• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....
 
Meh. When Afghanistan kicked off, there were doubts about how the coddled Millennials would do in hard situations, because we were seen as “soft”.

Turns out that as a whole, we weren’t that different than generations past.
Previous generations didn't have to hump 70-100 lbs of gear in 40*C + temperatures. I give today's folks a lot of credit.

🍻
 
Meh. When Afghanistan kicked off, there were doubts about how the coddled Millennials would do in hard situations, because we were seen as “soft”.

Turns out that as a whole, we weren’t that different than generations past.
It isn’t the Soldiers and other members of the CAF that concern me.

It’s the general Canadian public and politicians…
 
Regional? UK on the East of Canada, America below, and Australia on the West (or Far East Depending on ones point of view)
You aren't in AUKUS because you are not reliable - it has zero to do with geography.


Keep telling yourself that.
You are in NORAD because it suits us, and mainly because Canada used to be reliable...
Actually we're in NORAD mainly because of an indisputable geographic fact.

Both president Eisenhower and Prime Minister St Laurent were very aware of the Soviet maned bomber and ballistic missile threat and they recognized the need for a series of radar "chains" all across Canada: the far North Distant Early Warning (DEW) line, the Mid Canada line and the Pinetree line (see below) and they agreed, in the mid 1950s, that 🇨🇦 and the 🇺🇲 should cooperate, formally -- diplomatically, militarily and financially - to build and manage/control all three.

The result was NORAD. Neither country really wanted a combined (multi-national) military command but there didn't, still doesn't, seem to be any other way to get the geographic necessity for the protection of the US strategic deterrent unless the US violated Canada's sovereignty in ways that ware, and remain unaccounted unacceptable to both countries - maybe president Trump excepted :sneaky: (sorry, couldn't resist).
 

Attachments

  • Dew_line_1960.jpg
    Dew_line_1960.jpg
    196.2 KB · Views: 6
they recognized the need for a series of radar "chains" all across Canada: the far North Distant Early Warning (DEW) line, the Mid Canada line and the Pinetree line (see below)
And the Bomarcs and Voodoos.

The Bomarcs and Voodoos are gone without a viable replacement - the Russian manned bombers are still there as are their ballistic or cruise missiles.

The moat around a castle is only as good as it is covered by fire. Does anyone see the problem here?

🍻
 
And the Bomarcs and Voodoos.

The Bomarcs and Voodoos are gone without a viable replacement - the Russian manned bombers are still there as are their ballistic or cruise missiles.

The moat around a castle is only as good as it is covered by fire. Does anyone see the problem here?

🍻

Let us not forget that the diversity of viable launch platforms has also increased.
 
Actually we're in NORAD mainly because of an indisputable geographic fact.

Both president Eisenhower and Prime Minister St Laurent were very aware of the Soviet maned bomber and ballistic missile threat and they recognized the need for a series of radar "chains" all across Canada: the far North Distant Early Warning (DEW) line, the Mid Canada line and the Pinetree line (see below) and they agreed, in the mid 1950s, that 🇨🇦 and the 🇺🇲 should cooperate, formally -- diplomatically, militarily and financially - to build and manage/control all three.

The result was NORAD. Neither country really wanted a combined (multi-national) military command but there didn't, still doesn't, seem to be any other way to get the geographic necessity for the protection of the US strategic deterrent unless the US violated Canada's sovereignty in ways that ware, and remain unaccounted unacceptable to both countries - maybe president Trump excepted :sneaky: (sorry, couldn't resist).
One interesting point is that the US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) area of responsibility includes Canada and the Bahamas.

Now, would the US unilaterally do anything? It’s not like USEUCOM randomly deploys in Austria or the Netherlands…
 
Now, would the US unilaterally do anything? It’s not like USEUCOM randomly deploys in Austria or the Netherlands…
Neither European country is an approach to the US. If the US determined that American boots needed to be on Canadian soil to counter an imminent and significant threat, they are more likely to tell us what they are doing than to ask our permission.

That being said, it is difficult to imagine what hypothetical threat might actually trigger such a behaviour so long as we remain a contributing, cooperative partner in NORAD.

The calculus changes under a Trump admin, as Edward mentions above. The MAGA camp has already pontificated about using military force against Canada and about “liberating” Canada. It would possible to see a Trump administration conflating failure to meet the NATO 2% GDP commitment with a failure to meet continental defence obligations (it would not be unreasonable for any administration to connect these two things despite there being technically separate). It would not subsequently be completely improbable to see a Trump administration leap to the conclusion that America must occupy the delinquent Canada to secure itself.
 
It would not subsequently be completely improbable to see a Trump administration leap to the conclusion that America must occupy the delinquent Canada to secure itself.
A number indistinguishable from zero births another conspiracy theory.
 
A number indistinguishable from zero births another conspiracy theory.
Amazing isn't it? Pontificating about the only guy who is proud of and campaigns on “no new wars”. There is indeed a mind virus circulating; believe the opposite before your eyes.
 
Amazing isn't it? Pontificating about the only guy who is proud of and campaigns on “no new wars”. There is indeed a mind virus circulating; believe the opposite before your eyes.
“No new wars” because he folds like a house of cards is not the flex that his supporters think it is.

Also, Afghanistan was the textbook “shitty handover” from one admin to the next.
 
“No new wars” because he folds like a house of cards is not the flex that his supporters think it is.

Also, Afghanistan was the textbook “shitty handover” from one admin to the next.
It takes two sides to not have any new wars. Yours, and everyone else thinking about taking you on.
 
It takes two sides to not have any new wars. Yours, and everyone else thinking about taking you on.
In 2016, let alone 2020, who was looking to take on the US directly?

Well or your allies…

Unless you abandon them like Obama did to Ukraine.
Or Trump and the Kurds.

Anyways, back to Canada…

 
In 2016, let alone 2020, who was looking to take on the US directly?
We can't reliably know who was trying to stir things up unless they stirred things up, and most of what goes on in the world's conflicts does not amount to taking on the US directly. However, if Trump folded on any particular thing, it should be easy to point to whatever it was he granted and whomever he granted it to.

It should be easy enough to comprehend by observation that Trump is less bellicose than, say, the neo-cons vehemently opposed to him, and it shouldn't be difficult to choke out an admission that that might generally be a good thing.
 
Neither European country is an approach to the US. If the US determined that American boots needed to be on Canadian soil to counter an imminent and significant threat, they are more likely to tell us what they are doing than to ask our permission.

That being said, it is difficult to imagine what hypothetical threat might actually trigger such a behaviour so long as we remain a contributing, cooperative partner in NORAD.

The calculus changes under a Trump admin, as Edward mentions above. The MAGA camp has already pontificated about using military force against Canada and about “liberating” Canada. It would possible to see a Trump administration conflating failure to meet the NATO 2% GDP commitment with a failure to meet continental defence obligations (it would not be unreasonable for any administration to connect these two things despite there being technically separate). It would not subsequently be completely improbable to see a Trump administration leap to the conclusion that America must occupy the delinquent Canada to secure itself.

Check out the Annexation of Canada and the Battle of Anchorage from the Fallout universe ;)


Fallout 4 GIF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top