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.

 

[YZT580]

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.

you do like to twist things. There will always be the poor and those folks deserve support. Its the individuals who suck at society's teat rather than going out to work that I was referring to. Governments waste far more than 5% on frivolous or vote-buying feel-good gestures primarily so they can gain control over the populous and have done so for centuries. But back to the real topic.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

Germany held out on its own for a while…

 

[IKnowNothing]

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.

I wouldn't go that far. But if we're looking at a white paper to define the future of the military and it's role in the world, and (hopefully) allocate a doubling of the defense budget- the discussion has to take into account our geographical reality, take a hard look at how the pie is split between the services, and a hard look at what makes sense for the army. I'm just one semi-informed tax payer- but to me the answer isn't "as many traditionally organized Bde's of heavy metal as can be afforded, plus a token light component." Sure- equip the CMBG's properly so that we can deploy and sustain a mechanized CMBG and a separate light BG, each with proper CS and CSS support. But beyond that? To me anything beyond needs to maximize bang (literally) literally for the buck, while bringing value both domestically and abroad. To me that's wheeled Fires and AD.

 

[GR66]

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.

I agree with you that for Canada the RCN and RCAF should be the primary focus of the CAF as they are the two branches that are most relevant to the direct defence of Canadian territory (AD and LRPF elements of the CA as well as Arctic-capable troops should be included as well if/when they are properly reconstituted).

However, defence of Canadian interests also includes deterrence of threats outside our own sovereign territory. Our NATO contributions in Latvia are a prime example of that. Ground forces provide political deterrence in a way that Air and Naval forces do not. They represent our willingness to spill significant Canadian blood in defence of our Allies (and our interests).

While European NATO nations may have enough population to generate the forces required to defend Europe, having Canadian (and especially American) boots on the ground at their side greatly enhances the collective deterrent effect. The question however is given that Canadian Army forces in Europe contribute greater political deterrent effect than their actual military deterrent effect, how large does that contribution have to be? I'd argue that our current contribution (leading a Multi-National Brigade Group with a deployed element and a fly-over element) are likely sufficient - provided that the force is a credible military deterrent (i.e. properly equipped and sustainable in combat should a war actually break out).

We also don't know where else in the World it may eventually be in the interest of Canada to deploy land forces. Light forces may be suitable in some situations but others might call for armoured forces like are currently required in Europe. You'd likely want/require at least a sustainable Brigade-sized force available for those circumstances.

There are some (many?) on these forums that would advocate for much larger land force contributions (deployable Divisions for example) but personally I tend to agree with @Oldgateboatdriver that Europe should take the lead in the defence of Europe and that while we should show our military and political support by providing a credible contribution to that defence we should not do so to the point that it eats into our primary national defence requirements.

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

The above is one of the reasons that I don't think we should greatly expand our permanent force contributions to Europe. No re-introduction of 4 CMBG type forward presence for me. Russia, while admittedly a current military threat is a country in demographic decline and who knows how it will turn out politically when Putin inevitably dies or is otherwise removed from power. European NATO has the capacity (economic, demographic and military) to defend itself against Russia without Canada but as noted above I do strongly support our current military contribution to the West's collective deterrent forces. I just don't see a great need to significantly increase the size of our contribution (but we definitely need to increase the capability of our contribution)

The mistake I think some make is to assume that it is our permanent national interest to have a significant military presence in Europe to deter Russia. The long term threat of Russia to Europe may eventually decline due to either the demographic/economic decline of Russia or a significant change in the Russia/West political dynamic.

Also, imagine an increasingly multi-polar World where the interests of the United States (with Canada inevitably drawn along due to our intertwined geographic/economic/cultural links) diverge from the interests of Europe. A political shift in Europe toward more autocratic, populist governments might mean that having Canadian military forces stationed in Europe may no longer be required or desired. We shouldn't assume that Canada's and Europe's national interests will always be in lock step so we should avoid the mistake of structuring our military in support of Europe's (NATO's) interests rather than our own national interests and contributing what makes sense from that structure so long as our mutual interests coincide.

I wouldn't go that far. But if we're looking at a white paper to define the future of the military and it's role in the world, and (hopefully) allocate a doubling of the defense budget- the discussion has to take into account our geographical reality, take a hard look at how the pie is split between the services, and a hard look at what makes sense for the army. I'm just one semi-informed tax payer- but to me the answer isn't "as many traditionally organized Bde's of heavy metal as can be afforded, plus a token light component." Sure- equip the CMBG's properly so that we can deploy and sustain a mechanized CMBG and a separate light BG, each with proper CS and CSS support. But beyond that? To me anything beyond needs to maximize bang (literally) literally for the buck, while bringing value both domestically and abroad. To me that's wheeled Fires and AD.

This largely mirrors my thoughts on what Canadian defence priorities should be. A primary focus on the RCAF and RCN for defence of Canada and Canadian interests abroad. The capability to deploy and sustain a mechanized Bridge Group (with NATO as the current primary focus), the capability to deploy and sustain a light Brigade Group (with a focus on the Arctic but with the ability to deploy Globally if required) as well as a robust Reserve capability to sustain (and if required expand) these forces as necessary. The other areas that I think the CA should focus on are AD and LRPF.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A well paid and treated (by third world standards) Foreign Legion based outside of Canada. There is your added bayonets. Teach the Canadian troops to be the specialists to provide the bayonets with more teeth, comms, etc.