CANADA DAY

[ruxted]

Link to original article


Happy Canada Day

In a recent article in the CanWest newspaper chain journalist David ******** reported that the “government's long-awaited defence strategy paper could be released as early as next month but there are growing concerns among some analysts and those in the military that it will fall far short on the money needed to prepare the Canadian Forces for the future.”  The reason, ******** says, is that (according to defence experts he cites) while $30 Billion is needed fairly soon, to meet the defence commitments piled on the military over the past 20 years by a succession of Conservative, Liberal and Conservative governments, $20 Billion appears to be the government’s limit.

Why?

$20 Billion is a lot of money – more, ******** suggests than any government thinks it can get past Canadians.

The Ruxted Group thinks David ******** is correct: Canadians neither know nor care (nor do they want to know or care) how much money ‘their’ armed forces ‘need’ to do the jobs Canadians (through their elected representatives) have and continue to heap on the CF.  They are ‘willing’ to give $20 Billion; no more.

Why not?

Canadians do not, really, ‘support the troops.’  They wish the ‘troops’ would just go away until they are needed to clear snow, fill sandbags and fight fires.  Any large increase in defence spending, most Canadians appear to believe, must come at their, personal expense – at the cost of their ‘free’ Medicare or their ‘pogey.’  They cannot, it seems, believe that the Government of Canada could not find another $10 or $15 Billion from within its current the $175+ Billion it currently spends.  The Ruxted Group believes that a handful of competent administrators (and the Government of Canada has plenty of them) and an even smaller handful of honest, courageous politicians (in short supply, we admit) could easily find the $20+ Billion DND needs soon (more than it appears than Canadians are willing to see allocated) and the many, many more billions DND will need by around 2025.

DND needs a series of big cash infusions, right now, to recruit and train thousands, even tens of thousands of additional CF members by about 2015.  After that it needs a steady stream of smaller increases (but large enough to take account of defence related inflation plus a wee bit of real growth) for (and beyond) the next 15 years.

As Ruxted has said, a series of Liberal and Conservative governments imposed  three decades of fiscal darkness on the CF in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s even as, during the ‘80s and ‘90s, those same governments added new, complex and dangerous tasks.  Governments did not do this because they hate the military.  They did it because Canadians told them to.  Political parties, in and out of government, poll assiduously and deeply on almost every issue; defence and defence spending was polled half to death in those decades and, based on the result, the government cut and cut and cut again – because that’s what Canadians wanted.

Why this should be is an interesting question. Canadians know we live in an interconnected "Global" world.  Canadians are aware that our current level of prosperity is driven by global trade and investment, and Canadians are willing to speak up on behalf of those less fortunate, as witnessed by the endless calls for Canada to "do something" to end the genocide in Dafur.  But calling for action seems to be where it ends, a sad contrast to those Canadians who were willing to stand up and take action when needed in the past.  Canada was a nation of action with determined and colourful characters working since the 1500's to carve a modern nation out of a hostile wilderness, protect their gains against predatory empires and ultimately band with other, like minded peoples to create the international order which supports our peace and prosperity today.

As we celebrate Canada Day we invite Canadians, all Canadians, to think of their country and its needs.  One of those needs is a modest but effective and capable military: ships at sea, aircraft in the skies and army combat units ready and able to fight with the very best, anywhere in the world.  If most Canadians are unwilling to pay the price, low though it is, then we invite them to be honest: write to your MP and the PM and say: "I don’t want armed forces; they are too expensive; bring them home and disband them; we’ll find others to shovel snow and fill sandbags and protect us from enemies – foreign and domestic."

It’s really simple, you see.  If you want a useful military then you need to pay for it.  If you don’t want to pay for it then you do not deserve it.  You’ll know the price when, not if, the enemy comes for us.

Happy Canada Day, anyway.

 

[pidd]

But calling for action seems to be where it ends, a sad contrast to those Canadians who were willing to stand up and take action when needed in the past.

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed and I would heartily endorse a consistent, sustained, better-than-adequate recognition of our country's responsibilities to our allies and the forces that are required.

Still, the culture of Canada that volunteered for duty without parallel in South Africa, two world wars and Korea highlighted above, has, but for a 'rump', been systematically abolished, along with it's military traditions, the services themselves, and the underlying patriotism for what the pre-1965 Dominion of Canada represented.

One cannot expect, after three to four decades of denying or removing a country's history from succeeding generations and replacing it with a revision and an ideology that runs counter to that history, that somehow that same spirit will manifest itself within our national institutions.  Recent polls published in the media bear that out once again as it has for some time.

The variety of manifestations of the 'Canadian Forces' since unification have illustrated this lamentable policy where 'traditions-on-the-go' and the re-invented symbols to fill the 'void' underscore the volatility of a culture seeking to find a 'new' identity.

