Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Canadian Military Message-ID: <925@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 23:53:39 EST Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.925 Posted: Thu Jan 17 23:53:39 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 10:55:50 EST References: <797@ubc-vision.CDN> Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 75 Summary: * Picture this: A certain country that recently fought a war over an almost barren piece of rock delves into its records and miraculously comes up with a claim to P.E.I. ( One island's as good as the next ). This country informs the Canadian Government that it intends to take control of P.E.I. Naturally, the Government politely tells this country that they're off their collective rocker. Said country, known from past experience to be somewhat on the militaristic side, promptly declares war ( usually a good way to divert attention away from domestic problems ) and sends its warships to P.E.I. with the intention of backing up its claim with guns. The Canadian military, almost non-existent due to neglect, is no match. An U.N. resolution is passed condemning the invasion and calling for trade sanctions and what-have-you. This U.N. resolution has just about as much clout as most of its predecessors. Result: no more P.E.I. What's that? Did you say that that was an *amazingly* unlikely scenario?? Yep, it sure was. But then again who in the world would have thought that an obscure Austrian would have had the ability to single handedly plunge the world into war. The point of the above was to illustrate that there *are* times when it is necessary to use force to defend one's self, and that no other substitute will do. If it were not for the fact that there are several wars violently raging in various parts of the world at this moment I might be inclined to take a more mellow view, however, it is rather obvious to anyone who watches the 11 o'clock news that a large segment of humanity has not progressed out of the if-you-don't-listen-to-me- I'll-beat-your-head-in phase of development. It is for this reason that a credible defence is necessary. Note that I am not advocating a *nuclear* military build-up. In a sense I am not even advocating a conventional weapons build-up. What I am saying is that if we're going to have a military then for crying out loud give them the tools with which to properly do their job. I have not read Peter Newman's book "True North, Not Strong and Free" but I have heard him talk about it and if what he had to say about the state of the military is true then to put it bluntly Barbados could probably take P.E.I. if it wanted to. Marc is right that it is possible to have a credible defence without being involved in NATO and NORAD. Personally, I'd prefer Canada to stay in these two organisations, but if it came down to withdrawing from them and doing a proper job at home, or continuing in the same half-*ssed manner I'd take the former. I suspect that the success of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr can be largely attributed to the fact that Britain and the U.S. are basically open societies *and* that the *citizens* of those countries, thru the democratic process, have a say in the direction of their respective countries. Thus it was possible for these people to say that the policies of the U.S. and British governments were unjust and for their call for justice to be heard by the citizenry. This situation does not exist in many ( a majority, I think ) countries. Not only is it not possible to sway public opinion in these countries due to their closed nature, but even if it were swayed it is unlikely that that would make any difference to the unelected leaders who have been known to use extremely harsh measures to quash dissent. ( USSR and any one of several South American countries are examples ) It is for the above reasons that I think that it would be an exercise in futility for a given country to unilaterally lay down its arms and adopt a pacifist type of attitude in the hope that its example would be followed by *all* others. ( the word 'all' is emphasised because nothing short of all will do, for obvious reasons ) Reality being what it is, I'd rather be safe than sorry. My philosophy concerning defence can be summarised by one short sentence: A country that does not demonstrate the will to defend itself should not be surprised if it one day gets beat up. J.B. Robinson