22 ms·

Canadian military will rely on public servants to boost its ranks by 300k

126 points by Teever 1y ago

abrichr 1y ago
https://archive.is/G4oZo https://archive.is/G4oZo
colechristensen 1y ago
[flagged]
- _verandaguy 1y ago
  I resent the implication that us being separate countries is a "historical quirk." It's condescending at best and exemplifies why we feel increasingly distant from the US. It's like saying that Belgium and the Netherlands, or Spain and Portugal, or Germany and Switzerland are one historical quirk away from being the same countries.
  - jvanderbot 1y ago
    I mean, it's entirely possible that a historic quirk 300+ years ago leads to an increasingly distant relationship today. It's definitely possible to intepret this the way Russia speaks about Ukraine - "They shouldn't even be a country *except for a historical quirk", but a charitable interpretation would be more along the lines of "things could have gone slightly differently and we'd be countrymen, but instead we brothers from a different mother (country)".
    - _verandaguy 1y ago
      After this past year of US political discourse, you'll forgive me for not extending the benefit of the doubt anymore.
      - jvanderbot 11mo ago
        That is understandable but also unfortunate. Sorry from our side of the 49th
    - tokai 1y ago
      No need to interpret. The exact same line colechristensen wrote has been used by Russias about Ukraine many times.
  - JuniperMesos 1y ago
    > It's like saying that Belgium and the Netherlands, or Spain and Portugal, or Germany and Switzerland are one historical quirk away from being the same countries. I think you could say this about any of those countries, although Switzerland's mountainous location means that it would always resist being part of a larger polity.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      > means that it would always resist being part of a larger polity. More like it can resist in a more cost effective way and that subjugating them is worth less.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    It also reprises one of Russia's claims to Ukraine, and that of many other expansionist dictators through history. Maybe the US should be part of Canada?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - Maxatar 1y ago
    >It's condescending at best and exemplifies why we feel increasingly distant from the US. As a Canadian, why would it be condescending to suggest that at some point in the distant past, Canada and the U.S. could have been a single country had history played out slightly differently? There is nothing offensive about it, if anything the fact that it's a claim about a historical matter only highlights how the two countries have evolved separately and independently. Furthermore your other points are kind of bizzare. Spain and Portugal could absolutely have been a single country, and in fact they were under the Iberian Union. There are numerous other instances where the two countries came close to unifying. The historical possibility of a unified Belgium and the Netherlands is even stronger since those two countries had been unified twice. Germany and Switzerland however is a long shot, but at any rate I don't think anyone from Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain or Portugal would take offense or find it condescending that some historical event could have gone differently and reshaped all of Europe... taking offense to that suggestion as a Canadian, even during these times seems overly insecure and I don't think it's a sentiment shared by most of us.
    - _verandaguy 1y ago
      It's condescending to describe it as a quirk, in the sense that it's no more a quirk than anything else in history. In the current climate where this sort of rhetoric has been publicly and visibly used by Russia to justify their invasion of Ukraine, and by the PRC to justify their ongoing pressure campaigns against the ROC, I also don't take this kind of wording at face value. Wars were fought. People died, generations were involved in discourse about national identity and where borders should be drawn. The US and Canada were both at one point British properties, so by some definitions, we also used to be unified. Then we weren't. Is it insecure? Maybe. The reality is that in a shooting war, we wouldn't last very long against the US, in all likelihood. Under these conditions, the least I can do is to push back against rhetoric that undermines our legitimacy as our own country.
    - tiagod 1y ago
      Although I don't deny it could've happened, Spain and Portugal were different kingdoms during the Iberian Union (Philip II of Spain was known as Philip I of Portugal.)
  - kakacik 1y ago
    I've heard the same rhetoric (we're brothers, all will be fine) from many russians days before 2022 star of proper war in Ukraine. This feeling sadly means nothing in large enough scale.
  - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
    > I resent the implication that us being separate countries is a "historical quirk." It's condescending at best and exemplifies why we feel increasingly distant from the US. I mean that's a bit of an exaggeration. Canadians are basically Americans for all practical purpose to the degree you can barely tell them apart. It doesn't help that Canada has lacked any real national identity other then listing the few minor differences between it and the USA for decades.
    - xyzzy_plugh 1y ago
      > Canadians are basically Americans for all practical purpose to the degree you can barely tell them apart. It doesn't help that Canada has lacked any real national identity other then listing the few minor differences between it and the USA for decades. Why does this even mean? Does national identity even really matter? It's like saying Californians are basically Texans for all practical purpose. Men and women are pretty similar. To suggest that they're so similar they may as well be the same is absolutely condescending.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
        > Does national identity even really matter? In the context of this whole article aka getting people to join the military it 100% matters. Do you think people are going to fight and die for a concept they don't care about?
  - colechristensen 1y ago
    You are the one making the assumption that I meant Canada should be controlled by the US when I meant and wrote no such thing. And Europe _absolutely_ should unite under a single government instead of this pseudo national semi-single-currency/market with a vague poorly representative European government designed mostly just to dance around the fact that these small states are stuck on archaic nationalist ideas and can't get along with a unified purpose. The world needs the strength a unified Europe could provide to counteract Russian aggression, the growth of Chinese power, and the crumbling cornerstone of world order the US is going through. Being offended is strange.
  - dboreham 1y ago
    Those are examples not counterexamples.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- everdrive 1y ago
  Perhaps another sign of the times: commenters are responding with animosity to your suggestion that Americans and Canadians are incredibly close.
  - exe34 1y ago
    I imagine it's hard to feel too close to people who elected a clown who wants to invade you.
- guyzero 1y ago
  It's a historic quirk that the US is a single country. It hardly feels like one most days.
  - qball 1y ago
    The same is true of Canada, but to a far greater extent since Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal have a permanent veto on whatever the rest of the country wants. The US political system, for all its other faults, has successfully avoided this problem. It is not a surprise that region can't find anyone else (in the rest of the economic zone over which it claims dominion) willing to die for its interests, especially when their interests have been revealed to be nothing but "loot the rest of the nation".
    - 1986 1y ago
      We have the opposite problem, where if you live in NYC or LA your vote basically doesn't matter at the national level
      - qball 1y ago
        Yet, that compromise means NYC and LA can still field an all-volunteer army of people who tend not to be from NYC and LA. Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal, demonstrably, cannot do that. Which of the two strategies do you think give the cities a greater chance of survival?
  - vdupras 1y ago
    american: you're the historical quirk! canadian: no, you're the historical quirk! native american: you're both historical twerps.
- chawco 1y ago