If the people of Canada today are confused about this country's historic and significant role as a military and power via media in the world, it is hard to blame them.  It will take some time, a generation or two or more, of the kind of initiatives and support recently made by the government to re-establish the kind of credibility of a 'warrior' nation that was clearly understood by the older generations of Canadians.

A large part of that responsibility is with the 'culture' at DND itself as well as with the governments of the day. 

I note that today, for the first time in a very, very long time, the armed forces will be truly recognised in the national ceremonies.  That's a good start.  People respond to the unashamed celebration of symbols that, instead of being pushed aside, cast aside, or otherwise 'hidden' are celebrated and honoured as an integral
part of our identity.

Support for the Troops is largely commensurate with leadership for the troops.

Happy Dominion Day! (and Canada Day too).

 

[Nemo888]

Seems like a chicken and egg problem. Without more public support resources cannot get mobilized. Without more resources reconstruction slows to a crawl and we loose support on both sides of the ocean for the war. Making the sacrifice to do the job right would probably force the current minority government into an election. This mission deserves to suceed, but Canadians are not hearing about the lack of resources. They don't even know the mission is underfunded. If they did I think they would step up.

 

[cameron]

An excellent article providing sobering food for thought.  Canadians need to think long and hard and deep about their attitudes towards the military.  You can't ask them to be there for you at all times, whether its coming to the rescue after a natural disaster, defending you against enemies foreign and domestic, or responding to humanitarian crises abroad like Darfur, and not be willing to contribute more of your tax dollars to enable them to answer that call.  BTW Happy Canada Day to all present and former CF members

 

[JDFreeSoul]

Canadian people's ignorant, they don't know why this country needs an Armed Force? are they that dumb? am I born in a retarded country? I don't think I will fight for this people anyway... sorry but other peoples in the world deserve it more than them.
Happy Canada Day to CF members!

 

[ClaytonD]

Canadian people's ignorant, they don't know why this country needs an Armed Force? are they that dumb? am I born in a retarded country? I don't think I will fight for this people anyway... sorry but other peoples in the world deserve it more than them.
Happy Canada Day to CF members!

Then why are you in the Canadian army? If you don't want to fight for the Canadian people.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced from today’s Globe and Mail,under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an interesting report on a ”defence research” analysis of potential attacks scenarios:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070702.wkaboom0702/BNStory/National/home

Ottawa quietly prepares for 'dirty bomb' attack

JIM BRONSKILL AND SUE BAILEY
Canadian Press
July 2, 2007 at 6:46 PM EDT

OTTAWA — A new federal study says the explosion of a small dirty bomb near the CN Tower would spew radioactivity over four square kilometres, resulting in mass anxiety, a rush on Toronto's medical facilities and an economic toll of up to $23.5-billion.

The nightmarish scenario — detonation of a device containing a modest amount of americium-241, a silvery plutonium byproduct — is among several sobering projections quietly mapped out by federal officials to prepare for a terrorist attack in urban Canada.

The study led by Defence Research and Development Canada also predicts economic costs of up to $8.75-billion should a similar americium-laden device be set off outside Vancouver's B.C. Place Stadium — a venue for the 2010 Winter Olympics — and as much as $2.25-billion if one exploded near the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ont., and Detroit.

The grim outline is not far-fetched. A database of lost and stolen radioactive items compiled by The Canadian Press reveals that an industrial gauge similar to the device in the study was snatched by thieves in Red Deer, Alta., in June 2003.
Though later recovered, the gauge was missing for five days before its owners even noticed it was gone.

Two radiation safety experts consulted by The Canadian Press confirmed the device, used to measure oil wells, is a high-risk instrument that would pose a danger if the americium inside were successfully dispersed in an explosion.

The findings come mere months after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said a dirty bomb assault was “overdue.”

A senior al-Qaeda leader in Iraq exhorted sympathetic scientists to help the terrorist organization build radioactive and germ-laced weapons.

The federal study's preliminary assessments underscore the potential of a dirty bomb — radioactive material spread using conventional explosives — to exact a toll of fear, panic and staggering financial fallout.

Canada has put considerable effort into trying to prevent, but also be ready for, a dirty bomb attack, said Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

“We know that terrorists have a particular fascination with explosives, and radioactive explosives would be devastating,” Mr. Day said in an interview.

“An event like that could happen.”

The study also says:

— Explosion of a cesium-137 device on the second floor of Parliament Hill's Centre Block would contaminate 45 per cent of the building and, even with the effects largely contained by the majestic Gothic structure, radiation would spread over an area of 1.3 square kilometres through windows smashed in the blast.

— A similar cesium detonation in Montreal's Lafontaine Tunnel would be much like exploding the device outside, in that 70 per cent of the contamination would be released through ventilation ducts to disperse radiation over 145 square kilometres.

