Machjo, it's quite obvious you don't know a thing about the military. I'm just going to point out the flaws in each of your paragraphs:
Seeing that an offensive force is always at an advantage against a defensive force. An offensive force chooses when, where, how and most importantly, whether, to strike; whereas a defensive force can wait for years before any strike, if any occur.If an offensive force wanted to, it could even just send a patrol through often enough just to rub our whiskers so to speak, whenever we start talking about cutting defense budgets, just to keep our defense budgets up so as to redirect funds from civilian infrastructure building, while their nations is building the economy. Years later, or even decades later, once they finally have a clear advantage economically and miliatrily, they strike.
1. The offensive force is NOT
always at an advantage. An offensive force does NOT
always choose when, where, how, and if they attack. Defensive operations, if done correctly, can actually force an enemy to attack when he doesn't want to, where he doesn't want to, and how he would rather not. Sometimes a proper defensive stance can even force an offensive force to attack. Some great examples:
1. Advantage: The offender has to proceed through land they do not know. They must move slowly less risk ambush. Hence a reduced forward momentum. There are also two types of attacks; Hasty and Deliberate. A deliberate attack is where the attack is planned and launched upon the attackers own accord. A hasty attack occurs when the enemy is suddenly encountered. Most attacks against an entrenched enemy end up as being hasty in that the offender has no way to accurately survey the ground before hand.
2. When: By doing a tactical repositioning of forces, a defended can move to outflank an offensive force, thereby forcing said offender to either A. attack the flanking force B. attack the main defending force.
3. Where: Combat engineers. Two simple words, yet they make a huge difference in defensive battles. They can blow up bridges, demolish roads, flood valleys, fall trees, dig anti-tank ditches, anti-troops ditches, lay mines, build defenses. In essence combat engineers can help a defending force dictate where an offender attacks by limiting his options and funneling him in to pre-designated "kill zones".
4. How: Goes hand in hand with where. If combat engineers destroy the only bridge across a river, the offended is thereby forced to ford the river, hence forcing how he attacks.
5. If: A classic example of forcing an enemy to attack was pulled off by Sir Arthur Wellesley (Lord Wellington) against the French during the Peninsula War at the Battle of Torres Vedras in 1810. He built a massive defensive works to defend Lisbon from the French. He then moved forward to engage Marshal Masséna. He subsequently retreated, burning every field in his path, poisoning every well, and killing any livestock, thus robbing the advancing French Army of food. He reached Torres Vedras and anchored his men behind the walls. Around the French attackers were 40km of barren fields and no food. After two weeks the French were forced to either attack or retreat back in to Spain. The French attacked, and lost, badly. The French marched in to Portugal with 196,000 men, they walked out with 35,000. Another great example of the defender being forced to attack is the Battle of the Bulge, wherein the German Army, short of fuel, was forced to attack the Allies through the Ardennes to gain additional fuel supplies. They lost.
So why would Canada want to wase mony on defensive spending when offensive is much more efficient. In other words, you stick a satelite in space to watch over the north and that's it. Any foreing ship which enters Canadian waters can then be chased out with a simple radio warning. In most cases, that would more than suffice. As for submarines, if we don't notice them, then who cares. if we catch one, then we tell it to get out. If they refuse to get out, only then do we take waht we deem to be approapriate action at that stage. But seeing that, at that stage, by refusing to get out, they're now making their ship a sitting duck, we know where it is, and can now choose when, how, and whether to strike, we are now on the offensive and so have the advantage. Much less expensive than maintaining CONSTANT watch. We just send the forces out when a clear parasite has entered our waters or airspace.
I would like for you to explain to me what the difference between defence and offensive spending is. Can you do that?
The russians used a similar technique against the Nazis. Seeing how big their country was, it made more sence to let the Nazis stretch (and thus make vulnerable) their own lines of communicaiton within the USSR rather than have the Russians stretch (and thus make vulnerable) their own lines of communication within their own territory. The Russians used a similar tactic against Napolean too. Both times, the Russians won, because it is indeed an effective tactic for a naiton with a large landmass, and especially for one like Canada with such a small population.
In addition to not knowing anything about the military, you also don't know very much about World War II. First off Russia didn't use a technique of any kind, the Blitzkreig forced them to withdraw, losing THOUSANDS
of men in the first 24 hours. The German Army pushed them right to the doorsteps of the Kremlin. Then Hitler, ordered his forces to stop, and turn in to the Caucasus, thereby leaving Moscow alone. That respite allowed Russia to reorganize and go on the offensive. The Germans were, in the end, defeated due to two things; strained logistics and manpower. Logistics strained by their lack of motorized transport (they relied heavily on horses). Said logistical strain caused there to be a lack of effective winter equipment, thus causing numerous casualties on the German Army. Lastly and most importantly the Germans lost due to sheer numbers. The Germans put in to Russia some 5 million men, the Russians lost over 9 million killed
. Do the math. As for Napoleon, the Russian Winter defeated him, not the Russians.
I would like to point out however that your stance that the Russians "defensive tactics" worked wonders utterly contradicts your earlier statement that the attacker always has the advantage. Retort?
So fallowing the same principle, it would be much more efficient for us militarily to let an intruder in and then launch an offensive strike against it rather than spend so much money all the time guarding all (that's alot) our borders against a threat which may or may not materialise, ever.
Are you aware of the term "foothold"? If you let the enemy in, their chance for success triples in the first 24 hours. Look at Operation Overlord (the invasion of Normandy). Everything hinged on the Allies gaining a foothold within 24 hours. They did, and look how that turned out. When the Allies landed in Normandy they put ashore 175,000 men, mostly raw recruits who'd never seen battle. The Germans, had in Normandy alone, over 500,000 men. The Germans were battle hardened, better equipped, and better trained. Yet the Allies defeated the Germans in Normandy, why? Momentum. They crashed the beaches and began pushing in land. The Germans were thrown back in waves, in fact there came a point where the Germans were retreating faster than the Allies could advance, even though the Germans had a 3:1 ratio in manpower and tanks (at the time). It is sheer folly to suggest that our Nation allow the enemy to land on our shores first, then deal with them. A good Army is proactive, not reactive.
Not only does it make sense miltarily, but diplomatically likewise. Diplomatically, this allows Canada to save money on military spending (which has economic benefits too) which not only helps to win the trust of neighbouring countries that Canada is no warmonger, but also allows Canada, in the event that it does need to strike using deadly force, to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the enemy was clearly within Canadian territory. Of course I agree that even then, we should still use the minimum force required, but I'm just saying that if, if, we should ever have to use lethal force (let's say this enemy was hevily armeds, and there was leigitimate reason to believe that they were a lethal threat), we could at lest prove that they had trespassed, which in and of itself indicates possible aggressive intent against Canada.
And then there's this doozy. No, it does not make sense, at all, not militarily, not diplomatically. Militarily, it's stupidity. You do not allow an armed force to land on your shore, then deal with them. As for diplomatically, how, pretell, would that save money on military spending? Would we not require a force to deal with said enemy once we LET THEM LAND ON OUR SHORE
? Are you suggesting that we maintain a small military and then raise a bigger one when a threat presents itself?