The Defence Budget [superthread]

[TCM621]

Oh, for heaven's sake! It, reneging on our promises to allies, is a completely bi-partisan issue in Canada, and has been since 1967. The fact that Prime Minister Harper talked tough, used (and misused) the CF for partisan political purposes and cut the budget is at least as germane as what Prime Minister Trudeau may (or may not) want to do or be forced to do.

This is not a Conservative vs Liberal issue: it is all about ~ and only about ~ what the overwhelming majority of Canadians ~ our friends and neighbours and relatives, too ~ want their government priorities to be ... and defence is waaaaaaay down at the bottom of the list, wedged between spending on symphony orchestras and opera houses.

The comment about Harper was fair and on point; you are trying to make it partisan.  :facepalm:

I think was in response to a perception that because harper did it too,  just in should be given some slack. From your comment,  I don't think you believe that to be the case and the fact is that it is a long standing Canadian tradition to spend as little on defence as we possibly can.

However, there is a major difference this time around. We have a young politically inexperienced PM. They have strong willed,  billionaire with no political experience who has no problem taking his toys and going home if he doesn't get his way. This isn't Papa Trudeau and Johnson or Mulroney and Reagan. We can't rely on trump to allow us to get away with what we have always done

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[GR66]

That day passed a long time ago. In the 1970's we had our own "Apprehended Insurrection" and the US had full scale riots in the street as the New Left tried out its Brownshirt act. In the 1980's we had the Indian Government and Sikhs fighting a proxy war on our soil (culminating in the Ari Inda bombing) and throughout the 1990s the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) were recruiting people, raising money and using Canada as a safe haven in their war against Siri Lanka. Other groups were also active in Canada at various levels of mayhem ("Direct Action's" bombing of the Litton Industries plant, various eco terrorist groups) or supporting wars outside of Canada (think back to where many of the paramilitary groups in Yugoslavia were getting money and weapons, or for that matter, Somali warlords sending family members to Canada to collect welfare and send the money back to Africa).

While it is true these have never coalesced into anything larger, that may be more a matter of luck and circumstance than anything else. We certainly are very concerned about people who went overseas to fight for ISIS, and home grown radicals who are nurtured over the Internet may be an even greater problem in the future.

The real issue is we are facing what is sometimes called 4GW right here on the ground in Canada, the United States and Mexico. Currently, the actors are not numerous enough on the ground nor have they found the proper vehicle to harness, but the essential aim is to destabilize the current structures of governance and society and impose change on us all without consent, or in the words of Thomas X Hammes (USMC Ret.):

So the real problem isn't if Canada or North America can protect itself from attack, but want sort of attack is likely to be encountered. If Russia considers the stakes high enough in Donbas they might not send bombers, but incite Canadians using the Russian Troll Army and getting CBC to repeat ideas first broadcast on RT, using the tenants of Hybrid Warfare. If the stakes in the South China Sea get high enough the Toronto Stock Exchange might see billions of dollars of trades driving Canada's economy down, or currency manipulation that makes the Canadian dollar uncompetitive (as per Unrestricted Warfare doctrine). It might not even be immediately obvious we are under attack.

So if *we* were ever to become serious about defense, then ramping up spending might be more than a matter of buying more tanks and airplanes (although we are certainly deficient in that regard as well), but looking at the modalities of modern warfare and where *we* are really deficient.

We're discussing the Defence Budget and the CF here.  We are a VERY long way away in Canada from the type of scenario you are describing where a group of foreign agent provocateurs could so incite Canadian citizens against our own government that the appropriate response would be a military in nature rather than law enforcement.  It's a strawman argument and ignores what I was saying.  I'm suggesting that MILITARY defence of Canada is not about defending Canada from external military threats, it's about defending our overseas allies and political/economic interests from external military threats. 

I'm not arguing against defence spending...just suggesting the focus that we should be putting on the nature of our defence spending.  For example, the Liberals suggest that the F-35 is not the right aircraft for defending Canadian airspace.  I'm suggesting that that's not the correct criteria for determining what kind of aircraft we require.  Defending Canadian/US airspace against Russian/Chinese bombers is not the real primary role of our fighters (although of course we need an aircraft that is capable of responding to challenges to our airspace), but rather to deter other powers from military action in parts of the world where there are real military threats.  So in that case, aircraft capable of strike missions in opposed/defended airspace ARE a requirement. 

