US versus NATO

[Altair]

Having served with NATO on some big exercises, it's embarrassing how little the Europeans seem to contribute to their own Defence compared with the US.

At times, it's like going to a pot luck and the Americans bring steak while the rest show up, late, with left overs.

Yes, yet lets not forget, America spends double what is required, and seem to have little interest in cutting back, NATO or no NATO.

Naturally they are going to have some nice toys.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If it makes you feel any better, key economic indicators point toward a global recession kicking in around 2020, so be may just back into our defense spending goals. :nod:

*HOPE* isn't a very solid tool for planning...

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-latvia-visit-nato-1.4740098

'No plans to double our defence budget,' Trudeau says
Canada spends 1.23% of GDP on military spending, according to new NATO figures

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jul 10, 2018 4:12 AM ET

Extract: 1. "There are no plans to double our defence budget," Trudeau told reporters at the end of a bilateral visit to Latvia, where he announced Canadian troops would remain until 2023.

            2."We are training together, learning together and developing a level of interoperability that goes beyond military tactics and abilities. It goes to how we understand each other, how we learn from each other and how we grow together. That as a demonstration of our shared values and convictions as an alliance is as strong as any other indication we can show with the amount of tanks or the amount of firepower."

            3.  The fact Canada has no intention of raising defence spending to two per cent was laid out in the Liberal government's defence policy last year. It forecast hitting 1.4 percent of GDP by 2024. Several times on Tuesday, Trudeau outlined the spending his government plans, including the expected purchase of 88 new fighters for the air force and 15 frigates for the navy. He described the NATO target as "easy shorthand" and a "limited tool" and said Canada is always focused on having the capacity to respond when called upon. The argument is not dissimilar to one the former Conservative government made when it faced pressure to ramp up defence spending prior to 2015.

Like lambs to the slaughter as others have pointed out re doctrine/eqpt if the Soviets' got serious.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

"We are training together, learning together and developing a level of interoperability that goes beyond military tactics and abilities. It goes to how we understand each other, how we learn from each other and how we grow together

:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxUGBAmjYI 

That as a demonstration of our shared values and convictions as an alliance is as strong as any other indication we can show with the amount of tanks or the amount of firepower."

This part Is definitely true.  It wasn't military force that won, say, WWII.  Is was 'shared values'.  rancing:

 

[tomahawk6]

Greece has to worry about Turkey that's why their small deployments.A very real threat with Erdogen in mind.

 

[PuckChaser]

NATO is asking Canada for more than we can give.

 

[daftandbarmy]

NATO is asking Canada for more than we can care to give.

FTFY

 

[CBH99]

The Russians won't get serious...as we've discussed on various other threads, the chance of a peer-to-peer conflict with Russia is practically nil.

Subverting tactics with corrupt politicians & little green men?  Perhaps.  Well financed separatists?  Perhaps.  False Flag operations?  Perhaps.

Full on war with Russia?  Practically nil.  For various reasons we've discussed elsewhere...

Are they to be taken seriously?  Absolutely.  They can mass a huge amount of people, capable air power, capable transport capabilities, and capable REGIONAL naval capabilities, absolutely.  Could they cause NATO a huge headache is conflict erupted?  Absolutely.


I personally like the suggestion that FJAG made in another thread a few days ago.  Using GDP as a measuring stick isn't accurate nor is it useful in terms of capabilities...using a AAA+ system would be more accurate.  2% of GDP spent poorly, or spent on a bureaucracy that is unable to procure modern equipment, won't do anybody any good. 

Spending 1.5% of GDP and streamlining our systems so we can procure & deploy useful capabilities would be much better.  Having a mindset both within government AND within senior DND leadership that we need to procure modern equipment & be able to deploy it usefully within the alliance would go far further than $$ these days...especially since we return $$ to the government each year because we are unable to spend it.

Do what the Australians did - decide what force structure we need, and buy the equipment for it.  Simple.  Run competitions as needed, make a decision, buy it.  Money isn't our issue, it's poor leadership from the public works/DND procurement/government side of things that is the issue.  (Look at how quickly we can procure C-17's, Chinooks, Leopard 2's, etc when the leadership is there & working together.)

Also, I would suggest as an alliance we take a look at overlapping capabilities.  Does country X and country Y both need to deploy the same capabilities, or could country X focus on being really good at one capability, while country Y is really good at another?  Would better use of defense dollars within member countries might go a long way to enhancing capabilities without hugely increased budgets? 

^^ Summary of rant...some countries, including very much us, need to spend our dollars more efficiently before we start asking for larger budgets.  Once we spend our dollars efficiently & procure capabilities that would be useful to the organization -- then we can start asking for more money, if there isn't enough for us to fulfill what we decide we need to do.  Spending more $ just for the sake of spending more $ isn't going to change anything.

 

[Altair]

The Russians won't get serious...as we've discussed on various other threads, the chance of a peer-to-peer conflict with Russia is practically nil.

Subverting tactics with corrupt politicians & little green men?  Perhaps.  Well financed separatists?  Perhaps.  False Flag operations?  Perhaps.

Full on war with Russia?  Practically nil.  For various reasons we've discussed elsewhere...

Are they to be taken seriously?  Absolutely.  They can mass a huge amount of people, capable air power, capable transport capabilities, and capable REGIONAL naval capabilities, absolutely.  Could they cause NATO a huge headache is conflict erupted?  Absolutely.


I personally like the suggestion that FJAG made in another thread a few days ago.  Using GDP as a measuring stick isn't accurate nor is it useful in terms of capabilities...using a AAA+ system would be more accurate.  2% of GDP spent poorly, or spent on a bureaucracy that is unable to procure modern equipment, won't do anybody any good. 

Spending 1.5% of GDP and streamlining our systems so we can procure & deploy useful capabilities would be much better.  Having a mindset both within government AND within senior DND leadership that we need to procure modern equipment & be able to deploy it usefully within the alliance would go far further than $$ these days...especially since we return $$ to the government each year because we are unable to spend it.

Do what the Australians did - decide what force structure we need, and buy the equipment for it.  Simple.  Run competitions as needed, make a decision, buy it.  Money isn't our issue, it's poor leadership from the public works/DND procurement/government side of things that is the issue.  (Look at how quickly we can procure C-17's, Chinooks, Leopard 2's, etc when the leadership is there & working together.)

Also, I would suggest as an alliance we take a look at overlapping capabilities.  Does country X and country Y both need to deploy the same capabilities, or could country X focus on being really good at one capability, while country Y is really good at another?  Would better use of defense dollars within member countries might go a long way to enhancing capabilities without hugely increased budgets? 

^^ Summary of rant...some countries, including very much us, need to spend our dollars more efficiently before we start asking for larger budgets.  Once we spend our dollars efficiently & procure capabilities that would be useful to the organization -- then we can start asking for more money, if there isn't enough for us to fulfill what we decide we need to do.  Spending more $ just for the sake of spending more $ isn't going to change anything.

I agree 100 percent.

 

[Journeyman]

... overlapping capabilities.  Does country X and country Y both need to deploy the same capabilities….

What if we decide that we'd like to deploy 'capability A' to some non-alliance mission, but you've already divested that capability to alliance partner Z?


Edit: (so it's not merely a rhetorical question for those with mud dust on their boots):  What if it is an alliance-approved mission, but part way through, some Canadian folks go "gosh, golly, I wish we had some current main battle tanks and Chinook helicopters to support US  instead of their own troops...."

 

[Rifleman62]

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.

 

[Remius]

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...

 

[Rifleman62]

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?

 

[suffolkowner]

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.

 

[Remius]

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...

 

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

 

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[Good2Golf]

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