Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The chief reason for other countries to be prepared to kick in is in case the US decides it doesn't want to. If the US becomes significantly isolationist, a lot of situations that look stable will suddenly cease to be so.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I don't even know who to respond to; the idle paranoia is so great, I should just give everyone a tin hat.

Anyways, outside of a major war that forces us to dramatically increase defence spending, I can't see Canada ever making significant and long-lasting increases to our defence spending and posture. And why should any government do that? We have no real existential threats. The only country we share a land border with is our biggest partner and best-friend. Someone mentioned that there may be those (China, Russia, US) interested in our Arctic resources, but that's not even an existential threat. We're hardly using them, it'd be expensive to develop them, and even more expensive to defend them. If someone really wanted to grab some of it, I'd expect a bigger reaction from the US than from us.

So, spending will ebb and flow as we involve ourselves with middle power politics and regional conflicts, but we'll never truly become a "world" military power because frankly, we don't need to be.

Your post makes a lot of sense if you completely ignore the whole NATO piece…are we not a NATO member?

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

There’s no “tin foil hat” needed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Your post makes a lot of sense if you completely ignore the whole NATO piece…are we not a NATO member?

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

There’s no “tin foil hat” needed.

Until we figure out how to recruit for and supply the CAF what good is throwing more money into this going to do though ?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Until we figure out how to recruit for and supply the CAF what good is throwing more money into this going to do though ?

Chicken and egg scenario.

We don't recruit or supply because we don't have funding, but don't fund because we don't have recruits to supply with stuff.

The CAF is a laughing stock across no only our partners across NATO and the FVEY community, but within our borders and especially online.

Anyone with half a brain can look up "CAF recruitment issues" and go straight to a Reddit forum or Facebook meme group and get the God honest truth from people at the coal face. This is why our multimillion dollar expenses to recruit on TV ads are falling flat. People know this is advertisement and not reality.

You can CAF offer the hell out of it, but ultimately, folks don't want to risk their lives and youth working for an amateur hour organization; one that is over tasked, underfunded, underequipped, and lacks the strategic direction to fix any of it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Chicken and egg scenario.

We don't recruit or supply because we don't have funding, but don't fund because we don't have recruits to supply with stuff.

The CAF is a laughing stock across no only our partners across NATO and the FVEY community, but within our borders and especially online.

Anyone with half a brain can look up "CAF recruitment issues" and go straight to a Reddit forum or Facebook meme group and get the God honest truth from people at the coal face. This is why our multimillion dollar expenses to recruit on TV ads are falling flat. People know this is advertisement and not reality.

You can CAF offer the hell out of it, but ultimately, folks don't want to risk their lives and youth working for an amateur hour organization; one that is over tasked, underfunded, underequipped, and lacks the strategic direction to fix any of it.

That's the kind of statement I want to believe our GO/FOs are telling the political folks.

 

[Good2Golf]

You can CAF offer the hell out of it, but ultimately, folks don't want to risk their lives and youth working for an amateur hour organization; one that is over tasked, underfunded, underequipped, and lacks the strategic direction to fix any of it.

^ …don’t forget fickle citizens, almost all of whom (with few, but identifiable exceptions) only care when the media tells them to care…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Until we figure out how to recruit for and supply the CAF what good is throwing more money into this going to do though ?

There are monies that could be spent on existing personnel and equipment; the Leo 2 fleet is an example.

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/308/192/johns.pdf

 

[GR66]

I don't even know who to respond to; the idle paranoia is so great, I should just give everyone a tin hat.

Anyways, outside of a major war that forces us to dramatically increase defence spending, I can't see Canada ever making significant and long-lasting increases to our defence spending and posture. And why should any government do that? We have no real existential threats. The only country we share a land border with is our biggest partner and best-friend. Someone mentioned that there may be those (China, Russia, US) interested in our Arctic resources, but that's not even an existential threat. We're hardly using them, it'd be expensive to develop them, and even more expensive to defend them. If someone really wanted to grab some of it, I'd expect a bigger reaction from the US than from us.

