Comments on: Parrish and the Canadian Military http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/ Speak Victorian, Think Pagan Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:47:48 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Canada Command http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/comment-page-1/#comment-18524 ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Canada Command Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:07:59 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=952#comment-18524 [...] I have written about the Canadian military before but I would just like to point out a brilliant comment by The Economist regarding the recent changes in the attitude of the military (see the CDS’s comments here): The rise to senior commands of three generals with experience of irregular warfare in Afghanistan and the Middle East has set in motion a revolution in Canadian military thinking. General Rick Hillier, the new chief of defence staff, once headed the multinational ISAF force in Kabul; his chief of strategic planning, Andrew Leslie also served there; while Major-General Walter Natynczyk, who is implementing the reforms, is fresh from a year with American troops in Iraq. He and General Hillier have also both served as deputy commander of the US Third Armoured Corps in Texas. [...] [...] I have written about the Canadian military before but I would just like to point out a brilliant comment by The Economist regarding the recent changes in the attitude of the military (see the CDS’s comments here): The rise to senior commands of three generals with experience of irregular warfare in Afghanistan and the Middle East has set in motion a revolution in Canadian military thinking. General Rick Hillier, the new chief of defence staff, once headed the multinational ISAF force in Kabul; his chief of strategic planning, Andrew Leslie also served there; while Major-General Walter Natynczyk, who is implementing the reforms, is fresh from a year with American troops in Iraq. He and General Hillier have also both served as deputy commander of the US Third Armoured Corps in Texas. [...]

]]> By: IJ http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/comment-page-1/#comment-17246 IJ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:03:36 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=952#comment-17246 Should Canada have a separate military? The scope for merging "navies":http://www.naval.ca/article/haydon/Why_do_we_need_a_navy.html, for example, seems worthy of investigation on grounds of effectiveness - let alone cost saving. A worthy exercise for NATO? Should Canada have a separate military? The scope for merging navies, for example, seems worthy of investigation on grounds of effectiveness – let alone cost saving. A worthy exercise for NATO?

]]> By: Younghusband http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/comment-page-1/#comment-17226 Younghusband Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:42:16 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=952#comment-17226 Dr. Wallace, the yellow submarine in the West Edmonton Mall is the butt of many a joke regarding our military. I'm glad you picked up on that! Dr. Wallace, the yellow submarine in the West Edmonton Mall is the butt of many a joke regarding our military. I’m glad you picked up on that!

]]> By: Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/comment-page-1/#comment-17225 Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:29:08 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=952#comment-17225 Interesting snippet about Canada's four submarines, from the CBC - Four Victoria-class submarines are in the Canadian fleet, each named after port cities (their former names in the Royal Navy appear as well): * HMCS Victoria (HMS Unseen) * HMCS Windsor (HMS Unicorn) * HMCS Corner Brook (HMS Ursula) * HMCS Chicoutimi (HMS Upholder) The Canadian Forces bought the subs in 1998 for $750 million. Victoria operates in the Pacific Ocean out of Esquimalt, B.C. The rest are based in Halifax. Built by the U.K., the subs were mothballed in favour of an all-nuclear fleet. Nearly identical to nuclear subs in design, except for their diesel-electric engines. ------- and don't forget the one in the Edmonton Mall..... Interesting snippet about Canada’s four submarines, from the CBC -

Four Victoria-class submarines are in the Canadian fleet, each named after port cities (their former names in the Royal Navy appear as well):

* HMCS Victoria (HMS Unseen)
* HMCS Windsor (HMS Unicorn)
* HMCS Corner Brook (HMS Ursula)
* HMCS Chicoutimi (HMS Upholder)

The Canadian Forces bought the subs in 1998 for $750 million. Victoria operates in the Pacific Ocean out of Esquimalt, B.C. The rest are based in Halifax.
Built by the U.K., the subs were mothballed in favour of an all-nuclear fleet.

Nearly identical to nuclear subs in design, except for their diesel-electric engines.
——-

and don’t forget the one in the Edmonton Mall…..

]]> By: IJ http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/comment-page-1/#comment-17183 IJ Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:05:17 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=952#comment-17183 More on the future of NATO. Will it break up because members want to pursue their own "energy goals":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Storm_Rising#NATO ? Much of Europe, Canada, and other countries will be disappointed. More on the future of NATO. Will it break up because members want to pursue their own energy goals
? Much of Europe, Canada, and other countries will be disappointed.

