Militarisation of Canada


Karlin
#1
"Military lobby trumps civilian needs"
www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=375 (external - login to view)
Quote:

"Harper has chosen expensive military hardware instead of the promised icebreakers, which would have served civilian needs, and been civilian-controlled"


-------

The 2nd item is that Harper's vgovernment announced a $200 million payment for a 'military college' in Quebec.

I fear that a change in our youth could come of that spending: "Gee, I cannot afford university where costs keep going UP, but I could be an officer in the army 'cuz I get to go for free to the 'military college' and learn how to kill people better".

-------

So whats going on? It appears that Canada is leaning far to the right, going towards the flames instead of putting them out.

We are seeing militarisation "as an attitude" growing in Canada, which is utterly abhorant to pacifists and peacemongers, as well as environmentalists. Government spending on military is growing, educational factilites for military officer training are being built, recruiting efforts are growing [especially in pooer areas of Canada]. None of that is good news, and if it has something to do with the fake "War on Terror" then it is also silly and wastefull.

Militarisation of any nation is either in advance of some expected outbreak of war, or to serve the military-industrial alliance that sees huge amounts of money [see the previous thread!] going to the factories that produce military hardware. Those are the favorite 'corporate friends' of conservatives here and in America and around the world.

Environmentally, in this era of global warming where emissions continue to INCREASE, war would mean an escalation of greenhouse gasses emissions. Since that represents a far greater threat to our species than our enemies do, we must streer away from further militarisation. Besides, there is no enemy of Canada, and if the USA chooses to create enemies, let them fight their own stupid wars.
 
MikeyDB
#2
Karlin

Is the next step from the consumer-society the military-society?

Is there any evidence to the veracity of this notion contained in an examination of history?

Think Nazii Germany for example....
 
iARTthere4iam
#3
Re-opening a military college that should never have been closed is hardly the advent of a new naziism led by Canada. What is wrong with you people? Switzerland is not a military powerhouse, yet demands military service from all adults. It seems that the only independent (read- not unduly influenced by the USA) action that Canada can make is to renounce our military and disarm. Canada's proud military history should not be allowed to be rewritten by the antimilitary element.
 
Minority Observer84
#4
As far as i'am concerned there are far more pressing issues that need support "social issues" things a conservative does not believe in
 
Zzarchov
#5
So, what your saying is:

Its ok to sell out the most vulnerable members of our society if you have more pressing needs closer to home?

I know thats not what you mean to say, but it is.

Just because they are few, our northern citizens have every right not to be annexed against their wishes by a foreign government. Basic needs such as not being overtaken by a foreign nation are the primary responsibility of a federal government before social needs, even basic needs like water and electricity. Civilian icebreakers are pointless and do not establish sovereignty, military ones do. Thus they ensure the basic right of our most vulnerable citizens to be able to remain in their own country.

Im normally an NDP man, but the fact that only the conservatives are willing to stand up for the most basic of government responsibilities is making me want to vote for them. I mean, sure they will destroy much of the social structures I love about Canada, but that is all internal damage and can be repaired later. If you lose soveriegnty, its gone, forever.
 
Minority Observer84
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

So, what your saying is:

Its ok to sell out the most vulnerable members of our society if you have more pressing needs closer to home?

I know thats not what you mean to say, but it is.

Just because they are few, our northern citizens have every right not to be annexed against their wishes by a foreign government. Basic needs such as not being overtaken by a foreign nation are the primary responsibility of a federal government before social needs, even basic needs like water and electricity. Civilian icebreakers are pointless and do not establish sovereignty, military ones do. Thus they ensure the basic right of our most vulnerable citizens to be able to remain in their own country.

Im normally an NDP man, but the fact that only the conservatives are willing to stand up for the most basic of government responsibilities is making me want to vote for them. I mean, sure they will destroy much of the social structures I love about Canada, but that is all internal damage and can be repaired later. If you lose soveriegnty, its gone, forever.