It may not be politically correct in Canada to say that, but it is the truth. 

 

[Jed]

We're discussing the Defence Budget and the CF here.  We are a VERY long way away in Canada from the type of scenario you are describing where a group of foreign agent provocateurs could so incite Canadian citizens against our own government that the appropriate response would be a military in nature rather than law enforcement.  It's a strawman argument and ignores what I was saying.  I'm suggesting that MILITARY defence of Canada is not about defending Canada from external military threats, it's about defending our overseas allies and political/economic interests from external military threats. 

I'm not arguing against defence spending...just suggesting the focus that we should be putting on the nature of our defence spending.  For example, the Liberals suggest that the F-35 is not the right aircraft for defending Canadian airspace.  I'm suggesting that that's not the correct criteria for determining what kind of aircraft we require.  Defending Canadian/US airspace against Russian/Chinese bombers is not the real primary role of our fighters (although of course we need an aircraft that is capable of responding to challenges to our airspace), but rather to deter other powers from military action in parts of the world where there are real military threats.  So in that case, aircraft capable of strike missions in opposed/defended airspace ARE a requirement. 

It may not be politically correct in Canada to say that, but it is the truth.

I do not agree with your assessment of the immediacy of the threat facing Canadians.  Just why do you think this is the case and do you  have any logical insight to back this claim?

 

[GR66]

I do not agree with your assessment of the immediacy of the threat facing Canadians.  Just why do you think this is the case and do you  have any logical insight to back this claim?

How about the 2016 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-pblc-rpr-trrrst-thrt/index-en.aspx) where the official government report notes that "the Government was aware of approximately 180 individuals with a nexus to Canada who were abroad and who were suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activities. The Government was also aware of a further 60 extremist travelers who had returned to Canada."

240 individuals currently suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activities.  The CF currently has around 68,000 Reg Force personnel, 28,000 Reservists and 5,000 Rangers.  According to StatsCan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal05a-eng.htm) there are over 68,000 police officers in Canada as of 2015. 

Are there both foreign and domestic terrorist threats to Canada?  Certainly.  Here's a list of events to prove it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada).  Is that threat so great that it has passed from being something that requires a law enforcement and intelligence agency response to something of a level that requires a MILITARY response on Canadian soil?  Look at the numbers.  All tragedies of course and certainly something we should all be concerned about and work hard to prevent, but I stand by my statement that "we are a VERY long way away in Canada from that type of scenario". 

I've given facts which I believe back up my claim.  What facts do you have to present that suggest that the focus of the CF should shift from facing overseas military and insurgent threats to putting down domestic insurrections?

 

[George Wallace]

Can I return to my analogy of the small town Fire Department, basically what our Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have slowly become over the years since the Korean War.  The town council have come to the conclusion that their townsfolk have been fairly good in their fire safety practices, and their Fire Department has received far less calls over the years, even though their town's population has grown.  To save some dollars on the next year's town budget, they have come up with the idea to sell off the last remaining firetruck, and stick with the local Fire Safety Inspection company to be contracted out to monitor the state of the various Fire suppression systems in the town buildings, and the fire hydrant system.  They see no need of equipment that has not been used for years, and do not foresee a major fire incident in the near future that would require such expensive equipment.

Looking at the history of our Canadian Armed Forces, since the 1950's, we have seen with every major equipment purchase that existing equipment was being replaced with half that number of new equipment in many cases; be it aircraft, tanks, trucks, ships, etc.  We have gone from FOUR (4) Fighter Wings in Europe in the 1950's/1960's alone, to less than Two (2) in Canada.  We saw the RCN go from the third largest in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest in the world today.  We have seen the near demise of the Armour Corps and the Submarine force in the past two decades.  We have seen the Army lose almost, if not all, Heavy and Medium Wheeled logistical vehicles.  We have seen the Change of Rank Insignia discussions here on army.ca and the discussions on the lack of BOOTS for the troops. 

It is time that the Government stop reneging on its AGREEMENT signed as a member of NATO to use 2% of its' GDP as a basis for its Defence Budget.  The currently less than 1% is a sham.  Our troops (Firefighters) need their equipment (Firetrucks) to do the job should the worse case scenario ever occur.  It is too late after a fire has started to be going out to purchase a firetruck and start training firefighters.

