AllTheSingleCheeses t1_j9yzgwl wrote

> not having strong armoured forces already got us caught with our pants down in Afghanistan

Tanks played a small role in Afghanistan. It was a fight for light infantry supported by air power. The only way tanks saved soldier's lives is by being armored against roadside bombs, a job done better (and more cheaply) by MRAP-style vehicles. There was no need for the treads or main cannon in Afghanistan

> in any event in which we immediately have to deploy overseas

That's something a tank can't do. They are too heavy and logistics-heavy to be quickly deployed. The armored forces Canada had in Afghanistan were reliant on US logistics as well as loaned equipment from countries like Germany and the Netherlands. An agile force is better off without too much weight

> Canada's ability to import tanks at any given time could be extremely limited

Are you calling for Canada to build its own tanks? And being able to build your own tanks means not just building your own tanks, but continuing to build new tanks for generations or else you lose the capability. This is why Canada buys jets, but it builds non-tank armored vehicles itself

> the effects of not having tanks against an actual military force would be horrible

I'm not calling for Canada to throw out its armored units. I'm saying they can send their current inventory to Ukraine without sacrificing security in any real way. The Canadian land, sea, and air units are more than capable of defending Canada. Any kind of overseas contingency that Canada would go to would be with other allies (when has Canada fought alone?) and couldn't have tanks in-theater quickly anyway