10 Billion for military equipment

Remiel · July 10, 2009

Can you spell A.V.ROE?
Sir (Edwin) Alliott Verdon Verdon-Roe

Care to elucidate on that? I am not really into guessing the exact subtext of your message.

Craig1 · July 10, 2009

Bullpuckey.....the current world record sniper shot (for distance) was set by a Canadian in 2002.....Mr. Harper was not the PM. Operation Anaconda was not "peacekeeping"...it was "peacekilling" !
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/713521/posts

I'm interested to know more about this combined unit of Canadian /US soldiers. I know we had a Canadian General in Iraq also but only because he had American citizenship and went to fight for the Americans. All the articule sais is they used US ammunition and not if it was a joint Canadian/US millitary unit.

If this was Liberal funded and aproved ill look at them as Tyrants the same. Need to know more.

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

I'm interested to know more about this combined unit of Canadian /US soldiers. I know we had a Canadian General in Iraq also but only because he had American citizenship and went to fight for the Americans. All the articule sais is they used US ammunition and not if it was a joint Canadian/US millitary unit.
If this was Liberal funded and aproved ill look at them as Tyrants the same. Need to know more.

Don't bother...we've already covered this mission here at MLW long ago.....look it up in the archives. I know that you want to hang on to the fantasy of "peacekeeping" even as your own military tells you otherwise (e.g. Gen. Hillier).

Wait...it gets better....the Americans wanted to give your lads medals, but it would mean admitting to KILLING people in the press.

Edited July 10, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Craig1 · July 10, 2009

Don't bother...we've already covered this mission here at MLW long ago.....look it up in the archives. I know that you want to hang on to the fantasy of "peacekeeping" even as your own military tells you otherwise (e.g. Gen. Hillier).

you would think they should teach us this in school this is a mayjor issue in Canadian history, we learn about Russia, China, Japan and Brazil, I'm ashamed of who I am my uncle served in that batalion. Thank goodness for the internet to find the truth that just summed up my hatred for all Liberals, and a peice of crap uncle I have trying to potray a...peacekeeping good guy, my ass fawking murderer's! I no longer have respect for our millitary they are all scum! STupid sheep scum!

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

you would think they should teach us this in school this is a mayjor issue in Canadian history, we learn about Russia, China, Japan and Brazil, I'm ashamed of who I am my uncle served in that batalion. Thank goodness for the internet to find the truth that just summed up my hatred for all Liberals, and a peice of crap uncle I have trying to potray a...peacekeeping good guy, my ass fawking murderer's! I no longer have respect for our millitary they are all scum! STupid sheep scum!

Whatever.....they serve and die protecting your right to call them scum.

Marvelous.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 10, 2009

Care to elucidate on that? I am not really into guessing the exact subtext of your message.

Sure, you said that you prefered an investment in th aerospace industry. I offered up AVRO Canada in a roundabout kinda way. Once we had such an industry.

Dave_ON · July 10, 2009

This is a topic that admittedly I know nothing about. I'm a firm believer in having a solid and well equiped millitary. I'm at a loss to understand why there is a disconnect. It seems like a lot of money is being spent, but is it enough? Is the goernment not spending it properly, is the DND the issue? Is it that we're so out of date that it costs that much just to "catchup"?

I read this article this morning and even though it's in laymens terms I have no idea if the current equipment is sufficent to get the job done. Perhaps some of those that know more about the topic could elucidate me. Armyguy and BushChaney immediately comes to mind.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/08/...d-vehicles.html

Smallc · July 10, 2009

It's probably because we didn't spend enough during the later part of the 90s. It was still in the 10B range, but it wasn't enough. Now we have to catch up and also transform. Some of the projects are expensive. We have a well equipped land force now, but I think it's probably come at the cost of the other two sectors of the CF. In the past we had a well equipped Navy (we still do, but they are having some problems) and it came at the cost of the other areas.

Remiel · July 10, 2009

Sure, you said that you prefered an investment in th aerospace industry. I offered up AVRO Canada in a roundabout kinda way. Once we had such an industry.

Ah, okay. The was you put was making me wonder if you were making some sort of jab about how investing in military hardware led to an aerospace industry, which did not quite make sense to me insofar that we actually needed that military hardware that spawned the industry.

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

It's probably because we didn't spend enough during the later part of the 90s. It was still in the 10B range, but it wasn't enough. Now we have to catch up and also transform. Some of the projects are expensive.....

That's certainly part of the issue from a DND budget perspective, but something else went askew as well, whether by neglect or purposeful degradation of capabilities in the face of clear force structure needs based on known threats, NATO obligations, missions, etc. "Peacekeeping" is more than a mission.....it can become a pervasive mindset that leads to rust.

Afghanistan became the perfect storm for a Canada that would not shrink from the challenge as did many other NATO partners. Unfortunately, operations in landlocked Afghanistan exposed many of the missing elements and planning gaps. But we had hints of this from earlier NATO and UN missions. A-stan just forced it all to the surface in a way that could no longer be ignored because of the politics and body count.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

I agree with that for the most part. Thankfully, it now appears that we've fixed most of the shortfalls.

