Decision Canada 2006

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Expanding the Military is not a road for Canada

Conservative leader Steven Harper in last election’s debates made comments about increasing military spending. Martin was against that and Layton was too. Why is it that Harper believes that Federal spending should put more money into the military. Frankly I have no idea.

Lets put this into proportion. Harper plans to lower taxes, thus lowering the amount of money that the government takes in. Great less money out of citizens’ pockets, and less money for all public services except for one, the military. More money for the military from less tax money. This sounds like a great plan. Cut spending on healthcare, education, transportation, and provincial support, and put it into a military with no influence within the world. This does not seem like a brilliance economic move.

What real benefits come from a some-what larger military. Possibly more jobs, but jobs that would be lost from cuts to other government industries anyway. Its not like Canada is going to become a dominant world power with Harper’s military spending increase, so what’s the point? It just hurts Canada economically and socially.


  • Well, Canada's military is taking on more and more of a search and rescue / relief role than more "combat" roles. I don't believe that lowering taxes will cause reductions in services if ways to cut the bloat (and don't tell me there is no bloat) that exists. We need someone like Jim Pattison, someone who has some business results behind him, someone who isn't afraid to take risks.

    By Blogger Andrew, at 11:31 PM  

  • Being able to defend our soverignty would be nice, too. In not too many more years, the Northwest Passage could be an impressive source of revinue for the country - the problem is, the Danes know that too, and have already invaded our land on at least one occasion to annex Hans Island. If this becomes the money-maker that many individuals think it will be - it will take more then the rangers, with their Lee-Enfield rifles to defend our land.

    I'm not advocating an army with the ability to take over large countries, but defending our own would be nice.

    By Blogger Greg P, at 6:16 AM  

  • What's the point? Well, it would be kind of nice for our soldiers not to have to worry about falling out of the sky or people in distress worrying whether the equipment will fail before they're winched to safety. It would also be just to have our soldiers paid commensurate to the risks they undertake for us. And I agree with greg p: the US is salivating over the Northwest Passage, which is why they don't recognize the arctic as belonging to us. Non-mickey mouse, functioning equipment, manned properly, patrolling our arctic would belie their claim.

    By Blogger talk talk talk, at 10:53 AM  

  • Everyone is under the impression that the Canadian Military SUCKS!. This is not true. Sure we may not have an army worthy of the Western World and capable of defending against a forgeign invasion on all fronts, but we have a fine army that is able to patrol the seas and provide help [and if needed, military defense/support]. If you will check, our army has sophisticated weaponry and good vehicles. If the chinese were to invade Canada, Canada would be able to hold out for a bit. Canada has plenty of ships to patrol the artic and other areas. We have 4 old subs that are still capable and are the best we can get without getting nuclear. We have had a great history in Peace Keeping missions and our war history is also not too bad. Now however we are not getting that involved in military missions. Why? It is not the job of the Western World (and certainly not Canada OR the US) to police the world. Do we need to expand our military? No. We have an advanced army with good technology that could destroy the Danish army any time we wanted.

    By Blogger blazer, at 11:06 PM  

  • Unless the Danes come in from the North. Then, to put it bluntly, we're screwed.

    We need helecopters that require somewhere less then 20 hours of maitenance for every flight-hour (the sea king was 30-1, the replacement is around 24-1... the EH-101, had it come in, would have required somewhere around 10-1 I believe)

    We need some sort of heavy air lift capacity - instead of relying on the Russians to get our peacekeeping troops to and from deployments.

    We need a replacement for the CL-41 Tutors. One or two more lost, the Snowbirds won't be able to do their shows.

    Our submarines require a fair bit of work to make them fully mission-capable, however they are a good start. For the inshore work that our subs will be getting, diesel-electric subs will be better than nuclear subs anyways.

    That is what I know offhand, a bit more research could probably find some more material deficiencies.

    By Blogger Greg P, at 8:06 AM  

  • That is exactly the attitude that Canadians have every day. I for one am frustrated that most Canadians think that even an attack from the Vatican will leave us helpless. They do not research the actual quality and numbers of our military. Research your stuff and then say that our military is incapable.

    By Blogger blazer, at 8:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home