]]> By: IJ http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/comment-page-1/#comment-17146 IJ Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:23:55 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=952#comment-17146 The future of NATO? Canada has been more active than most in looking for a solution. To continue a theme in "Canada Update":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/07/08/canada-update/: "The big differences in defence expenditure by NATO members represent a huge divide in this multilateral organisation. The members appear to question the direction of the organisation. And Canada is a prime mover here." Canada responded to the UN Secretary-General's desperate call to the international community in 2000 for a consensus on when to intervene militarily. The result is a well researched "report":http://www.iciss.ca/report2-en.asp that is a basis for moving forward. But progress has been disappointing. The chief foreign policy adviser to a former PM of Canada gives "reasons":http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-magazine/01-title-en.asp why Africa, Latin America, parts of Asia, the US, and Arabs all oppose the report. The future of NATO? Canada has been more active than most in looking for a solution.

To continue a theme in Canada Update:
“The big differences in defence expenditure by NATO members represent a huge divide in this multilateral organisation. The members appear to question the direction of the organisation. And Canada is a prime mover here.”

Canada responded to the UN Secretary-General’s desperate call to the international community in 2000 for a consensus on when to intervene militarily. The result is a well researched report that is a basis for moving forward.

But progress has been disappointing. The chief foreign policy adviser to a former PM of Canada gives reasons why Africa, Latin America, parts of Asia, the US, and Arabs all oppose the report.

]]> By: Younghusband http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/comment-page-1/#comment-17142 Younghusband Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:43:51 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=952#comment-17142 Very interesting document IJ. Some of the information is hard to interpret (eg. constant prices vs. current prices etc.), I wish I had taken a statistics analysis course in uni for this kind of thing. I found this interesting little nugget though (pp.6): <ul> *Defence expenditures annual variation (%) (based on constant prices)* Canada / �š�°�½�°�´�° 1980-84: 6.2 1985-89: 2.0 1990-94: -3.2 1995-99: -4.4 2000: -4.3 2001: 5.9 2002: 0.4 2003: 2.5 2004: 3.0 </ul> No wonder our helos are falling out of the sky and we have no armour! Very interesting document IJ. Some of the information is hard to interpret (eg. constant prices vs. current prices etc.), I wish I had taken a statistics analysis course in uni for this kind of thing. I found this interesting little nugget though (pp.6):

    Defence expenditures annual variation (%) (based on constant prices)
    Canada / �š�°�½�°�´�°

    1980-84: 6.2

    1985-89: 2.0

    1990-94: -3.2

    1995-99: -4.4

    2000: -4.3

    2001: 5.9

    2002: 0.4

    2003: 2.5

    2004: 3.0

No wonder our helos are falling out of the sky and we have no armour!

]]> By: IJ http://cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/comment-page-1/#comment-17084 IJ Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:17:37 +0000 http://www.cominganarchy.com/?p=952#comment-17084 For comparison, NATO brings together the military expenditure of its 26 members. The international alliance regularly complains that members don't spend enough now. The public expenditures are listed "here":http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p050609.pdf. The highest in 2004 (estimate) is the United States at $482bn; second is France at $52bn; third is the UK at $49bn. Last is Iceland at nil - it has no armed forces. As a percentage of GDP, the rankings become the US first at 3.9%; Turkey second at 3.5%; Greece third at 2.9%. Leaving aside Iceland, last is Luxembourg at 0.8%. The table shows Canada spending $12bn, representing 1.2% of GDP. The table also shows huge differences between the proportion of money spent on hardware and manpower - which is yet another matter for debate. For comparison, NATO brings together the military expenditure of its 26 members. The international alliance regularly complains that members don’t spend enough now.

The public expenditures are listed here. The highest in 2004 (estimate) is the United States at $482bn; second is France at $52bn; third is the UK at $49bn. Last is Iceland at nil – it has no armed forces. As a percentage of GDP, the rankings become the US first at 3.9%; Turkey second at 3.5%; Greece third at 2.9%. Leaving aside Iceland, last is Luxembourg at 0.8%. The table shows Canada spending $12bn, representing 1.2% of GDP.

The table also shows huge differences between the proportion of money spent on hardware and manpower – which is yet another matter for debate.

]]>