someguy3 t1_j9wj2c7 wrote
8 down, 74 to go.
Lemondish t1_j9xoztw wrote
If the report in January is true, and only 15 are said to be operational and ready to use for the Canadian Forces, we're going to need to replenish - and soon. One hopes the Liberals find a way to get over their disdain for military funding and procurement and equip our forces properly.
That said, if Ukraine needs them, even the ones in a state of disrepair, then we should be sending them. I don't care if the next shipment is just boxes of parts, if they can use them, then do it lol
AllTheSingleCheeses t1_j9ycv3h wrote
Canada does not have a great need for armored forces. I understand the reasons it maintains an armored force, but there won't be a "caught with their pants down" situation because of some missing tanks
1dererLives t1_j9yv8jk wrote
>Canada does not have a great need for armored forces.
Yes, yes we do. The idea that we don't is the sort of conclusion that people with no defence or security policy background come to when they think about the situation. It does not represent an informed perspective.
In reality, not having strong armoured forces already got us caught with our pants down in Afghanistan--resulting in dead Canadian soldiers--and in any event in which we immediately have to deploy overseas, we will immediately be caught with our pants down again.
And while the effects of not having tanks in Afghanistan were bad, but the effects of not having tanks against an actual military force would be horrible. Canada's ground forces as a whole would be crippled.
And of course, depending on the size and scope of the conflict, Canada's ability to import tanks at any given time could be extremely limited---meaning that the country's would be unable to rapidly replenish its defensive capabilities in a time where they are desperately needed.
And this of course doesn't even factor in the need to defend against attacks on domestic soil, which we do in-fact need, even with the U.S. right next to us. "Unlikely but possible" scenarios still need to be defended against.
AllTheSingleCheeses t1_j9yzgwl wrote
> not having strong armoured forces already got us caught with our pants down in Afghanistan
Tanks played a small role in Afghanistan. It was a fight for light infantry supported by air power. The only way tanks saved soldier's lives is by being armored against roadside bombs, a job done better (and more cheaply) by MRAP-style vehicles. There was no need for the treads or main cannon in Afghanistan
> in any event in which we immediately have to deploy overseas
That's something a tank can't do. They are too heavy and logistics-heavy to be quickly deployed. The armored forces Canada had in Afghanistan were reliant on US logistics as well as loaned equipment from countries like Germany and the Netherlands. An agile force is better off without too much weight
> Canada's ability to import tanks at any given time could be extremely limited
Are you calling for Canada to build its own tanks? And being able to build your own tanks means not just building your own tanks, but continuing to build new tanks for generations or else you lose the capability. This is why Canada buys jets, but it builds non-tank armored vehicles itself
> the effects of not having tanks against an actual military force would be horrible
I'm not calling for Canada to throw out its armored units. I'm saying they can send their current inventory to Ukraine without sacrificing security in any real way. The Canadian land, sea, and air units are more than capable of defending Canada. Any kind of overseas contingency that Canada would go to would be with other allies (when has Canada fought alone?) and couldn't have tanks in-theater quickly anyway
A_Bored_Canadian t1_j9yvev5 wrote
Not tanks no. We could sure beef up the navy though
AllTheSingleCheeses t1_j9ywvc3 wrote
Why, to steal islands from Denmark?
A_Bored_Canadian t1_j9z2d02 wrote
Those sneaky Danish bastards and the peaceful transfer of territory. But no really just cause we border 3 oceans so our navy shouldn't suck.
SteelCrow t1_j9ywy5c wrote
> Canada does not have a great need for armored forces
We have treaty commitments and national defense. We cannot rely on the USA. Particularly if they get another Trump idiot in office.
1dererLives t1_j9yvgp5 wrote
> One hopes the Liberals find a way to get over their disdain for military funding and procurement and equip our forces properly.
Associating this with the Liberals is inappropriate given that both the Harper and Mulroney Conservative governments also slashed military budgets. Harper, in particular, provided much less support to the military than the current government does.
Canadian governments in general have been averse to funding the military since the end of the cold war.
Lemondish t1_ja19otz wrote
Okay.
Not sure I see the whole value in the "whataboutism" here, but I'll take your point at face value as I have no cause to argue.
leha9 t1_j9zvvbb wrote
Why would canada even need tanks? Whos going to invade? The states?
Hotchillipeppa t1_ja0bfu4 wrote
I’d say the opposite, I highly doubt America would let any invaders gain a foothold in North America, even if they attack Canada its in America’s best interest to not let that happen.
Lemondish t1_ja16a4k wrote
The key element to remember about Canada's foreign policy is that addressing threats overseas before they become threats domestically.
Leopards were deployed to great effect in Afghanistan, for example.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments