majka@ubc-vision.CDN (Marc Majka) (01/16/85)
Jim Robinson recently raised the issue of Canada's mititary: > That Canada should be taken for granted in this manner is unfortunate > but not unexpected. For years this country has paid only token attention > to its armed forces, secure in the knowledge that no other country would > dare do battle with us because of the presence of our neighbour to the > South who carries a mighty big stick. This has resulted in a loss of > Canada's sovereignty as one can hardly bite the hand that feeds, or > in this case protects, one. I do not see exactly how this loss of sovereignty works. Have our neighbours like the USSR, Denmark, France, or the USA recently annexed any of our territory? It is true that we have made fishing agreements with some of these countries, but none of them has brought military might to bear on our fishing disputes. Nor have I heard any mention of our military in any trade agreements. As a Canadian, I do not feel protected by the USA. The fact that they have "a mighty big stick" (a.k.a. tens of thousands of nuclear bombs) doesn't ease my sleep. If anything, I feel threatened by them. From their history, and from recent statements from them, it seems apparent that the USA doesn't mind waltzing their troops into any country. They say that they are only protecting the free world. That's just military paternalism to me. Jim suggests that we could concentrate our efforts on our own *defense*, through bodies like the Coast Guard. I like that idea. Defense here is used in its original meaning, not the military doublespeak version. I don't see why, however, this requires dismantling our armed forces. They can defend our borders as well as the Coast Guard. The Swiss have armed forces to defend their country, not a "Mountain Guard". > On the other hand, if we are going to have a military then it behoves > us to do it properly. If we had our own credible defence then it would be > much easier for us to protest those actions by the US which take us > for granted. We could rightly claim to be partners with the US working > towards a common goal and expect/demand to be treated as such, under > threat of going it alone if necessary. As it is now, we're just > kinda along for the ride. Why is this on the other hand? I see no problem with a Canadian Military. I really don't see why we need to have a strong military in order to be able to show the USA that we are "working towards a common goal". What common goal? What does it mean to threaten the USA that we would "go it alone"? Where would we go if we did? > My own opinion is that a sizable sovereign nation, such as Canada, > should have a credible defence. Even the *neutral* Swiss who haven't > been at war for untold years have this. Looking back to WW2 it can be > noted that yesterday's enemy is today's friend. I don't think that it > is too far fetched to think that today's friend may be tomorrow's > enemy. I agree completely. We do need defense. Who knows? Soon we may require it to prevent the USA from sending troops and weapons into Canada. They have already stated that they would do as much without consulting with us first. --- Marc Majka - UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision
woodham@ubc-vision.CDN (Bob Woodham) (01/17/85)
I am always disturbed by talk of war with winners and losers. It is ludicrous to think that a military buildup, conventional or otherwise, could defend Canadian sovereignty from overt attack. Parading around with new weapons may make Canadians feel more secure but surely that is an illusion. Reality is more subtle. Sovereignty does demand strength but the nature of that strength is no longer military. Some years ago, the US proposed to send oil tankers through the northwest passage. Canada was concerned because of the potential damage an oil spill would cause to the arctic environment. The official US position was that the passage was in international waters and Canada had no jurisdiction. The official Canadian position was that the passage was inland waters and Canadian regulations would have to be satisfied. There was intense posturing on both sides. In days gone by, it might even have been something to go to war over. In the end, Canada more or less won out and extensive modifications were made to the tanker ship Manhatten. In my view, the reason was simply that Canadian ice-breakers were essential to the project and the possibility that Canadian ship support would be withdrawn was enough to sway the outcome. Canada could assert its sovereignty because it had an appropriate presence in the region. Acid rain is a serious long-term threat. What will be required to assert Canadian sovereignty over our lakes and vegetation? Canadians are fortunate to inhabit a large and resource rich chunk of land. Sovereignty does not follow from divine right supported by military might. Sovereignty follows from social, economic, technical and cultural strength. It my view, the best path to security is collectively to perfect the skills required to be successful in our own environment. That is the most effective leverage against the destruction of either ourselves or our environment. I would feel more secure if I were sure that militarism could be made obsolete. Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. provided hopeful examples. That is the kind of strength that I look to in this star-wars age.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (01/18/85)
*
Picture this:
A certain country that recently fought a war over an almost barren piece
of rock delves into its records and miraculously comes up with a claim
to P.E.I. ( One island's as good as the next ). This country informs
the Canadian Government that it intends to take control of P.E.I.
