Should they bring back conscription?

[Hard Idle]

Not relevant to Canada.

History has shown that civillians can be roused into a tough and resourceful adversary when motivated by true neccessity, such as an invasion. I feel a crash course in defense theory and some basic weapons handling instruction in highschool would be adequate, if you have highly skilled professionals who can operate above their rank and train civillians in the event of a mobilization.

An attempt to conquer Canada is pretty far fetched. It would require the combined resources of the US and at least two major regional powers to come even close to controling the mass and geography of Canada. Consider Russia's inability to control Chechenya, India's inability to outright Kashmir. How about the Americans failling to catch BinLaden & Omar for 3 years, or needing 15000 troops to control a town in Iraq. Imagine then chasing insurgents in a country this size! Apachee helicopters in a blizzard around Georgian Bay, or chasing gunmen across a frozen river with 70-tone tanks? Forget it, we're safe!

 

[irlandais9000]

discipline. teamwork. taking responsibility for your actions and I am really good at shining my own shoes

Boy, I wish W. would have showed up for service more often so he could have learned those things

 

[red]

History has shown that civillians can be roused into a tough and resourceful adversary when motivated by true neccessity, such as an invasion. I feel a crash course in defense theory and some basic weapons handling instruction in highschool would be adequate, if you have highly skilled professionals who can operate above their rank and train civillians in the event of a mobilization.

An attempt to conquer Canada is pretty far fetched. It would require the combined resources of the US and at least two major regional powers to come even close to controling the mass and geography of Canada. Consider Russia's inability to control Chechenya, India's inability to outright Kashmir. How about the Americans failling to catch BinLaden & Omar for 3 years, or needing 15000 troops to control a town in Iraq. Imagine then chasing insurgents in a country this size! Apachee helicopters in a blizzard around Georgian Bay, or chasing gunmen across a frozen river with 70-tone tanks? Forget it, we're safe!

I am not as concerned about our defence as in awakening the youngsters to their obligations to the their country and building a sense of community right across the country

 

[yychobbyist]

I am not as concerned about our defence as in awakening the youngsters to their obligations to the their country and building a sense of community right across the country

Well if that's what's important to you then why don't you lobby for the qualities of citizenship to be taught in schools from the primary levels on up? With a son heading for Grade 1 next September and looking at the curriculums of both private and public schools I can tell you that kids today are taught many wonderful things but builiding a sense of community, nation and the qualities of citizenship aren't among them.

 

[red]

I don't think the schools can do it. you need to take the kids out of their natural environment and teach them what they are capable. build them up in small teams so they understand the benefit and responsibility of doing your part and leadership skills. I have never come across anything better than military service to do it.

 

[langeweile]

History has shown that civillians can be roused into a tough and resourceful adversary when motivated by true neccessity, such as an invasion. I feel a crash course in defense theory and some basic weapons handling instruction in highschool would be adequate, if you have highly skilled professionals who can operate above their rank and train civillians in the event of a mobilization.

An attempt to conquer Canada is pretty far fetched. It would require the combined resources of the US and at least two major regional powers to come even close to controling the mass and geography of Canada. Consider Russia's inability to control Chechenya, India's inability to outright Kashmir. How about the Americans failling to catch BinLaden & Omar for 3 years, or needing 15000 troops to control a town in Iraq. Imagine then chasing insurgents in a country this size! Apachee helicopters in a blizzard around Georgian Bay, or chasing gunmen across a frozen river with 70-tone tanks? Forget it, we're safe!

Can you hide a SeaKing in an igloo? That is the real question.
Put on top all the pissed off and edgy Quebecoise (after the smoking ban)and you have yourself another Vietnam.

Don't worry boys, we will not take you over by military force, we just slowly buy up the country.
Well, just remember..Molson..just was the beginning.

 

[cyrus]

It would be good for USA for many reasons;
1- Teach youngsters how to respect authority
2- Teach responsibility and how to follow
3- Or teaches leadership skills to those who have the attributes
4- And most of all reduces the military cost per capita in terms of both the human and monetary costs

Currently American’s spend a lot of money on training and protection of their soldiers that is why they prefer to fight from distance!
As you know getting too close and personal could mean, well . . . human causalities and that is too much to handle! however, under a draft system, they probably wouldn’t care as much as how many KIA they will have as long as they are winning the battles, also there is this body armor issue (a major cost), I assume it then won’t be such a big issue anymore as probably no one would have any anyway with the exception of the top brass

 

[someone]

It would be good for USA for many reasons;
...
4- And most of all reduces the military cost per capita in terms of both the human and monetary costs

The percapita government budgetary costs would be lower but the real cost to the economy would be the same, or higher.

 

[onthebottom]

The US doesn't need a draft, would do Canada some good though.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

You have lost Lang - BTW Molson bought Coors, look at who is running the new Company.

As for someone buying a Country I would think that the top debtor nation, the US, would have the understanding that they mtg their future to foriegn bond holders and as such I don't think your in the position to buy anyone.


bbk

Sorry you are wrong about that...the headquarter of the new company is going to be in Colorado...check your sources.

 

[KBear]

Conscription is a poor way to build an effective military fighting force, and we cant afford it.

It would be good to teach some first aid and civic responsibility stuff in the schools, or through a few weeks of military type service.

 

[cyrus]

The US doesn't need a draft, would do Canada some good though.

OTB

Canada doesn't need a big army to protect herself! Guess why, and then we would know how bright and informed you are? Please go ahead surprise us!

 

[cyrus]

Conscription is a poor way to build an effective military fighting force, and we cant afford it.

It would be good to teach some first aid and civic responsibility stuff in the schools, or through a few weeks of military type service.