  Yeah, it's not a historical quirk, really. In talking to many Americans it seems like they don't really cover loyalists at all, or what happened after the Revolutionary War. Much of what became Canada was settled by former colonists from the what became the United States who remained loyal to the crown. My hometown was founded by loyalists from New York -- including the mayor of New York City -- after the Revolutionary War. Essentially we are even closer than many people think in terms of history, but Canadian identity was seeded from the beginning with the idea of rejecting being "American". We are indeed your closest brothers and sisters because of history, but it's no quirk at all that we're separate -- it's the entire reason we stayed separate at all. You can also see the reverse play out -- what would become Alberta was settled by large numbers of American colonists moving to Canada, and to this day you can see the cultural impact of that in the politics and world view from the region.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
fidotron 1y ago
The most damning thing about this is the Canadian gov would struggle to find 300k people in the rest of the population that it would trust with skilling up in those ways. Federal public servants will be the last bastion of the values they try to force on everyone else. It is in the process of spending vast amounts of money to remove guns from legal gun owners that are subject to absolutely amazing amounts of oversight already.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- thunderfork 1y ago
  I don't think this is true. It's just much easier to bring in people when you have access to them to ask directly, basically. In my short experience in public service, I met a great number of people who were not in lockstep with the so-called "values they try to force" (i.e. the political plans of the current government), so it seems they're not doing a great job of "forcing" those values if that's the plan.
  - fidotron 1y ago
    They have enough problems keeping the people they currently have in the military on the same page. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-caf-charges-terrorism-1.7579487 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-caf-charges-terrorism-... The general response to this was amazement that the MP or RCMP actually did anything about it, given what occurs within those.
    - thunderfork 1y ago
      [dead]
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  HN seems to hate this but you're right. The type of people the military relies on are not in power in Canada and haven't been for some time.
incomingpain 1y ago
Canada has been running about 1% of gdp military spending, despite obligation of 2%; with new promise to meet 5%. a 500% increase to the size of our military in short order is the promise. Our reserves are at about 40,000. They announced the plan to go to 400,000. 10x the size. It's not so much about any outside fears, it's just meeting our obligations.The fear about Russia or China is unfounded. The problem is that the USA our greatest ally isn't letting us use them as a shield. >Federal and provincial employees would be given a one-week training course in how to handle firearms, drive trucks and fly drones, according to the directive, signed by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan There's only about 300,000 federal employees. Greater on the provincial sides, but Canada isn't that big. Conscription will be necessary to fulfill these numbers >The public servants would be inducted into the Supplementary Reserve, which is currently made up of inactive or retired members of the Canadian Forces who are willing to return to duty if called. It says voluntary, but given the very significant % who need to join and be subject to immediate activation. I dont expect many to volunteer. Reserves at least pays you to have this cost. Conscription will be necessary. They are forcing those government employees ultimately.
- koakuma-chan 1y ago
  Why is the US our greatest ally? 36 stratagems says "Befriend a distant state and strike a neighbouring one"
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  >The problem is that the USA our greatest ally isn't letting us use them as a shield. I personally think that Canada can be our (US) greatest ally, but this is only true in the hard-power sense of the word if Canada does actually meet its defense obligations. Canada has a huge coastline, directly adjacent to our most significant threats (China & Russia), yet doesn't have a navy to speak of. We need Canada to step up to its own defense so we can keep being equal allies, otherwise Canada is a de facto protectorate and should pay for that privilege.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > The fear about Russia or China is unfounded. That dismisses the greatest security threats of the era with a word. Most people in that field think those threats are very well-founded. Should Canada take the risk that everything will be fine? I don't know much about Canada's current plans and how effective they would be.
groby_b 1y ago
Just in case people miss the core message: This is something you do if you have a credible risk assessment that you think a big conflict is a possibility within the next decade or so. And, as much as I'd like to focus on deteriorating Canada/US relations, it's likely a dual purpose. The Ukraine/Russia/NATO situation would be the second factor. OK, a triad, China/US is also on the radar. Whatever the weighting, it's pushed Canada to work on a mobilization framework, because the combined risk is high enough. Which means "oh shit" feelings are entirely appropriate, panic isn't.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  Most people haven't noticed until recently but many countries around the world have been dramatically increasing their defense spending for several years now, pre-dating and somewhat independent of the Ukraine situation. Most of it is targeted for operational capability by the end of this decade. Interpret that how you will. As an eye-popping number that illustrates this, just the backlog of new foreign weapon sales awaiting approvals in the US is almost $1T on its own. Countries are spending tremendous amounts of money on advanced weapons right now.
  - ferguess_k 1y ago
    I think it's just they sense that US is no longer willing to be the world police (with its good and bad), so they better either prepare themselves for defence or prepare themselves for offence to grab some lands they have been drooling over for a while.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- observationist 1y ago
  Any rational assessment of Canada's military capabilities, its funding capabilities, and population will lead to a determination that they're not in any sort of position to have any sort of meaningful defense or offense without the US running point. For that to change would require generational shifts in culture and revenue generation and so on. If the US chooses not to defend them, they're exposing themselves to unacceptable risk. If the US chooses to defend, Canada isn't contributing within the same order of magnitude. If the US chose to attack, then more has gone wrong in the world than you could possibly cope with, having a few thousand more tanks, ships, and helicopters isn't going to save the day. It'd take decades to build up population, R&D infrastructure, resources, and so on, and there'd likely be a lot of pressure to not do those things and use the US military industrial complex instead. Not saying this is good for Canada, btw, just that the reality is they've kinda coasted on US coattails for decades now, and for better or worse, they're stuck. Which should in turn beg the question - if there's no practical or pragmatic point in spending a bunch of money on military preparedness and expansion, then why's that money being spent, and who's getting paid? Why are bureaucrats being militarized, instead of a discrete, well regulated military being created to meet whatever the need was? Strange politics.
jjk166 1y ago
Seems like a generally good idea for creating a large reserve force. It definitely beats general conscription. I don't see why Canada in particular needs such a large reserve force. This would jump Canada from number 127 to number 52 in terms of percentage of population in reserves, and bump it up to 17th in terms of absolute reserves size. For a nation with basically zero chance of invasion of its home soil and an extremely low risk of internal conflict, it's hard to imagine a scenario where anywhere near this many reservists would be required.
- gpm 1y ago
  The US has been consistently signalling that it is considering annexing us since Donald Trump was re-elected in November of last year... the politicians are unlikely to say it outright but I think this is pretty clearly aimed at the US and making it too costly to do so.
  - electric_mayhem 1y ago
    Canada would be insane to not beef up its military at this point. Mexico should, too.
    - swader999 1y ago
      I'm ok with you guys taking over. You probably don't want us though.
      - nxm 1y ago
        No one is stopping you from moving to Mexico, and millions would take your spot in a heartbeat. The amount of privilege is astonishing by some of the posters here
    - TulliusCicero 1y ago
