Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

ottawacitizen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 382 posts

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#191

Post by torben-friis »

palmotea wrote: post #125
gpm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. Nukes might fly overhead and end the world as they struck targets on either side, but other than that we were safe and any significant military action we took part in would be overseas and thus not justify calling up a huge number of reservists. Meanwhile Norway was occupied in WWII,…

> The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. The chance of Canada being invaded didn't change at all in November. The amount of hyperbole about Trump has been utterly astounding, and fears of an Canadian invasion are an instance of that. And my sense is that actually a fair amount of the bad stuff Trump has done (though defin…

In the same message you are accepting the president of the United States has corrupted the justice department into a club to attack personal enemies, and claiming people are overreacting. Don’t you see any trace of contradiction there?

And even if you don’t, does that look like a safe partner to have as a neighboring country?

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#192

Post by jjk166 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #130
jjk166 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US invading Canada isn't a realistic possibility. Any attempt to do so would trigger a civil war within the US, to say nothing of obliterating the geopolitical system. Attempting to annex in any way shape or form is currently nothing more than the musings of an old man, the only way any territorial changes could happen are through peaceful, mutually agreed upon transfer. If the US were to seriously entertain the…

> The US invading Canada isn't a realistic possibility Of course it is. Troops would just be moved to “temporarily” occupy shit we want. (Or move to liberate Alberta.) Hell, you could probably do it with ICE agents. > Any attempt to do so would trigger a civil war within the US You’d take up arms against the U.S. because it invaded Canada? Of course you wouldn’t. Neither would others. It would be brushed way as an an…

> You’d take up arms against the U.S. because it invaded Canada?

In a heartbeat. I oppose violence in general, but if forced to choose between fighting an innocent Canadian and fighting someone who has betrayed America's ideals and turned the nation I love into a mockery of itself, it's a very easy choice. Anyone willing to brush such an unjustified invasion away as another atrocity is an enemy of the US.

> Of course it is. Troops would just be moved to “temporarily” occupy shit we want. (Or move to liberate Alberta.) Hell, you could probably do it with ICE agents.

That's not a realistic possibility.

> It’s people you have to shoot through. Hong Kong versus Ukraine. Raises the costs from a low-effort political gambit to a real military campaign.

Canada has a real military of nearly 100,000. They are highly skilled and well equipped with modern weaponry. If you don't consider fighting them to be a real military campaign, shooting through 300,000 desk clerks who don't even have uniforms isn't going to make it one.

> This comment reminds of one on HN from Kharkiv on the eve of the invasion. If you assume something can’t happen or cannot be opposed, that’s indistinguishable from an invitation for an autocrat.

I am not saying it can't happen, indeed I gave a long explanation of how it could; I am saying it won't happen. I'm not saying it can't be opposed, I'm saying this is a bad way to oppose it, and gave my recommendation for how it ought to be opposed.

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#193

Post by theoldgreybeard »

jjk166 wrote: post #96
gpm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has been consistently signalling that it is considering annexing us since Donald Trump was re-elected in November of last year... the politicians are unlikely to say it outright but I think this is pretty clearly aimed at the US and making it too costly to do so.

The US invading Canada isn't a realistic possibility. Any attempt to do so would trigger a civil war within the US, to say nothing of obliterating the geopolitical system. Attempting to annex in any way shape or form is currently nothing more than the musings of an old man, the only way any territorial changes could happen are through peaceful, mutually agreed upon transfer. If the US were to seriously entertain the…

[dead]

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#194

Post by btf99 »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #169
gpm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. Nukes might fly overhead and end the world as they struck targets on either side, but other than that we were safe and any significant military action we took part in would be overseas and thus not justify calling up a huge number of reservists. Meanwhile Norway was occupied in WWII,…

Hilariously wrong take - first, Canada does not have a chance if the US wanted to take it. Second, the US does not want to own Canada for a bunch of reasons, starting with the demographic and economic mess that Canada finds itself in.

[dead]

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#195

Post by stirfish »

Retric wrote: post #145
colonwqbang wrote: post #127

How much useful combat skills can be taught in only a week? It seems like an extremely low estimate on the training needed to play a useful role in the military.

Useful for what role? It’s not obvious if someone has near significant or near zero training when they are acting as a stationary guard at a checkpoint etc. Which enables trained troops to preform more useful roles. They are significantly less likely to do the correct thing if attacked, but a war isn’t going to just be over in 24 hours either so they can be trained up on the job.

More likely driving trucks, cooking meals, filling out spreadsheets, etc

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#196

Post by nxm »

swader999 wrote: post #70
electric_mayhem wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada would be insane to not beef up its military at this point. Mexico should, too.

I'm ok with you guys taking over. You probably don't want us though.

No one is stopping you from moving to Mexico, and millions would take your spot in a heartbeat. The amount of privilege is astonishing by some of the posters here

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#198

Post by gottorf »

palmotea wrote: post #165
triceratops wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> laws were stretched in unusual ways to specifically target him Sure one man's campaign finance violations/embezzlement (I can't recall the details) are another man's politically motivated prosecution. That wasn't the only case against the guy though. It was the only case that concluded. Winning the election saved his skin. He was cooked otherwise.

>> laws were stretched in unusual ways to specifically target him > Sure one man's campaign finance violations/embezzlement (I'm hazy on the specifics) are another man's politically motivated prosecution. Come on, don't be lazy: it's clear you're totally unfamiliar with the case, and a snowclone dismissal isn't clever. The tl;dr is he was actually guilty of a misdemeanors, which where promoted to felonies through unp…

> it's pretty clear that maneuvering only happened because the prosecutors wanted to get Trump personally for something, and spend a lot of time looking and strategizing how to do it.

Exactly. There's zero chance that anybody not named Donald Trump would have been prosecuted in the same way for the same circumstances.

> If a prosecutor looked at your conduct that closely, for that long, they could almost certainly nail you (or anyone) for a felony, too. And it's pretty important for a fair and democratic legal system that they don't target individuals like that.

It's unfortunate that America is no exception to "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". One wonders if that had always been the case.

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#199

Post by Tiktaalik »

hotep99 wrote: post #160
jjk166 wrote: post #41

Seems like a generally good idea for creating a large reserve force. It definitely beats general conscription. I don't see why Canada in particular needs such a large reserve force. This would jump Canada from number 127 to number 52 in terms of percentage of population in reserves, and bump it up to 17th in terms of absolute reserves size. For a nation with basically zero chance of invasion of its home soil and an e…

They are likely being pressured to meet minimum obligations as part of NATO membership. Canada's military realistically isn't going to be called on for defense of the homeland but as part of a support force for NATO.

The new NATO funding requirements are so suddenly incredibly high that the government will probably have trouble actually finding the money to spend something on. So things like this are yeah probably a bit of a money sink to meet obligations.

Re: Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

#200

Post by AnotherGoodName »

colonwqbang wrote: post #127

How much useful combat skills can be taught in only a week? It seems like an extremely low estimate on the training needed to play a useful role in the military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Sumy_clashes had a large contingent of civilian volunteers that won decisively against the main Russian army.

>Ukraine's paratroopers were ordered to withdraw from the city, leaving the city's defense to a few thousand local volunteers armed with rifles, limited anti-tank weapons and no armed vehicles or heavy weaponry.

Post reply on HN