So, spending will ebb and flow as we involve ourselves with middle power politics and regional conflicts, but we'll never truly become a "world" military power because frankly, we don't need to be.

Also, there are threats to our national wellbeing that are not directly related to physical attacks on our territory. Our economy is dependent on overseas trade, resources and open SLOCs. Without physically attacking our territory an enemy state can seriously cripple our economy and we need to maintain the capability to counter these measures along with our allies.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Exactly. And once the big conflict comes people will say “why didn’t the government warn us?”

You mean like when they told everyone that rising interest rates will cause homeownership problems? It should be part of the mortgage obtaining/renewing process. Here are your current payments at interest rate X, here are your payments if interest rate move to X+1 and here are your rates if interest rates move to X+3. Can you afford to make payments on X+3, please initial here that you are aware of these possible payments in 2-5yrs.

 

[OldSolduer]

^ …don’t forget fickle citizens, almost all of whom (with few, but identifiable exceptions) only care when the media tells them to care…

Remember when Dear Leader said “Canada is back”?

Canada under his watch is not back. In fact this nation no longer has the influence it once had.

Thank you LCC.

 

[JLB50]

I don't even know who to respond to; the idle paranoia is so great, I should just give everyone a tin hat.

Anyways, outside of a major war that forces us to dramatically increase defence spending, I can't see Canada ever making significant and long-lasting increases to our defence spending and posture. And why should any government do that? We have no real existential threats. The only country we share a land border with is our biggest partner and best-friend. Someone mentioned that there may be those (China, Russia, US) interested in our Arctic resources, but that's not even an existential threat. We're hardly using them, it'd be expensive to develop them, and even more expensive to defend them. If someone really wanted to grab some of it, I'd expect a bigger reaction from the US than from us.

So, spending will ebb and flow as we involve ourselves with middle power politics and regional conflicts, but we'll never truly become a "world" military power because frankly, we don't need to be.

Although Canada is huge geographically, we should not expect to be a world power. We just don’t have the population to justify the expenditures for a large sustainable military to handle any threats. Yet we do have an economy that ranks us as having perhaps the10th largest GDP in the world (depending on how you measure it). When you take that into account there’s no reason why Canada’s military could not or should not strive to be a respectable middle power. What is required though is the political will to make it happen, which means those in power need to bring out the Churchill from within each of them and prepare Canadians for the dangers that lie ahead.

We need a solid industrial strategy that spends the money in Canada when practical and procures technologies and hardware offshore where necessary, but always with time being of the essence. And I do think that if we did have a middle-power military ranking, we could have a positive influence on world affairs. I also realize that dealing with threats can be much more complicated than ever before…terrorism, hypersonic missiles, cyber espionage, disaster as a result of climate change, high atmosphere’s and space espionage, etc. We have to deal with all of these as well as traditional military requirements. Otherwise we risk ceding control of our nation to either an unfriendly power or a friendly power.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think he actually said “Canada is in the back”, but nobody heard the “in the”…

 

[Czech_pivo]

Remember when Dear Leader said “Canada is back”?

Canada under his watch is not back. In fact this nation no longer has the influence it once had.

Thank you LCC.

The amount that the LPC under Trudeau has set Canada back is mind-boggling. Would be hard pressed to string together a couple of positive things on a national level that really matter.

 

[OldSolduer]

I think he actually said “Canada is in the back”, but nobody heard the “in the”…

Well Canada is kinda like the last guy on your platoon runs. Nice kid, tries hard but bottom third.

BTW LCC = Liberal Cult of Canada

 

[Good2Golf]

The amount that the LPC under Trudeau has set Canada back is mind-boggling. Would be hard pressed to string together a couple of positive things on a national level that really matter.

