"much less the F-22 and the F-35"
Thats kinda awks, considering Harper just purchased some F-35s, so yeah, we don't have anything that can match the F-35 in strength, despite owning that very same fighter...

Our army isn't as great as yours, I can admit that, but what I am saying is that if our army was 10 times as big as it is (given the population difference) we would smoke yours.

"It's hard to say the Leopard is better because it hasn't been used in battle much. Only one M1Abrams was lost in the 1991 Iraq war. Plus M1s are cheaper. But anyway, the Canadians didn't design the Leopard tank, the Germans did. So it has nothing to do with Canada really. Plenty of countries have Leopards."
Only 1? So the history channel was wrong in saying only 23...
I never said that, what I said was that our tank is better...

"Fasces reminds me of Pakistan in this thread."
how so?

"That's unfair to Pakistan."
how so?

"I think the point of praising the Canadian army is that all of our army units are trained like the elite units of the US military (Like the Seals that killed Bin Laden)."
Wrong! They have 3 months more training then the seals before they are shipped to Afghanistan.

"That said, there is something about numbers in war, and with 90% of our population living within 100km of the border, We don't have much breathing room."
Hence why I said times our military by 10, to account for the population difference.
"(My uncle talked about participating in NATO training exercises (in the Air Force) where the Canadian ground crews could rearm/refuel a plane quicker then their american counterparts with half the ground crew)."
We needed a full half crew? Thats embarrassing, real Canadians could have done it with a quarter crew...

Well because Pakistan expresses a lot of bravado in their ability to take on India in war and every time they get defeated handily. I said it's unfair to Pakistan because I think they held their own in 1965, though China bailed them out.

I'm holding my own...

Yeah, Putin got it. I figured if anyone would... ;)

And it was less you vs. this thread and more the rah-rah about Canada being able to kick America's ass, Fasces.

I'm going to change course here for the sanity of all non-Canadians on the site.

Putin, I want to know where you are getting your information from on India. Having just finished a 35 page paper on the Indian economy, there are massive economic losses occurring due to corruption. tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue each year is either stolen or goes uncollected. Then there was the whole thing with the Commonwealth Games last summer, and the man in charge there is under arrest now for corruption. Also, having Indian friends, the thing that they are amazed at in the USA is that corruption is a scandal here. We make a big deal out of it when it happens and they don't because it happens ALL THE TIME in India. My girlfriend's grandfather is a politician in Hyderjabad and she says all he does is bitch about his corrupt colleagues. I want to see where you are getting this data from.

Also, going back to the original question, I believe that it was whether economically small economies are better than large ones, and the whole self-sufficiency and globalization/specialization thing? Or have we worn that thought out?

http://vishalmishra.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/indian-economy-2011/

I mean, this is the only thing I can look up right now that mentions corruption, because you won't see any Indian government stats mentioning corruption. Will try to find more tomorrow. btw, has anyone tried going to India.gov? Website is sooooo bad. You would think it would be better than that

The question was whether having lots of small countries is better then have few large ones.

But I agree with the above statement.

about both corruption in india and that we might want toget back ot

@ Fasces

Canada is going to buy F-35s? How many? Four? Give me a break. Even if Canada has F-35s with better ground crews, America has a lot more F-35s.

@ joey and Fasces

""I think the point of praising the Canadian army is that all of our army units are trained like the elite units of the US military (Like the Seals that killed Bin Laden)."
Wrong! They have 3 months more training then the seals before they are shipped to Afghanistan."

I hope you two aren't saying the average Canadian army regular is better than a Navy SEAL. Navy SEALs are the toughest soldiers (well, technically sailors) in the world, with the possible (and very debatable) exception of the British Special Air Service.

If Canada had a population ten times as big as now, it would still have a small military, and it would not have time to build up a sizable force before USAF Air Combat Command leveled every Canadian warehouse, factory, and military installation.

"Navy SEALs are the toughest soldiers (well, technically sailors) in the world, with the possible (and very debatable) exception of the British Special Air Service."