 

[Journeyman]

Defending Canadian/US airspace ...is not the real primary role of our fighters ...but rather to deter other powers from military action in parts of the world [therefore]... aircraft capable of strike missions in opposed/defended airspace ARE a requirement.

At the risk of being repetitious (notwithstanding that being a very popular online 'discussion' method), you are situating the estimate. In the absence of a coherent Defence White Paper, all any of us can do is frame the 'discussion' in terms of our own preferred outcome.  If a sitting government, hypothetically, decided that the purpose of our military was flood response, shovelling out Toronto bus stops, and UN-only peacekeeping, there would be no "real primary role" for fighter aircraft beyond the minimal number/capability to appease NORAD.  No one here can state categorically where we should be going;  shame our government prefers to waffle, until it can point to an equally-situated public opinion Defence Review.

The real issue is we are facing what is sometimes called 4GW right here on the ground in Canada....

While I agree 100% with the premise, I still hold that the current threat remains a police/intelligence issue where primacy lay in adhering to our Canadian rights and freedoms (although I could be convinced of some  military role in cyber).

I am pleasantly surprised that the M-103 Islamophobia motion, sufficiently stupid in its own right, hasn't been characterized more widely as a Daesh 4GW operation.

We may be building an electronic Maginot Line, for example.

Thursday (17 Feb) was André Maginot's birthday  :cheers:
/trivia tangent

 

[George Wallace]

Oh, for heaven's sake! It, reneging on our promises to allies, is a completely bi-partisan issue in Canada, and has been since 1967.

It has been going on for much longer.  I would say that it began earlier; after the end of the Korean War, if not 1945.

The comment about Harper was fair and on point; you are trying to make it partisan.  :facepalm:

I am not denying that Harper was any different.  As stated, the Defence Budget has been cut for over five decades consistently by ALL Governments.  What I am saying is that all that is irrelevant, as this current Defence Budget and commitment to NATO is going to be a face-off between Trump and Trudeau.

 

[Old Sweat]

I'm not sure that we give whatever party is in power much of a reason to increase funding when so much of the budget is spent on large headquarters that mostly spend their time duplicating effort and empire building. Do you really think if the forces got a big boost in spending they would suddenly undergo a change in philosophy?

 

[Cloud Cover]

As the officer who had the counter-terrorism "desk" in J3 at NDHQ, for a few years in the early 90s, I suggest you all read Thuc's post very carefully. We may be building an electronic Maginot Line, for example.

Perhaps true, but the laws and regulations that govern that sort of activity are quite restrictive for our respective entities in a domestic situation. And, although the entities may already be somewhat active extra territorially, the term "Maginot line" may be inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, the line has no fixed location but it is restricted by laws and subject to eye wincing oversight; and second there are not enough personnel, stations and equipment to form a "line", but they can form a "post".

Fighting this type of point and click skirmishing with defensive and offensive electronic information warfare seems new, but in fact it has manifested itself many times in  different forms throughout the ages(think of the role General Sherman's signalmen in the "march to the sea", the use of listening posts on the telegraph (interception), sending fake encoded messages using captured ciphers from captured telegraph stations (man in the middle) and tearing up the railway telegraph lines behind the enemy lines (denial of service). This was a tactical form of information operations warfare that he learned about from  advisers who were fresh from studying the Crimean War, where telegraph lines were  first used by the British and French for communications at the front and also to report back to London, Paris. It wasn't long before the Russians started using the same "technology", and not long after that that both sides began efforts to access, monitor or cripple enemy lines of communications. The major differences in the current era are many, and while the tactical implications are relational, the global aspects coupled with the ability to deliver precision or distributed attacks from the dark web or other places adds to the complexity.

Enough of history for today. What is really interesting to watch ( and we do "watch") is how, without the restrictions that bind official operations, the "unorganized cyber militias" are behaving and what they may be capable of accomplishing. I'm not talking about "Anonymous" here either ... 

