I was just thinking of this, but I thought it would be great to get feedback. If, well governed, would there be a chance of Canada becoming a superpower? I honestly have no idea.
Can Canada be a superpower?
- Thread starter Fred the duck
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Banned
We have the resources (fresh water, mineral, petroleum, etc.) and agriculture to be a resource superpower, but out output puts us in the high 20s of PPP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Militarily? Forget it.
Yeah, definitely. But what if, lets say that trudeau decided to invest billions of dollars more on the military (which will never happen, but hypothetically). I think that with that we would be able to expand our air force beyond 70-something rusting CF-18s and a couple of transport jets, as an example.
No way Canada is never going to be a military superpower The Americans have a larger GDP and a much bigger budget plus the pre-existing infrastructure to support everything. Canada may need everything from Super Carriers to a massive ground force and what 1000 plus planes. And that still won't be enough because we don't have the 800 or so foreign bases the Americans have that enable them to go anywhere in the world. So no We Canucks will never be a military superpower, economic maybe militarily if you aren't China or a unified EU forget it
There is both a symbolic and an objective dimension to being a superpower. The objective one makes it obvious -- Canada won't be a superpower -- but to explore why it's so obvious to many here, let's take the symbolic dimension.
In the modern era, at any given time, there are usually a few big-ticket things that symbolize military and political preeminence. For instance, in the early 20th century, it was battleships. Canada never had one. Since the 1940s it has been aircraft carrier battle groups. Again, Canada's never really had one. The U.S. both projects and symbolizes its power through around a dozen carrier strike groups on an ongoing basis. (The number fluctuates and now I think is 10, but someone may correct me.) Assume the cost of designing and building a modern aircraft carrier to something resembling American specifications is about $10 billion in contemporary dollars. The entire Canadian defence budget is less than $20 billion. And that's just the one ship around which the rest of the strike group has to get built. It's not in the cards.
You can argue that aircraft carriers are obsolete but I hope just on the symbolic level my point is made: Canada is simply not in the right league to have any pretension of being a superpower.
Some nations make a pretence of great power status by having a sizeable, independent nuclear force (e.g. France, Britain). I think this would be more in Canada's grasp, but I'm not sure whether the Canadian public would support acquiring nuclear weapons (read as: I am very certain they wouldn't), and it would also violate arms control treaties Canada has signed in good faith.
Edit: Seeing you responded regarding Trudeau boosting the defence budget, that certainly brings Canada up the latter a bit but I hope what I've made clear is that it's an exponential difference, not just one of degree. Canada measures its military prowess in its ability to contribute to a multinational force. The United States does the same in terms of its ability to lead that force or go it alone where necessary. That's the first and most important difference.
In the modern era, at any given time, there are usually a few big-ticket things that symbolize military and political preeminence. For instance, in the early 20th century, it was battleships. Canada never had one. Since the 1940s it has been aircraft carrier battle groups. Again, Canada's never really had one. The U.S. both projects and symbolizes its power through around a dozen carrier strike groups on an ongoing basis. (The number fluctuates and now I think is 10, but someone may correct me.) Assume the cost of designing and building a modern aircraft carrier to something resembling American specifications is about $10 billion in contemporary dollars. The entire Canadian defence budget is less than $20 billion. And that's just the one ship around which the rest of the strike group has to get built. It's not in the cards.
You can argue that aircraft carriers are obsolete but I hope just on the symbolic level my point is made: Canada is simply not in the right league to have any pretension of being a superpower.
Some nations make a pretence of great power status by having a sizeable, independent nuclear force (e.g. France, Britain). I think this would be more in Canada's grasp, but I'm not sure whether the Canadian public would support acquiring nuclear weapons (read as: I am very certain they wouldn't), and it would also violate arms control treaties Canada has signed in good faith.
Edit: Seeing you responded regarding Trudeau boosting the defence budget, that certainly brings Canada up the latter a bit but I hope what I've made clear is that it's an exponential difference, not just one of degree. Canada measures its military prowess in its ability to contribute to a multinational force. The United States does the same in terms of its ability to lead that force or go it alone where necessary. That's the first and most important difference.
Last edited:
Canada has the resources it just lacks the population.
If they had put a equivalent of the homestead act in place in the mid 1800s to attract imigrents Canada would be a Super Power today.
Canada passed the Dominion Lands Act in 1872 creating a homesteading system. It turns out that given the choice between farming in the Peace River country and farming in the American Midwest, most people turn out to be not completely insane.
