GR66 said:
In my opinion there are a couple of factors that have significant impacts on the fundamental nature of major power warfare and as a result impact the way that military forces are (and should be) structured... ...I think Canada has a moral responsibility to maintain the capability to participate in such collective military action by the West.
That's more or less how I see it anyway.
You and I arrive at the same basic conclusion, but by different routes. Some of the arguments you bring forward have been advanced before as "truths" of the day, but found wanting because human behaviour is not always what we think of as rational or predictable (although it makes perfect sense to the actors...)\
The belief that increased international commerce, and the interdependence of nations, would act as a brake on major war was around before WW1: it didn't seem to stop trading partners from going to war with each other. I'm not sure about your claims concerning agriculture being the leading sector of employment prior to WW2: I think that would depend very much on the country. While it might have been true of the USSR, or Poland, or possibly even still the USA, I would doubt very much that it was true of Germany, or of the UK. IIRC, British military medical authorities at the start of WW2 were very concerned about the generally poor health and physique of a high number of recruits, because most of them came from cities and large manufacturing towns with unhealthy diets and bad conditions.
Previously trade didn't make up a significant portion of most nation's GDP but now most countries are highly dependent on trade for their economic well being.
Great Britain and Germany would definitely give you arguments on this one, at any point in the 20th century.
Control more productive land and your economy grows.
I'm not sure that has always been applicable. Look at Switzerland, Holland and the Scandinavian countries: generally quite successful economies with very limited land resources. Conversely look at Poland and Russia: large land holdings but generally under-performing economies (at least until recently, anyway)
Military forces are getting more expensive by the year which is why armed forces worldwide are getting smaller.
I would argue that by the standards of each era, armies are always expensive. Whose armed forces are getting smaller? For example, Sweden has recently reestablished conscription, thereby increasing the size of manpower pool readily available to the military. To me, that means "bigger".
As well, we might ask "smaller relative to whom or to what"? Even a reduced Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Pakistani or Indian Army is still a pretty good size and in some cases much more formidable than most in the West. And, doubtless, able to absorb casualty rates which would bring down most governments elsewhere.
This means that a full-scale military conflict between the great nations would be incredibly costly. Perhaps more costly than any potential economic gain that could be made by going to war in the first place.
Again, almost always true. But this logical calculation usually gets lost in the fear, toxic nationalism, jingoism, religious fervour, greed, hubris, misunderstanding, politicized intelligence processes and inept risk estimation all of which have normally characterized decisions to go to war to some degree or another. Look at Germany's inability to grasp the basics of geopolitics and strategy (as opposed to operations and tactics), not once but twice, catastrophically both times.
One need only look at the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to see how difficult it is to occupy an unwilling nation...even if there is a nominally friendly government in place to assist you. Even for example if Russia could manage to seize Poland, would they be able to hold it and at what cost?
The British held India (and a big chunk of the rest of the planet) for centuries with a relatively small force. They understood how to exploit human nature. And, I think Russia did seize Poland in 1944, and held it for several decades. Again, they exploited human nature: from the unwillingness of the Western Allies to confront them in 1944-45, to the willingness of the Polish leadership to be co-opted, to just plain fear and indifference.
Nukes add a note of caution, but only for a regime that cares about the risk, or calculates that they might not be able to strike first. People fight wars for pretty much the same reasons they always have, and they deploy the same sorts of reasons for why "it can never happen again"
Which brings us back to what we both agree on.
