Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Kirkhill]

You would be impressed with their 'Home Guard' program.

"Take the rifle/machine gun from your closet - with all the ammunition that you keep with those weapons - and deploy to your local pre-assigned defensive position at the (Insert name of piece of local critical infrastructure here) and defend it ASAP."

Again, not sure if they still maintain this capability to the same standard as the Cold War but it's impressive.

It's something. Regardless of their skills.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It's something. Regardless of their skills.

When they had conscription they were people who had previously served, and who had to attend annual training to upskill as part of their reserve commitment to age 55, so they were pretty good at their jobs.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was just looking at the Militia List for 1914.

It is impressive that even in a young country, still accepting immigrants, still laying track and still building new towns around a railway station, a post office, a land office and an armoury, that even in small hamlets there was a structure based on pen and paper recording and classifying every male in the country.

The quarterly militia list of the Dominion of C... - Canadiana

The quarterly militia list of the Dominion of Canada. : [Ottawa : S.E. Dawson, 1899-1917]

www.canadiana.ca

https://military-justice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-Militia-Act-1868.pdf

 

[MilEME09]

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if NDHQ did a snap mobilization drill, picking a random saturday and ordering everyone, reg and reserve to report for duty on 24h or less notice.

 

[ytz]

And apparently he isn't the only one

Dominion Dynamics raises $21 million to build Canada’s “defence neoprime”

Ottawa startup eyes prime defence contractor role as defence spending surges in Canada.

betakit.com

ArriveCan opportunities on steroids.

Canada: where we build grifters faster than guns.

I am going to guess that you don't say the same thing about American defence startups.

Not everything is "ArriveCan".

If you want a proper military in Canada, developing a defence industry is part of the deal.

 

[PuckChaser]

Which is why the plan is leaning toward insurgency, there was never a doubt we'd ever be able to go head to head in a conventional fight.

I think it may be time to consider unlocking this thread.

The site owner's direction was pretty clear. That topic is staying locked.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Halifax Tar]

This is all part of their established mobilization plan. Yes, unlike us, they have had a national mobilization plan for decades.

Critical infrastructure like communications centres, bridges, airports, seaports etc can all be nationalized for defence purposes pretty quickly.

They also used to be able to mobilize a million troops within a week. Not sure how they're doing with that these days, but most people in Norway, over the age of 40 or so, will have been brought up during the Cold War era contingency planning culture.

So its more pubic services and infrastructure than private citizens property ?

 

[daftandbarmy]

So its more pubic services and infrastructure than private citizens property ?

I’m not sure of all the land title complexities. but am pretty sure they can grab it if they need it.

Like Canada can too

 

[Cloud Cover]

Nothing endears the citizenry quite like press ganging their property.

British Columbia and David Eby enter the chat…

 

[Dana381]

Military models Canadian response to hypothetical American invasion

Armed Forces envision insurgency tactics like those used by Afghan mujahedeen, sources say. But officials and experts stress a U.S. operation is unlikely, and the scenarios are conceptual

www.theglobeandmail.com

2 days.

Here's a thought, Let us keep our guns?

 

[Kirkhill]

UK CDS and Parliament grappling with how to get the public to come to grips with the situation in which we all find ourselves.

My summation:

"You tell them!"
"No, you tell them!"
"You!"
"No, you!"

"And with any luck we'll all be on our pension before anything happens..."

All in all, very Canadian. We learned well.

....

Interesting reference to the little referenced NATO Article 3

See next...

 

[Kirkhill]

The North Atlantic Treaty

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on...

www.nato.int

Article 3​

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Self-help
Individual capacity to resist armed attack

Continuous
Effective
Maintain
Develop

 

[Kirkhill]

From Carney's speech at Davos

"A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.

"But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable."

Read the full transcript of Carney’s speech to World Economic Forum - National | Globalnews.ca

Prime Minister Mark Carney gave a forceful speech in Davos, Switzerland, on the 'new world order' and how middle powers like Canada can benefit by working together.

globalnews.ca

NATO was built on the premise that each nation would exert itself to defend itself. Each nation would be strong enough to stand in isolation.
And that it would have reserve capacity to assist the group.

What is the difference between a pillar and a fortress?

Whatever you want to call it, however you wish to categorize it, we have allowed ours to crumble, relying on others to keep the whole edifice standing.

And here we are.

Rebuilding from scratch.

 

[Ostrozac]

NATO was built on the premise that each nation would exert itself to defend itself. Each nation would be strong enough to stand in isolation.

That doesn’t seem to match the actual reality of NATO — Luxembourg and Iceland were founding members, and both were utterly incapable of standing in isolation. No, NATO was, first and foremost, a collective organization presenting a united front, first against the Soviets, then against the Russians.

With an intervening mid-life crisis when NATO thought its role was about collective low intensity conflict and nation building in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq.