Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[PrairieFella]

Funny enough, concentrating on Air forces and Naval forces was the plan of William Lyon Mackenzie King in WWII and it is only the fact that all European powers dissolved before Germany, except the UK, that forced his hand into building up the army too.

Almost like you can't win wars with ships and planes. You need some brutish men to go and kill the other guy to win a war being supported by the planes and the ships. We need factories, planes and ships for the homefront and tanks, guns and boots for supporting our allies. Both can exist simultaneously.

 

[FJAG]

The total population of European NATO countries is 520 millions. Canada's population is 40 millions. The idea that Canada is and should be an important provider of land troops to Europe is ridiculous. At the same time, Canada has little need for land troops to keep invaders from Canadian soil (unless those invaders are Americans, )

Canada's contribution to European security should come in two forms: As an arsenal of freedom, i.e. as an industrial base for producing what Europe needs to fight, and as a provider of the delivery of these products, which means a strong Navy supported by Air Forces. Coincidentally, strong naval forces supported by air forces are the things required for Canada's own self defense. Since it also contributes directly to the protection of main land USA, it also constitutes a fulfillment of our continental defense obligations.

For us, 2% buys more than what we need if, and only if, we spend it on naval and air forces - regardless of the Army's constant badgering that we need to make them capable of going to a fight in Europe.

Funny enough, concentrating on Air forces and Naval forces was the plan of William Lyon Mackenzie King in WWII and it is only the fact that all European powers dissolved before Germany, except the UK, that forced his hand into building up the army too.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Almost like you can't win wars with ships and planes. You need some brutish men people to go and kill the other guy to win a war being supported by the planes and the ships. We need factories, planes and ships for the homefront and tanks, guns and boots for supporting our allies. Both can exist simultaneously.

How dare you assume etc etc ....

 

[SupersonicMax]

Almost like you can't win wars with ships and planes. You need some brutish men to go and kill the other guy to win a war being supported by the planes and the ships. We need factories, planes and ships for the homefront and tanks, guns and boots for supporting our allies. Both can exist simultaneously.

Except we will not win a war on our own. If boots on the ground are required, better use what’s closer to the front: European NATO countries.

 

[PrairieFella]

How dare you assume etc etc ....

I'll check my privilege haha!

 

[PrairieFella]

Except we will not win a war on our own. If boots on the ground are required, better use what’s closer to the front: European NATO countries.

You want to leave European security up to the French? That played out so well last time...

 

[SupersonicMax]

You want to leave European security up to the French? That played out so well last time...

Ah yes, the only NATO country in Europe is France.

 

[YZT580]

5% is such a complete non-starter its laughable. At 3.45% US defence spending is completely unsustainable in the long run. Interest is now the largest line item in the US federal budget. You can have all the weapons in the world but if your economy defaults, it doesn't matter much. This would be made even worse considering that other countries can't print greenbacks and such high levels of defence spending would inevitably be inflationary.

2.5%? That could be reasonable. Anything higher than 2.75% would be detrimental to almost all Western welfare states.

so stop with the welfare payments. When Harris put his no work no pay scheme into effect it wasn't long before there were lots of previously unemployed people who were working.

 

[PrairieFella]

so stop with the welfare payments. When Harris put his no work no pay scheme into effect it wasn't long before there were lots of previously unemployed people who were working.

I don't think you understand what the effect of more employment on a budget pegged to GDP would do...it's still unaffordable lol.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Except we will not win a war on our own. If boots on the ground are required, better use what’s closer to the front: European NATO countries.

Except that, like the last two times, Europeans (east of the English Channel) can't be trusted to do the right thing.

There'll always be an England... while Canada is here

European populists back Putin as they roll out their anti-Ukraine positions​

European populists back Putin as they roll out their anti-Ukraine positions

Europe’s far right parties are winning more backing in the polls, and will have increasing influence on policy over the Ukraine war.

theconversation.com

 

[YZT580]

I don't think you understand what the effect of more employment on a budget pegged to GDP would do...it's still unaffordable lol.

you are right, I don't. If more people are working then more people are paying taxes and the government is handing out less money to them which should mean there is more cash around for planes and ships and defense. Shouldn't matter what the percentage is, its simply more money

 

[PrairieFella]

you are right, I don't. If more people are working then more people are paying taxes and the government is handing out less money to them which should mean there is more cash around for planes and ships and defense. Shouldn't matter what the percentage is, its simply more money

The government handing out social assistance isn't the government buying tanks. But yes, its the Poors fault we can't spend 5% of our GDP on defence.

 

[Kirkhill]

The total population of European NATO countries is 520 millions. Canada's population is 40 millions. The idea that Canada is and should be an important provider of land troops to Europe is ridiculous. At the same time, Canada has little need for land troops to keep invaders from Canadian soil (unless those invaders are Americans, )

Canada's contribution to European security should come in two forms: As an arsenal of freedom, i.e. as an industrial base for producing what Europe needs to fight, and as a provider of the delivery of these products, which means a strong Navy supported by Air Forces. Coincidentally, strong naval forces supported by air forces are the things required for Canada's own self defense. Since it also contributes directly to the protection of main land USA, it also constitutes a fulfillment of our continental defense obligations.

For us, 2% buys more than what we need if, and only if, we spend it on naval and air forces - regardless of the Army's constant badgering that we need to make them capable of going to a fight in Europe.

Funny enough, concentrating on Air forces and Naval forces was the plan of William Lyon Mackenzie King in WWII and it is only the fact that all European powers dissolved before Germany, except the UK, that forced his hand into building up the army too.

You also have a few centuries of British history to back that policy.

Lots of wooden walls. Hire lobsters when and if absolutely necessary. The RAF is an extension of the RN's wooden walls.

The occasional financial donation to the continent to keep the pot stirred followed up by some timely loans at a decent rate of return.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The total population of European NATO countries is 520 millions. Canada's population is 40 millions. The idea that Canada is and should be an important provider of land troops to Europe is ridiculous. At the same time, Canada has little need for land troops to keep invaders from Canadian soil (unless those invaders are Americans, )

Canada's contribution to European security should come in two forms: As an arsenal of freedom, i.e. as an industrial base for producing what Europe needs to fight, and as a provider of the delivery of these products, which means a strong Navy supported by Air Forces. Coincidentally, strong naval forces supported by air forces are the things required for Canada's own self defense. Since it also contributes directly to the protection of main land USA, it also constitutes a fulfillment of our continental defense obligations.

For us, 2% buys more than what we need if, and only if, we spend it on naval and air forces - regardless of the Army's constant badgering that we need to make them capable of going to a fight in Europe.

Funny enough, concentrating on Air forces and Naval forces was the plan of William Lyon Mackenzie King in WWII and it is only the fact that all European powers dissolved before Germany, except the UK, that forced his hand into building up the army too.

You are correct. This is the way.

Almost like you can't win wars with ships and planes. You need some brutish men to go and kill the other guy to win a war being supported by the planes and the ships. We need factories, planes and ships for the homefront and tanks, guns and boots for supporting our allies. Both can exist simultaneously.

Those brutish men don't have to be Canadian. I agree someone has to close with and destroy, I don't agree that having Canadians do it is wise use of our contribution.

Canada should offer production and a safe means of getting those products to the point they're needed. Our Army should be a territorial defence force with a small SOF component.