Canada's social Programs
Tman1 @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:50 pm
Btw, that avatar is freaky. 
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:03 pm
Why? He's smiling. Looks pleasant.
(At least I'm not a raving couch cushion... )
.
Tman1 @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:16 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Why? He's smiling. Looks pleasant.
(At least I'm not a raving couch cushion... ).
(At least I'm not a raving couch cushion... ).
Careful or he will eat you up.
Blue_Nose @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:27 pm
666 posts, Jaime, better make another one quick
bootlegga @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:32 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Canada's potential enemies:
1) China. China needs oil and its needs for oil are increasing. Canada has oil and Chinese control of Canadian oil puts the USA at a strategic disadvantage. Do the math. China is building a blue-water navy and currently can deploy twelve modern destroyers with sixteen older destroyers. More importantly, China has over 300 support ships to supply and protect their capital ships. As it stands, Canada is not a match for China and (absent US assistance) China could feasibly occupy a fair chunk of BC. Chinese plans indicate that they will deploy their Russian aircraft carrier sometime in the next few years and they have two hulls on the ways at Dalian that some sources estimate will be escort-carriers or helicopter carriers. China also has shipyards that can and do scratch-build military vessels. Canada has the two facilities at Esquimalt and Halifax that could be used to produce capital ships but the dockyards themselves would need extensive work to bring them up to modern standards.
Canada assumes the USA will defend Canada but what if Hillary Clinton, a friend of China, gets elected? What if John Kerry, a pacifist, gets elected? What if Americans don't want to risk American lives to protect Canada?
Canada does not need to be strong enough to defeat China, just strong enough to deter them.
2) Quebec. The enemy within. A divided Canada will be easy pickings for everyone. An independent Quebec is an uncertain quantity and may pursue territorial and economic ambitions after the new state is established.
3) The USA. Just as Canada should not depend on the USA to defend Canada, Canada should also not depend on the USA to forever be peaceful. A Canada-China alliance could readily enable a US President to invade Canada to prevent basing of Chinese military components in Canada. This is feasible as a simple matter of politics. Also, a US political situation could be expediently mitigated by scapegoating Canada much the same way Yugoslavia suddenly became a matter of paramount importance to Bill Clinton on the eve of the Monica Lewinsky affair.
4) Russia, but not anytime soon and probably only in their dreams.
5) Japan might get nasty over fishing rights, but would be unlikely to be a threat to Canadian territorial sovereignty. Worst case scenario would be a group of Japanese Aegis escorting fishing fleets in Canadian offshore waters.
6) A unified Europe might become a threat as they define themselves as a nation and inevitably start to miss the good old days of colonialism. French influence could also lead to problems between Canada and a United Europe over fisheries and oil and, no doubt, the French would stir up intrigues in Quebec to distract Canada from European avarices.
1) China. China needs oil and its needs for oil are increasing. Canada has oil and Chinese control of Canadian oil puts the USA at a strategic disadvantage. Do the math. China is building a blue-water navy and currently can deploy twelve modern destroyers with sixteen older destroyers. More importantly, China has over 300 support ships to supply and protect their capital ships. As it stands, Canada is not a match for China and (absent US assistance) China could feasibly occupy a fair chunk of BC. Chinese plans indicate that they will deploy their Russian aircraft carrier sometime in the next few years and they have two hulls on the ways at Dalian that some sources estimate will be escort-carriers or helicopter carriers. China also has shipyards that can and do scratch-build military vessels. Canada has the two facilities at Esquimalt and Halifax that could be used to produce capital ships but the dockyards themselves would need extensive work to bring them up to modern standards.
Canada assumes the USA will defend Canada but what if Hillary Clinton, a friend of China, gets elected? What if John Kerry, a pacifist, gets elected? What if Americans don't want to risk American lives to protect Canada?
Canada does not need to be strong enough to defeat China, just strong enough to deter them.
2) Quebec. The enemy within. A divided Canada will be easy pickings for everyone. An independent Quebec is an uncertain quantity and may pursue territorial and economic ambitions after the new state is established.
3) The USA. Just as Canada should not depend on the USA to defend Canada, Canada should also not depend on the USA to forever be peaceful. A Canada-China alliance could readily enable a US President to invade Canada to prevent basing of Chinese military components in Canada. This is feasible as a simple matter of politics. Also, a US political situation could be expediently mitigated by scapegoating Canada much the same way Yugoslavia suddenly became a matter of paramount importance to Bill Clinton on the eve of the Monica Lewinsky affair.
4) Russia, but not anytime soon and probably only in their dreams.
5) Japan might get nasty over fishing rights, but would be unlikely to be a threat to Canadian territorial sovereignty. Worst case scenario would be a group of Japanese Aegis escorting fishing fleets in Canadian offshore waters.