      That Mexico has zero tanks or infantry fighting vehicles or real self propelled artillery might tell you how they've felt about the odds of the US actually invading again. (IMO they should get some of these things even if there's no chance of the US invading, given how much firepower some of the cartels have.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ninalanyon 1y ago
24 000 reserves out of a population of 40 million seems like a rather small number. Norway has 40 000 in the Home Guard (Heimevernet) rapid reaction force of volunteer part time soldiers and a further 20 000 reserves. All from a population of about 5.5 million.
- gpm 1y ago
  The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. Nukes might fly overhead and end the world as they struck targets on either side, but other than that we were safe and any significant military action we took part in would be overseas and thus not justify calling up a huge number of reservists. Meanwhile Norway was occupied in WWII, and after that spent the next decades next to the Soviet Union, and then Russia. There's clearly been a long standing risk of actual invasion.
  - sandworm101 1y ago
    Except that there are several invasion risks, especially in the north. Canada maintains bases there (Alert) to protect its north from being taken by the likes of Russia, the USA and even Denmark (they have a longrunning dispute regarding an island near greenland). Canada also does not want the northwest passage to become an international waterway and so must maintain control over vessels in the north. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War >> The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. The United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the United States signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation," that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all U.S. Coast Guard and Navy vessels are engaged in research, and so would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
    - asdff 1y ago
Animats 1y ago
This isn't using government employees for non-combat tasks to free up troops. It's more like the WWII Home Guard in the UK. "Federal and provincial employees would be given a one-week training course in how to handle firearms, drive trucks and fly drones...The public servants would be inducted into the Supplementary Reserve, which is currently made up of inactive or retired members of the Canadian Forces who are willing to return to duty if called." This sort of thing is usually a desperation measure in wartime. What threat does Canada see? US ICE goon squads crossing the border into Canada? Building up the regular military reserves is more normal. Further down, the article says that's happening. A better use for a Home Guard of government employees would be civil defense. What to do when power goes out, food distribution breaks down, or gas deliveries cease.
- Driver8 1y ago
  What you're describing sounds more like what the federal budget calls the Youth Climate Corps: https://www.budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/chap3-en.html https://www.budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/chap3-en.ht...
stackedinserter 1y ago
> Federal and provincial employees would be given a one-week training course in how to handle firearms, drive trucks and fly drones What is the use of these "professionals"? I know russians send these substandard soldiers to meat grinder ("infiltration in small groups" tactics). If they're killed with ukrainian FPV drone, it's fine, at least AFU spent a drone. Is it what Canadians are planning to do?
- lukan 1y ago
  It is simply raising the costs for any potential invasion. When a wannabe imperialist thinks, he can get something easy, he will take it. If he thinks, there will be unknown risks and costs .. he might not.
  - stackedinserter 1y ago
    It will not raise any cost, these "soldiers" will pose zero threat.
    - gpm 1y ago
      Minimally trained people pose no threat, this is why the US won against the Taliban...
      - stackedinserter 11mo ago
        Taliban is "minimally trained people"?
cmrdporcupine 1y ago
Odd how this is on front page of HN but buried way down my feed on (Canadian) Google News and doesn't seem to be front-page news? Do you have to be a public servant or retired Canadian Forces, or do they take portly middle-aged out of shape software engineers, too? Asking for a friend. Haven't shot a gun since Bible Camp when I was 12. Could be fun.
colonwqbang 1y ago
How much useful combat skills can be taught in only a week? It seems like an extremely low estimate on the training needed to play a useful role in the military.
- notatoad 1y ago
  i don't think they're really expecting people to serve a useful role in the military. it's a "supplemental reserve", meaning a level below ordinary reservists. it sounds like basically if the country was ever in a situation dire enough that they were calling on ordinary citizens to help with defense, an ordinary citizen with a week's training would be better than one with no training. or more cynically: it's a way to make a whole bunch of voters feel like they're involved in the military, to make military spending more palatable to voters.
  - mcny 1y ago
    Maybe I wouldn't be very useful in combat but maybe I can peel potatoes or mop the floors in case of an invasion. I am thinking it frees up someone who is "combat ready" from kitchen or janitor duty. It helps, right?
    - notatoad 1y ago
      except they say the training will include firearms and drone flight.
      - imgabe 1y ago
        Everyone in the military should be trained with weapons. If it comes down to it, even the guy who mops the floors is going to need to pick up a rifle if the situation is dire enough. It helps if he held one before at least.
        stackedinserter 1y ago
        How much will you "train with weapons" in one week?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
outside1234 1y ago
These people will just be "drone meat" and frankly this feels like a way to fake their NATO commitments.
- whynotmaybe 1y ago
  How can it be fake if it's defense related spending?
  - stackedinserter 1y ago
    Because it's one week "training".
    - whynotmaybe 1y ago
      Many NATO countries' healthcare and pensions for retired personnel is included in their NATO spending. Should that also be classified as "fake" because if they're retired or sick, they're not really active anymore?
      - stackedinserter 11mo ago
        Dude, you know what I'm talking about. One week of training doesn't make you any good for modern military. You can draft retirement homes with the same success.
neilv 1y ago
* The article speaks of this personnel like reservists, but could the training also apply to helping defend public infrastructure and institutions, where they work? (For example, if there ever be a need to quickly hand out firearms on-site, or if ever there was a need for random people to know how to observe and report threats?) * Could this training be practice, before mass military training of most adult citizens?
- gpm 1y ago
  > The article speaks of this personnel like reservists, but could the training also apply to helping defend public infrastructure and institutions, where they work? (For example, if there ever be a need to quickly hand out firearms on-site, or if ever there was a need for random people to know how to observe and report threats?) Can't quite imagine the threat that would cause a need for this in Canada, but sure. Edit: I guess in the north the training would be useful for polar bear defence... > Could this training be practice, before mass military training of most adult citizens? Probably not politically viable unless we were invaded (and border conflicts in unpopulated areas don't count). Not logistically viable after the US invades us, and they are the only contender. Maybe you could manage to make a volunteer based reserve program attractive enough to get a significant fraction of adult citizens? If you could that might be politically viable. I doubt the current government is anywhere near ambitious enough to try.
BiraIgnacio 11mo ago
> The Canadian Forces is counting on public servants to volunteer for military service as it tries to ramp up an army of 300,000 as part of a mobilization plan, according to a defence department directive.
motohagiography 11mo ago
im of two minds, where on the one hand having some basic physical competence and responsibility can only improve civil servants, but on the other, the civil service is now stacked with radical partisans, and arming them and organizing them as paramilitaries is going to go exactly how you'd expect.
TriangleEdge 11mo ago
This reminds me of the movie 300 where an army shows up with potters and other tradesmen, while the army of Sparta were all soldiers. Opinion: as an expat, I'm not sure who would join the CAF nowadays. Not much to be proud of in my opinion. Without exaggerating, not a single person I grew up with is doing well, and I had to leave Canada to start my family.
