5 ms·

That's because a majority of Canadians have a visceral negative reaction to any military spending. We're happy to claim the Arctic, but not if it involves money

That's because a majority of Canadians have a visceral negative reaction to any military spending. We're happy to claim the Arctic, but not if it involves money, and definitely not if it involves money for the military. Which is, IMO, ridiculous. When it comes to territories like that it's "pay up or shut up".

jacquesm 9y ago
Canada does not have a population large enough to actually have stewardship over the territory contained within its borders. The tax base simply isn't there. Effectively Canada is a 100 Km or so strip to the North of the United States a bit wider in some places. If you want to really claim all the land up North that is barely in use you'd need a population at least 10x the present one and even then it would be a stretch. Infrastructure and defense costs are closely related to surface area and border length if you want to keep world class powers out of your backyard.
- allengeorge 9y ago
  Which leads to one of my personal bug bears: that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I think this would go a long way to improving the business, economic and cultural climate in Canada as well as making us less of a push-over in dealing with the United States. Again, an opinion that is not shared. Most Canadians want the current immigration levels to be maintained or reduced.
  - desdiv 9y ago
    >that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I fully agree with you, but you have to see the irony in that statement: the more immigrants you take in the less independent you are. Canada already have 20% of its population being forign-born[0]. Dramatically more immigration would mean that percentage rising to 30 or even 40%. I'm a panhumanist and an immigrant myself, so I have zero problem with this, but I can understand why some native-born Canadians might be worried when that percentage rises too high. [0] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01...
    - allengeorge 9y ago
      "[T]he more immigrants you take in the less independent you are". I don't see how this follows. The way I see it, you can be more independent because your size allows you to develop large internal markets, make it easier to develop cultural products that cater to your populace, and (as the poster above pointed out) make it easier to put together the scratch to defend your borders etc. I think people are worried about immigration not because of independence, but because they worry that: * The cultural makeup of the country is changing * Immigrants will be a drain on public finances (particularly healthcare and welfare) * Cities will become more crowded (really, people who speak of Toronto as crowded should visit Asian countries...)
      - mistermann 9y ago
        > you can be more independent Provided you have a mix of immigration from a variety of cultures, and be careful of arising dominance. I am of the opinion that the west coast of Canada will effectively be a Chinese colony "soon", and the rest of Canada will follow (not officially, of course), simply due to their growing economic dominance, in Canada and in general. On the bright side, I suppose there are many far worse countries to be colonized by.
        mirimir 9y ago
        Also Northern California, Oregon and Washington, according to Igor Nikolaevich.
        mistermann 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin Map of theory outcome: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Panarin.svg/959px-Panarin.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Pa... That theory seems plausible for when the theory was written (In the summer of 1998, based on classified data about the state of the U.S. economy and society[18] supplied to him by fellow analysts at FAPSI,[2] Panarin forecast the probable disintegration of the US into six parts in 2010) but I think he underestimates the ability for those in power to control the masses and the economic system on a truly massive scale. Personally, I just think the west coast of North America is a particularly beautiful part of the world, add in all the advantages that come with being part of North America and it is a natural place for the elites from China to want to own a piece, which is precisely what they are doing. Couple that with the current fashion of "anti-racism" and