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