If Canada was to invest in new defence spending, other than boots and trucks, ships and things that kill, some large sums need to dropped into a massive new EW and ESM support program for offensive and defensive information operations. Potentially this could include sensor equipped airborne platforms.  The (open source) JED Journal of 3-4 months ago profiled emerging pod capabilities for the Growler to search for, collect and retransmit (in near real time) ground level cellular signals, wi-fi access point and router data, fingerprinting of computers and communications devices of end users. All of these would therefore be capable of being targeted for jamming or other (more violent) means of disruption  >

 

[GR66]

At the risk of being repetitious (notwithstanding that being a very popular online 'discussion' method), you are situating the estimate. In the absence of a coherent Defence White Paper, all any of us can do is frame the 'discussion' in terms of our own preferred outcome.  If a sitting government, hypothetically, decided that the purpose of our military was flood response, shovelling out Toronto bus stops, and UN-only peacekeeping, there would be no "real primary role" for fighter aircraft beyond the minimal number/capability to appease NORAD.  No one here can state categorically where we should be going;  shame our government prefers to waffle, until it can point to an equally-situated public opinion Defence Review.

You are of course absolutely correct.  Certainly the government of the day can decide whatever it likes as the primary roles of the CF and the CF will (should) try its best to fulfill that mandate in the most efficient way possible given the resources allocated to them by the government.

Despite the policies of the government however, there are certain external realities which exist outside their decisions.  The size, composition, capabilities and physical location of the world's various military forces will to a very high degree dictate what kinds of conflicts are likely to be possible.  The political decisions of Ottawa with our small overall military contribution will have very little impact on those realities. 

Will those realities evolve and change (sometimes even rapidly) over time?  Of course...which is why we should be well informed, flexible and responsive in our policies.  Sadly I don't believe that we are.

Edited to clarify:

My choice of words in suggesting a proper "role" for the CF was wrong.  As correctly pointed out the Government determines the "role" of the CF.  I was suggesting what I feel might be a more effective "capability" for the CF in terms of overall collective defence of ourselves and our allies.  The government could determine in a Defence White Paper that the CF should focus on the development and deployment of high-tech, smart, air-dropped caltrops designed to effectively disable the horses of enemy cavalry units.  They have the full constitutional right to determine that to be the role of the CF.  It wouldn't however make it an effective tool in our defence.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Trump may pull off his own version of "Celebrity Apprentice" on NATO members and point out that they formed a Pact (NATO) and are not fulfilling their RESPONSIBILITIES as agreed upon when they signed on.  Their lack of commitment makes them UNTRUSTWORTHY as partners in such an organization.  "Stepping up to the plate" is not the same as fulfilling one's agreed OBLIGATIONS to the agreement ...

Should more be spent by some militaries, including Canada's?  Sure thing (notwithstanding the "pouring more water into a still-leaky bucket" thing).  Is that the only way we should judge the "trustworthiness" of those forces/partners, though?

Just to be "that guy", how well do you think the "not pulling one's weight" argument would resonate for the families of the approximately 150 troops from NATO members that used to be Warsaw Pact countries* who've been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan[sup]**[/sup] since 2003 and 2001, respectively?  Does that count for SFA in the contribution to the collective fight?

How about other contributions, like hosting places where USA int could interrogate folks to get int in the War on Terror?  In case you worry about bias in MSM coverage of this one, here's an ... alternative source for the info as well 

* -- Not including 18 troops from Ukraine (not a member of NATO, but still a former Warsaw Pact country) have been killed in Iraq.
[sup]**[/sup] -- I know the fight in AFG started in support of the USA being attacked.  IRQ?  Not so much.

 

[Jed]

How about the 2016 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-pblc-rpr-trrrst-thrt/index-en.aspx) where the official government report notes that "the Government was aware of approximately 180 individuals with a nexus to Canada who were abroad and who were suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activities. The Government was also aware of a further 60 extremist travelers who had returned to Canada."

240 individuals currently suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activities.  The CF currently has around 68,000 Reg Force personnel, 28,000 Reservists and 5,000 Rangers.  According to StatsCan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal05a-eng.htm) there are over 68,000 police officers in Canada as of 2015. 

Are there both foreign and domestic terrorist threats to Canada?  Certainly.  Here's a list of events to prove it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada).  Is that threat so great that it has passed from being something that requires a law enforcement and intelligence agency response to something of a level that requires a MILITARY response on Canadian soil?  Look at the numbers.  All tragedies of course and certainly something we should all be concerned about and work hard to prevent, but I stand by my statement that "we are a VERY long way away in Canada from that type of scenario". 