M.Dancer · July 10, 2009

I agree with that for the most part. Thankfully, it now appears that we've fixed most of the shortfalls.

No..we are not even half way there. Our military is still half the size it should be to properly defend Canadian interests here and overseas. Want to see the ticker price rise? In 10 years we will have no choice but to replace the hornets, and by replacing I mean the numbers we need...then there are the destroyers.....

Anything less than a 120,000 standing force with at least 1/2 that number in reserves and we will be no better off than we were in 1980

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2009

....Anything less than a 120,000 standing force with at least 1/2 that number in reserves and we will be no better off than we were in 1980

OK...but that was a different time with different concerns. Still, I often wonder how so called "middle powers" such as Canada and Australia executed so differently after the "peace dividend" was paid. A partial answer lies in analysis of the perceived threat by Canadians in general. This article focuses on maritime security choices specifically for Canada, Norway, Australia, and The Netherlands, but what becomes clear is that Canada only feels an "indirect" threat in general.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no4/notice-avis-eng.asp

IMHO, Australia has executed on defense planning and procurements in a more effective and coherent way because it felt an imperative to do so, and because any assisting calvary was far away from its shores. For instance, they have a very effective collaborative civil-military effort to monitor the border for breaches by sea that costs far less than a full blown naval picket.

Does Australia do better than Canada with their limited defense dollars?

Smallc · July 10, 2009

No..we are not even half way there. Our military is still half the size it should be to properly defend Canadian interests here and overseas.

And you have proof for your arbitrary number? To properly defend Canada, we'd probably need a military that is far larger than twice the size of the current one. That means spending money, so where are you going to get the money?

We have a capable small force in line with that of most countries. Having a much larger military is nothing more than a pipe dream. It's better to slightly expand and properly equip the one that we have.

We are making good progress in fixing anything that may be lacking, but money is limited, and these things take time.

M.Dancer · July 10, 2009

And you have proof for your arbitrary number?

Manpower levels around the mid 60s

To properly defend Canada, we'd probably need a military that is far larger than twice the size of the current one.

We have a capable small force in line with that of most countries.

Surely you jest?

Holland has more boots per capita than we...Ireland has larger force per capita than Canada, ...

Out of a 149 nations, Canada comes in..........................

116th

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_arm_...nnel-per-capita

Edited July 10, 2009 by M.Dancer

Bonam · July 10, 2009

Out of a 149 nations, Canada comes in..........................

116th

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_arm_...nnel-per-capita

That list would suggest that we need to almost triple the size of our military to reach the global average of military personnel per capita.

M.Dancer · July 10, 2009

That list would suggest that we need to almost triple the size of our military to reach the global average of military personnel per capita.

I think if we matched Holland it would be an accomplishment.

Bonam · July 10, 2009

I think if we matched Holland it would be an accomplishment.

That would still take almost a doubling of our forces. Why pick Holland specifically as the benchmark? If we are to base it on any such benchmark, why not the US?

M.Dancer · July 10, 2009

That would still take almost a doubling of our forces. Why pick Holland specifically as the benchmark? If we are to base it on any such benchmark, why not the US?

Because doubling the forces is possible, tripling may not be. As well, during peacetime our highest numbers were in the 120,000 range so it's not out of nte question.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

Because doubling the forces is possible,

And how will we pay for the extra $15 - 20B per year? Also, despite the fact that we have a smaller per capita force, we spend more per capita than the European average.

Bonam · July 10, 2009

Because doubling the forces is possible, tripling may not be.

I don't know how you can make this statement so confidently. With the current apathy towards our military that we have in this nation, both goals are hopelessly out of reach. On the other hand, if a threat presented itself that truly warranted us to attempt to defend ourselves, we could easily fund, train, and support a military force probably much larger than just three times its current size.

Bonam · July 10, 2009

And how will we pay for the extra $15 - 20B per year?

Same way we pay for anything else - prioritize it above some other use for the money.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

Alright. You find something worth $15 - 20B that Canadians will give up.

Bonam · July 10, 2009

Alright. You find something worth $15 - 20B that Canadians will give up.

That's not how it works. You don't just find one thing and cut it out and completely forget about it (though if it was just me, there's a few programs I'd do exactly that with). In reality, just about every government program receives spending increases from year to year. Reduce those increases in some other areas and redirect them as needed. That's how things are done, and how governments fund new programs. How often is a big program actually cut, and how often are new taxes raised? Hardly ever, and yet governments undertake new programs and new spending all the time. As the economy grows, the government's revenues increase, and they can allocate those increases from year to year in programs according to their priority. I would suggest that the military should be higher on Canada's priority list, both because it would help to ensure our sovereignty and our ability to defend ourselves, as well as the fact that it would provide stimulus to our industry and generate a wide variety of extra jobs.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

The military is already one of the largest line items in the budget. Doubling it would be a big relocation, and other programs would suffer as a result. It's true that government revenues go up most years, but so do program costs.