I'd be interested to hear some evidence for that overarching statement.
If nothing else, many people I know would argue that the SBS are superior to the SAS, thus making them also better than the seals? How about Mossad? Trying to pin down "the best" special forces is an impossible task without international intelligence dossiers!

"Canada is going to buy F-35s? How many? Four? Give me a break. Even if Canada has F-35s with better ground crews, America has a lot more F-35s. "
For the last time, I said if we multiplied our army by 10, to account for the population difference, we would win, if not you would win.

"I hope you two aren't saying the average Canadian army regular is better than a Navy SEAL. Navy SEALs are the toughest soldiers (well, technically sailors) in the world, with the possible (and very debatable) exception of the British Special Air Service. "
Spetnaz???? Seals are trained by former SAS members, so what does that tell you about them compared to the SAS???

"If Canada had a population ten times as big as now, it would still have a small military, and it would not have time to build up a sizable force before USAF Air Combat Command leveled every Canadian warehouse, factory, and military installation. "
If our population sudenly goes up 10 fold overnight, then yes, however if we had 10 times of everything we currently have, then we would have a stronger military. Not debatable.

SAS and the Spetnaz are the two best special forces in the world imo. Seals aren't that well trained compared to most special forces.

But if you multiplied your armed forces by 10, then you'd probably have a similar mix. You wouldn't have 10 times your current number of elite forces as you'd have more average joes joining up just like we do. Increasing the size of anything reduces the median quality.

The real test would be to pit SEAL Team 6 or one of the other SOCOM teams (maybe a Marine Force Recon team) against one of your best teams in mock combat. I bet they are fairly comparable, despite your claims of superiority. And I hate to tell you, but the SAS and the SEALs get their martial arts training from MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) where I got my green belt back in 85.

@Goldfinger,

I'm not suggesting India is without corruption, far from it. I said, or thought I said, at the top level the Indian bureaucracy - the IAS, has had a reputation for talent and competence. It is very very difficult to get a post in the IAS due to the rigorous examination. That reputation has declined, especially since economic liberalization. However, despite the endless complaints and the Indian administration, India keeps on having record growth. My main point is that by all accounts India should be a mess on par or exceeding that of its neighbors, but isn't. I attribute that to the Imperial Civil Service that they inherited. Now, I believe the quality of that civil service has declined, but nonetheless it held India together during the important early decades of independence.

I think you have to look at government with a relative frame of mind. Yes, India has lots of problems. But consider its conditions and consider its neighborhood, and I think you'll have a better appreciation for it.

I agree with Gunfighter06. Also, technological superiority, vast resources, better logistics, a much larger navy (that could take on all other world naval powers combined), superior and larger air force, overwhelming numbers of infantry through conscription, and a huge nuclear stockpile are all on America's side.

"But if you multiplied your armed forces by 10, then you'd probably have a similar mix. You wouldn't have 10 times your current number of elite forces as you'd have more average joes joining up just like we do. Increasing the size of anything reduces the median quality."
not entirely true, in America, your soldiers require 6-8 weeks training before they are considered soldiers, in Canada you need over 2 years of training. The sheer difference in the amount we train our soldiers before they get into battle is the reason we have higher quality soldiers (and the fact that Canadians are just superior). America, even before they became the world power always had the quantity over quality ideology, Canada has always had the opposite. I don't think increasing our population would change that...

"The real test would be to pit SEAL Team 6 or one of the other SOCOM teams (maybe a Marine Force Recon team) against one of your best teams in mock combat. I bet they are fairly comparable, despite your claims of superiority. And I hate to tell you, but the SAS and the SEALs get their martial arts training from MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) where I got my green belt back in 85."
It depends on the terrain. For example, the SAS are trained solely for urban combat, there weapons are specialized just for close range room to room combat expected in cities, this makes sense as every one of their missions takes place in urban environments. However most Canadian soldiers are trained in desert or arctic combat, and that makes sense as most of our soldiers are in the middle east, a desert, or stationed at home, which for the most part is arctic.
If the Canadians got their ideal enviro, I don't think anyone except maybe the spetznas could take them on.

