Author Topic: US versus NATO  (Read 31393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 93,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,060
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #150 on: July 11, 2018, 07:31:12 »
Trudeau's statement, although LPC policy not to spend on the military, is just posturing, along with the Tariffs, which will become the main plank of the election message: Captain Canada standing up to the big bully Trump.

Trump holds the cards here. Canada's economy and way of life is embedded with the US; the US has been defending Canada, with the US taxpayer paying the freight, since the end of the Second World War. Trump can say fund your defence as to 2% contributing to NORAD/NATO as a sovereign nation should, or trade between us will not be a happy trail. Canada cannot win a trade war with the US.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,135
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #151 on: July 11, 2018, 07:50:06 »
the US has been defending Canada, with the US taxpayer paying the freight, since the end of the Second World War.

Have they though?  Against who or what?  And in any significant way? 

This comes up a bit from time to time.  Seems that the only country that really threatened us existentially was the U.S.

We've always been a small player.  That also means we haven't really been a target either...
Optio

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 93,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,060
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #152 on: July 11, 2018, 08:10:58 »
Have they though?  Against who or what?  And in any significant way? 

This comes up a bit from time to time.  Seems that the only country that really threatened us existentially was the U.S.

We've always been a small player.  That also means we haven't really been a target either...

Have you every heard of the cold war? The Cuban missile crisis? Why where Cdn Forces stationed in France/Germany for so many decades? Who pulled them out?

Small player?? The Second World War. Small contribution you think? At the end, Canada had the third largest Navy in the world. Now?
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 319
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #153 on: July 11, 2018, 08:21:51 »
Have they though?  Against who or what?  And in any significant way? 

This comes up a bit from time to time.  Seems that the only country that really threatened us existentially was the U.S.

We've always been a small player.  That also means we haven't really been a target either...

Agreed. The US chooses to spend more money on it's armed forces, we choose to spend less. The US chooses to engage in military actions all over the world, perhaps they will choose to do less of that in the future. The US isn't spending 2% of its GDP on NATO, it spends 3.5-4% on its own defence needs. I don't think there is any amount of money we could spend in Canada that would assure our defence capabilities against attack from Russia, China or the US, short of nuclear deterrence. Right now I don't think raising our defence spending to 2% would neccessarily result in any real increase in military capability. Until we fix that problem, I'm not even sure where to start.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,135
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #154 on: July 11, 2018, 09:43:37 »
Have you every heard of the cold war? The Cuban missile crisis? Why where Cdn Forces stationed in France/Germany for so many decades? Who pulled them out?

Small player?? The Second World War. Small contribution you think? At the end, Canada had the third largest Navy in the world. Now?

So the whole world was threatened by the cold war and the Cuban missile crisis.  And then, really it was more about the USSR threatnening the US and the US threatening the USSR.

Your statement:  "the US has been defending Canada, with the US taxpayer paying the freight, since the end of the Second World War."  Now you are talking about the second world war which is not what you were talking about. 

NATO wasn't a thing in WW2 so I'm not sure why you bring that up.

As for us having the third largest Navy at the end of WW2 (which is still unrelated to NATO), much like how people calculate GDP % for NATO, it all depends on what kind of math you use.

This article is pretty good at debunking or at least questioning that claim.

http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol5num3/vol5num3art2.pdf

The conclusion is that yes for maybe 2 weeks.  But mostly due to accounting and purchases and decommissioning of other Navies' ships.  And depending on what you count too...
Optio

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #155 on: July 11, 2018, 10:21:41 »
I knew this would not go well.Trump is right but the allies don't see it that way.Anyway they will agree to disagree.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-tangles-with-nato-leaders-in-testy-start-to-brussels-summit.html

President Trump kicked off the highly anticipated NATO summit Wednesday with sharp words for the head of the alliance and Germany, using the meeting to challenge European countries over their defense spending and even agreements with Russia.

Before sitting down for the first official meeting of the day, the president engaged in a testy exchange with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. He pressed why the U.S. should continue to pay money to the military alliance while the countries purchase energy from Moscow.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #156 on: July 11, 2018, 10:25:36 »
Trudeau is cutting defense spending probably because of tariffs.Maybe not, he is a liberal after all.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/report-trudeau-defies-trump-at-nato-meeting-cuts-military-spending/ar-AAzV0Zn?ocid=spartandhp

New figures show that Canadian military spending will be cut significantly, even as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepares to face U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands for higher NATO military spending at the alliance's summit in Brussels.

According to the CBC, Canada will spend around 1.23 percent of its GDP on defense in 2018, down from 1.36 percent last year. This is far below the 2 percent target set for NATO members, which has been a particular bugbear for the American president.