6) A unified Europe might become a threat as they define themselves as a nation and inevitably start to miss the good old days of colonialism. French influence could also lead to problems between Canada and a United Europe over fisheries and oil and, no doubt, the French would stir up intrigues in Quebec to distract Canada from European avarices.
1) Please, China can't even invade Taiwan, how can they sail 6000 km and takeover BC? They currently only have enough sealift to land one divison (10,000) of troops.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... an-mod.htm
I suppose if they used regular merchant vessels like Trojan Horses, they might be able to land another divison. So that's about two divisions of troops. In the West, Canada was 1 Regular Forces brigade in Edmonton, and 2 reserve brigades in BC and Alberta (one each). Given the old military maxim that an attacker needs a 3 to 1 advantage for an attack to succeed, they wouldn't be able to do very much.
As for this Chinese navy with 12 'modern' and 16 older destroyers, it is a joke. Our City Class frigates are bigger than all but two classes of their ships, the Luhai class destroyer and the two Sovremeny class they purchased from Russia (with two more on order). Our frigates are also armed with better anti-shipping missiles (Harpoons) and SAMs than their ships. Their best SAM has a range of only 13 miles. This is similar to the British during the Falklands War when the Argentines sank the HMS Sheffield with an Exocet. Why are short range SAMs an issue? When you have a anti-ship missile screaming in at 500 miles an hour, a range of 13 miles gives you less than 3 seconds to engage and shoot down said missile. That was why the Exocet was so effective, the British had no long range SAMs. Nowadays, almost every NATO navy has long range SAMs like the Standard SM-2s found on our Tribal class destroyers (some are equipped with even better SM-3s). And the FELEX upgrade that our frigates are going through will give them a SAM with similar capabilities (ESSM). The fact is our lone task group on the West Coast could easily handle twice or three times their number of Chinese surface vessels. Once our Victoria class subs are up and running, they would easily be able to handle Chinese subs and/or surface vessels as well. The only 'help' we might need from the US is warning from satellite intel.
The Chinese Navy also lacks any legs to allow it to operate for extended periods from its shores. It has no major replenishment ships like Canada has, no major surface vessels, and its eventual deployment of a carrier air arm is at least a decade away, but more likely 20-25 years away . It took the Soviets four decades to build a big flattop and develop any sort of real carrier-based naval air arm (I'm taking a seagoing vessel capable of launching fixed wing aircraft, not STOl carriers), but a less advanced China is supposed to be able to do it less than a decade? Not likely...even if they can build three carriers by 2020, at most they would be able deploy two of them off the coast for an extended period of time. Typically, one US carrier is in drydock, one in port and one at sea out of every three carriers they have, and the USN is undisputably the preeminent carrier force on the planet today and likely will be for another 30-40 years at least.
http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/chin ... _today.htm
While our CF-18s might relatively few in numbers, the pilots flying them have almost double the annual flying time of their Chinese counterparts (180 - 100). Because the Chinese lack aerial refueling or AWACs capability, their SU-27s (which might be close in ability to our CF-18s), they would not be able to operate as CAP for their invasion fleet or even raid our coastal cities. The rest of their air force is antiquated 1950s and 60s technology.
http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB32.html
2) Yes, Quebec could lead to some opportunism by another nation, but currently the only nation capable of attacking us is the USA. Even the UK and France would be hard-pressed to mount more than a raid on our shores.
3) If the USA attacks us, there will be little we can do. We could try to re-activate Defence Plan One and use a scorched earth policy, destroying roads, bridges and US-owned factories to buy time, but even if we had a 300,000 man army, we would still be very unlikely to stop the USA. They have satellite intel, a massive navy, air force and army. The best we could hope for would be a guerilla-style insurgency akin to Iraq.
4) Russia also lacks any real power projection capabilities. They had substantial assets as late as the early 90s, but not any longer. Again a raid by long range bomber s would be doable but an actual invasion would be impossible.
5) Japan could theoretically assert itself again and become more nationalistic and project its power across the Pacific, but only a small minority of conservatives long for that these days. Japan will continue to be a leading 'democracy' (the LDP has run the country since the end of WW2), and will not resort to such strategy unless the USA pulls back from the western Pacific and leaves Japan to deal with the Chinese by themselves. This is very unlikely unless the US suffers a major setback in the Pacific (like a battle over Taiwan). Then, the Japanese would likely build nukes and begin asserting themselves across the Pacific. This would however lead to a massive arms race as the Koreans, Chinese, and other SE Asian countries raced to match them. Asia is in fact the only region in the world where defence spending rose in the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR.
6) See number two.
Welsh @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:33 pm
Just curious.
Using bootlegga's judgement that there aren't any countries that pose a realistic threat directly to Canada right now, suppose the US decided those same considerations apply to us. After all, we are right next door and have the same oceans around us as Canada. The distances to Japan, China, Russia, the Middle East are the same. So why wouldn't it apply to the US as well?