- strombofulous 11mo ago
  > not a single person I grew up with is doing well What is happening in Canada to cause this?
  - ttz 11mo ago
    root cause is believing anecdotes of people on the internet
    - k12sosse 11mo ago
      AMEN. Doing just fine, so is my family. Didn't need to turn my cost inside out to do it either.
  - TriangleEdge 11mo ago
    I suppose "doing well" isn't a very good metric. It's based on my feelings and experiences having traveled to 5 wealthy countries and chatting with people there. Even in third world countries, like Brazil, I didn't see people dying of opioid overdoses everywhere downtown.
- rvba 11mo ago
  > as an expat How can we know that you arent a russian propaganda account, who created a legend that you live outside of Canada, when in reality you never lived there and your lies that "Canada military bad" are just written from Moscow?
  - TriangleEdge 11mo ago
nightshift1 11mo ago
Afaik, Canada's public service jobs are unionized. Maybe it's a trick to make people resign or if they don't, just send them to the front-lines. /s https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/carney-budget-to-slash-public-service-by-16-000-over-3-years-9.6965108 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/carney-budget-to-slash...
SanjayMehta 11mo ago
To fight whom exactly?
ipcress_file 11mo ago
I believe this is a crafty method of reviving "Participaction" without Hal and Joanne. Well played, Mr. Carney!
raydev 11mo ago
This is likely an attempt to appease Trump on one of the many silly demands he's making in the silly tariff negotiations, this one being increased military funding. Gotta find something to spend money on.
chriselles 11mo ago
I think some are too focused on recruiting or conscripting citizens for fighting a kinetic conflict. For the Five Eyes(Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ) that don’t ever need to worry about conventional invasion, it’s far more about national resilience that relates to national defence. How does a nation rapidly adapt to warfare that is occurring beneath the threshold of conventional warfare, and in some cases general public detection. It’s not about fighting future trench warfare, it’s likely more about adaption to disruption to the nation of the electrical grid, logistics systems, and digital platforms. A contemporary civil defence optimised not to defend against nuclear war but to defend against cyber, informational, psychological, and supply chain warfare. Less continuity of government(as per Cold awards doctrine), more continuity of economy. That’s just my 0.02c.
- mikelitoris 11mo ago
  Did you mean $0.02? Or 2¢?
  - HighGoldstein 11mo ago
    5,995,849.16 m/s
- L_226 11mo ago
  > For the Five Eyes(Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ) that don’t ever need to worry about conventional invasion Australia is extremely at risk of conventional invasion, their current independence is a function of alliance to the strongest navy in the Pacific. Without a US that is willing and able to ensure Australia's free access to the surrounding ocean, AU is absolutely unable to deploy enough of their own military to fend of probably even Indonesia, let alone China. The coastline is just far too long, the military assets too few, and the country too depopulated to be able to stop a determined invasion.
  - chriselles 11mo ago
    I need to push back on your analysis on this. Quite hard actually. Indonesia lacks the force projection capability to even project an expeditionary force into Northern Australia. Sustaining an expeditionary force into Northern Australia by Indonesia would leave it incredibly vulnerable to air and sea supply chain interdiction. With first hand professional domain experience, and without arrogance or hubris, an Indonesian invasion of Northern Australia would be disastrous for Indonesia. China invading Australia would entail a much more capable, but entirely untested, expeditionary force over much longer and far more vulnerable supply chains. With just FVEY intelligence support and FVEY forces already forward deployed into Australia, the likelihood of China successfully establishing and sustaining a beachhead to break into Australia with a conventional invasion would be similar to that of Indonesia, due to very long and very vulnerable supply chains. Unless China glassed Australia with nuclear weapons, any attempt by Xi and the CCP's PLAN/PLAAF/PLA to conventionally invade Australia would be a moon shot too far. China's fleet steaming south would be severely attrited transitting limited maritime traffic route bottlenecks that would be akin to cattle chutes in a slaughter house, while China's own energy/food/raw industrial materials commercial maritime supply chains would be existentially vulnerable. That's just to Australia's current fleet of Collins class submarines and tanker supported F35s. Australia's AUKUS nuclear submarine investment will magnify that current independent threat to China's maritime supply chain. Which is odd, considering this comedic skit is partially true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cGYQneo-G8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cGYQneo-G8 Unconventional attack is far, far more likely. Thus requiring a focus on national resilience and adaptability to crisis.
d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
"We find that at present the human race is divided politically into one wise man, nine knaves, and ninety fools out of every hundred. That is, by an optimistic observer. The nine knaves assemble themselves under the banner of the most knavish among them, and become "politicians". The wise man stands out because he knows himself to be hopelessly outnumbered, and devotes himself to poetry, mathematics, or phylosophy; while the ninety fools plod off behind the banners of the nine villians, according to fancy, into the labyrinths of chicanery, malice, and warfare. It is pleasant to have command even over a flock of sheep, and that is why the politcians raise the banners. It is, moreover, the same thing for the sheep whatever the banner. If it is democracy, then the nine knaves will become members of parliament; if fascism, they will become party leaders, if communism, commissars, the result is still exploitation. As for the wise man his lot is the same under any ideology. Under democracy he will be encouraged to starve to death under garret, under fascism he will be put in a concentration camp, under communism he will be liquidated." -- Merlin
- d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
  Incidentally, in the above quote Merlin is speaking on behalf of the committee of animals to the King.
- TylerLives 11mo ago
  We're getting off topic, but there is another form of government: "A peculiar disadvantage attaching to republics...is that in this form of government it must be more difficult for men of ability to attain high position and exercise direct political influence than in the case of monarchies. For always...there is a conspiracy...against such men on the part of all the stupid, the weak, and the commonplace; they look upon such men as their natural enemies, and they are firmly held together by a common fear of them. There is always a numerous host of the stupid and the weak, and in a republican constitution it is easy for them to suppress and exclude the men of ability, so that they may not be flanked by them. They are fifty to one; and here all have equal rights at start. In a monarchy, on the other hand...talent and intelligence receive a natural advocacy and support from above. In the first place, the position of the monarch himself is much too high and too firm for him to stand in fear of any sort of competition. In the next place, he serves the State more by his will than by his intelligence; for no intelligence could ever be equal to all the demands that would in his case be made upon it. He is therefore compelled to be always availing himself of other men's intelligence." Arthur Schopenhauer
duxup 11mo ago
This reads like one of those ideas that folks come up in a conference room where "oh these people will just volunteer to do it" and ... nobody asked if they want to or if these are the people they even want to do it. I worked at a company once and we were acquired. They fired everyone but the folks on my floor. One day I get a call supposedly from HR at the new company (I had no idea who it was). They said they forgot to keep some facilities folks on and they asked if I could do some tasks like ... move garbage and open the door for the mail guy. I had to explain that I had to be on the phone / ready to answer my entire shift and so did everyone who wasn't fired ... it took them a while to figure out that nobody was going to move trash for them / the scale of what they were asking. They thought we would just chip in and become janitors or something. I'm sure it seemed a reasonable solution for everyone not doing it.