— Mere placement — not explosion — of a backpack containing 1,000 curies of radioactive cobalt-60 in packed B.C. Place Stadium during a four-hour sporting event would claim about 85 lives and result in economic costs of up to $8 billion.

The purpose of a radiological device is not to kill people but to create disruption, said Tom Cousins, who represented the defence research agency on the study project.

“And the way you do that is by contaminating large areas, and feed on the people's fear of radiation.”

In preparing the study, the defence researchers are drawing on input from CSIS, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., and Battelle Memorial Institute in the United States.

A final report is expected by next March. But a summary of work to date was presented in mid-June at an invitation-only meeting of federal researchers in Gatineau, Que.

In tabulating the costs of a dirty bomb involving 20 curies of americium-241, researchers assumed a mild wind speed of three metres per second and looked at various degrees of cleanup.

They factored in the costs of decontamination and decommissioning, damage to buildings, evacuation of people, loss of productivity from earnings, reduced tourism and medical treatment.

“There's no getting away from the fact that you will have areas of land that will have to be cleaned up,” said Dr. Cousins.

In the case of Toronto, a radioactive plume moving eastward would waft over the downtown core, spreading beyond the Don Valley Parkway to midtown neighbourhoods.

“We've done research, worked with other countries at looking at a real good dirty bomb,” said Insp. John Bureaux, officer in charge of the RCMP's explosives disposal and technology section.

“And there is an optimal way. It's not easy, it takes a lot of work.”

Insp. Bureaux quickly adds, however, that there's no way to tell how skilled a terrorist might be at crafting a crude device.

It means the national team of RCMP officers and Canadian Forces personnel set up to handle chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive hazards must err on the side of caution.

“So when we go in, we're going to deal with it as a worst-case scenario,” Insp. Bureaux said.

Emergency personnel would quickly crunch numbers to determine the area downwind to be evacuated — just in case.

What is truly chilling is that the americium explosion is the least alarming scenario outlined by federal officials.

Consider this: the study says outdoor detonation of a dirty bomb containing 1,000 curies of cesium-137 — a large amount of an easily dispersable isotope — would send radioactivity cascading over an area of about 250 square kilometres.

Using the most stringent cleanup standards, the massive economic toll of such an incident is pegged at up to $250-billion for Toronto and surrounding area, $80-billion in Vancouver and British Columbia's lower mainland, and $75-billion in Windsor and southernmost Ontario.

Given the implications, federal officials and industry partners have collaborated on numerous research projects to better prevent, anticipate and respond to a dirty bomb.

The Ottawa International Airport is now equipped with 25 detectors to zero in on a radioactive threat.

“You can't taste it, you can't smell it, there are no dogs that can find it,” said Chris Clarke of Mobile Detect, an Ottawa firm working with the airport. “You need to go in with detectors and find it.”

Emergency personnel around the country have taken part in several training exercises, including one in which a dirty bomb contaminates southern Ontario vineyards.

But there are gaps.

The defence research study says Canada and other nations lack the technology to decontaminate a large, densely populated area under the extreme cost and time pressures that a radiological event would demand.

It also cites the need for agreement at local, provincial and federal levels on a long-term recovery strategy. “There are currently no Canadian standards for cleanup after a radiological or nuclear terrorist event.”

Experts say the explosive impact of a dirty bomb would kill or injure few, if any, people. Some could experience elevated risk of cancer depending on the amount of radioactivity unleashed.

Radiation safety authority Jeff Lafortune says a terrorist strike on a chemical plant would almost certainly make more people sick than a radiological attack.

But because it is poorly understood, radioactivity tends to frighten people, which could put pressure on government officials to undertake an exhaustive cleanup after a dirty bomb explosion.

“Radiation's perceived by the general public as being something like evil,” said Dr. Lafortune, president of International Safety Research in Ottawa.

“So when you say, ‘Well, you know, yes, it's a little bit contaminated, but it's below standard,' what do you think most people will say?”

Dr. Lafortune said there is international agreement on the need for flexible standards on residual contamination levels.

“In the end, it's a case-by-case consideration,” he said. “You have to get the people affected involved in the process of determining what is acceptable and not acceptable.”

The federal study estimates 10 per cent of people in the vicinity of a dirty bomb event would seek medical attention, overwhelming the health system.

“If you mention the word radiation, people immediately get very concerned. And even if they have very little reason to think that they may have been exposed, they do want to get checked up quickly,” said Dr. Cousins.

“So they will go to the hospital, they'll be checked up, they'll turn out not to have any contamination at all, but it ties up the system for a period of time.”

The recent London poisoning of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium-210 is seen by Canadian officials as a dry run for a dirty bomb attack.

Federal authorities received some 180 phone calls and 200 e-mails from Canadians who feared they may have been contaminated after traces of the material turned up on airplanes and at a London hotel.