I've given facts which I believe back up my claim.  What facts do you have to present that suggest that the focus of the CF should shift from facing overseas military and insurgent threats to putting down domestic insurrections?

I suppose you could call this supporting facts.  I am not suggesting that the CF shift its focus.  I am saying that world history shows that events can shift very rapidly with little forewarning and that Canada does not have a very good 'plan B or plan C' or any significant reserve pool of trained personnel or equipment that could be given different tasks.

The ship continues to sail on blissfully until it hits the iceberg.

 

[Kirkhill]

It has been going on for much longer.  I would say that it began earlier; after the end of the Korean War, if not 1945.


I am not denying that Harper was any different.  As stated, the Defence Budget has been cut for over five decades consistently by ALL Governments.  What I am saying is that all that is irrelevant, as this current Defence Budget and commitment to NATO is going to be a face-off between Trump and Trudeau.

George, we can go all the way back to Sir John A.  and the rest of the Fathers.  None of them wanted to allocate a penny for defense.  That was the job of the Brits.  In exchange for British protection they would deliver a reliable source of resources and a communications link between the Atlantic and the Pacific.  The Brits agreed to defend Halifax and Esquimalt.  After 1871 Canada was on its own and MacDonald was forced to find funds to support the Mounties - the original, active, Defence of Canada Force. 

Veering off in a different direction - two really good articles from Der Spiegel. They are noteworthy, in my opinion, for the moderate tone in a magazine that generally is to the left of the Guardian.  Perhaps headway is being made.

It is, perhaps, the least expected opening to a German editorial at the moment: Donald Trump is right. But it's true. At the 2014 NATO summit in Wales, Germany announced that it would soon dramatically increase its defense spending. When Trump and his Defense Secretary James Mattis now admonish Germany to fulfill its pledge, they are right on two counts. First, on principle: Promises should be kept. Second, on merit: There is no reason that, more than 70 years after World War II, the United States should continue carrying the main burden for ensuring European security.


Unfortunately, this isn't just a question of money. America's justified demand comes right in the middle of an internal crisis in the West so deep that nobody knows how much of the West will be left in the end. NATO always aspired to be something more than a defense alliance. It viewed itself as the protective power of liberal democracy, the West and Western principles. It was a moral framework, the foundations for their existence. But are we certain that the West is still a community of shared values?....

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/american-withdrawal-presents-opportunity-for-europe-a-1135172.html

Much more in the article.  My major point of contention is the point about "liberal democracy".  I am still not convinced that the values of liberal democracy have ever been shared.  In my opinion the devils bargain after WW2 was, in exchange for peace the liberal democracies left the authoritarian corporatists in power and permitted them to proclaim themselves liberal democrats even as they proposed to manage the liberalism they detested, and curtail the democracy they feared, out of existence.  But..... another thread for that discussion.

The other article has Germany recognizing the merits of the US argument, the problems a re-armed Germany would present to its neighbours, the domestic problems it would present, and finally - something that will resonate on this site - the lack of a mechanism to effectively spend the budget they already have, much less a vastly expanded budget.

...It is becoming increasingly clear that things could soon become uncomfortable for Berlin. The Pentagon sees Germany as the most important country in Europe, the one that sets the tone on the Continent. If the Germans don't pay their share, U.S. defense officials believe, smaller European countries will follow suit, essentially hiding behind Berlin's coat tails. The pressure from Washington, in other words, is only going to grow in intensity.

Germany, of course, is not in an easy position. Politicians in Berlin are aware that their neighbors have long been skeptical, even fearful, of a militarily powerful Germany. That helps explain why German military spending in real terms ranks only third in Europe, behind the UK and France, despite being the Continent's strongest economy. Were Germany to meet the NATO target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, that would mean jacking up the annual defense budget from its current level of 37 billion euros to significantly over 60 billion euros. That would make Germany by far the largest military power on the Continent, which is likely a situation that would make many other Europeans nervous.

Concrete Numbers in Munich

Furthermore, it isn't entirely clear how much political support the project has. While von der Leyen, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, is committed to reaching the NATO target, Rainer Arnold, the defense policy spokesman for the Social Democrats (SPD), believes that increasing German defense spending to 2 percent of GDP is "unrealistic." And increasingly, it is looking as though the SPD candidate for chancellor in autumn general elections, Martin Schulz, has a realistic chance of an upset victory over Merkel.