Naturally, the Government politely tells this country that they're
off their collective rocker. Said country, known from past experience
to be somewhat on the militaristic side, promptly declares war ( usually
a good way to divert attention away from domestic problems ) and sends
its warships to P.E.I. with the intention of backing up its claim with
guns. The Canadian military, almost non-existent due to neglect, is no
match. An U.N. resolution is passed condemning the invasion and
calling for trade sanctions and what-have-you. This U.N. resolution
has just about as much clout as most of its predecessors. Result: no
more P.E.I.
What's that? Did you say that that was an *amazingly* unlikely scenario??
Yep, it sure was. But then again who in the world would have thought
that an obscure Austrian would have had the ability to single handedly
plunge the world into war.
The point of the above was to illustrate that there *are* times when
it is necessary to use force to defend one's self, and that no other
substitute will do. If it were not for the fact that there are several
wars violently raging in various parts of the world at this moment
I might be inclined to take a more mellow view, however, it is rather
obvious to anyone who watches the 11 o'clock news that a large segment
of humanity has not progressed out of the if-you-don't-listen-to-me-
I'll-beat-your-head-in phase of development. It is for this reason that
a credible defence is necessary.
Note that I am not advocating a *nuclear* military build-up. In a
sense I am not even advocating a conventional weapons build-up. What
I am saying is that if we're going to have a military then for crying
out loud give them the tools with which to properly do their job.
I have not read Peter Newman's book "True North, Not Strong and Free"
but I have heard him talk about it and if what he had to say about the
state of the military is true then to put it bluntly Barbados could
probably take P.E.I. if it wanted to.
Marc is right that it is possible to have a credible defence without
being involved in NATO and NORAD. Personally, I'd prefer Canada to
stay in these two organisations, but if it came down to withdrawing
from them and doing a proper job at home, or continuing in the same
half-*ssed manner I'd take the former.
I suspect that the success of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr can
be largely attributed to the fact that Britain and the U.S. are
basically open societies *and* that the *citizens* of those countries,
thru the democratic process, have a say in the direction of their
respective countries. Thus it was possible for these people to say that
the policies of the U.S. and British governments were unjust and for
their call for justice to be heard by the citizenry. This situation
does not exist in many ( a majority, I think ) countries. Not only
is it not possible to sway public opinion in these countries due
to their closed nature, but even if it were swayed it is unlikely
that that would make any difference to the unelected leaders who
have been known to use extremely harsh measures to quash dissent.
( USSR and any one of several South American countries are examples )
It is for the above reasons that I think that it would be an
exercise in futility for a given country to unilaterally lay
down its arms and adopt a pacifist type of attitude in the hope
that its example would be followed by *all* others. ( the word
'all' is emphasised because nothing short of all will do, for
obvious reasons ) Reality being what it is, I'd rather be safe
than sorry.
My philosophy concerning defence can be summarised by one short
sentence:
A country that does not demonstrate the will to defend itself should
not be surprised if it one day gets beat up.
