radar until after the earthquake struck. And reinforcing NATO against Russian adventurism? As if.
I think this makes a good case for why Canada does need to maintain a larger and more effective military, even for humanitarian reasons, let alone the sudden military needs.
Except that we did go into Afghanistan on a moments notice - in fact Canadian troops were among the first boots on the ground and we were one of the few nations to actually put troops in areas of active combat We did send naval and air units to Libya on a moments notice and as I understand it acquited ourselves quite well. We did assist in Haiti.
Reinforcing NATO against Russian adventurism? Our role in relation to the Soviets/Russians has always mainly been through NORAD. Although we did station some troops in Germany back in the day.
QuoteIt would make sense to co-ordinate with the US and develop some speciality that we could take charge of, as part of NATO or simply as a US ally, rather than developing full capacity in every military area ... but such close allignment may be politically unacceptable, on both sides
Disagree. We already do this. And it is exactly what we should be doing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
QuoteIt would make sense to co-ordinate with the US and develop some speciality that we could take charge of, as part of NATO or simply as a US ally, rather than developing full capacity in every military area ... but such close allignment may be politically unacceptable, on both sides
Disagree. We already do this. And it is exactly what we should be doing.
Really? What is Canada's military specialty that it is in charge of, either in the Sense of a Canadian-American alliance or within NATO?
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 11:25:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
QuoteIt would make sense to co-ordinate with the US and develop some speciality that we could take charge of, as part of NATO or simply as a US ally, rather than developing full capacity in every military area ... but such close allignment may be politically unacceptable, on both sides
Disagree. We already do this. And it is exactly what we should be doing.
Really? What is Canada's military specialty that it is in charge of, either in the Sense of a Canadian-American alliance or within NATO?
NORAD. They like to prend that Jacoby is in charge but really, it's Parent.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 24, 2014, 06:13:45 AM
We don't have a big peace time military. We build it up for when war comes.
:lol:
QuoteOur forces might be small but the American military is not & thanks to NORAD and the Ogdensburg Agreement there is no need to have a big one.
One positive is that, should the ICBMs start flying over the polar caps, shoddy Russian rocketry will ensure that a shitload of Canucks get glassed.
I think you are vastly underestimating how close we all live to the US border.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2014, 11:38:40 AM
I think you are vastly underestimating how close we all live to the US border.
:yeahright:
4h away? That's close.
Also, statistically speaking, I'm accurate.
Last year the norwegian chief of staff said that the norwegian army was incapable of holding and defending oslo.
Quote from: Viking on April 28, 2014, 12:00:16 PM
Last year the norwegian chief of staff said that the norwegian army was incapable of holding and defending oslo.
That is really sobering. I mean, no one is even attacking Norway and the military is concerned about its ability to hold Oslo.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2014, 11:27:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 11:25:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
QuoteIt would make sense to co-ordinate with the US and develop some speciality that we could take charge of, as part of NATO or simply as a US ally, rather than developing full capacity in every military area ... but such close allignment may be politically unacceptable, on both sides
Disagree. We already do this. And it is exactly what we should be doing.
Really? What is Canada's military specialty that it is in charge of, either in the Sense of a Canadian-American alliance or within NATO?
NORAD. They like to prend that Jacoby is in charge but really, it's Parent.
So the Canadians are the reason there is no ABM or fighter/interceptor defense of North America? Maybe we need to replace them with someone who can get stuff done, like Luxembourg or Mexico.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2014, 11:56:17 AM
4h away? That's close.
Also, statistically speaking, I'm accurate.
You are not accurate, but you're close.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 12:52:57 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2014, 11:27:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 11:25:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
QuoteIt would make sense to co-ordinate with the US and develop some speciality that we could take charge of, as part of NATO or simply as a US ally, rather than developing full capacity in every military area ... but such close allignment may be politically unacceptable, on both sides
Disagree. We already do this. And it is exactly what we should be doing.
Really? What is Canada's military specialty that it is in charge of, either in the Sense of a Canadian-American alliance or within NATO?
NORAD. They like to prend that Jacoby is in charge but really, it's Parent.
So the Canadians are the reason there is no ABM or fighter/interceptor defense of North America? Maybe we need to replace them with someone who can get stuff done, like Luxembourg or Mexico.
I want to fight this but damn, we probably are.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 12:55:25 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2014, 11:56:17 AM
4h away? That's close.
Also, statistically speaking, I'm accurate.
You are not accurate, but you're close.