Still, at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, von der Leyen provided perhaps the clearest indication yet that Germany is intent on living up to its financial obligations agreed to in 2014, but also hinted that it will take time. In her speech at the conference, she repeatedly mentioned "burden sharing" and said "yes, we know that we must bear a larger, a fairer, share of the burden for trans-Atlantic security."

She also mentioned a few concrete numbers, including the fact that the German defense budget rose by 8 percent from 2016 to 2017 and she also referred to a plan she introduced last year for an investment package worth 130 billion euros. "We have to recognize that we must rapidly increase investments in both internal and external security in the coming years," she said....

...Speaking not long after von der Leyen, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble seemed to indicate that he, too, would support increased military spending. "We will stick to our obligations," he said.

More money, though, does not automatically mean more and better equipment. Military procurement is notoriously inefficient, opaque and politicized in all countries and is thus susceptible to lobbyist manipulation. More money often makes the problem worse because more people begin angling for a slice of the pie.

Von der Leyen is well aware of that. A sudden increase in defense spending could reduce the pressure that she needs to push through her ambitious procurement reform package. Even now, the German military is having trouble spending its money sensibly. The structures are simply too complicated...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pressure-on-germany-to-increase-defense-spending-for-nato-a-1135192.html

Final comment - I find it interesting that Merkel has come out recently stating that she can't find the new money, especially when the US and Britain are on the verge of implementing new policies that will reduce taxes and that will necessarily have a knock-on effect in Europe (currently beating up on Ireland with its 12.5% corporate rate).  On the other hand, within hours of that, she was musing about the return of the Deutsche Mark and her ministers were referencing the critical need for a strong bilateral Anglo-German relationship.

Dutch Election 15 March
60th Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome 25 March
May's Brexit Deadline 31 Mar
French Prelims 23 Apr
French Finals 7 May
German Election 24 Sep

 

[Journeyman]

... Canada does not have a very good 'plan B or plan C' 

Even when we do have a plan, it seems easier to employ all those Staff Officers to reinvent the wheel rather than dust off the plan and amend detail.

And since Chris P started the history lesson.... you don't have to go all the way back to Gwatkin's mobilization plan being scuttled by Sam Hughes sending telegrams to all the Militia COs saying "allons-y les boys; everyone RV at Valcartier."  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

As the officer who had the counter-terrorism "desk" in J3 at NDHQ, for a few years in the early 90s, I suggest you all read Thuc's post very carefully. We may be building an electronic Maginot Line, for example.

^ This, and Thucydides' words.  Call it 4GW, IW, whatever, there are threats on planes other than the physical/kinetic that will manifest themselves to great effect against liberal democracies far sooner than we'll have Presidents Putin or Xi send bombers or hypersonic cruise missiles in over our Northern approaches.  Defence investment needs to be balanced, but needs to plus up our cyber capabilities as much as politicians are willing to temper the general Canadian population's aversion to such electronic intervention (which many believe to be an invasive attack on their privacy, whether they believe themselves to be Government targets or not).

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps the major issues are two-fold:

1-the enemy wins when we lose faith in our situation and no longer feel comfortable. 

2-enemies exist.

Arguably the first condition exists.

The bigger issue is getting people to accept that there are enemies who don't like our ways of doing things - and want to make us stop.

 

[Kirkhill]

The final paragraph in the Der Spiegel editorial referenced above:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/american-withdrawal-presents-opportunity-for-europe-a-1135172.html

America's withdrawal actually represents an opportunity for Europe. The idea of Europe being a junior partner could finally be consigned to the dustbin of history and lead Europe to begin defining its own interests. That includes a reasonable relationship with Russia that isn't based exclusively on deterrence. That also includes making clear to Turkey that there are limits to solidarity if Ankara plays with fire in Syria or if the conflict with the Kurds further escalates. That could also include making some trade-policy concessions during the Brexit negotiations in exchange for British participation in a joint European defense partnership. Ultimately, a Europe that is serious about its own security will also have to consider nuclear deterrence. This doesn't mean that Germany needs to build a bomb, as some have pondered. But it would require a level of trust in the nuclear power of France that Germany has so far only reserved for the United States.