How about this: We decide to give up our global role and retreat back to our shores. Since the US is a smaller country geographically than Canada with less shoreline to defend, etc... we should be able to make do with a military the size of Canada's.
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?
And as a corollary, the whole world should be a safer place without the US military conducting illegal wars around the world.
I really wonder what would happen if we had the luxury of taking the same attitude as Canada?
Streaker @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:38 pm
Fortunately Canada doesn't have to bear the burden of being an imperial power. The US does, of course, which is why it has to spend so much on its military rather than on having adequate social programmes.
Patrick_Ross @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:53 pm
IcedCap IcedCap:
I think its baloney... The social programs developed mostly in the 60s at a time when defence spending was still equitable with other NATO countries and we were in the middle of the Cold war. Regardless its hardly our fault that we border the US and they see us as as important strategically, that's geography its not as if we towed ourselves next to them. I get sick and tired of Americans and their Canadian apologists telling me how we get a free ride, I always ask them ok how many US combat troops are stationed in Canada? how many US warplanes patrol Canadian airspace? how many US Navy ships patrol Canadian waters? the answer of course is none. The fact that America would see an attack on Canada as tantamount to an attack on its own territoty isn't at our request. We have never asked them to defend us they choose to do it themselves yet they get upset with us anyway 
It's a little thing called "leverage".
But if we COULD have towed ourselves closer to them, could we tow ourselves away?
Bigboy @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:33 pm
Welsh Welsh:
Just curious.
Using bootlegga's judgement that there aren't any countries that pose a realistic threat directly to Canada right now, suppose the US decided those same considerations apply to us. After all, we are right next door and have the same oceans around us as Canada. The distances to Japan, China, Russia, the Middle East are the same. So why wouldn't it apply to the US as well?
How about this: We decide to give up our global role and retreat back to our shores. Since the US is a smaller country geographically than Canada with less shoreline to defend, etc... we should be able to make do with a military the size of Canada's.
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?
And as a corollary, the whole world should be a safer place without the US military conducting illegal wars around the world.
I really wonder what would happen if we had the luxury of taking the same attitude as Canada?
Using bootlegga's judgement that there aren't any countries that pose a realistic threat directly to Canada right now, suppose the US decided those same considerations apply to us. After all, we are right next door and have the same oceans around us as Canada. The distances to Japan, China, Russia, the Middle East are the same. So why wouldn't it apply to the US as well?
How about this: We decide to give up our global role and retreat back to our shores. Since the US is a smaller country geographically than Canada with less shoreline to defend, etc... we should be able to make do with a military the size of Canada's.
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?
And as a corollary, the whole world should be a safer place without the US military conducting illegal wars around the world.
I really wonder what would happen if we had the luxury of taking the same attitude as Canada?
Funny, Its a little different when you depend on resources from other countrys. (Oil for one)
Plus the reson Canada get critised for are defence spending is because we buy equipment from are Nato allies. The only (Nato) countrys that spend more make there own equipment.. Thats why i think we should say fine and start making or own so we are making money when spending on defence.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:06 pm
Welsh Welsh:
...How about this: We decide to give up our global role and retreat back to our shores. Since the US is a smaller country geographically than Canada with less shoreline to defend, etc... we should be able to make do with a military the size of Canada's.
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?...
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?...
That would work perfectly, if the United States could rely on all the countries of the world to remain at peace with each other AND to allow commerce to flow freely.
If not, then the United States needs a large and active military.
.
BartSimpson @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:29 pm
China isn't messing with Taiwan because little, itty bitty Taiwan has a Navy that would clean China's clock.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rocn/
Canada, on the other hand, has an aging fleet divided between two oceans and soon to be three oceans as the Arctic opens to navigation.
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet ... home_e.asp
Also, Taiwan maintains a much higher state of readiness, their ships are dialed up unless they're alongside, and their crews are in a higher level of training rotation. Taiwan packs a punch. Granted, they have ample reason to do so.
Canada would have a tough time taking on China as it is and would not be capable of taking on Taiwan. I say this not as an insult but as a sad observation. It is sad to visit the naval bases at Halifax and Esquimalt and find them in a relative state of stand-down. The bases look half-closed.
BartSimpson @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:32 pm
Welsh Welsh:
How about this: We decide to give up our global role and retreat back to our shores. Since the US is a smaller country geographically than Canada with less shoreline to defend, etc... we should be able to make do with a military the size of Canada's.
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?
And as a corollary, the whole world should be a safer place without the US military conducting illegal wars around the world.
I really wonder what would happen if we had the luxury of taking the same attitude as Canada?
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?
And as a corollary, the whole world should be a safer place without the US military conducting illegal wars around the world.
I really wonder what would happen if we had the luxury of taking the same attitude as Canada?