Math, it's fun.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 11:25:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
QuoteIt would make sense to co-ordinate with the US and develop some speciality that we could take charge of, as part of NATO or simply as a US ally, rather than developing full capacity in every military area ... but such close allignment may be politically unacceptable, on both sides
Disagree. We already do this. And it is exactly what we should be doing.
Really? What is Canada's military specialty that it is in charge of, either in the Sense of a Canadian-American alliance or within NATO?
NORAD - at least every other day ;)
Quote from: Viking on April 28, 2014, 12:00:16 PM
Last year the norwegian chief of staff said that the norwegian army was incapable of holding and defending oslo.
Nothing has really changed since 1940 then.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2014, 01:07:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 11:25:09 AM
Really? What is Canada's military specialty that it is in charge of, either in the Sense of a Canadian-American alliance or within NATO?
NORAD - at least every other day ;)
So, in other words, Canada doesn't have one. I suppose it is possible to believe that the Canadian forces should be doing exactly nothing that is unique to Canada. As Malthus says, that's the safe thing, and your disagreement with him appears to stem from the desire to say "I disagree" rather than from any actual disagreement.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2014, 01:07:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 28, 2014, 12:00:16 PM
Last year the norwegian chief of staff said that the norwegian army was incapable of holding and defending oslo.
Nothing has really changed since 1940 then.
It worked out so well for them that time...
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 02:34:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2014, 01:07:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 11:25:09 AM
Really? What is Canada's military specialty that it is in charge of, either in the Sense of a Canadian-American alliance or within NATO?
NORAD - at least every other day ;)
So, in other words, Canada doesn't have one. I suppose it is possible to believe that the Canadian forces should be doing exactly nothing that is unique to Canada. As Malthus says, that's the safe thing, and your disagreement with him appears to stem from the desire to say "I disagree" rather than from any actual disagreement.
:lol:
If you want to introduce the word "unique" into the debate to win the internet argument go ahead.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2014, 03:21:00 PM
If you want to introduce the word "unique" into the debate to win the internet argument go ahead.
Since you've already accepted "some speciality [sic] that we could take charge of," why not go ahead and say it is something unique? Two people can't take charge of the same thing.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2014, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2014, 01:07:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 28, 2014, 12:00:16 PM
Last year the norwegian chief of staff said that the norwegian army was incapable of holding and defending oslo.
Nothing has really changed since 1940 then.
It worked out so well for them that time...
Norway only exists because it wasn't worth taking before the industrial age and nowadays we're too civilized to smash them up and grab their oil. Well, Russia's not, but they're held back by the West.
Quote from: Brazen on April 24, 2014, 05:03:31 AM
Scotland can't afford a military either.
Neither can most "non-countries"
Why does Canada need a military for domestic security? They have police to do that. Canada only two neighbors one both of which is allied with Canada. One has a military Canada couldn't hope to beat even if they reintroduced conscription and the other doesn't have military or a population to speak of.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2014, 11:38:40 AM
I think you are vastly underestimating how close we all live to the US border.
No, I'm vastly underestimating how accurate Russian ICBMs are. Say goodbye to Saskatchewan with the warhead originally planned for San Antonio.
NORAD facilities in Winnipeg and Cold Lake methinks would be targets regardless. Plus Ottawa and Toronto at least.
Depends on the severity and extent of the exchange. I just hope one lands on Neil's goofy ass.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 28, 2014, 07:17:16 PM
No, I'm vastly underestimating how accurate Russian ICBMs are. Say goodbye to Saskatchewan with the warhead originally planned for San Antonio.
:cool: I'll be a survivor!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 28, 2014, 07:17:16 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2014, 11:38:40 AM
I think you are vastly underestimating how close we all live to the US border.
No, I'm vastly underestimating how accurate Russian ICBMs are. Say goodbye to Saskatchewan with the warhead originally planned for San Antonio.
There is no need for Russians to launch a warhead at San Antonio, as I expect Oklahoma City to frag them in the first moves of the war.
Please. Their suicide mobile home meth labs won't make it past the border and Kevin Durant will immediately defect.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2014, 08:16:26 PM
There is no need for Russians to launch a warhead at San Antonio, as I expect Oklahoma City to frag them in the first moves of the war.
Brooke Army Medical Center is the US Army's only Burn Center and Level 1 Trauma Center in the continental United States. Its facilities and personnel are primary targets in degrading the US Army's ability to deal with post-strike troop casualties.
Edit: douchebag.