No more MBT’s for Canada

[Cyrien]

The problem is quite simple. Most nations, correctly or incorrectly, don't see a real need for large conventional forces.

So... the short answer, the Canadians don't need large expensive fleets or armored forces in todays world climate.

The long explanation is something like this:

First, simply... the US can out produce and out buy just about any other nation out there with technology at least as good if not better with a decent sized population to draw on.

Thus in the face of that you can either try unconventional methods to fight them aka terrorism etc... or you can be friends with them. The current approach of many nations. OR a position I totally disagree with but which some are increasingly supporting, you can ally with others to attempt to create a counter force capable of going toe to toe in a conventional and nuclear frame.
The counter force used to be USSR to the USA or Warsaw pact to NATO. That is no more. Some European nations have expressed a desire to unite Europe into a new such counter force. This is IMHO a recipe for disaster.

Now looking at things in that perspective it doesn't make sense for most modern nations, especially those on quite good terms with the USA, to posses extremely large and expensive military forces. It doesn't make sense for enemies to either unless they can at least equal the US force. That is what Saddam tried to do when in the 1990's he had the third largest military force in the world. Unfortunatly the US military force is equiavlent to something like the next 20 all combined into one, at least in the early 90's.

So quite simply... all you need for your military really is enough to ensure your protection against other nations like you or enough to aid your big ally aka the USA and thus ensure their aid in any potential conflict.

To put it in SE4 terms. If you have two MEE's then there isn't a MEE. All the little guys who want to survive either have to play the ballance game between the two or ally with one and hope for its protection if the other moves against it. This would be the Cold War.

If you have one MEE then the little guys ally with the big guy and hope he doesn't turn on them or form up into an alliance of all of them that hopefully can stand upto the big guy.

It is quite complicated but that is the sum of it. As I see it anyways. If you read this far then YAY! for you.

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Cyrien:
So quite simply... all you need for your military really is enough to ensure your protection against other nations like you or enough to aid your big ally aka the USA and thus ensure their aid in any potential conflict.

Are you proposing that we just hand over our armed forces to the US and turn over the responsibility of defense of Canada to the US?

That won't happen anytime soon.

[ October 31, 2003, 02:15: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[Baron Grazic]

After checking out the size of the Canadain Navy, I had to find out about the full size of the Australian Navy. I knew we had new Subs (that bloody needed repairing 1 year after we bought them) and some new Frigates. Seems pretty close to the Candian forces.

If Cyrien's thoughts are correct, our forces should be susficient to handle our seas, with our ally, the US forces ensuring no big nations threaten us.

Personally I think I'm pretty save too, since my boss has a photo of himself and George W. from his short trip down-under. Always good knowing I'm just 2-degrees of seperation away from the US President.

[Cyrien]

Of course it won't. I didn't suggest that. As the part you quoted itself says. You maintain enough to fight off independently the other nations of like ability and capacity. Enough to aid the big ally. Enough to make sure the big guy doesn't think it is worth it to go after you.

And perhaps most important of all enough to maintain a national sense of pride in ones own armed forces.

I doubt most nations in the world would give up their own forces and trust in the single big ally to protect them. In fact that would probably be a good invitation to being slowly absorbed into the other.

As I said. All of that was just my analysis of the situation.

Edit: Spelling? Isn't that what wizards do?

[ October 31, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[tesco samoa]

I have a friend who serves on one of the Frigates. He states that the ship can stop from full speed at twice its length. A real Rush.

[Instar]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The Soviets probably built the most state of the art stink boats, some were even boomers.

No offense, but thats plain wrong. The Soviet subs compared to American subs pretty much sucked. Soviet subs were loud. The November class lacked sufficient radiation shielding. The Akulas I think can go really fast, but make a bucketload of noise. Their boomers were the same way until recently. Soviet electronics were horrid, American electronic systems were far ahead (giving better sonar abilities to the US).
Now, the Soviets did have a few good ones, but the Los Angelos class (and more recently, SeaWolf, even though only 3) and Ohio class blow the heck outta anything in the water today.

[Cyrien]

By stink boats I think he meant not nuke powered subs but the diesel ones. US nuclear powered subs are superior to anything out there. However I don't think the US made any major investments in diesel subs and the Soviets did.

Can't say for certain though as modern diesel subs really aren't something I keep up on other than a little here and there.