The USA tried isolationism in the 1930's. It worked out bad then, too.
Tman1 @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:45 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
China isn't messing with Taiwan because little, itty bitty Taiwan has a Navy that would clean China's clock.
Also, Taiwan maintains a much higher state of readiness, their ships are dialed up unless they're alongside, and their crews are in a higher level of training rotation. Taiwan packs a punch. Granted, they have ample reason to do so.
Also, Taiwan maintains a much higher state of readiness, their ships are dialed up unless they're alongside, and their crews are in a higher level of training rotation. Taiwan packs a punch. Granted, they have ample reason to do so.
Irrelevant. The way Chinas economy is going, I am pretty sure they will well become in among the standards of the Taiwanese fleet in little time and effort. In addition, China's workforce is vastly superior to Taiwan and with this massive workforce needs an output. Hmmm building navy fleets is a good way to use this untapped workforce and help increase imployment.
bootlegga @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:22 pm
Welsh Welsh:
Just curious.
Using bootlegga's judgement that there aren't any countries that pose a realistic threat directly to Canada right now, suppose the US decided those same considerations apply to us. After all, we are right next door and have the same oceans around us as Canada. The distances to Japan, China, Russia, the Middle East are the same. So why wouldn't it apply to the US as well?
How about this: We decide to give up our global role and retreat back to our shores. Since the US is a smaller country geographically than Canada with less shoreline to defend, etc... we should be able to make do with a military the size of Canada's.
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?
And as a corollary, the whole world should be a safer place without the US military conducting illegal wars around the world.
I really wonder what would happen if we had the luxury of taking the same attitude as Canada?
Using bootlegga's judgement that there aren't any countries that pose a realistic threat directly to Canada right now, suppose the US decided those same considerations apply to us. After all, we are right next door and have the same oceans around us as Canada. The distances to Japan, China, Russia, the Middle East are the same. So why wouldn't it apply to the US as well?
How about this: We decide to give up our global role and retreat back to our shores. Since the US is a smaller country geographically than Canada with less shoreline to defend, etc... we should be able to make do with a military the size of Canada's.
In this scenario we pull out of our military bases around the world, cut down our military to the size of Canada's and, based on the logic of bootlegga, no one should be able to bother us?
And as a corollary, the whole world should be a safer place without the US military conducting illegal wars around the world.
I really wonder what would happen if we had the luxury of taking the same attitude as Canada?
The USA can do whatever it wants. Based on your supposed 'logic', Canada should build up a 1 million man army and then do whatever it wants, intervening in other nation's affairs. We could invade Greenland or Antarctica or wherever and who would stop us? The puny UN? Ha! Then when we get caught in a nasty Inuit insurgency, we can go begging to our allies to help us, even though those same allies warned us, it might not be such a good idea to go there in the first place...blah blah blah Freedom fries...whatever.
Canada is Canada and the USA is the USA. You are comparing apples to oranges. One country is a middle power and the other is a superpower that has said over and over that it will do what it can to prevent a rival from emerging this century. Nowhere in my comments do I mention what the US should or shouldn't do with its military or foreign policy.
You imply that I suggest Canada adopt an isolationist policy. I never said anything of the sort. I simply argue that there is no nation on Earth capable of invading/occupying us, other than our neighbour to the south. And I don't think they would bother because we'll just sell you whatever you want anyways.
I think Canada needs to keep doing what it does, work through the UN and multi-lateral organizations like OECD and NATO and do what it can where it can. Do I wish we could do more? Of course, but then nice people always do. I wish we had a bigger armed forces, but I would never want to be like the USA. When you are #1, there is a bullseye painted on you and a lot of people gunning for you.
But if the US was willing to be one among many, it could simply pull back forward deployed forces and let nations grow without having to worry about what the USA will do. Britain was in a similar position at the turn of the last century and chose to pursue an aggressive foreign policy. This led Germany to begin an arms race and this was a major factor in WW1. While you may feel the US is benign, a leader in Iran or India or China, faced with a massive air base near its border might not. Especially after the US intervened in Iraq and deposed Saddam. Was this a good thing? It might turn out to be, but it scared the hell out of the Chinese and others around the globe. They all think they will be next, and who knows, they may be right...or maybe they're wrong. At this point, who's to know.
As Bartman said, the US tried isolationism in the 1930s and look where that got us. When the US adpoted leadership of the free world after WW2, it really left no room for anyone else and you are now stuck with that mantle for good or for worse. If you don't want it any longer, ask the Chinese, they should be ready to takeover for you in maybe 40 years or so.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:33 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Britain was in a similar position at the turn of the last century and chose to pursue an aggressive foreign policy. This led Germany to begin an arms race and this was a major factor in WW1.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don't think that it can be said that Britain's colonial empire of the turn of the last century was a cause of WWI. Clearly it had one, but I don't see that that was an issue for Germany.
.