anyone who happens to notice what's happening and comment on whether there may be some inherent risks (long term sovereignty, etc) is vigorously attacked as being a "racist". I've always believed a well run ~dictatorship is the superior (well, most powerful) form of government, and it seems to me that is more or less what China has, so barring any missteps I think they will naturally take over the world relatively soon, perhaps with not a single shot being fired, it will be purely by immigration coupled with natural allegiance to the motherland, the notion of which in today's intellectual fashion in the west is laughed off as a racist conspiracy theory, but I suspect in most any Asian culture would be considered simple common sense. You can see this to a degree in Vancouver Canada today, go to any family event and not only will it be majority Chinese, but more telling is baby strollers and children - non-Chinese will typically have zero or one child, while Chinese will typically have multiple. 75% of strollers are pushed by Chinese parents. Another interesting thing is, usually it will only be the mother in attendance, as the father is probably back home working in China (not paying Canadian taxes in the process, weakening the economy further). I doubt all of this is some grand conspiracy, but it is incredibly effective. That said, I would never underestimate the capabilities of the various intelligence agencies in the west to take China down by some unseen nefarious means, however: a) I would think if this was ever going to happen, it would have started by now b) who do these people answer to, and do they particularly care whether China colonizes the west coast of North America?
- gozur88 9y ago
  At the end of WW II Canada had the world's third largest navy. I get that a military spending is like insurance: if you don't need it it's wasted money, and there are always other things to spend your cash on. But Canada really seems to have allowed its military to languish to an unnecessary degree.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    And why wouldn't you? When you're friendly with the neighbors next door to the south, and they own the world's premier military and love to show it off, why wouldn't you outsource military spending to that neighbor? There are plenty of nice things you could buy with the savings.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      I suppose, if you're willing to believe your neighbor to the south will always be willing to come to your aid when you call. Even assuming your interests don't conflict, that doesn't mean they'll always coincide. I wonder if, for example, the US would be willing to threaten Chinese fishing boats to protect Canadian fisheries, should it come to that. I'm thinking probably not. Also, the amount of influence you have in influencing policy in these international military coalitions depends in large part on how much you bring to the table. It's rarely, IMO, a good idea to get involved in coalition warfare, but you'd like to have the option if your country's interests would be served in doing so.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Russia is similarly underpopulated given its area, but it doesn't prevent it from effectively controlling access to Siberia and Far East, even though those are also similar large swaths of unpopulated land.
  - arjie 9y ago
    The West does not have the appetite for the sort of quality of life Russians must lead to allow this as evinced by the differences in the healthcare budget and military spending as a percent of GDP between Canada and Russia.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Sure, infrastructure spending in those regions is at an all time high. Roughly 0. /s Really, Russia is except for some large population centers pretty much bankrupt and it isn't that those parts of the world are so much better controlled it is a combination of them being so much less attractive combined with the fact that what money Russia had to spend on infrastructure it for the most part decided to spend on weapons instead. So they get to keep all of it but at the same time make their population so impoverished that once their natural gas and oil run out the whole thing will collapse even further. I expect that by that time China will mop up the remains of the East of Russia without too much in terms of resistance because Russia simply won't be able to hold on to it.