"I agree with Gunfighter06. Also, technological superiority, vast resources, better logistics, a much larger navy (that could take on all other world naval powers combined), superior and larger air force, overwhelming numbers of infantry through conscription, and a huge nuclear stockpile are all on America's side."
Not counting your nuclear stockpile, times our navy by 10, same thing with our army and air force, we would win.

Your logistics becomes obsolete once you realize that your norther defense program is stationed in northern Canada, and would be obsolete once the enemy is closer to you then your logistics that are suppose to be defending you.

@Fasces - You really shouldn't lie about something so easily researched:

"Most non-commissioned CF recruits in the Regular Force (full time) participate in the 13 week Basic Military Qualification (BMQ) at Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec."

Hardly 2 years. And the Marine Corps requires the same amount of time: 13 weeks of basic training. If you are talking 2 years to get through full training, then you should compare that with the full training in a US Armed Service. The MOS schools (where you get the specifics of your specialty) can take a significant amoutn of time too. Don't compare the Canadians basic and advanced specialty training time against just basic training in the US.

Basic in the US Armed Forces:
Marine Corps - 13 weeks
Army - 9 weeks
Air Force - 8.5 weeks (used to be 6.5, but they added some more in 2008)
Navy - 8 weeks
Coast Guard - 8 weeks

But that is just the basics that everyone in that branch must take, and doesn't include any of the specialized training.

As far as skills... Put our best Miramar graduate from the last graduating class up against the best pilot Canada has to offer and I'll put my money on the Navy pilot. I'm not talking our best pilot in any branch, just our best from the last graduating class at Miramar (the Navy's elite fighter pilot training school AKA Top Gun).

"Not counting your nuclear stockpile, times our navy by 10, same thing with our army and air force, we would win."

Jesus, Fasces349. You're still at this?

This has to be the most moronic discussion this site has had (not counting bin Laden denial) in a long time. Firstly, war between the US and "Canada" hasn't happened in almost 200 years and hasn't remotely been in either country's interest in almost 100. Secondly, the US has nuclear weapons, so America could only lose a war with Canada if it chose to. Even with the high professionalism of your military (which while proven in the World Wars and Afghanistan I think you rely too much on), there are only about 34 million Canadians. There are 300 million Americans. Those numbers mean Canadians could kill five Americans to every one filthy little Canuck we kill and we'll still have more than half our population left after the Canadians are a memory.

Again, a ridiculous scenario since our two countries are natural friends and allies and have literally zero reasons to ever fight one another ever again. But the fact still remains that if Obama got drunk one night and decided he didn't like the way Harper looked at Michelle then your country would be gone and at best all you could do is slow us down. But a war between the United States and the Morlocks is more likely than one with Canada.

Obviously, Obama doesn't know Fasces or mapleleaf...

As a former reservist member of the CF and a Canuck, I want everyone to know that not all of us have share Fasces' inflated views about our military. The quality of our soldiers is on-par with pretty much all of the other well-trained NATO nations (Germany, UK, US, Norway, etc.). We were always able to 'train in breadth' moreso than the US, largely because we didn't have the sheer numbers that the US had to accomodate. Our soldiers are excellent in quality, and professionals - but that doesn't mean that we need to engage in a speculative pissing war about their relative 'kickass merits'.

My personal experience with US troops was limited (I worked with them for one summer attached to a reg force unit at CFB Gagetown), but in my opinion, they were just as capable as our Canadian equivalents, and they certainly had a much greater experience with large-scale combined-arms exercises...and this was before Desert Storm.

And just as a point of interest, the Leopard 2 and the M1A1 use the same gun (M256 Rheinmetall), so Fasces' point about our 'undisputed 150 vs 120' doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something?

Thank you Mack Eye. It's a shame that by countering Fasces349's outre claims there's some implied belittling of the Canadian military. You guys have behaved admirably numerous times and punch well above your weight in advancing the cause of freedom the world over. However, the hegemonic power of the United States military is unrivaled tin world history, particularly when it comes to conventional warfare. Just because Canada is not a peer to the United States in military matters does not mean that they are an effective and capable force on their own.