Well, we do have those non-plasticy papery drinking-box bottle thingies…

 

[TacticalTea]

Well, we do have those non-plasticy papery drinking-box bottle thingies…

And paper bags are back!

 

[dimsum]

Chicken and egg scenario.

We don't recruit or supply because we don't have funding, but don't fund because we don't have recruits to supply with stuff.

The CAF is a laughing stock across no only our partners across NATO and the FVEY community, but within our borders and especially online.

Anyone with half a brain can look up "CAF recruitment issues" and go straight to a Reddit forum or Facebook meme group and get the God honest truth from people at the coal face. This is why our multimillion dollar expenses to recruit on TV ads are falling flat. People know this is advertisement and not reality.

You can CAF offer the hell out of it, but ultimately, folks don't want to risk their lives and youth working for an amateur hour organization; one that is over tasked, underfunded, underequipped, and lacks the strategic direction to fix any of it.

I would have agreed with your last para when I joined pre-9/11. I distinctly remember my dad saying “you won’t fight - who would attack us?” when I joined the Reserves.

That changed about three weeks after Basic.

 

[Spencer100]

And paper bags are back!

I'm old enough to remember the switch to plastic from paper to save the environment the first time.

I'm so pissed about the plastic bag thing. Its not based in anyway by science or efficiency or even common sense.

First is the what problem are you trying to solve? Plastic waste? Energy Use? or CO2 emissions. The government bans stuff and do not give a real solid reason why. They say the turtles or some crap.

If you are worried about energy usage plastic is the way to go. The manufacture of plastic film and bags uses lease energy than a paper bag.

If you are worried about waste deposal it can go either way. Paper and Plastic can both be burned for energy. Plastic being the winner here as you get a greater unit of energy out it. Biodegrading is not what you think it is, modern landfills are engineered to be as inert as posable for both paper and plastic.

If you are worried about micro plastics then that would be a case for paper. But then plastics should not be left out in the environment to degrade and create this problem.

I could go on.

The real solution is use either but then with plastics develop waste to energy systems. Use the same molecule twice. That this is not on the table means this a political not a proper solution.

Oh one more thing the great waste floating island in the middle of pacific ocean is been studied and it did not come from North American trash. So these measures solve nothing there.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I picked up take-out from Montana’s on the way home last Friday.

• Appetizers and meals were in plastic containers;
• we had plastic cutlery in plastic packaging;
• our pop was in plastic bottles; and
• it was all packaged up in a paper bag.

#SaveThePlanet ?

 

[TacticalTea]

I'm old enough to remember the switch to plastic from paper to save the environment the first time.

I'm so pissed about the plastic bag thing. Its not based in anyway by science or efficiency or even common sense.

First is the what problem are you trying to solve? Plastic waste? Energy Use? or CO2 emissions. The government bans stuff and do not give a real solid reason why. They say the turtles or some crap.

If you are worried about energy usage plastic is the way to go. The manufacture of plastic film and bags uses lease energy than a paper bag.

If you are worried about waste deposal it can go either way. Paper and Plastic can both be burned for energy. Plastic being the winner here as you get a greater unit of energy out it. Biodegrading is not what you think it is, modern landfills are engineered to be as inert as posable for both paper and plastic.

If you are worried about micro plastics then that would be a case for paper. But then plastics should not be left out in the environment to degrade and create this problem.

I could go on.

The real solution is use either but then with plastics develop waste to energy systems. Use the same molecule twice. That this is not on the table means this a political not a proper solution.

Oh one more thing the great waste floating island in the middle of pacific ocean is been studied and it did not come from North American trash. So these measures solve nothing there.

We should get rid of most plastics, especially single-use plastics. Unlike basically everything else, plastic does not truly degrade in the environment, it turns into microplastics which infiltrate the entire food chain and corrupt everything, ourselves included.

The paper bag scare was a whole lot of nonsense. Trees are easily renewed.