Militarisation of Canada

[Anachronism]

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]

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]

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, tit 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, tit 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]

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.............

 

[Colpy]

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.

Well said.....although I doubt the Conservatives are going to "destroy much of the social structure I love about Canada"......they want to STAY in power, and have moved ever-closer to the centre of the Canadian political spectrum.

 

[Colpy]

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.

Aside from the ignorant innuendo about the seal hunt, not a bad post. I love how the anti-Americans here are so absolutely willing to leave our defense totally in the hands of that "imperial" power. To say nothing of the fact that their absolute trust that the US would not move militarily against a defenseless Canada completely belies their condemnation of that country as imperialist.

I guess consistency is much more than we should expect from the niave........

 

[BitWhys]

What's naive is to assume everyone with an opinion gives a rat's ass which rich bastard controls the oil fields to the east of the Alaska/Yukon boundary.

everything after that is detail without a shot fired.

 

[Toro]

What's naive is to assume everyone with an opinion gives a rat's ass which rich bastard controls the oil fields to the east of the Alaska/Yukon boundary.

everything after that is detail without a shot fired.

You're right.

As long as my stocks go up...

 

[BitWhys]

You're right.

As long as my stocks go up...

heh

Count on it. and good luck on the timing. No doubt the whole ordeal will be a lot more noisy than it has to be.

 

[Tim Hamilton]

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.

You've missed the point of MAD.

It wasn't about destroying the country that destroyed you, it was about preventing anyone from destroying anyone in the first place. The knowledge your own country would be destroyed was enough to keep anyone from launching the first attack because attacking your opponent now became the equivalent of attacking yourself.

If you ran a country without a MAD policy and you were attacked, one country would be destroyed. If you ran a country with a MAD policy and assured your enemy that the destruction of your country would result in the destruction of theirs, they would be unlikely to attack you in the first place and no country would destroyed.

I guess it's a good thing you don't run a country.

 

[Tim Hamilton]

Oh, and upgrading equipment to the point that we're STILL one of the worst equipped and lowest funded militaries in the world is hardly cause for concern over "militirisation". It's like someone carrying a set of darts being considered armed and dangerous.

 

[Anachronism]

You've missed the point of MAD.

It wasn't about destroying the country that destroyed you, it was about preventing anyone from destroying anyone in the first place. The knowledge your own country would be destroyed was enough to keep anyone from launching the first attack because attacking your opponent now became the equivalent of attacking yourself.

If you ran a country without a MAD policy and you were attacked, one country would be destroyed. If you ran a country with a MAD policy and assured your enemy that the destruction of your country would result in the destruction of theirs, they would be unlikely to attack you in the first place and no country would destroyed.

I guess it's a good thing you don't run a country.

Already addressed:

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.

I agree. The best course of action is to avoid firing nukes. But beyond the ultimatum of MAD, the policy itself makes no sense.
And it's because of the ultimatum that I wouldn't do something as foolish as drop the MAD policy. I'm just saying that if someone did fire, I'd have serious doubts about actually following through with it, seeing as how no matter what happens, I'd lose in the end.

 

[Zzarchov]

It depends how total the opening salvo is.

Could you survive it? in which case a limited response might be best. That way they know you will respond, and still have something to protect after your bombs hit, so they have no need for a second strike, you could go back to "normal"

Even if it was a total annihilation of you, what about the rest of the world? Neutral regions? It may be required to retaliate so the aggressor can not then target other innocent peoples for their next victims.

 

[ottawabill]

We are a sorry strange lot..us Canadians...

We seem to like feeling superior to our southern neighbours, get angry when they don't pay attention to us..get even more angry when they do..but then alway expect that they will come to our rescue in case of war and at the same time fear them taking over. If the U.S. military is going to protect our coastlines (mainly because up until present we have no been able to) then thatey take an ownership outlook towards it.

Good or bad, if you want the world to pay much attention to you thean you require a millitary to back up your stances and claims...not that you need to us them but the fact that they are there.

We are not building up a millitary nation, we are correcting the wrongs of constant Liberal governments that have purposely dismantled it.

If you want to claim your nation..you need to defend it. If you want other nations to listen you need a big stick. Do you all really think North Korea, Islamic radicals, or any anti western groups have no thought of Canada on their radars?

So many think if they are anti American then we are safe....the world Lokks at NORTH AMERICA as of place, one set of values, one people...and truthfully with small exceptions in government policy and gun ownership...WE ARE!!