Here exists a major problem - The Europeans fear Putin's nukes.  They rely on Trump's nukes to keep Putin in check.  But they don't ever want Trump to use them.  Meanwhile Trump is asking why he should risk having to press the button, and risk people in Nebraska dying either in retaliation or as a preventative measure, to stop the Russians moving back into Estonia - especially when nobody seems to want to help keep that risk at bay by ponying up for conventional forces.

The other side of the problem is the alternative.  I can see the Brits adding their nukes to an American response. Much like the RN threw a few Tomahawks into Iraq alongside the USN to add some tone to the affair.  I can't see them acting unilaterally. 

So the alternative to the US nukes are the French nukes.  And does anybody believe that France will launch nukes on Moscow to protect Estonia?  Or for that matter to protect Germany?  I can see the French launching nukes into Germany to detonate over Russian hordes threatening to invade France.  But not France using their Force de Frappe to assist allies.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Can I return to my analogy of the small town Fire Department, basically what our Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have slowly become over the years since the Korean War.  The town council have come to the conclusion that their townsfolk have been fairly good in their fire safety practices, and their Fire Department has received far less calls over the years, even though their town's population has grown.  To save some dollars on the next year's town budget, they have come up with the idea to sell off the last remaining firetruck, and stick with the local Fire Safety Inspection company to be contracted out to monitor the state of the various Fire suppression systems in the town buildings, and the fire hydrant system.  They see no need of equipment that has not been used for years, and do not foresee a major fire incident in the near future that would require such expensive equipment.

Looking at the history of our Canadian Armed Forces, since the 1950's, we have seen with every major equipment purchase that existing equipment was being replaced with half that number of new equipment in many cases; be it aircraft, tanks, trucks, ships, etc.  We have gone from FOUR (4) Fighter Wings in Europe in the 1950's/1960's alone, to less than Two (2) in Canada.  We saw the RCN go from the third largest in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest in the world today.  We have seen the near demise of the Armour Corps and the Submarine force in the past two decades. We have seen the Army lose almost, if not all, Heavy and Medium Wheeled logistical vehicles.  We have seen the Change of Rank Insignia discussions here on army.ca and the discussions on the lack of BOOTS for the troops. 

It is time that the Government stop reneging on its AGREEMENT signed as a member of NATO to use 2% of its' GDP as a basis for its Defence Budget.  The currently less than 1% is a sham.  Our troops (Firefighters) need their equipment (Firetrucks) to do the job should the worse case scenario ever occur.  It is too late after a fire has started to be going out to purchase a firetruck and start training firefighters.

That, the highlighted bit, is mainly because the performance envelope of the new system has allowed us to do more than the same with half as much kit. We didn't need four fighter wings (10 to 15 squadrons) in Europe when the F-104 replaced the F-86 Sabre. The F-104 could do much, much more with fewer aircraft. Ditto with ships: the Halifax class frigates were qualitatively so much better than the old "steamers" they replaced that 12 could do what we needed 15 to 20 to do before. You, yourself, must know that a regiment of, say, just 50 Leopard 2 tanks could do more than a regiment of 80 Centurions.

There were, of course, also social and political pressures. The 1970s saw an aggressive peace movement (how's that for a contradiction in terms?) move into the political realm where it found fertile ground because Americans and Brits and Canadians and Danes and, and, and were all tired of paying big bills for a cold war which we had already won and wanted more and better "social safety net" policies.

At the risk of repeating myself: where is the existential threat to Canada that Joe Six-Pack and Molly the Maid can understand?

 

[George Wallace]

That, the highlighted bit, is mainly because the performance envelope of the new system has allowed us to do more than the same with half as much kit. We didn't need four fighter wings (10 to 15 squadrons) in Europe when the F-104 replaced the F-86 Sabre. The F-104 could do much, much more with fewer aircraft. Ditto with ships: the Halifax class frigates were qualitatively so much better than the old "steamers" they replaced that 12 could do what we needed 15 to 20 to do before. You, yourself, must know that a regiment of, say, just 50 Leopard 2 tanks could do more than a regiment of 80 Centurions.

