Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Yep. Good book.
While we do obviously want to be an independent nation, I still think you have to seriously consider that the US will blow the crap out of anyone that comes within 10 miles of invading Canada.
Because of that I don't think its necessary to load up on equipment that we don't really need. And I would start getting rid of equipment that is out of date and falling apart.
I don't think we need a military that has aircraft carriers, although one would be pretty damn cool. Nor do we need a large amount of tanks, fighter jets etc, etc.
Instead we should go for the lean and mean approach. Make sure that our infantry has more than enough resources to do its job, and make a stronger effort and perhaps pour even more money into JTF-2, and maybe even a different special forces unit.
I'm not saying to totally get rid of all our fighter jets, just saying that we don't need so many of them. The US would scramble their whole airforce for us if Canada were to be invaded.
We have something good going with JTF-2 and other infantry units that have preformed remarkably well in Afghanistan. We should focus on doing that better than anyone else in the world.
|
I completely disagree with the concept of specializing your military. As we've seen in the last few decades, every conflict has been completely different. We've seen a shift from mass air power, to fast moving armor to special forces and beyond.
Our Military is really there for three reasons. First and foremost to protect our national interests. Its great that we have an ally like the American's who can add to our punch since we still seriously punch below our weight. But we need an airforce to protect our airspace, especially since we represent the northern trip wire in the Norad alliance. The ability to project an interception capability allows us to protect our airspace, especially since the Russian's have begun to ramp up their bomber excercises up north. Because of the events of 9/11 we know know that we need air defense capabilities. Our fighters can also act as interdiction against un-authorized craft used for smuggling.
Because the Arctic is becoming such an important area for resource development we need to have a combination naval and air approach to protect it. We also use our submarine and navy access on all three shores for drug interdiction, smuggling actions, and protection against Illegal fishing. Its also important to have that survaillance capability against hostile sub and surface vessels that are capable of naval launch. Our Navy also works in concert with our Nato allies and are key in UN missions around the world.
Because of our support for NATO and the UN in a more limited role, we need armoured vehicles, Tanks are becoming more important because they're a natural counter to IEDs, and also provide long range fire support for troops on the ground. We also need general infantry and specialized infantry that can commit to these deployments.
Special forces can only take you so far, and while they're effective at their specialities, there is still a heavy requirement for less specialized troops that can fight and provide security.
Its just like I never agreed with the concept of building a specialized force for peacekeeping. The concept of peace keeping is dead. The day of the blue Beret acting as social workers and standing in between warring sides is over because of asymetrical warfare. In order to be effective you have to partake in peace enforcement. there has to be the ability to enforce the peace, and defend the innocent, and for that you need armored vehicles, artillary, guys with guns, air support and the ability to supply and withdraw your troops without depending on other nations.
Because of the constantly changinign faces of war, you need to have a well rounded military that can effectively fight and deploy in any kind of situation.