Canadian National Defence spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said the drop in investment was largely down to one-off payments. One was a retroactive pay increase for service members and the other was a $1.3 billion payment into the fund that pays out servicemember pensions.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,816
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #157 on: July 11, 2018, 10:43:10 »
Agreed. The US chooses to spend more money on it's armed forces, we choose to spend less. The US chooses to engage in military actions all over the world, perhaps they will choose to do less of that in the future. The US isn't spending 2% of its GDP on NATO, it spends 3.5-4% on its own defence needs. I don't think there is any amount of money we could spend in Canada that would assure our defence capabilities against attack from Russia, China or the US, short of nuclear deterrence. Right now I don't think raising our defence spending to 2% would neccessarily result in any real increase in military capability. Until we fix that problem, I'm not even sure where to start.

This is one of the most important points in this entire thread!

Give or take, European members could be described as spending the majority of their respective defence budgets (whatever the percentage of GDP) on capability directly relevant to NATO.  Is the U.S. spending 50-57% (2%GDP of 3.5% to 4%GDP) of its Defense budget on activities directly related to NATO?  Even just a cursory look at DoD's sub-budgets for EUCOM and CENTCOM (strawman for "NATO-related") in comparison relative to PACOM, SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM and FORSCOM (let's paint these as "not NATO-related") total budgets, would be telling. 

Remember, "lies, damned lies and statistics..."

:2c:

Regards
G2G


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #158 on: July 11, 2018, 11:11:39 »
We are comparing total budgets which should make all armed forces more capable.Part of this spending covers the 6th Fleet,US Army Europe which is larger than many allies armies and USAF Europe.Some units in the US have a NATO mission. Of course if there was a shooting war in Europe the National Guard and the Reserves would get called up plus the Air Guard and Air Force Reserve.Thanks to the war on terror the part time soldiers,sailors,airmen and Marines are more capable and better trained.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,816
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #159 on: July 11, 2018, 11:32:51 »
We are comparing total budgets which should make all armed forces more capable.Part of this spending covers the 6th Fleet,US Army Europe which is larger than many allies armies and USAF Europe.Some units in the US have a NATO mission. Of course if there was a shooting war in Europe the National Guard and the Reserves would get called up plus the Air Guard and Air Force Reserve.Thanks to the war on terror the part time soldiers,sailors,airmen and Marines are more capable and better trained.

The U.S. is comparing budgets that way.  Still a valid question, amongst others.  For example, what does the cost to keep three US Carrier Battle Groups in the region of the South China Sea, and keeping pressure on China and its aspirations to wield hegemonic power within the Nine-Dash Line, have to do with NATO?

???

Regards
G2G

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 915,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,111
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #160 on: July 11, 2018, 12:28:01 »
Here's a good rundown of our defense budget vs GDP (that went down this year) from Lee Berthiaume.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4324547/canada-spending-less-defence-nato-report/

Quote
OTTAWA – Even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepares to defend against U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands that Canada invest more in defence, a new NATO report suggests Canadian military spending as a percentage of GDP will fall sharply this year.

Canada is expected to spend an estimated 1.23 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2018 – down from 1.36 per cent last year, says the annual report, which looks at military investments for all member states.

The decline is largely the result of two one-time expenses last year, said National Defence spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier, one of which was a retroactive pay increase for service members that was included in the Liberal government’s defence policy.

The other was more unexpected: a $1.8-billion payment into the account that provides pensions for Forces members and their dependents.

Interesting piece hidden at the bottom of the article, our spending is actually worse than we thought:

Quote
The Liberal government actually changed the way Canada reports its defence spending to NATO last year, largely to ensure its investments were being properly acknowledged amid U.S. pressure to spend more.

That change saw the government include the cost of some veterans programs, deploying police on peacekeeping missions, coast guard operations and even computer support in the overall number.

The addition of those costs, which many other countries have long included in their own calculations, added approximately $4.4 billion to Canada’s reported defence spending in 2017.

Without those costs, Canada’s reported defence spending would have been around one per cent of GDP.

Seems like we're going to follow the Chretien model of Canadian military contribution: Cut the budget, maximize deployments (85 staff officers for eFRB HQ, 250 more trainers to Iraq plus a rumoured QRF for Mali of 250) with no long term investment to new troops or material. You can show "contributions" all you want, but if the cupboard is bare when NATO actually comes calling because we've deployed everything we possibly can, are we actually a solid partner?

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #161 on: July 11, 2018, 13:03:27 »
A carrier is accompanied by escorts including an attack sub.Cost of a battle group would be around $7m a day roughly.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 167,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,145
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #162 on: July 11, 2018, 13:05:50 »
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/trump-nato-defense-four-percent/564911/

An interesting perspective.  The primary threat the NATO's European member nations is not military, it is ideological.  Why break the bank to try to defend against migrant flows and disunity with tanks and ships?

I'm all for smart spending, which may or may not include increased spending.  But lets be realistic, 1st Guards Tank Army isn't going to make it past the Vistula, let alone the Rhine.  The 2% argument has nothing to do with defending Europe or the Treaty.  It has everything to do with the $700 billion dollar addiction to defence spending the U.S. has, and for the simple reason that a President who relishes his role as a disruptor has found a disruptive thread to pull on.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #163 on: July 11, 2018, 13:06:28 »
It looks like Trump got his way at the NATO summit. ;D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-tangles-with-nato-leaders-in-testy-start-to-brussels-summit.html

NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending on Wednesday, following stern words from President Trump criticizing European leaders for spending too little.