On the broader point about resources versus population we agree though. You can punch above your weight to some extent but I think in today's world a superpower would more or less have to have a population in the hundreds of millions. It's simply not plausible otherwise that you'd have enough people to do all the political, economic, and military things that need doing.
Deleted member 1487
Probably not and if you did it would require a pre-20th century POD that has the British holding on to much more of North America and then settling more of the midwest and pacific coast.
If only we'd purchased Alaska when we had a chance, THEN we could have been one of the greats!
The Canadian economy is dominated by the American economy, subject to mineral export prices (the drop in oil prices has hit it hard not to mention the pain numerous industries have felt in the last decade alone with increases in infrastructure accidents as reinvestment has not happened), lacks habitable land to carry the population needed to punch with the big boys (imagine Siberia trying to attract immigrants), and its socialist practices has actually led to urban decay (failures in sewers, streets, and a decline in services). The only part of the Canadian economy doing well right now is real estate and banking (loans, etc.). That doesn't sound positive for the coming years.
Canada has made foreign investment difficult (just ask Taiwan and China), is far more focused on carbon taxes and income taxes driving domestic cash out of country (it was once a tax haven), and has driven up the cost of living so much most people can't even afford a house. I was in Vancouver recently. Regardless of whether the neighborhood was upper, middle, or lower class, they all had boarded up and condemned buildings throughout. The average home price was $700-900,000 with the median income being $40,000. A recent 15% tax was recently passed on home sales driving up home prices even more. I saw homeless everywhere, even an individual shooting up in downtown Vancouver.
Investment in their military has fallen degrading its capabilities (ships rusting, barracks decaying, even relying on foreign militaries to provide air support for their deployed forces due to cost) and political centralization has stripped base commanders of the power to turn things around. Some commanders don't even know the state of their bases and materiel.
If Canada wants to be a superpower, it needs a warmer climate, a more diversified economy, and a change in governmental economic practice and rule. You need to break it from the UK late in the nineteenth or early twentieth and do more to draw immigration and investment. That will be incredibly hard.
Canada has made foreign investment difficult (just ask Taiwan and China), is far more focused on carbon taxes and income taxes driving domestic cash out of country (it was once a tax haven), and has driven up the cost of living so much most people can't even afford a house. I was in Vancouver recently. Regardless of whether the neighborhood was upper, middle, or lower class, they all had boarded up and condemned buildings throughout. The average home price was $700-900,000 with the median income being $40,000. A recent 15% tax was recently passed on home sales driving up home prices even more. I saw homeless everywhere, even an individual shooting up in downtown Vancouver.
Investment in their military has fallen degrading its capabilities (ships rusting, barracks decaying, even relying on foreign militaries to provide air support for their deployed forces due to cost) and political centralization has stripped base commanders of the power to turn things around. Some commanders don't even know the state of their bases and materiel.
If Canada wants to be a superpower, it needs a warmer climate, a more diversified economy, and a change in governmental economic practice and rule. You need to break it from the UK late in the nineteenth or early twentieth and do more to draw immigration and investment. That will be incredibly hard.
You would have to do some serious butchering to our southern neighbour, Balkanize to hell and back and then we could theoretically become the dominant power in North America.
Not so hard. Trump already backed out of Paris. Everything is proceeding exactly according to our long-term plans... *cackles maniacally*
In all seriousness, though, a warm climate wouldn't help. If the permafrost melts, it will turn into a giant swamp and will still be just as uninhabitable.
Deleted member 1487
Quit fooling, the grizzly bears would have taken over your country.
We have plenty of our own and trust me, they know their place, especially after the spectacular failure of the great bear uprising.
Deleted member 1487
Are you American or Canadian? If the latter then you know nothing of Alaskan Grizzlies. We tamed them for you, otherwise the Grizzly uprising would have had the crucial reinforcements to eat your Mounties and wear their hats and prevent forest fires.
You see the fearsome Mountie eating bears we have to deal with??? He used that shovel to bury the remains of the fire he roasted him on. And is wearing his hat.
Admiral Beez
Banned
At the end of the Second World War, Canada's navy was strong.
At the end of the Second World War, Canada had the third-largest navy in the world with 95,000 men and women in uniform, and 434 commissioned vessels including cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and auxiliaries. http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/royal-canadian-navy/sww
But this was not sustainable on a peacetime economy, especially since I'm sure Canada did not have to fuel, feed or arm this navy entirely on its own dime.
I know. Canada has the potential. The climate itself is a huge impediment as well as it's neighbor to the South.