jacquesm 9y ago

Canada does not have a population large enough to actually have stewardship over the territory contained within its borders. The tax base simply isn't there. Effectively Canada is a 100 Km or so strip to the North of the United States a bit wider in some places. If you want to really claim all the land up North that is barely in use you'd need a population at least 10x the present one and even then it would be a stretch. Infrastructure and defense costs are closely related to surface area and border length if you want to keep world class powers out of your backyard.

allengeorge 9y ago
Which leads to one of my personal bug bears: that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I think this would go a long way to improving the business, economic and cultural climate in Canada as well as making us less of a push-over in dealing with the United States. Again, an opinion that is not shared. Most Canadians want the current immigration levels to be maintained or reduced.
- desdiv 9y ago
  >that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I fully agree with you, but you have to see the irony in that statement: the more immigrants you take in the less independent you are. Canada already have 20% of its population being forign-born[0]. Dramatically more immigration would mean that percentage rising to 30 or even 40%. I'm a panhumanist and an immigrant myself, so I have zero problem with this, but I can understand why some native-born Canadians might be worried when that percentage rises too high. [0] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01...
  - allengeorge 9y ago
    "[T]he more immigrants you take in the less independent you are". I don't see how this follows. The way I see it, you can be more independent because your size allows you to develop large internal markets, make it easier to develop cultural products that cater to your populace, and (as the poster above pointed out) make it easier to put together the scratch to defend your borders etc. I think people are worried about immigration not because of independence, but because they worry that: * The cultural makeup of the country is changing * Immigrants will be a drain on public finances (particularly healthcare and welfare) * Cities will become more crowded (really, people who speak of Toronto as crowded should visit Asian countries...)
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > you can be more independent Provided you have a mix of immigration from a variety of cultures, and be careful of arising dominance. I am of the opinion that the west coast of Canada will effectively be a Chinese colony "soon", and the rest of Canada will follow (not officially, of course), simply due to their growing economic dominance, in Canada and in general. On the bright side, I suppose there are many far worse countries to be colonized by.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Also Northern California, Oregon and Washington, according to Igor Nikolaevich.
        mistermann 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin Map of theory outcome: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Panarin.svg/959px-Panarin.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Pa... That theory seems plausible for when the theory was written (In the summer of 1998, based on classified data about the state of the U.S. economy and society[18] supplied to him by fellow analysts at FAPSI,[2] Panarin forecast the probable disintegration of the US into six parts in 2010) but I think he underestimates the ability for those in power to control the masses and the economic system on a truly massive scale. Personally, I just think the west coast of North America is a particularly beautiful part of the world, add in all the advantages that come with being part of North America and it is a natural place for the elites from China to want to own a piece, which is precisely what they are doing. Couple that with the current fashion of "anti-racism" and anyone who happens to notice what's happening and comment on whether there may be some inherent risks (long term sovereignty, etc) is vigorously attacked as being a "racist". I've always believed a well run ~dictatorship is the superior (well, most powerful) form of government, and it seems to me that is more or less what China has, so barring any missteps I think they will naturally take over the world relatively soon, perhaps with not a single shot being fired, it will be purely by immigration coupled with natural allegiance to the motherland, the notion of which in today's intellectual fashion in the west is laughed off as a racist conspiracy theory, but I suspect in most any Asian culture would be considered simple common sense. You can see this to a degree in Vancouver Canada today, go to any family event and not only will it be majority Chinese, but more telling is baby strollers and children - non-Chinese will typically have zero or one child, while Chinese will typically have multiple. 75% of strollers are pushed by Chinese parents. Another interesting thing is, usually it will only be the mother in attendance, as the father is probably back home working in China (not paying Canadian taxes in the process, weakening the economy further). I doubt all of this is some grand conspiracy, but it is incredibly effective. That said, I would never underestimate the capabilities of the various intelligence agencies in the west to take China down by some unseen nefarious means, however: a) I would think if this was ever going to happen, it would have started by now b) who do these people answer to, and do they particularly care whether China colonizes the west coast of North America?
gozur88 9y ago
At the end of WW II Canada had the world's third largest navy. I get that a military spending is like insurance: if you don't need it it's wasted money, and there are always other things to spend your cash on. But Canada really seems to have allowed its military to languish to an unnecessary degree.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fapjacks 9y ago
  And why wouldn't you? When you're friendly with the neighbors next door to the south, and they own the world's premier military and love to show it off, why wouldn't you outsource military spending to that neighbor? There are plenty of nice things you could buy with the savings.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    I suppose, if you're willing to believe your neighbor to the south will always be willing to come to your aid when you call. Even assuming your interests don't conflict, that doesn't mean they'll always coincide. I wonder if, for example, the US would be willing to threaten Chinese fishing boats to protect Canadian fisheries, should it come to that. I'm thinking probably not. Also, the amount of influence you have in influencing policy in these international military coalitions depends in large part on how much you bring to the table. It's rarely, IMO, a good idea to get involved in coalition warfare, but you'd like to have the option if your country's interests would be served in doing so.
int_19h 9y ago
Russia is similarly underpopulated given its area, but it doesn't prevent it from effectively controlling access to Siberia and Far East, even though those are also similar large swaths of unpopulated land.
- arjie 9y ago
  The West does not have the appetite for the sort of quality of life Russians must lead to allow this as evinced by the differences in the healthcare budget and military spending as a percent of GDP between Canada and Russia.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Sure, infrastructure spending in those regions is at an all time high. Roughly 0. /s Really, Russia is except for some large population centers pretty much bankrupt and it isn't that those parts of the world are so much better controlled it is a combination of them being so much less attractive combined with the fact that what money Russia had to spend on infrastructure it for the most part decided to spend on weapons instead. So they get to keep all of it but at the same time make their population so impoverished that once their natural gas and oil run out the whole thing will collapse even further. I expect that by that time China will mop up the remains of the East of Russia without too much in terms of resistance because Russia simply won't be able to hold on to it.