Any nation that could not repulse the weakest of invasions
The only nation that could successfully invade Canada is the US. No other nation has the capacity to do it.
Much as how China would possibly block an invasion in Burma, the US would block one into Canada. They'd just have to defend their back porch that way. Yet it would be so much easier for an aggressive nation to gain a foothold next to America by landing in Mexico, or Cuba for instance.
As Robert suggests, we aren't the low hanging fruit that Harper claims us to be. Yet, we've come a long way (down) since we ruled the seas and skies in WWII. We just haven't come so far down that we can't yet get back up to speed in a few weeks notice.
Canada won't be invaded in my lifetime - terrorist attacks I can see, but not an invasion. Nazi style land-grab invasions are so last century. These days, superpower status is obtained economically rather than militarily.
Oh, and if I'm wrong and a country does invade Canada in my lifetime, it will be you-know-who and spending a little more on our military won't have made a lick of difference.
Well said, John!! It's about time be pulled our own weight again on the international stage. But I see there are some who still think the only foreign stand we need to take is America bashing. Dorks.
I don't believe Bush-bashing and America-bashing are the same thing. Wait 10 months and see if we're still as "anti-American" as you claim. As for invasions, who's going to invade us? St. Pierre & Miquelon?
I agree. With the US as a southern partner, Canada can defend any of it s borders with a rock and pointy stick. The chances of any hostile threats reaching our shores is the square root of zero. The Americans would have any threat obliterated before we even knew it existed. We do need a military for international efforts, and to show the US that we are willing. Kinda like Butch and Spike. You figure who's who.
Well said John in your blog post and Well said Louise in your comment
Norad is 50 years old. maybe that can be factored in.
Well, I believe Canada could be invaded someday. Maybe not tomorrow or next week, or even next year, but someday.
It could very well, John. But spending extra money now on a someday need is about as silly as you hiring a security guard now to watch over the Picasso you might someday buy.
30 billion? on military expenditures...without the government even committing their plans to paper and solely basing them from speeches?
How exactly are we supposed to pull our weight? getting involved in illegal wars? choosing sides in civil wars? propping up a military industrial complex of our own so we can increase exports of WMDs?
There are far better uses for 30 billion a year in this country.
If someone wants to invade Canada 30 billion dollars a year is not going to defend us from a country that brazen, so put away those tinfoil hats.
Tell that to my brother-in-law who is second in command at the Iraqi embassy in Washington, Sean. Illegal war. pfttt!
ya, international rules and conventions be damned, there's oil in them hills...oh wait it was because of WMDs, nope that's not it, it was because Saddam was bad, nope that's not it, it was because of freedom and democracy, oh wait...no that isn't it either....
Our PM yesterday:
“If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It’s that simple. Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You’re the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to.”
yes, only countries with lots of big bad weapons are taken seriously, might is right!
Comment One:
I think we need to modernise our military. We definitely need to replace some equipment. But not because of potential invasions. The only thing that would factor against us if invaded is our will to fight. As long as Canadians were willing to maintain their indepence, we are capable of maintaining a guerilla war against any invader, ESPECIALLY the United States, who are hopelessly lost when it comes to smaller powers with guerilla tactics, indefinitely.
The problem is that in a global era, security threats are not as simple as invasions, or even terrorist attacks. In an integrated world the political situation of other countries is the business of all countries. Destabilisation elsewhere affects us here. The terrorist threat may be used by certain governments as an excuse to clamp down on civil liberties, and such governments play right into terrorist strategy by doing so. The best way to deal with terrorism is a) advanced intelligence gathering, b) don't piss anyone off. But in the end, when the source of a threat is located, it is for the good of most that it be eliminated.
Comment Two, mostly for Sean:
The key to world peace is not pacisfism, it is to develop conflict-resolution mechanisms to avoid wars and if war is unavoidable, to have clear, international, guidelines for how it should proceed, and independant bodies who can judge the conduct of participants and hold them accountable.
Question: is there really such a thing as an "Illegal War?" I hear this phrase a lot, but no one has ever told me whose law they are referring to. I think this is one of those things made up by activists who assume there really is a rule that there only SHOULD be. As I understand it, there are international laws and codes around actions in the context of wars, but no legislation stating whether a war is allowed or not. Unless they mean, "UN approved", but that is different from "legal." They could also mean "just" or "unjust" but that is a matter for political theorists and ethicists, again it is not a LEGAL matter.
On Afghanistan: I wouldn't say many of the motives for going in are exactly noble, but I sure as hell am glad to see the Taliban go!
On backing one side in a civil war: This usually means backing the side friendly to your power, and is hardly noble. But it will end the war sooner, with fewer losses of lives.
