Why no-one invades Switzerland. Very interesting gun culture. Would it work here?

[TomCanuck]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I didn't mean they wanted to. I meant they were about the only two countries geographically and militarily capable of invading, and who might have the strategic interests to do so.

Fair enough, would have been better if you had qualified it as such.

[openfire]

Why is someone planning on invading Canada?

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by openfire

Why is someone planning on invading Canada?

For our rich resources and good looking women.

TF

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by TriggerFinger

For our rich resources and good looking women.

TF

Aren't you talking about the same thing?

[twofifty]

Here is an interesting link to America's 1930s to 1970s contingency plans should they find themselves at war with the UK. Because the US assumed the UK would use Canada as a springboard, the impact on us would have been significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

The same link mentions Canada's "Defence Scheme 1", which was a 1920s era Canadian first-strike on the US border, to gain time until the UK came to the rescue.

Of course all of this was in the days when technology did not play the force multiplying role that it now does.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by TomCanuck

I don't think the Canadian Forces would benefit, from having draftees in the ranks. In my view, a professional military is better. Mandatory public service of some sort, maybe.

I disagree.

The best way to engage citizens during a war is to send a nation... not an army.

Military service would go a long way towards promoting patriatism and to ensure that we had a pool of experienced citisens to draw upon should the need arise.
If healthy young adults were compelled to serve for a year or two it would instill in them a different ethos that would be carried with them as they moved on to become business and political leaders.
That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

That said, a draft formed soley to feed an ongoing war would be disasterous.... more trouble than we already had.

[TomCanuck]

Originally Posted by pesky672

I disagree.

The best way to engage citizens during a war is to send a nation... not an army.

Military service would go a long way towards promoting patriatism and to ensure that we had a pool of experienced citisens to draw upon should the need arise.
If healthy young adults were compelled to serve for a year or two it would instill in them a different ethos that would be carried with them as they moved on to become business and political leaders.
That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

That said, a draft formed soley to feed an ongoing war would be disasterous.... more trouble than we already had.

WRT WW I and II, and other existential wars, it's important that the entire nation mobilizes, but with modern wars in a Canadian context it is not needed. A modern military requires a lot more training and the investment associated with it is not small. As ADH said, they need people who want to be there.

That said, I think most people could get something out of national service, just don't think it's doable in Canada. The backlash would be huge, and the costs would be high as well.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by TomCanuck

WRT WW I and II, and other existential wars, it's important that the entire nation mobilizes, but with modern wars in a Canadian context it is not needed. A modern military requires a lot more training and the investment associated with it is not small. As ADH said, they need people who want to be there.

That said, I think most people could get something out of national service, just don't think it's doable in Canada. The backlash would be huge, and the costs would be high as well.

Wrong.
It is important... not in the moment perhaps but within the larger picture and over time.
There is more to this than simply winning battles.
It is important that every citizen feel they have a vested interest in success.
Thats a lot easier when everyones kids are or could be fighting and not just those that stepped foreward.
Further, drafts often have the effect that they spur people towards volunteering... either out of a wish to not be left out... or because they wish it to be their choice. That phenomena tends to cross generations... the father that served albiet as a drafteee has a kid who admiires his service that decides to volunteer for his own adventure.

(Not a nice way of putting it... highly manipulative but hey... thats war.... it is almost never nice or fair)

Anyone that has been in the military should stop and think about things like equipment and budgets.

Do any of you think we would have been stuck with thoise iltis's and left begging for gear we now have if half the politicians in Ottawa had kids in the stan?
Does anyone here believe we would have tried fighting on a shestring budget or have the problems so many do with Veterans Affairs if the PM's son had been over there?
Or id 125% of everyonelses kids were being lined up for service.

Would we still have those Sea Kings?

How many less people would whine about military spending to the government knowing that they might be cutting their own kids throat?

Would we be so worried about the nitty gritty and colateral damage and culturally sensitive buildings?

No.

That luxury would have been tossed out the window in favour of a bigger better equipped military before hostilities and a flood of support once the war started instead of band-aide... quicke fixes forced only after a few peopel died needlessly and it became known.

Folks wish we had a military like the US.
They have that military because they had a draft for so long.
They are losing it because they stopped it 30 or so years ago.

In another 20 years... their soldiers will be just as undersupported by their government as Canadians soldiers usually are.


A daft is not just about boots on the ground it is an application of long term practical tactical thinking and strategy.

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by riden

I don't thnk mandatory anything would ever fly in this country. Canadians generally really feel their country should serve them, not the other way wrong.