126 points by Teever 1y ago

abrichr 1y ago

https://archive.is/G4oZo https://archive.is/G4oZo

colechristensen 1y ago

[flagged]

_verandaguy 1y ago
I resent the implication that us being separate countries is a "historical quirk." It's condescending at best and exemplifies why we feel increasingly distant from the US. It's like saying that Belgium and the Netherlands, or Spain and Portugal, or Germany and Switzerland are one historical quirk away from being the same countries.
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  I mean, it's entirely possible that a historic quirk 300+ years ago leads to an increasingly distant relationship today. It's definitely possible to intepret this the way Russia speaks about Ukraine - "They shouldn't even be a country *except for a historical quirk", but a charitable interpretation would be more along the lines of "things could have gone slightly differently and we'd be countrymen, but instead we brothers from a different mother (country)".
  - _verandaguy 1y ago
    After this past year of US political discourse, you'll forgive me for not extending the benefit of the doubt anymore.
    - jvanderbot 11mo ago
      That is understandable but also unfortunate. Sorry from our side of the 49th
  - tokai 1y ago
    No need to interpret. The exact same line colechristensen wrote has been used by Russias about Ukraine many times.
- JuniperMesos 1y ago
  > It's like saying that Belgium and the Netherlands, or Spain and Portugal, or Germany and Switzerland are one historical quirk away from being the same countries. I think you could say this about any of those countries, although Switzerland's mountainous location means that it would always resist being part of a larger polity.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    > means that it would always resist being part of a larger polity. More like it can resist in a more cost effective way and that subjugating them is worth less.
- mmooss 1y ago
  It also reprises one of Russia's claims to Ukraine, and that of many other expansionist dictators through history. Maybe the US should be part of Canada?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- Maxatar 1y ago
  >It's condescending at best and exemplifies why we feel increasingly distant from the US. As a Canadian, why would it be condescending to suggest that at some point in the distant past, Canada and the U.S. could have been a single country had history played out slightly differently? There is nothing offensive about it, if anything the fact that it's a claim about a historical matter only highlights how the two countries have evolved separately and independently. Furthermore your other points are kind of bizzare. Spain and Portugal could absolutely have been a single country, and in fact they were under the Iberian Union. There are numerous other instances where the two countries came close to unifying. The historical possibility of a unified Belgium and the Netherlands is even stronger since those two countries had been unified twice. Germany and Switzerland however is a long shot, but at any rate I don't think anyone from Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain or Portugal would take offense or find it condescending that some historical event could have gone differently and reshaped all of Europe... taking offense to that suggestion as a Canadian, even during these times seems overly insecure and I don't think it's a sentiment shared by most of us.
  - _verandaguy 1y ago
    It's condescending to describe it as a quirk, in the sense that it's no more a quirk than anything else in history. In the current climate where this sort of rhetoric has been publicly and visibly used by Russia to justify their invasion of Ukraine, and by the PRC to justify their ongoing pressure campaigns against the ROC, I also don't take this kind of wording at face value. Wars were fought. People died, generations were involved in discourse about national identity and where borders should be drawn. The US and Canada were both at one point British properties, so by some definitions, we also used to be unified. Then we weren't. Is it insecure? Maybe. The reality is that in a shooting war, we wouldn't last very long against the US, in all likelihood. Under these conditions, the least I can do is to push back against rhetoric that undermines our legitimacy as our own country.
  - tiagod 1y ago
    Although I don't deny it could've happened, Spain and Portugal were different kingdoms during the Iberian Union (Philip II of Spain was known as Philip I of Portugal.)
- kakacik 1y ago
  I've heard the same rhetoric (we're brothers, all will be fine) from many russians days before 2022 star of proper war in Ukraine. This feeling sadly means nothing in large enough scale.
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  > I resent the implication that us being separate countries is a "historical quirk." It's condescending at best and exemplifies why we feel increasingly distant from the US. I mean that's a bit of an exaggeration. Canadians are basically Americans for all practical purpose to the degree you can barely tell them apart. It doesn't help that Canada has lacked any real national identity other then listing the few minor differences between it and the USA for decades.
  - xyzzy_plugh 1y ago
    > Canadians are basically Americans for all practical purpose to the degree you can barely tell them apart. It doesn't help that Canada has lacked any real national identity other then listing the few minor differences between it and the USA for decades. Why does this even mean? Does national identity even really matter? It's like saying Californians are basically Texans for all practical purpose. Men and women are pretty similar. To suggest that they're so similar they may as well be the same is absolutely condescending.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
      > Does national identity even really matter? In the context of this whole article aka getting people to join the military it 100% matters. Do you think people are going to fight and die for a concept they don't care about?
- colechristensen 1y ago
  You are the one making the assumption that I meant Canada should be controlled by the US when I meant and wrote no such thing. And Europe _absolutely_ should unite under a single government instead of this pseudo national semi-single-currency/market with a vague poorly representative European government designed mostly just to dance around the fact that these small states are stuck on archaic nationalist ideas and can't get along with a unified purpose. The world needs the strength a unified Europe could provide to counteract Russian aggression, the growth of Chinese power, and the crumbling cornerstone of world order the US is going through. Being offended is strange.
- dboreham 1y ago
  Those are examples not counterexamples.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
everdrive 1y ago
Perhaps another sign of the times: commenters are responding with animosity to your suggestion that Americans and Canadians are incredibly close.
- exe34 1y ago
  I imagine it's hard to feel too close to people who elected a clown who wants to invade you.
guyzero 1y ago
It's a historic quirk that the US is a single country. It hardly feels like one most days.
- qball 1y ago
  The same is true of Canada, but to a far greater extent since Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal have a permanent veto on whatever the rest of the country wants. The US political system, for all its other faults, has successfully avoided this problem. It is not a surprise that region can't find anyone else (in the rest of the economic zone over which it claims dominion) willing to die for its interests, especially when their interests have been revealed to be nothing but "loot the rest of the nation".
  - 1986 1y ago
    We have the opposite problem, where if you live in NYC or LA your vote basically doesn't matter at the national level
    - qball 1y ago
      Yet, that compromise means NYC and LA can still field an all-volunteer army of people who tend not to be from NYC and LA. Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal, demonstrably, cannot do that. Which of the two strategies do you think give the cities a greater chance of survival?
- vdupras 1y ago
  american: you're the historical quirk! canadian: no, you're the historical quirk! native american: you're both historical twerps.
chawco 1y ago
Yeah, it's not a historical quirk, really. In talking to many Americans it seems like they don't really cover loyalists at all, or what happened after the Revolutionary War. Much of what became Canada was settled by former colonists from the what became the United States who remained loyal to the crown. My hometown was founded by loyalists from New York -- including the mayor of New York City -- after the Revolutionary War. Essentially we are even closer than many people think in terms of history, but Canadian identity was seeded from the beginning with the idea of rejecting being "American". We are indeed your closest brothers and sisters because of history, but it's no quirk at all that we're separate -- it's the entire reason we stayed separate at all. You can also see the reverse play out -- what would become Alberta was settled by large numbers of American colonists moving to Canada, and to this day you can see the cultural impact of that in the politics and world view from the region.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