Maybe when it comes to armed conflict, the question shouldn't be one of what is right, but what is the lesser evil.
I'm quite startled by this actual belief the USA might someday invade us. OI say they'll just buy us (if they can afford it after a decade of Bush/Cheney voter-endorsed corruption). As for an invasion by anyone else, how could that possibly transpire? By boat? The US'd blow their asses out of the water. Same with out of the air by plane. Satellite and radar have come a long way since Pearl Harbour kids.
As for Harper's recent comments, more tough chatter from someone who's never been w/n a 100 yards of a real fight. His boasting is more materialistic in envy than militaristic. Kind of like how you don't really belong on the road unless you've got a huge truck (even if the back is empty and the road is perfectly flat.)
Thank you, foud!
Sean, you just regurgitate the speaking notes from the anti-war at any cost fools. Those cliches have no credibility in the real world. Saddam Hussein was a monster. I have relatives who were victims of his regime. They were glad to be rid of the tyrant and are still grateful to the Americans and the Brits and the Aussies and a whole host of others who understand what tyrany is. If the anti-war at any cost fools had their way, victims of tyrany would only be deserving of relief if they have no oil under their feet and if the American's are not involved.
The rest of your stupid rant is not surprising. It has been disproved so often, it's really tiresome to have to read it again.
On Iraq: I'm inclined to disapprove of this one. That is not to approve of Hussein, but I see the American presence in Iraq as destabilising rather than stabilising. SH had his victims, (some, like the Kurds, haven't been treated any better in supposedly free countries, like Turkey), but it's not like the country was subject to constant feuding between thugs and fanatics.
Also, unlke Afghanistan, where the mass of hardship was caused by the ruling regime and their opponent factions, Iraq's biggest problems were due to American sanctions. I think the people of Iraq on average would have benefitted more from lifting sanctions (which would have helped foster a friendlier attitude to the west--SH, unlike Taliban leaders, cared about public opinion and mayb have been willing to enter into mutually beneficial negotions if he sensed a pro-western attitude growing in Iraq--he was an opportunist, not an ideologue.
The Taliban, on the other hand, are whackos with guns who maintained a state in which constant terror was the norm for most. As a result of their religious-centerd governance, Afghanistan is decades behind in infrastructure and services (Iraq, by contrast, is quite modern).
And of course, there's body count. Iraq has turned into a human disaster. This is another case of Americans failing to grasp that they cannot beat a guerilla foe through brute force. This is another case where American clumsiness and moral immaturity (which is the most neutral phrase I can find for the atrocities that are committed by many soliers on every side of every war ever fought) are creating a state of terror, rather than eliminating one.
foudroyaume nails it. With the exception of our historical battles with the Americans and some skirmishes with the Fenians, there is simply no context to allow for an invasion/occupation* of our land territory (occupying our waters is another issue).
The bottom line is that Canada's military forces exist to support the international alliances to which we belong.
Were we truly concerned about territorial integrity, we would have a navy and naval air wing that rivals that of anyone else. As it stands, we're still flying helicopters that were supposed to be replaced when I joined the CF in 1990.
Paul C
* Of course, Fort Drum in upper New York state _is_ only a short drive (130 miles) from Ottawa... :P
I agree Paul. Given that, I think spending in the military arena should be directed to that end. To the soldiers, their safety, mobility and effective firepower rather than ships and local domestic defences.
So long as policy dictates that role for our military, then that is precisely how it should be supported, yes. And I say this as an ex-sailor who'd love to see a stronger navy.
The yahoos here are talking about Iraq when Canada has no involvement in Iraq. Trying to make the equipment issue of the CF into a foreign policy issue is completely off base. This is an issue of national defence. We are a member of the G8 and most of the people in Canada love the fact that there is a system that allows them to be free. How did Canada get that way? By defending our freedoms, that's how.
Get with the program people and lets talk about how ill equipped the CF really is, not why Canada is in Afganastan and not in the Darfour.
For those of you contesting the possibility of a nation, how long ago was it that were we talking about water being the next great war? How's Canada situated on that front?
Or, why are the Arctic rim countries all contesting ownership? And what if the Sov's aren't real happy about 'science' validating Canada's claims?
History means nothing when economics rule the now. All war is based on economics; protect an economy, expand an economy, take over an economy that is the reason for war and will always be. Excepting the SF writers favourite, the extermination of civilization.
The gov't is right in this.
Cheers,
lance
err,
"contesting the possibility of a nation"
should be
"contesting the possibility of another nation invading..."
Sigh.
It's OK Lance, I get the jist of it,and am in full agreement.
"The yahoos here are talking about Iraq when Canada has no involvement in Iraq."
Bullshit!
Commenting by HaloScan