Indeed it's not , like the article suggests Ice breakers for the civilian coast guard would actually server the communities in that area frigates on the other hand ...........
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#7
One of the major planks in Harper's platform was large, armed, icebreakers for the north. He has reneged on that promise in favour of small coastal patrol ships that won't travel in over three feet of ice. I don't know what he thinks these little ships will do.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by KarlinView Post

Environmentally, in this era of global warming where emissions continue to INCREASE, war would mean an escalation of greenhouse gasses emissions. Since that represents a far greater threat to our species than our enemies do, we must streer away from further militarisation. Besides, there is no enemy of Canada, and if the USA chooses to create enemies, let them fight their own stupid wars.

Oh come now.... surely a world war would help with the whole population crisis, and reduce the carbon footprint of combatant countries more than hybrid cars will.
 
Anachronism
#9
Canada shouldn't be attacking anyone. A standing army is needed to protect a country, yes, but attacking other countries and starting wars is most certainly not very important to that country's sovereignty.
MAD is a prime example of how fighting wars for the sake of fighting is stupid, stupid, stupid. If I ran a country and a nuclear strike were launched against it, I would not retaliate. I'd prevent the destruction of one more country by not attacking. See how much better that works than just blowing each other up? >.>
Anyway, the point is, an army to defend a country is the only army that's necessary.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by AnachronismView Post

If I ran a country and a nuclear strike were launched against it, I would not retaliate. I'd prevent the destruction of one more country by not attacking. See how much better that works than just blowing each other up? >.>

Are you joking? Does that seriously work better in your eyes? Letting your country be bombed, and just throwing your hands up in the air over it. I can't even imagine. Lets hope you never run a country, because your citizenry would be sitting ducks.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#11
No need to worry about Canada retaliating with nuclear warheads - we don't have any (external - login to view)! Which is ironic, seeing as how we are the world's leading supplier of uranium. We supply our uranium through the IAEA (external - login to view) which ensures that none of our uranium is used for warheads. We are one of the few countries that respects the non proliferation agreement (external - login to view).

As for the whole military-industrial complex... don't we buy all our weapons second hand? When was the last time Canadians were innovating in the arms field? The sea-king perhaps?
 
Zzarchov
#12
I'd doubt we're free and clear of nuclear abilities. I can easily believe we have none now, but there are missile silos up north, and we do have all the components for a nuclear device sitting around, if we really wanted them we could have them within a week.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

I'd doubt we're free and clear of nuclear abilities. I can easily believe we have none now, but there are missile silos up north, and we do have all the components for a nuclear device sitting around, if we really wanted them we could have them within a week.

Sort of true. It would take quite a bit more than a week though. We use heavy water reactors in Canada, so we don't exactly have an abundance of enriched uranium sitting about. The plutonium could be seperated from the fissioning fuel if the reaction was stopped mid-cycle, but that is not very efficient and we certainly don't have the centrifuges to accomplish it. I am not sure how quickly we could get a diffusion system working for the seperation. As for intercontinental missiles, all of those belong to the US and are stationed at NATO bases. We could annex them, but that would certainly necessitate their usage.


Canada is very nearly the exemplary nation for nuclear activities. Our CANDU reactors are designed to minimize the use of enriched uranium and thus make nuclear energy possible without the availability of weapon's grade material. With the proper usage of CANDU reactors the only sign that would lead a person to believe that a nation is developing nuclear capabilities would be the construction of large centrifuges and/or diffusion chambers, without these a CANDU reactor is just an energy plant.
 
Unforgiven
#14
I see that as a good thing but, we need to change our military priorities. Homeland Defence should be much higher and action on foreign soil much lower on the list. The North is going to become a very important place in the next 50 years. We as Canadians, own an awful lot of that and we should be ready and able to stand up to protect it and our soverignty from those who would ursurp that from us.

I can think of a few kids who would be better off going to a military college than what they've been getting up to here in Toronto.

Quote: Originally Posted by KarlinView Post

"Military lobby trumps civilian needs"
www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=375 (external - login to view)



-------

The 2nd item is that Harper's vgovernment announced a $200 million payment for a 'military college' in Quebec.

I fear that a change in our youth could come of that spending: "Gee, I cannot afford university where costs keep going UP, but I could be an officer in the army 'cuz I get to go for free to the 'military college' and learn how to kill people better".