Just because Canada is not a peer to the United States in military matters does not mean that they are NOT an effective and capable force on their own.

At least, I think that sentence is right now. Hopefully you get the point.

oh look we're arguing about military strength again!!

how INTERESTING!

Thanks Invictus...I've always admired the 'Middle Power' theory when it comes to Canadian international diplomacy ;)

"Hardly 2 years. And the Marine Corps requires the same amount of time: 13 weeks of basic training. If you are talking 2 years to get through full training, then you should compare that with the full training in a US Armed Service. The MOS schools (where you get the specifics of your specialty) can take a significant amoutn of time too. Don't compare the Canadians basic and advanced specialty training time against just basic training in the US.

Basic in the US Armed Forces:
Marine Corps - 13 weeks
Army - 9 weeks
Air Force - 8.5 weeks (used to be 6.5, but they added some more in 2008)
Navy - 8 weeks
Coast Guard - 8 weeks

But that is just the basics that everyone in that branch must take, and doesn't include any of the specialized training.

As far as skills... Put our best Miramar graduate from the last graduating class up against the best pilot Canada has to offer and I'll put my money on the Navy pilot. I'm not talking our best pilot in any branch, just our best from the last graduating class at Miramar (the Navy's elite fighter pilot training school AKA Top Gun)."
1. My cousin, said it was 15 weeks of basic training and then followed by 25 weeks of specialization, where they will specialize in the environment they will be fighting in. They then go through a training program in Europe, before being sent to Afghanistan. When in Afghanistan they require another 8 weeks of training before being sent to the front line.

But for our reserves, yes it is 13 weeks.


I aslo remember saying multiply our population by 10, to account for differences and ignore nukes. After that we have the superior army.

"And just as a point of interest, the Leopard 2 and the M1A1 use the same gun (M256 Rheinmetall), so Fasces' point about our 'undisputed 150 vs 120' doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something?"
Depending on the type, the M1 uses either the 108 or the 120mm gun. Meanwhile depending on the type the L2 uses either the 150 or the 120mm. At least according to wikipedia...

"I aslo remember saying multiply our population by 10, to account for differences and ignore nukes. After that we have the superior army."

Oh, so just give Canada a larger population than America and "ignore" that one side has a huge stockpile of weapons of unimaginable destruction. Makes sense. And if Burkina Faso had a flying land-shark cavalry corps that shot lasers out of their eyes they'd probably have a superior army too.

The M1 used the 105mm. M1A1s (and beyond) used the 120mm.

The only Leopard that uses the 140mm gun (*not* a 150mm) is a prototype design called the Leopard 2-140. There are currently 2 of these in existence. I'd check your Wikipedia reference again.

Wait a second - I'm debating fine points of tank guns with a self-proclaimed fascist (in Canada, no less). WTF? How did I get sucked into *this*?

"Oh, so just give Canada a larger population than America and "ignore" that one side has a huge stockpile of weapons of unimaginable destruction. Makes sense. And if Burkina Faso had a flying land-shark cavalry corps that shot lasers out of their eyes they'd probably have a superior army too."
My point was that Canada was that Canada's troops were of better quality, not that we would win in a fight.

"The M1 used the 105mm. M1A1s (and beyond) used the 120mm.

The only Leopard that uses the 140mm gun (*not* a 150mm) is a prototype design called the Leopard 2-140. There are currently 2 of these in existence. I'd check your Wikipedia reference again."
sorry, ( meant to say 105 not 108, typo. And I thought it was teh L2-150 not 140. My bad.

"But the fact still remains that if Obama got drunk one night and decided he didn't like the way Harper looked at Michelle then your country would be gone and at best all you could do is slow us down."

Invictus + 1. I almost pissed my pants when I read that.

@ everyone but Fasces

Thank you to everyone who has debunked Fasces for me. You have saved me a lot of time.