Many people started showing up at emergency rooms, some needlessly.

Jack Cornett, director of Health Canada's radiation protection bureau, says the lesson is to get more information out to the medical community sooner.

“I think we could have given them more support than we did.”

There will be an outcry about publishing a ‘plan’ for the terrorists but I think it is important to publish this sort of thing to:

1. Remind Canadians that there is a real, ”overdue” threat to us;

2. Remind the enemy that we have not gone to sleep – we know what they’re up to and we have counter-measures; and

3. Remind politicians that they need to keep the financial taps open - and not just for the CF. 


Edit: typo toaps

 

[Eland]

The Ruxted article closes with a sombre warning that all Canadians would do well to heed:

"It's really simple, you see.  If you want a useful military then you need to pay for it.  If you don't want to pay for it then you do not deserve it.  You'll know the price when, not if, the enemy comes for us."

Canadians have long and smugly assumed that both geography and the presence of the United States (and formerly massive military) would render Canada immune from attack.

The history of the last century shows why this view is wrong-headed. In the Second World War, the Russians could have (but wisely did not) assumed that their rugged terrain, forbidding weather conditions and large military forces would render them safe from attack. In late 1941, the Germans did attack. They might have succeeded, if they had not failed to account for harsh winter weather conditions, had not overstretched their supply train and if the Russians had not been willing to sacrifice more than 800,000 men to save Stalingrad.

A country with the relatively small population Canada has cannot hope to even begin to defend every corner of the country in depth, nor could it afford to do so. However, what happens if another world war breaks out, and the United States, an ally who has sworn to defend us,  has committed the bulk of its forces to prosecuting that war in a foreign theatre of operations?

Such a scenario is not impossible. Remember that the US military is not as large as it was during the Cold War. Indeed, the almost 170,000 troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan together have put a significant strain on the US military. The strain appears to be great enough to leave the future of the Iraq mission in some doubt.

Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that the US military has had a tough time recruiting sufficient replacement troops just for the Iraq mission alone. If a major war broke out, neither a massive draft nor a ramp-up of military production could happen quickly enough to cover up the gaps and weak spots (and Canada is just such a 'weak spot').

If you consider that the urbanized portion of Canada is basically a long string of cities located less than two hours' drive from the US border, connected by rail and road links, it's not hard to see how vulnerable the country really is. Napoleon himself demonstrated that not even the Alps nor the Russian steppes were a sufficient barrier to deter his troops, so the geography argument is
a red herring.

The bottom line is simply this. Inasmuch as Canada cannot afford a large military, it also cannot afford not to make a substantial but reasonable effort towards defending itself. In my estimation, '
the last time Canada came close to fulfilling that requirement was in the early 1960's when it had not only a significant domestic military force but could contribute a nearly division-sized NATO contingent for the defence of Germany. Pierre Trudeau aside, something went horribly wrong somewhere, because Canadian military capacity has steadily declined since then until reaching an
almost total lack of meaningful capability. Prime Minister Harper's desire to set things right is laudable, but it's only a start. So much more needs to be done.

In the Canadian context, the ultimate symptom of lost sovereignty would express itself in an inability to maintain the 'free' health care, social welfare programs, and yes, even the 'pogey' that Canadians value so much.

 

[Major John]

I sure hope your politicians can scrape a few dollars up - I admired the Hell out of the Candian Army troops I worked with in Afghanistan in 2004 and 2005 (hi LTC Albert!) but I used to cringe to see the vehicles and equipment such good troops were given...

 

[Long in the tooth]

Most Canadians are ignorant or in an incredible state of denial.  They believe or wish to believe that the world is all goodness and light.  There's nothing more ridiculous than the term 'traditional peacekeeping' (whatever the hell that means).

NDP'ers are the worst.  With regards to Darfur, when they say 'something needs to be done', they mean 'someone else should do something' and we'll provided the daycare, publicly funded through the UN of course.

'When they come for us' is a bit ironic as the very first people on the list are those most against having a military.

Cheers

 

[cameron]

Eland hit the nail square on the head, while Canada cannot afford a large military, it can even less afford a weak military.  A few months ago I started a thread contrasting differences in attitudes towards the military in Canada and Australia.  I recieved some excellent replies from army.ca members as to the reasons for these differences.  However, despite factors such as geographic location and geopolitics, there is no excuse for the state of neglect that the CF has had to suffer, and amazingly been able to survive (only because of an admirable commitment by CF members and commanders to maintain very high recruiting and training standards), and which is only now being corrected.

Canadians need to get the idea which was first planted in the late 1960's to 70's that it is some sort of sin to have a strong, heavily armed and cutting edge military firmly uprooted from their minds.  The sin would be for future generations of Canadians to lose and be forced and die to fight to regain the privelages and liberties that present generations enjoy, simply because present and past generations left Canada weak and vulnerable.