The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #164 on: July 11, 2018, 13:11:07 »
Here's a good rundown of our defense budget vs GDP (that went down this year) from Lee Berthiaume.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4324547/canada-spending-less-defence-nato-report/

Interesting piece hidden at the bottom of the article, our spending is actually worse than we thought:

Seems like we're going to follow the Chretien model of Canadian military contribution: Cut the budget, maximize deployments (85 staff officers for eFRB HQ, 250 more trainers to Iraq plus a rumoured QRF for Mali of 250) with no long term investment to new troops or material. You can show "contributions" all you want, but if the cupboard is bare when NATO actually comes calling because we've deployed everything we possibly can, are we actually a solid partner?
from the article you posted

Quote

The addition of those costs, which many other countries have long included in their own calculations, added approximately $4.4 billion to Canada’s reported defence spending in 2017.
  So why do countries like france get to count their germanderie and countries like canada not get to count the RCMP?
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #165 on: July 11, 2018, 13:12:22 »
It looks like Trump got his way at the NATO summit. ;D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-tangles-with-nato-leaders-in-testy-start-to-brussels-summit.html

NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending on Wednesday, following stern words from President Trump criticizing European leaders for spending too little.

The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”
very nice.

Effectively no change,  since non US NATO defense spending has been on the rise for years.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #166 on: July 11, 2018, 13:25:22 »
Trump said today that defense spending should be 4%. It was a suggestion then whatever the figure is the budget should take into account for inflation.That last is my opinion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-floats-idea-nato-allies-should-double-defense-spending-target/ar-AAzVY1b?ocid=spartanntp

Offline TwoTonShackle

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 74
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #167 on: July 11, 2018, 13:47:54 »
very nice.

Effectively no change,  since non US NATO defense spending has been on the rise for years.

Bang on, exactly what was committed to in the 2014 Summit, but now Trump can claim he was the driving force. I'm sure there was a ton of  ::) when his 4% GDP came up. Looking forward to his self-BZ tweets.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 275,881
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,497
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #168 on: July 11, 2018, 14:01:19 »
The 1.23% GDP Canada will spend on the military this year over last year's 1.36% (the Canadian press) will really teach Trump Canada can't be pushed around.

At least we don't have any up coming NATO commitments or new missions.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #169 on: July 11, 2018, 14:41:55 »
The 1.23% GDP Canada will spend on the military this year over last year's 1.36% (the Canadian press) will really teach Trump Canada can't be pushed around.

At least we don't have any up coming NATO commitments or new missions.
which goes to show how the 2 percent target is rather useless.

Canada spent more on retroactive soldier pay and pensions,  yet our defense spending jumped yo 1.36, and because we don't spend extra on pensions and retroactive soldier pay this year it drops to 1.23.

Lost in all this is the canadian forces not gaining or losing any capabilities or effectiveness.

We are as ineffective this year as we were last year.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 15:13:52 by Altair »
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,116
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #170 on: July 11, 2018, 14:49:50 »
from the article you posted
  So why do countries like france get to count their germanderie and countries like canada not get to count the RCMP?

Nice Freudian slip :)

The CRS, for one, are not like the RCMP. They did, however, start up in Vichy France which, I guess, nominally makes them a 'Germanderie' ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnies_R%C3%A9publicaines_de_S%C3%A9curit%C3%A9
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 915,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,111
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #171 on: July 11, 2018, 14:57:17 »
So why do countries like france get to count their germanderie and countries like canada not get to count the RCMP?

So we should add the RCMP in, to get close to a number that you said is a poor metric instead of actually investing money into the CAF to generate real capabilities? Adding the RCMP in won't change the fact that even using the poor metric, we're slipping further and further away from where other major NATO partners are.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #172 on: July 11, 2018, 15:17:20 »
So we should add the RCMP in, to get close to a number that you said is a poor metric instead of actually investing money into the CAF to generate real capabilities? Adding the RCMP in won't change the fact that even using the poor metric, we're slipping further and further away from where other major NATO partners are.
So you will find me of two minds.

I agree,  canada and others need to increase investment in their armed forces.

But the way the American president is focusing on that two percent guideline I would be willing to find creative ways to get to 2 percent to shut him up.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 915,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,111
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #173 on: July 11, 2018, 15:33:38 »
But the way the American president is focusing on that two percent guideline I would be willing to find creative ways to get to 2 percent to shut him up.

So its not about whats right or wrong for the Alliance, it's about blind hatred of the US President; so much so that anything he says cannot possibly be correct.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 275,881
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,497
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #174 on: July 11, 2018, 15:39:43 »
So its not about whats right or wrong for the Alliance, it's about blind hatred of the US President;

Someone's late to the party  ;)
There are no wolves on Fenris