5 ms·

In fairness the Canadian army doesn't really need you and to get combat you really need to put in your time and volunteer for the post. In the US army dependin

by wolco 7y ago

In fairness the Canadian army doesn't really need you and to get combat you really need to put in your time and volunteer for the post. In the US army depending on the timeframe you could be through basic training and in a combat zone in less than a year.

munk-a 7y ago
I'm not certain how easy it is in the forces to get cushy stay at home jobs, but Canada actually contributes disproportionately highly to armed conflict when compared to the US, it has participated heavily in quite a few recent actions[1]. Both armed forces have logistical and bureaucratic arms along but only the US (AFAICT) has a dedicated stay-at-home path via the National Guard. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada#Post%E2%80%93Cold_War_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada#Pos...
- pwaivers 7y ago
  What source do you have that Canada has disproportionate contributions, compared to the US? The Wikipedia page doesn't say that.
- wolco 7y ago
  Canada spends disproportionately low compared to the US. It's been a source of major compliants in NATO. 1.2526% vs 3+% Canada does join many more conflicts than it should. But sometimes doesn't have the equipment to get there/back to survive (wearing green camo instead of brown in the desert is a major disadvantage).
- amanaplanacanal 7y ago
  > dedicated stay-at-home path via the National Guard I thought last decade that dedicated stay-at-home path meant you ended up in Iraq or Afghanistan. In other words not so stay-at-home.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    Indeed -- many National Guard units have done 4+ deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq. There was an article a while back about how the Guard used to be fat-ass weekend warriors with gear that was EOL or falling apart. After damn near 20 years of Afghanistan and Iraq most of those Guard units have been multiple times and are equipped and trained to something that resembles actually full-time line units. The Active Duty troopers still get better gear and training, but the Reserves & Guard are a completely different creature than a few decades ago.
- claviska 7y ago
  There is zero guarantee as National Guard that you won’t be deployed. You can be activated at the state or federal level anytime. Source: I’m an active duty Army veteran and have extended family in a guard unit that’s currently deployed OCONUS.
grawprog 7y ago
I guess that's the difference between an imperialistic nation that uses violence and intimidation to enforce its will around the world to the detriment of large parts of the global population inan attempt to control the world's resources and economies and one that doesn't do such things. Also, you may be surprised as to how much of the US army is actually contracted out to third parties these days. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors ETA: I know the truth hurts doesn't it. America uses its army to enslave the world. Just look at south America, south east Asia, the middle east, central america.
- TechBro8615 7y ago
  Funny, because Canada (and other countries) likely wouldn’t be able to get away with having such a small army if it were not for the protection afforded by US power projection. It’s easy to look at the large military in the US and feel morally superior living in a country with a small military. But most likely that country benefits from an alliance with the US. The fact that the US has such a large military is a major reason why many other countries do not need one.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    I don’t think that is true, especially when you consider that if the USA didn’t project power, Russia might not either, and then the Canadian military is just exchanging bottles of liquor with the Danes. The fact that the world is polarized around two or three superpowers creates its own problems for the other counties. The USA not projecting any power wouldn’t necessarily require its former allies to acquire bigger militaries. The size of the EU’s combined military is already comparable to Russia’s for example. Japan and South Korea would be in much harder spots, comparatively.
    - TechBro8615 7y ago
      Well, yes, if no country had a military then no country would need a military. But that’s a rather moot point isn’t it? World peace would be nice but it doesn’t look to be achievable in our lifetimes, and arguably goes against human nature. It’s also worth noting that the military does a lot more than perpetuate violence. It’s really a jobs program more than anything. And soldiers are often on the front lines of humanitarian disasters, as well. Just look at the hospital they built in New York for one recent example.

by wolco 7y ago

munk-a 7y ago

I'm not certain how easy it is in the forces to get cushy stay at home jobs, but Canada actually contributes disproportionately highly to armed conflict when compared to the US, it has participated heavily in quite a few recent actions[1]. Both armed forces have logistical and bureaucratic arms along but only the US (AFAICT) has a dedicated stay-at-home path via the National Guard. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada#Post%E2%80%93Cold_War_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada#Pos...

pwaivers 7y ago
What source do you have that Canada has disproportionate contributions, compared to the US? The Wikipedia page doesn't say that.
wolco 7y ago
Canada spends disproportionately low compared to the US. It's been a source of major compliants in NATO. 1.2526% vs 3+% Canada does join many more conflicts than it should. But sometimes doesn't have the equipment to get there/back to survive (wearing green camo instead of brown in the desert is a major disadvantage).
amanaplanacanal 7y ago
> dedicated stay-at-home path via the National Guard I thought last decade that dedicated stay-at-home path meant you ended up in Iraq or Afghanistan. In other words not so stay-at-home.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Indeed -- many National Guard units have done 4+ deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq. There was an article a while back about how the Guard used to be fat-ass weekend warriors with gear that was EOL or falling apart. After damn near 20 years of Afghanistan and Iraq most of those Guard units have been multiple times and are equipped and trained to something that resembles actually full-time line units. The Active Duty troopers still get better gear and training, but the Reserves & Guard are a completely different creature than a few decades ago.
claviska 7y ago
There is zero guarantee as National Guard that you won’t be deployed. You can be activated at the state or federal level anytime. Source: I’m an active duty Army veteran and have extended family in a guard unit that’s currently deployed OCONUS.

grawprog 7y ago

I guess that's the difference between an imperialistic nation that uses violence and intimidation to enforce its will around the world to the detriment of large parts of the global population inan attempt to control the world's resources and economies and one that doesn't do such things. Also, you may be surprised as to how much of the US army is actually contracted out to third parties these days. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors ETA: I know the truth hurts doesn't it. America uses its army to enslave the world. Just look at south America, south east Asia, the middle east, central america.

TechBro8615 7y ago
Funny, because Canada (and other countries) likely wouldn’t be able to get away with having such a small army if it were not for the protection afforded by US power projection. It’s easy to look at the large military in the US and feel morally superior living in a country with a small military. But most likely that country benefits from an alliance with the US. The fact that the US has such a large military is a major reason why many other countries do not need one.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  I don’t think that is true, especially when you consider that if the USA didn’t project power, Russia might not either, and then the Canadian military is just exchanging bottles of liquor with the Danes. The fact that the world is polarized around two or three superpowers creates its own problems for the other counties. The USA not projecting any power wouldn’t necessarily require its former allies to acquire bigger militaries. The size of the EU’s combined military is already comparable to Russia’s for example. Japan and South Korea would be in much harder spots, comparatively.
  - TechBro8615 7y ago
    Well, yes, if no country had a military then no country would need a military. But that’s a rather moot point isn’t it? World peace would be nice but it doesn’t look to be achievable in our lifetimes, and arguably goes against human nature. It’s also worth noting that the military does a lot more than perpetuate violence. It’s really a jobs program more than anything. And soldiers are often on the front lines of humanitarian disasters, as well. Just look at the hospital they built in New York for one recent example.