Not even mandatory education????... hmmmm... weird

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Wrong.
It is important... not in the moment perhaps but within the larger picture and over time.
There is more to this than simply winning battles.
It is important that every citizen feel they have a vested interest in success.
Thats a lot easier when everyones kids are or could be fighting and not just those that stepped foreward.
Further, drafts often have the effect that they spur people towards volunteering... either out of a wish to not be left out... or because they wish it to be their choice. That phenomena tends to cross generations... the father that served albiet as a drafteee has a kid who admiires his service that decides to volunteer for his own adventure.

(Not a nice way of putting it... highly manipulative but hey... thats war.... it is almost never nice or fair)

Anyone that has been in the military should stop and think about things like equipment and budgets.

Do any of you think we would have been stuck with thoise iltis's and left begging for gear we now have if half the politicians in Ottawa had kids in the stan?
Does anyone here believe we would have tried fighting on a shestring budget or have the problems so many do with Veterans Affairs if the PM's son had been over there?
Or id 125% of everyonelses kids were being lined up for service.

Would we still have those Sea Kings?

How many less people would whine about military spending to the government knowing that they might be cutting their own kids throat?

Would we be so worried about the nitty gritty and colateral damage and culturally sensitive buildings?

No.

That luxury would have been tossed out the window in favour of a bigger better equipped military before hostilities and a flood of support once the war started instead of band-aide... quicke fixes forced only after a few peopel died needlessly and it became known.

Folks wish we had a military like the US.
They have that military because they had a draft for so long.
They are losing it because they stopped it 30 or so years ago.

In another 20 years... their soldiers will be just as undersupported by their government as Canadians soldiers usually are.


A daft is not just about boots on the ground it is an application of long term practical tactical thinking and strategy.

Talk about in need of spell check....not to mention point of meaning check???
What is it your getting at???
It hurt to read this....usually your pretty good at explaining ur point....maybe u need a power nap to recharge

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by mtngiant

Not even mandatory education????... hmmmm... weird

Actually... that sort of explains a lot of what is posted here sometimes....

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by mtngiant

Talk about in need of spell check....not to mention point of meaning check???
What is it your getting at???
It hurt to read this....usually your pretty good at explaining ur point....maybe u need a power nap to recharge

Just being lazy....

Point is... long term drafts are a good thing and even a recently killed draft in Canada.. would have made sure our guys had everything they needed BEFORE they got sent into the fray.

That I'm tired of the ... I support the military (in principle only) as long as its someone elses kid actually doing the fighting threads.
My thought is that we'd have more tanks and less fridge magnets on pickup trucks if we had a long established draft.

[uglyelk]

I agree with your posts pesky!

I have always believe we should have 3 years mandatory service 19 to 22 yrs of age. Countries that do appear to have strong support for the military, a military that is well supplied and funded!

I grew up with a father in the military. Year after year I watched them asked the troops to do more. And every year they gave them less with which to accomplish the goals. Every time the government tried to balance a budget they did it at the troops expense.

Was encouraged to see Harper try to change things. Not sure now!

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by uglyelk

I agree with your posts pesky!

I have always believe we should have 3 years mandatory service 19 to 22 yrs of age. Countries that do appear to have strong support for the military, a military that is well supplied and funded!

I grew up with a father in the military. Year after year I watched them asked the troops to do more. And every year they gave them less with which to accomplish the goals. Every time the government tried to balance a budget they did it at the troops expense.

Was encouraged to see Harper try to change things. Not sure now!

Thats EVERY Canadian soldiers story.

Watch... now that things are winding down in the stan the belt tightening has started.
It will contnue until a few more other peoples kids get clipped.

Its always the same story.
In Bosnia guys had to construct their own add on armor for carriers and buy their own defencive stores.
In Afghanstan they had to die to convince the government that soft skinned vehicles... the equivalent to your family car weren't bullet proof.

I'd be willing to bet that wouldn't be such a hard sell if more voters had been faced with that prospect themselves.

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

Aren't you talking about the same thing?

Well said

TF

[ali#1]

Nobody invades Switzerland because they have all the secret bank accounts.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by TomCanuck

Too much CBC methinks.

Not really.
It is well known that both countries have (in the past) drawn attack plans for a war should that occur.

I know one gentleman that was sent to the US as an exchange officer and his secondary responsability was to assess attack lanes through Monatana.

That was just prior to WWII.

We'd be fools to thionk that the US doesn't have contingency plans now if for no reason other than the possability that they might have to invade... to help us.
We on the other hand probably do not have such plans because the possability of Canada launching a successful invasion of the states is too far fetched for words.

The CIA World Factbook assess our military potential ...the signs are there.
But... it is simply not discussed for obvious reasons.
They maintain that information on allies and enemies alike for good reason.

At some point friends squabble.

I would bet the farm that the plan for the invasion of Iraq was penciled in years ago when they were friends. When the time came to actually do it... they pulled it out...blew the dust off and updated a couple of bits.