-------

So whats going on? It appears that Canada is leaning far to the right, going towards the flames instead of putting them out.

We are seeing militarisation "as an attitude" growing in Canada, which is utterly abhorant to pacifists and peacemongers, as well as environmentalists. Government spending on military is growing, educational factilites for military officer training are being built, recruiting efforts are growing [especially in pooer areas of Canada]. None of that is good news, and if it has something to do with the fake "War on Terror" then it is also silly and wastefull.

Militarisation of any nation is either in advance of some expected outbreak of war, or to serve the military-industrial alliance that sees huge amounts of money [see the previous thread!] going to the factories that produce military hardware. Those are the favorite 'corporate friends' of conservatives here and in America and around the world.

Environmentally, in this era of global warming where emissions continue to INCREASE, war would mean an escalation of greenhouse gasses emissions. Since that represents a far greater threat to our species than our enemies do, we must streer away from further militarisation. Besides, there is no enemy of Canada, and if the USA chooses to create enemies, let them fight their own stupid wars.

 
Toro
#15
Considering that Canada is amongst the lowest spenders relative to wealth in the entire industrialized world, I wouldn't be too worried that Canada is being "militarized."
 
BitWhys
#16
What's wealth got to do with it?
 
thomaska
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

"militarized."

You guys better get used to spelling it that way too!
 
Toro
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

What's wealth got to do with it?

Is the US a more compassionate society because it spends several times more than Canada on social services?
 
BitWhys
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Is the US a more compassionate society because it spends several times more than Canada on social services?

I dunno. You tell me.

better watch out, though. there's a troop of right-wingers around here that don't take too kindly to being compared to the States.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#20
I think Katrina put US compassion in a startlingly new light. Being compared to the Third World in international newspapers isn't a recommendation.
 
Anachronism
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Are you joking? Does that seriously work better in your eyes? Letting your country be bombed, and just throwing your hands up in the air over it. I can't even imagine. Lets hope you never run a country, because your citizenry would be sitting ducks.

You don't understand. We're talking about nuclear warfare. My country would be blown up anyway. The best course of action is to avoid more destruction. The only reason for me to bomb someone else even though I'm sure to be destroyed would be for revenge, which is stupid and results in millions of further deaths.
MAD may be the only thing that keeps people from blowing each other up, but despite what most people think, it is not a Nash equilibrium, where the best idea is to not fire nukes as long as no one else does. The thing that seperates it from being a Nash equilibrium is the fact that the more nukes launched, the more death, so in the perspective of the entire human race, the best course of action is to never fire a nuke, no matter what other people do. So that's what I'd do.
 
Zzarchov
#22
A good line of reasoning, except it relies upon the other person considering your people as human beings. Just because you do see the "enemy" as human's doesn't mean the "enemy" (or those running the nation) see you in the same way and will be opposed to harming you and reaping the benefits of conquest.

In such a case by stating you will not fire a nuke, you encourage death and destruction by encouraging them to fire upon you.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by AnachronismView Post

You don't understand. We're talking about nuclear warfare. My country would be blown up anyway. The best course of action is to avoid more destruction. The only reason for me to bomb someone else even though I'm sure to be destroyed would be for revenge, which is stupid and results in millions of further deaths.
MAD may be the only thing that keeps people from blowing each other up, but despite what most people think, it is not a Nash equilibrium, where the best idea is to not fire nukes as long as no one else does. The thing that seperates it from being a Nash equilibrium is the fact that the more nukes launched, the more death, so in the perspective of the entire human race, the best course of action is to never fire a nuke, no matter what other people do. So that's what I'd do.

No, I don't think you understand. If you haven't started a war, and someone hits your country with a nuclear bomb, simply not doing anything about it wouldn't be the end of it. Chances are occupation would be the result if you're not willing to fight back, *** for tat. And occupation never goes well for the native citizens. So, you refuse to set off a bomb, and let all your citizens live in the hell of being an occupied country (with a second nuke being the punishment if you resist, since you've already proven you won't fight back).

Now, if you've already launched an attack of some other sort on a country, and they retalliate with a nuke, then it makes sense to not fight back, and instead desist with your hostile activities and rebuild. But, each and every situation is different and requires different tactics and actions.
 