Having only a professional army won't do it in a real war time i.e., likes of WWII, even with 1 to 10+ kill ratio as US army has been enjoying for some times now. There are nations out there that have millions + conscripts plus semi-professional national guards with advance armaments that could deplete and devastate a much smaller but professional armies like USA’s very quickly.

 

[KBear]

Having only a professional army won't do it in a real war time i.e., likes of WWII, even with 1 to 10+ kill ratio as US army has been enjoying for some times now. There are nations out there that have millions + conscripts plus semi-professional national guards with advance armaments that could deplete and devastate a much smaller but professional armies like USA’s very quickly.

Well, we are not at war.

The US enjoys a much higher kill ratio then 1 to 10, more like 1 to 10,000 or more, like in the first desert war. Occupation is not war, and is different matter.

In a real war like WWII, with the gloves off, the US would be so far beyond any nation that it would not matter how many people they gave guns to, it would just be a slaughter in the end.

 

[cyrus]

Well, we are not at war.

The US enjoys a much higher kill ratio then 1 to 10, more like 1 to 10,000 or more, like in the first desert war. Occupation is not war, and is different matter.

In a real war like WWII, with the gloves off, the US would be so far beyond any nation that it would not matter how many people they gave guns to, it would just be a slaughter in the end.

The so called first desert war even the second one was not a real war.
It was a semi-political war, both times Sadam thought Iraq will not be attacked and even after they were surprised they just retreated thus got slaughtered in thousands on the road without putting any serious fight, in both cases it was a total leadership failure on the Iraq's side, believe me Iraq’s themselves are not cowards, in any way what happened with Iraq’s leadership or lack of it will never going to happen again should there be a war with NK, IRN or China. These countries will fight to the end and there will be massive blood on both sides and that is why USA's 200K in size army would not be big enough! I will also guaranty that they will bring the war to USA if they could and neither of the oceans in each side of the USA would matter anymore!

As for the NUK, US is the only country which has actually used it and I am sure they will want to use it again on the face of defeat and that is why others wants it too on the face of these facts and who is there to blame them for it thus for USA using NUK is not a viable option anymore.

 

[Mack Bolan]

conscription doesn't work!

In Canada, conscription has never worked.
In WW2 the Canadian Army in Europe was running out of replacements.
Some ZOMBE units in Canada were going to be sent; but this was against the contract of service. ZOMBE's were for home defence only and their was some trouble when the units were notifiied of the change of their status.

If French Canadian's refused to fight in Europe to free France; at the time most French Canadian's viewed the war as Great Britians war.
The last good war was WWII, all the flair ups have been to prove who's system is better (ComCon or US).

No one really want to die in Iraq or some other shit hole and for what?
Who really believes George Bush jr. The White House is micro-managing the war again; HUMVee that can protect the troop, they have to take scrap metal and weld it on to improve their changes.

If they spent the time and money and re-bulding the country's infurstucture. If the people see that their life and the lives of their childeren will be better under a US approved goverment. They they will support the new goverment and help fight the "bad guys" (who's the bad guy?).

The simplest and cheapest thing to do is for the US to leave and drop a few nukes.
Does anyone really think that someone or country would be dumb enough to fuck with the US, if they knew that a nuke had their name and address?

No one really respects the US, they are the nice guys of the world, they repect the rule of LAW. Do "Freedom" fighters/terroriest?

Regards

Mack

 

[cyrus]

What in the world are you talking about? - all wars are politics by other means and has nothing to do with one parties willingness to fight.


bbk

Gee . . . . Man why do I have to explain everything every time like I am talking to a wall, please read the damn post again and try to understand the whole argument. Thank you

 

[Peeping Tom]

I'll agree with this concept in general but in context of the Iraq situation you are wrong - the goal was to not have to nuke someone. Rather, on 9.12 Bush should have gave a speech saying "You are either with us or you are no more" and then taken out some target in grand Japanese style. Sure, the ROTW would have a hissy fit, but heck they do that anyways so why not give them something juicy to whine about?

The simplest and cheapest thing to do is for the US to leave and drop a few nukes.
Does anyone really think that someone or country would be dumb enough to fuck with the US, if they knew that a nuke had their name and address?

 

[cyrus]

When USA A-bombed JP not once but twice no other nation had the NUK however today a number of countries have the bomb and a lot more can have it if they choice to due to security reasons in a matter of days not years thus using NUK is not really an option for US anymore unless they have a bunch of neo-con mad men at the helm who wish to turn the world upside down for everyone and even turn their allies into enemies causing a massing proliferation of the nuclear technology.

 

[Peeping Tom]

I'm divided on how to reply here as there are a few loose ends in this. Yes, in a real war with the gloves off any opponent would be mincemeat. But here we need to clarify opponent - many never understood the lesson of the first ten minutes over Baghdad, the shock 'n awe. The opponent here was the Iraqi state, in particular the apparatus of the police state - that was gone within minutes, after which there was no Iraqi state to resist the invasion - recall how the invasion was basically limited by logistics and the land speed of vehicules - proper military resistance was not encountered. Good old shock 'n awe, the ultimate perfection of Blitzkrieg: America hits like an 1400 pound kodiak bear that had a wasps nest thrown at it, yet each deadly blow hits with surgical precision.

The question is whether to prosecute an invasion or talk terms following (alternately, one could level from the air and allow the belligerent to fall back to the stone age, repeating every few years or so if they reconstruct). IIRC one military panel concluded that, given a European theatre under conventional arms, things would look like 1945 Germany within weeks.

IMHO there will never be a recurrence of conflict like WW2 - things would go nuclear.

In a real war like WWII, with the gloves off, the US would be so far beyond any nation that it would not matter how many people they gave guns to, it would just be a slaughter in the end.