J.B. Robinsonelf@utcsrgv.UUCP (Eugene Fiume) (01/18/85)
[] In today's fun-filled world, what exactly is a "credible defence"? How much would a "credible defence" cost? What colour uniforms should be worn by members of a "credible defence"? Eugene Fiume utcsrgv!elf
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (01/19/85)
> ... Sovereignty does demand strength but the nature of > that strength is no longer military. > ... > Sovereignty does not follow from divine right supported by military might. > Sovereignty follows from social, economic, technical and cultural strength. > It my view, the best path to security is collectively to perfect the skills > required to be successful in our own environment. That is the most > effective leverage against the destruction of either ourselves or our > environment. > ... > I would feel more secure if I were sure that militarism could be made > obsolete. Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. provided hopeful examples. > That is the kind of strength that I look to in this star-wars age. I'm sure this is a great comfort to the Afghans, who are armed with WWI rifles and are trying to fight tanks and helicopters. "The pen is mightier than the sword, but which would *you* rather be armed with in a duel?" In the current world environment, the ability to defend yourself against armed aggression is often one of the skills required to survive, let alone be successful. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (01/24/85)
* >In today's fun-filled world, what exactly is a "credible defence"? In my opinion a credible defence should a) be capable of detecting would-be attackers long before penetration into home territory occurs, and b) be of sufficient strength and readiness that said attacker will find invading this country to be an extremely costly ( in all senses of the word ) venture. Coincidentally, I heard today on the radio that that venerable institution, the Senate, has decided that Canada's air defence system is totally inadequate and needs a massive overhaul. >How much would a "credible defence" cost? This is the type of question a good conservative asks. So I suppose I could give the standard conservative reply which is: as far national defence is concerned the cost is what it takes to do the job properly. However, among other things, that is an extremely vague answer so with the help of one Peter Newman let's get a little more precise. In 1983 Canadian defence expenditures were $8 billion which worked out to 1.8% of the GNP. In "True North, not Strong and Free" Peter Newman advocates annual increases in the military budget of about $2 billion until defence expenditures account for 3.6% of the GNP. This would put Canada on par with such countries as Sweden (3.1%), the Netherlands (3.4%), and Australia (3.0%). We'd still be behind Britain (5.3%) and France (4.1%). It is of interest to note that no other NATO country spends less, as a proportion of its GNP, than Canada. >What colour uniforms should be worn by members of a "credible defence"? I've always been partial to metallic orange, but I think the ultimate decision should be made by those who are going to have to wear them. The brother of a good friend of mine is in the Canadian "Navy", and he agrees that giving back the services their own distinctive colours would be a morale booster. Considering everything else they have to put up with I don't think that this is asking too much. The following are excerpts from Newman's book: -- As the Senate's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs noted recently: "The current Canadian level of expenditures on defence does little more than buy the country the worst of both worlds. While the expenditures are large enough to represent a significant charge on the national exchequer, they are too small to produce worthwhile results" -- -An American version of Canada's CF-104, which for another two years (until the new CF-18s come fully into service) will be our main air weapon in NATO, is considered so outdated that it has recently been added to the historical exhibits of the United States Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. -The computers that operate the firing systems on most of our warships depend on antiquated vacuum tubes. Only two factories still turn out such obsolete equipment: one is located in Poland, the other in the USSR. -Despite our climate and geography, our army has no oversnow vehicles. In one winter exercise, held on Melville Island in the Arctic, Canada's armoured personnel carriers managed to move less than thirty-five kilometres a day - about half the distance covered by a not particularly perky dogsled team. -If we met our existing NATO commitments, fewer than three thousand troops would remain on Canadian soil to defend Canada's home territory in any future war. (It took sixteen thousand service personnel to provide security during the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal.) -Although the Soviets have close to half a million undersea mines, at the moment our only defence against these deadly weapons is one squad of very nervous frogmen, groping around harbour bottoms with hand-held sonar sets -- Smaller than the British Columbia ferry system, Canada's navy has been left behind by the advancing technology of war at sea. Of our twenty fighting ships, all but four are between nineteen and twenty-seven years old; their hulls have become so thin and shaky that masking tape has had to be used to keep seawater from damaging electronic instruments. While these destroyers retain a fair anti-submarine capability, they have no defence at all against Exocet-style missiles and wouldn't last an hour in the kind of weapons exchange that took place in the Falklands War. J.B. Robinson