fidotron 1y ago

The most damning thing about this is the Canadian gov would struggle to find 300k people in the rest of the population that it would trust with skilling up in those ways. Federal public servants will be the last bastion of the values they try to force on everyone else. It is in the process of spending vast amounts of money to remove guns from legal gun owners that are subject to absolutely amazing amounts of oversight already.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
thunderfork 1y ago
I don't think this is true. It's just much easier to bring in people when you have access to them to ask directly, basically. In my short experience in public service, I met a great number of people who were not in lockstep with the so-called "values they try to force" (i.e. the political plans of the current government), so it seems they're not doing a great job of "forcing" those values if that's the plan.
- fidotron 1y ago
  They have enough problems keeping the people they currently have in the military on the same page. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-caf-charges-terrorism-1.7579487 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-caf-charges-terrorism-... The general response to this was amazement that the MP or RCMP actually did anything about it, given what occurs within those.
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
HN seems to hate this but you're right. The type of people the military relies on are not in power in Canada and haven't been for some time.

incomingpain 1y ago

Canada has been running about 1% of gdp military spending, despite obligation of 2%; with new promise to meet 5%. a 500% increase to the size of our military in short order is the promise. Our reserves are at about 40,000. They announced the plan to go to 400,000. 10x the size. It's not so much about any outside fears, it's just meeting our obligations.The fear about Russia or China is unfounded. The problem is that the USA our greatest ally isn't letting us use them as a shield. >Federal and provincial employees would be given a one-week training course in how to handle firearms, drive trucks and fly drones, according to the directive, signed by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan There's only about 300,000 federal employees. Greater on the provincial sides, but Canada isn't that big. Conscription will be necessary to fulfill these numbers >The public servants would be inducted into the Supplementary Reserve, which is currently made up of inactive or retired members of the Canadian Forces who are willing to return to duty if called. It says voluntary, but given the very significant % who need to join and be subject to immediate activation. I dont expect many to volunteer. Reserves at least pays you to have this cost. Conscription will be necessary. They are forcing those government employees ultimately.

koakuma-chan 1y ago
Why is the US our greatest ally? 36 stratagems says "Befriend a distant state and strike a neighbouring one"
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
>The problem is that the USA our greatest ally isn't letting us use them as a shield. I personally think that Canada can be our (US) greatest ally, but this is only true in the hard-power sense of the word if Canada does actually meet its defense obligations. Canada has a huge coastline, directly adjacent to our most significant threats (China & Russia), yet doesn't have a navy to speak of. We need Canada to step up to its own defense so we can keep being equal allies, otherwise Canada is a de facto protectorate and should pay for that privilege.
mmooss 1y ago
> The fear about Russia or China is unfounded. That dismisses the greatest security threats of the era with a word. Most people in that field think those threats are very well-founded. Should Canada take the risk that everything will be fine? I don't know much about Canada's current plans and how effective they would be.

groby_b 1y ago

Just in case people miss the core message: This is something you do if you have a credible risk assessment that you think a big conflict is a possibility within the next decade or so. And, as much as I'd like to focus on deteriorating Canada/US relations, it's likely a dual purpose. The Ukraine/Russia/NATO situation would be the second factor. OK, a triad, China/US is also on the radar. Whatever the weighting, it's pushed Canada to work on a mobilization framework, because the combined risk is high enough. Which means "oh shit" feelings are entirely appropriate, panic isn't.

jandrewrogers 1y ago
Most people haven't noticed until recently but many countries around the world have been dramatically increasing their defense spending for several years now, pre-dating and somewhat independent of the Ukraine situation. Most of it is targeted for operational capability by the end of this decade. Interpret that how you will. As an eye-popping number that illustrates this, just the backlog of new foreign weapon sales awaiting approvals in the US is almost $1T on its own. Countries are spending tremendous amounts of money on advanced weapons right now.
- ferguess_k 1y ago
  I think it's just they sense that US is no longer willing to be the world police (with its good and bad), so they better either prepare themselves for defence or prepare themselves for offence to grab some lands they have been drooling over for a while.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
observationist 1y ago
Any rational assessment of Canada's military capabilities, its funding capabilities, and population will lead to a determination that they're not in any sort of position to have any sort of meaningful defense or offense without the US running point. For that to change would require generational shifts in culture and revenue generation and so on. If the US chooses not to defend them, they're exposing themselves to unacceptable risk. If the US chooses to defend, Canada isn't contributing within the same order of magnitude. If the US chose to attack, then more has gone wrong in the world than you could possibly cope with, having a few thousand more tanks, ships, and helicopters isn't going to save the day. It'd take decades to build up population, R&D infrastructure, resources, and so on, and there'd likely be a lot of pressure to not do those things and use the US military industrial complex instead. Not saying this is good for Canada, btw, just that the reality is they've kinda coasted on US coattails for decades now, and for better or worse, they're stuck. Which should in turn beg the question - if there's no practical or pragmatic point in spending a bunch of money on military preparedness and expansion, then why's that money being spent, and who's getting paid? Why are bureaucrats being militarized, instead of a discrete, well regulated military being created to meet whatever the need was? Strange politics.

jjk166 1y ago

Seems like a generally good idea for creating a large reserve force. It definitely beats general conscription. I don't see why Canada in particular needs such a large reserve force. This would jump Canada from number 127 to number 52 in terms of percentage of population in reserves, and bump it up to 17th in terms of absolute reserves size. For a nation with basically zero chance of invasion of its home soil and an extremely low risk of internal conflict, it's hard to imagine a scenario where anywhere near this many reservists would be required.

gpm 1y ago
The US has been consistently signalling that it is considering annexing us since Donald Trump was re-elected in November of last year... the politicians are unlikely to say it outright but I think this is pretty clearly aimed at the US and making it too costly to do so.
- electric_mayhem 1y ago
  Canada would be insane to not beef up its military at this point. Mexico should, too.
  - swader999 1y ago
    I'm ok with you guys taking over. You probably don't want us though.
    - nxm 1y ago
      No one is stopping you from moving to Mexico, and millions would take your spot in a heartbeat. The amount of privilege is astonishing by some of the posters here
  - TulliusCicero 1y ago
    That Mexico has zero tanks or infantry fighting vehicles or real self propelled artillery might tell you how they've felt about the odds of the US actually invading again. (IMO they should get some of these things even if there's no chance of the US invading, given how much firepower some of the cartels have.)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ninalanyon 1y ago