There were, of course, also social and political pressures. The 1970s saw an aggressive peace movement (how's that for a contradiction in terms?) move into the political realm where it found fertile ground because Americans and Brits and Canadians and Danes and, and, and were all tired of paying big bills for a cold war which we had already won and wanted more and better "social safety net" policies.

At the risk of repeating myself: where is the existential threat to Canada that Joe Six-Pack and Molly the Maid can understand?

I'll pick just one point, but still it reflects on the whole concept.  Yes, 50 Leopard 2 can do more than 80 Centurions, but does that really justify cutting the whole Corps.  Having, in essence, one tank Regiment, down from three or four, just because the new tanks are capable of far more than their predecessors is faulty logic.  The enemy has just as more capable tanks as their predecessors, but their numbers haven't been reduced.  Meanwhile, the cuts in equipment, all across the board in all Elements and Branches, also mean cuts in Trained personnel.  A military reduced to the state of a "Police Force" will never be able to effectively fight to defend the nation, unsustained by back up forces and equipment; let alone deploy for any length of time in support of Allies.  In today's world, we would not have time to ramp up Industry to produce equipment, time to train troops, and create all necessary to fight a major war.  We would have been overrun and defeated.  No replacement aircraft.  No replacement ships.  No replacement AFVs.  We are hurting right now with no replacement fighters due to crashes in peace time; not to mention loses in the Navy.  Reductions in numbers of vehicles in our Logistics fleets have created problems. 

We have been suffering the "Peace Dividend" cuts since the 1950's. 

I highly doubt that  Joe Six-Pack and Molly the Maid have any concept of National Security, and never have since the 1960's.  They all seem to think the world is just as free and safe as Canada, and that there are no really evil men/women out there that want us dead.  They do not see any threats to Canada.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'll pick just one point, but still it reflects on the whole concept.  Yes, 50 Leopard 2 can do more than 80 Centurions, but does that really justify cutting the whole Corps.  Having, in essence, one tank Regiment, down from three or four, just because the new tanks are capable of far more than their predecessors is faulty logic.  The enemy has just as more capable tanks as their predecessors, but their numbers haven't been reduced.  Meanwhile, the cuts in equipment, all across the board in all Elements and Branches, also mean cuts in Trained personnel.  A military reduced to the state of a "Police Force" will never be able to effectively fight to defend the nation, unsustained by back up forces and equipment; let alone deploy for any length of time in support of Allies.  In today's world, we would not have time to ramp up Industry to produce equipment, time to train troops, and create all necessary to fight a major war.  We would have been overrun and defeated.  No replacement aircraft.  No replacement ships.  No replacement AFVs.  We are hurting right now with no replacement fighters due to crashes in peace time; not to mention loses in the Navy.  Reductions in numbers of vehicles in our Logistics fleets have created problems. 

We have been suffering the "Peace Dividend" cuts since the 1950's. 

I highly doubt that  Joe Six-Pack and Molly the Maid have any concept of National Security, and never have since the 1960's.  They all seem to think the world is just as free and safe as Canada, and that there are no really evil men/women out there that want us dead.  They do not see any threats to Canada.

Well, arguably, we actually "won" the cold war in 1959 ~ the famous Khrushchev-Nixon "kitchen debate" in Moscow ~ and all the rest, including all your and my service in Germany was just "winding down" while we waited for the Russians to finally figure out that Eisenhower had bluffed them (his other bluff) into a position from which they could not win anything. Ike, essentially, began the "peace dividend" back in 1953 when he bet that a nuclear threat would allow America to divert scarce resources toward economic development while a rather silly "no first use" pledge would bind the Soviet Union to a military based strategy which it could not afford. But Canada, until about 1969, still made considerable, even "punching above our weight" type contributions to the defence of the West.

But, and I know I'm repeating myself, given that there was a steadily declining conventional military threat, until, by say the early 1980s, there was, to be honest, none, why should hard working Canadians agree to fund a pointless military? Politics is often the art of the possible ... you can go and ask your aunts and uncles and cousins and friends and neighbours why they decreed, to Conservative and Liberal governments alike, that military spending was unnecessary and, therefore, politically impossible.

It doesn't matter what Joe Six-Pack understands about strategy; what matters is how he thinks his tax dollars ought to be spent ... or would you rather live in a country with a form of government that isn't a liberal democracy?