3 ms·
Doesn't explain "too few" at all. To few for what?
by beardyw 2y ago
Doesn't explain "too few" at all. To few for what?
- MattGaiser 2y agoIf you look on the forces.ca website, there is very clearly a shortage of non-comissioned but highly technical soldiers. You see it in the bonuses and "in-demand" tags. https://forces.ca/en/careers https://forces.ca/en/careers I don't think mandatory service would fix that problem.
- beardyw 2y agoStill doesn't answer how you quantify "enough".
- readyplayernull 2y agoEnough to contain an invasion. https://theconversation.com/zombie-water-apocalypse-is-trumps-rhetoric-over-canadas-water-science-fiction-or-reality-250451 https://theconversation.com/zombie-water-apocalypse-is-trump...
- sillywalk 2y agoThere is a set force level target. We're thousands short of that. Just maintaining a relatively small force in Latvia as part of NATO is a strain. Much less having any reserve for other contingencies - e.g. major wildfires or domestic disasters.