Blackleaf
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by KarlinView Post



Government spending on military is growing, educational factilites for military officer training are being built, recruiting efforts are growing

That's good, isn't it?

Or at least it is in most other Western nations.
 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

One of the major planks in Harper's platform was large, armed, icebreakers for the north. He has reneged on that promise in favour of small coastal patrol ships that won't travel in over three feet of ice. I don't know what he thinks these little ships will do.

They could fight seals or polar bears in the event of those magnificent creatures forming a military coup against the governments of Canada and the US (but especially Canada) for their sickening mistreatment, but they won't do any good against the Russians (in a battle for oil in the Arctic, for example) or anyone else who has a grudge against Canada.

In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
 
Blackleaf
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Oh come now.... surely a world war would help with the whole population crisis, and reduce the carbon footprint of combatant countries more than hybrid cars will.

Surely a World War would have one of the largest "carbon footprints" of all time.

All those guns, warships, planes, bombs, etc? Not good for the environment.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Surely a World War would have one of the largest "carbon footprints" of all time.

All those guns, warships, planes, bombs, etc? Not good for the environment.

Oh come now. One bomb may have a big carbon footprint, but, if it kills twenty people who'd otherwise be driving back and forth to work every day for forty years, then it's still helped the enviro.

And it's not as if the men driving the planes and warships would be sitting at home if they weren't fighting a war... they'd be driving other things, and creating carbon in other ways. So we'd be about equal there.

Yep... world war's the way to go.
 
Toro
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

They could fight seals or polar bears in the event of those magnificent creatures forming a military coup against the governments of Canada and the US (but especially Canada) for their sickening mistreatment, but they won't do any good against the Russians (in a battle for oil in the Arctic, for example) or anyone else who has a grudge against Canada.

In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.

Hahaha.
 
Anachronism
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

No, I don't think you understand. If you haven't started a war, and someone hits your country with a nuclear bomb, simply not doing anything about it wouldn't be the end of it. Chances are occupation would be the result if you're not willing to fight back, *** for tat. And occupation never goes well for the native citizens. So, you refuse to set off a bomb, and let all your citizens live in the hell of being an occupied country (with a second nuke being the punishment if you resist, since you've already proven you won't fight back).

Now, if you've already launched an attack of some other sort on a country, and they retalliate with a nuke, then it makes sense to not fight back, and instead desist with your hostile activities and rebuild. But, each and every situation is different and requires different tactics and actions.

In a case where a nuclear strike is poised to eliminate the entire country (as it normally would, seeing as how there are thousands of nukes in existence within a single country), sovereignty would mean nothing because the sovereign nation wouldn't exist anymore in a few minutes. Occupation is more favorable than annihilation.
Then there's the fact that nuclear fallout would likely contaminate the majority of a given continent even if there were only a few missiles, and cause more deaths than the initial blast would. So why would anyone want to occupy a nuclear wasteland? No crops would grow there, precautions would have to be taken every time you set foot outside (and that's only after the years of the fallout being in the air), and the water would still be radioactive. It's entirely inhospitable. The only purpose for nuclear warfare is death, not colonization. So sovereignty means nothing in the case of impending nuclear strike, and thus the best course of action is to cause the least death possible, by not engaging in nuclear combat no matter the conditions.
If a nation really were to try to blow EVERYONE up with nuclear missiles, then I could see the point in retaliating. But a nation that really would do that is unlikely to ever exist. Plus, they'd only end up killing themselves as a result of the fallout. They would know this if their nuclear physicists were skilled enough to enrich uranium.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Minority Observer84View Post

As far as i'am concerned there are far more pressing issues that need support "social issues" things a conservative does not believe in

Exactly what "social issues" are you refering to?

We are already coddled cradle to grave......perhaps we should have the ability to take our place along side of our allies in the free world.............
 

Similar Threads

261
Where does Canada stand?./Who Stands 4 Canada
by GreenFish66 | Mar 13th, 2011
0
The Militarisation of Disaster Relief
by Karlin | Sep 25th, 2005
no new posts