24 000 reserves out of a population of 40 million seems like a rather small number. Norway has 40 000 in the Home Guard (Heimevernet) rapid reaction force of volunteer part time soldiers and a further 20 000 reserves. All from a population of about 5.5 million.

gpm 1y ago
The difference here is presumably for the last hundred years, ending last November, there was simply no chance of a invasion of Canada. Nukes might fly overhead and end the world as they struck targets on either side, but other than that we were safe and any significant military action we took part in would be overseas and thus not justify calling up a huge number of reservists. Meanwhile Norway was occupied in WWII, and after that spent the next decades next to the Soviet Union, and then Russia. There's clearly been a long standing risk of actual invasion.
- sandworm101 1y ago
  Except that there are several invasion risks, especially in the north. Canada maintains bases there (Alert) to protect its north from being taken by the likes of Russia, the USA and even Denmark (they have a longrunning dispute regarding an island near greenland). Canada also does not want the northwest passage to become an international waterway and so must maintain control over vessels in the north. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War >> The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. The United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the United States signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation," that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all U.S. Coast Guard and Navy vessels are engaged in research, and so would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
  - asdff 1y ago

Animats 1y ago

This isn't using government employees for non-combat tasks to free up troops. It's more like the WWII Home Guard in the UK. "Federal and provincial employees would be given a one-week training course in how to handle firearms, drive trucks and fly drones...The public servants would be inducted into the Supplementary Reserve, which is currently made up of inactive or retired members of the Canadian Forces who are willing to return to duty if called." This sort of thing is usually a desperation measure in wartime. What threat does Canada see? US ICE goon squads crossing the border into Canada? Building up the regular military reserves is more normal. Further down, the article says that's happening. A better use for a Home Guard of government employees would be civil defense. What to do when power goes out, food distribution breaks down, or gas deliveries cease.

Driver8 1y ago
What you're describing sounds more like what the federal budget calls the Youth Climate Corps: https://www.budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/chap3-en.html https://www.budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/chap3-en.ht...

stackedinserter 1y ago

> Federal and provincial employees would be given a one-week training course in how to handle firearms, drive trucks and fly drones What is the use of these "professionals"? I know russians send these substandard soldiers to meat grinder ("infiltration in small groups" tactics). If they're killed with ukrainian FPV drone, it's fine, at least AFU spent a drone. Is it what Canadians are planning to do?

lukan 1y ago
It is simply raising the costs for any potential invasion. When a wannabe imperialist thinks, he can get something easy, he will take it. If he thinks, there will be unknown risks and costs .. he might not.
- stackedinserter 1y ago
  It will not raise any cost, these "soldiers" will pose zero threat.
  - gpm 1y ago
    Minimally trained people pose no threat, this is why the US won against the Taliban...
    - stackedinserter 11mo ago
      Taliban is "minimally trained people"?

cmrdporcupine 1y ago

Odd how this is on front page of HN but buried way down my feed on (Canadian) Google News and doesn't seem to be front-page news? Do you have to be a public servant or retired Canadian Forces, or do they take portly middle-aged out of shape software engineers, too? Asking for a friend. Haven't shot a gun since Bible Camp when I was 12. Could be fun.

colonwqbang 1y ago

How much useful combat skills can be taught in only a week? It seems like an extremely low estimate on the training needed to play a useful role in the military.

notatoad 1y ago
i don't think they're really expecting people to serve a useful role in the military. it's a "supplemental reserve", meaning a level below ordinary reservists. it sounds like basically if the country was ever in a situation dire enough that they were calling on ordinary citizens to help with defense, an ordinary citizen with a week's training would be better than one with no training. or more cynically: it's a way to make a whole bunch of voters feel like they're involved in the military, to make military spending more palatable to voters.
- mcny 1y ago
  Maybe I wouldn't be very useful in combat but maybe I can peel potatoes or mop the floors in case of an invasion. I am thinking it frees up someone who is "combat ready" from kitchen or janitor duty. It helps, right?
  - notatoad 1y ago
    except they say the training will include firearms and drone flight.
    - imgabe 1y ago
      Everyone in the military should be trained with weapons. If it comes down to it, even the guy who mops the floors is going to need to pick up a rifle if the situation is dire enough. It helps if he held one before at least.
      - stackedinserter 1y ago
        How much will you "train with weapons" in one week?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

outside1234 1y ago

These people will just be "drone meat" and frankly this feels like a way to fake their NATO commitments.

whynotmaybe 1y ago
How can it be fake if it's defense related spending?
- stackedinserter 1y ago
  Because it's one week "training".
  - whynotmaybe 1y ago
    Many NATO countries' healthcare and pensions for retired personnel is included in their NATO spending. Should that also be classified as "fake" because if they're retired or sick, they're not really active anymore?
    - stackedinserter 11mo ago
      Dude, you know what I'm talking about. One week of training doesn't make you any good for modern military. You can draft retirement homes with the same success.

neilv 1y ago

* The article speaks of this personnel like reservists, but could the training also apply to helping defend public infrastructure and institutions, where they work? (For example, if there ever be a need to quickly hand out firearms on-site, or if ever there was a need for random people to know how to observe and report threats?) * Could this training be practice, before mass military training of most adult citizens?

gpm 1y ago
> The article speaks of this personnel like reservists, but could the training also apply to helping defend public infrastructure and institutions, where they work? (For example, if there ever be a need to quickly hand out firearms on-site, or if ever there was a need for random people to know how to observe and report threats?) Can't quite imagine the threat that would cause a need for this in Canada, but sure. Edit: I guess in the north the training would be useful for polar bear defence... > Could this training be practice, before mass military training of most adult citizens? Probably not politically viable unless we were invaded (and border conflicts in unpopulated areas don't count). Not logistically viable after the US invades us, and they are the only contender. Maybe you could manage to make a volunteer based reserve program attractive enough to get a significant fraction of adult citizens? If you could that might be politically viable. I doubt the current government is anywhere near ambitious enough to try.

BiraIgnacio 11mo ago

> The Canadian Forces is counting on public servants to volunteer for military service as it tries to ramp up an army of 300,000 as part of a mobilization plan, according to a defence department directive.

motohagiography 11mo ago

im of two minds, where on the one hand having some basic physical competence and responsibility can only improve civil servants, but on the other, the civil service is now stacked with radical partisans, and arming them and organizing them as paramilitaries is going to go exactly how you'd expect.

