Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.CDN
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!majka
From: majka@ubc-vision.CDN (Marc Majka)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Canadian Military
Message-ID: <795@ubc-vision.CDN>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 15:29:20 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.795
Posted: Wed Jan 16 15:29:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 17:49:04 EST
Organization: UBC Computational Vision Lab, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 59


Jim Robinson recently raised the issue of Canada's mititary:

> That Canada should be taken for granted in this manner is  unfortunate
> but not unexpected. For years this country has paid only token attention
> to its armed forces, secure in the knowledge that no other country would
> dare do battle with us because of the presence of our neighbour to the
> South who carries a mighty big stick. This has resulted in a loss of 
> Canada's sovereignty as one can hardly bite the hand that feeds, or
> in this case protects, one. 

I do not see exactly how this loss of sovereignty works.  Have our
neighbours like the USSR, Denmark, France, or the USA recently annexed any
of our territory?  It is true that we have made fishing agreements with some
of these countries, but none of them has brought military might to bear on
our fishing disputes.  Nor have I heard any mention of our military in any
trade agreements.

As a Canadian, I do not feel protected by the USA.  The fact that they have
"a mighty big stick" (a.k.a. tens of thousands of nuclear bombs) doesn't
ease my sleep.  If anything, I feel threatened by them.  From their history,
and from recent statements from them, it seems apparent that the USA doesn't
mind waltzing their troops into any country.  They say that they are only
protecting the free world.  That's just military paternalism to me. 

Jim suggests that we could concentrate our efforts on our own *defense*,
through bodies like the Coast Guard.  I like that idea.  Defense here is
used in its original meaning, not the military doublespeak version.  I don't
see why, however, this requires dismantling our armed forces.  They can
defend our borders as well as the Coast Guard.  The Swiss have armed forces
to defend their country, not a "Mountain Guard".

> On the other hand, if we are going to have a military then it behoves
> us to do it properly. If we had our own credible defence then it would be
> much easier for us to protest those actions by the US which take us
> for granted. We could rightly claim to be partners with the US working
> towards a common goal and expect/demand to be treated as such, under
> threat of going it alone if necessary. As it is now, we're just
> kinda along for the ride.

Why is this on the other hand?  I see no problem with a Canadian Military.
I really don't see why we need to have a strong military in order to be able
to show the USA that we are "working towards a common goal".  What common
goal?  What does it mean to threaten the USA that we would "go it alone"?
Where would we go if we did?

> My own opinion is that a sizable sovereign nation, such as Canada,  
> should have a credible defence. Even the *neutral* Swiss who haven't
> been at war for untold years have this. Looking back to WW2 it can be
> noted that yesterday's enemy is today's friend. I don't think that it 
> is too far fetched to think that today's friend may be tomorrow's
> enemy.

I agree completely.  We do need defense.  Who knows?  Soon we may require it
to prevent the USA from sending troops and weapons into Canada.  They have
already stated that they would do as much without consulting with us first.

---
Marc Majka - UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision