I keep coming back to what is the mission, what are the threats, what is the strategy. Canada as a whole is indefensible, but most of it isn’t worth attacking either. I don’t see defending Canadian soil as a realistic requirement. Jets and surveillance on the coasts ought to do it.
A more real threat is to our sovereignty over remote and offshore resources. Can we push back if Russia or others lay claim to our Territorial waters, particularly in the arctic as it opens up. That calls for an arctic naval presence with some sort of deterrence capability.
Other than that, I believe there is value to being in NATO and standing with countries who are willing to fight for what is right. I think we do great things with training that we should continue, and we should support a small, light, but fully equipped and capable land force for potential hot spots like Eastern Europe. I think the days of peacekeeping are over though.
I agree with the previous poster(s) who said to get politics out of it. Decide what missions and threats we want to deal with, set a budget, and let the military manage it (assuming they are competent).
As an off the wall idea, could several smaller militaries band together, agree on a standard build out, and bulk purchase the necessary gear?
|