TriangleEdge 11mo ago

This reminds me of the movie 300 where an army shows up with potters and other tradesmen, while the army of Sparta were all soldiers. Opinion: as an expat, I'm not sure who would join the CAF nowadays. Not much to be proud of in my opinion. Without exaggerating, not a single person I grew up with is doing well, and I had to leave Canada to start my family.

strombofulous 11mo ago
> not a single person I grew up with is doing well What is happening in Canada to cause this?
- ttz 11mo ago
  root cause is believing anecdotes of people on the internet
  - k12sosse 11mo ago
    AMEN. Doing just fine, so is my family. Didn't need to turn my cost inside out to do it either.
- TriangleEdge 11mo ago
  I suppose "doing well" isn't a very good metric. It's based on my feelings and experiences having traveled to 5 wealthy countries and chatting with people there. Even in third world countries, like Brazil, I didn't see people dying of opioid overdoses everywhere downtown.
rvba 11mo ago
> as an expat How can we know that you arent a russian propaganda account, who created a legend that you live outside of Canada, when in reality you never lived there and your lies that "Canada military bad" are just written from Moscow?
- TriangleEdge 11mo ago

nightshift1 11mo ago

Afaik, Canada's public service jobs are unionized. Maybe it's a trick to make people resign or if they don't, just send them to the front-lines. /s https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/carney-budget-to-slash-public-service-by-16-000-over-3-years-9.6965108 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/carney-budget-to-slash...

SanjayMehta 11mo ago

To fight whom exactly?

ipcress_file 11mo ago

I believe this is a crafty method of reviving "Participaction" without Hal and Joanne. Well played, Mr. Carney!

raydev 11mo ago

This is likely an attempt to appease Trump on one of the many silly demands he's making in the silly tariff negotiations, this one being increased military funding. Gotta find something to spend money on.

chriselles 11mo ago

I think some are too focused on recruiting or conscripting citizens for fighting a kinetic conflict. For the Five Eyes(Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ) that don’t ever need to worry about conventional invasion, it’s far more about national resilience that relates to national defence. How does a nation rapidly adapt to warfare that is occurring beneath the threshold of conventional warfare, and in some cases general public detection. It’s not about fighting future trench warfare, it’s likely more about adaption to disruption to the nation of the electrical grid, logistics systems, and digital platforms. A contemporary civil defence optimised not to defend against nuclear war but to defend against cyber, informational, psychological, and supply chain warfare. Less continuity of government(as per Cold awards doctrine), more continuity of economy. That’s just my 0.02c.

mikelitoris 11mo ago
Did you mean $0.02? Or 2¢?
- HighGoldstein 11mo ago
  5,995,849.16 m/s
L_226 11mo ago
> For the Five Eyes(Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ) that don’t ever need to worry about conventional invasion Australia is extremely at risk of conventional invasion, their current independence is a function of alliance to the strongest navy in the Pacific. Without a US that is willing and able to ensure Australia's free access to the surrounding ocean, AU is absolutely unable to deploy enough of their own military to fend of probably even Indonesia, let alone China. The coastline is just far too long, the military assets too few, and the country too depopulated to be able to stop a determined invasion.
- chriselles 11mo ago
  I need to push back on your analysis on this. Quite hard actually. Indonesia lacks the force projection capability to even project an expeditionary force into Northern Australia. Sustaining an expeditionary force into Northern Australia by Indonesia would leave it incredibly vulnerable to air and sea supply chain interdiction. With first hand professional domain experience, and without arrogance or hubris, an Indonesian invasion of Northern Australia would be disastrous for Indonesia. China invading Australia would entail a much more capable, but entirely untested, expeditionary force over much longer and far more vulnerable supply chains. With just FVEY intelligence support and FVEY forces already forward deployed into Australia, the likelihood of China successfully establishing and sustaining a beachhead to break into Australia with a conventional invasion would be similar to that of Indonesia, due to very long and very vulnerable supply chains. Unless China glassed Australia with nuclear weapons, any attempt by Xi and the CCP's PLAN/PLAAF/PLA to conventionally invade Australia would be a moon shot too far. China's fleet steaming south would be severely attrited transitting limited maritime traffic route bottlenecks that would be akin to cattle chutes in a slaughter house, while China's own energy/food/raw industrial materials commercial maritime supply chains would be existentially vulnerable. That's just to Australia's current fleet of Collins class submarines and tanker supported F35s. Australia's AUKUS nuclear submarine investment will magnify that current independent threat to China's maritime supply chain. Which is odd, considering this comedic skit is partially true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cGYQneo-G8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cGYQneo-G8 Unconventional attack is far, far more likely. Thus requiring a focus on national resilience and adaptability to crisis.

d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago

"We find that at present the human race is divided politically into one wise man, nine knaves, and ninety fools out of every hundred. That is, by an optimistic observer. The nine knaves assemble themselves under the banner of the most knavish among them, and become "politicians". The wise man stands out because he knows himself to be hopelessly outnumbered, and devotes himself to poetry, mathematics, or phylosophy; while the ninety fools plod off behind the banners of the nine villians, according to fancy, into the labyrinths of chicanery, malice, and warfare. It is pleasant to have command even over a flock of sheep, and that is why the politcians raise the banners. It is, moreover, the same thing for the sheep whatever the banner. If it is democracy, then the nine knaves will become members of parliament; if fascism, they will become party leaders, if communism, commissars, the result is still exploitation. As for the wise man his lot is the same under any ideology. Under democracy he will be encouraged to starve to death under garret, under fascism he will be put in a concentration camp, under communism he will be liquidated." -- Merlin

d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
Incidentally, in the above quote Merlin is speaking on behalf of the committee of animals to the King.
TylerLives 11mo ago
We're getting off topic, but there is another form of government: "A peculiar disadvantage attaching to republics...is that in this form of government it must be more difficult for men of ability to attain high position and exercise direct political influence than in the case of monarchies. For always...there is a conspiracy...against such men on the part of all the stupid, the weak, and the commonplace; they look upon such men as their natural enemies, and they are firmly held together by a common fear of them. There is always a numerous host of the stupid and the weak, and in a republican constitution it is easy for them to suppress and exclude the men of ability, so that they may not be flanked by them. They are fifty to one; and here all have equal rights at start. In a monarchy, on the other hand...talent and intelligence receive a natural advocacy and support from above. In the first place, the position of the monarch himself is much too high and too firm for him to stand in fear of any sort of competition. In the next place, he serves the State more by his will than by his intelligence; for no intelligence could ever be equal to all the demands that would in his case be made upon it. He is therefore compelled to be always availing himself of other men's intelligence." Arthur Schopenhauer

duxup 11mo ago

This reads like one of those ideas that folks come up in a conference room where "oh these people will just volunteer to do it" and ... nobody asked if they want to or if these are the people they even want to do it. I worked at a company once and we were acquired. They fired everyone but the folks on my floor. One day I get a call supposedly from HR at the new company (I had no idea who it was). They said they forgot to keep some facilities folks on and they asked if I could do some tasks like ... move garbage and open the door for the mail guy. I had to explain that I had to be on the phone / ready to answer my entire shift and so did everyone who wasn't fired ... it took them a while to figure out that nobody was going to move trash for them / the scale of what they were asking. They thought we would just chip in and become janitors or something. I'm sure it seemed a reasonable solution for everyone not doing it.