military expenditures

[Army Guy]

I just read the below article and it got me wondering, what was the piont of this article, to have Tax payers start to think what it costs us to have a modern military, or was it just a plug to cause some stir, having taxpayers rethink our entire national defense complex....then i thought it must must of been a slow day in our nations media centers....Here is the opening quote...

The Conservatives have committed to spending $240 billion over the next 20 years on new equipment for the military -- about $7,300 per Canadian. Taxpayers, even those convinced that all the equipment is needed, should be very nervous.

My linknews.globaltv.com/

Here is what i find thats just wrong or not very objective...

Do we all really expect the conservatives to be in office for the next 20 years...not really and with each new government change comes an entirely different plan....so is there cause for concern....

Lets just say the cons do remain in office for the next 20 years, "hey it's my post" and i'm making the rules...Cons are in for the next 20 years....over that time it will cost Canadians a grand total of 7300.00 dollars to keep our current military somewhat modern, but what does that really mean....

It means each tax payer will have to pay 365.00 dollars of his or hers total tax bill each year to keep our current military, and all they provide Canadians...

I know what your thinking 365.00 dollars is a shit load of cash...but is it really, shit it would not even cover what most of spend on beer, in fact it does not even average out to one case a month...

Still nervous....

Well lets see what we pay on health care, Canadians favorite topic....

The amount Canadians spend on health care in 1997 dollars has increased every year between 1975 and 2009 from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion or a more than doubling of per capita spending from $1,715 to $4089.[16] In 2009 dollars spending is expected to reach $183.1 billion ( a more than five percent increase over the previous year ) or $5,452 per person

My linken.wikipedia.org/wiki/

I know wiki is not the best source, but it does check out with other links...that 5452.00 is per year, so in 20 years thats 109,040.00 dollars per tax payer, and thats not adjusted for inflation or increases, last year alone health care costs rose 5 %....now does that make you nervous...

The rest of the article talks about SUbs, and navy helo's ....both purchases were made by polictical parties, trying to be seen as saving a few dollars, was the military even consulted...lets remember that these purchases were made when DND was starving for funds, or any new equipment....when the same old questions came up....We really need AOR's , and destroyers...not Subs....we had a navy helo picked out and contracts signed....all cancelled...in favour of another which is still not delivered...was it the helo the military wanted , were they consulted, or where they just saying just get us something the ones we have are falling out of the sky....

So what is the piont of the whole article, that governmant should stay out of buying military equipment...when they do they make bad decisions, or is it we don't spend enough on our military,

[Smallc]

I expect that Canadians are far more nervous about continued deficits. I expect that cuts will come to every government department. Also, note that it is Paul Martin that provided much of the money that is now in the defence budget, not Stephen Harper.

[dizzy]

We can't let the military fall to tatters as we did before the bosnia intervention. I would expect that we reach for a national defence funding envelope that keeps us in line with the average NATO member's spending as a percentage of GDP.

[Army Guy]

Paul martin did do alot more than any liberal party in regards to the military....but that was easy to do when you've been starved for so long by previous governments.

But really what projects did Paul start and complete during his riegn...

[bloodyminded]

We can't let the military fall to tatters as we did before the bosnia intervention. I would expect that we reach for a national defence funding envelope that keeps us in line with the average NATO member's spending as a percentage of GDP.

Minus the United States. Their expenditures would so skew the "average spending" as to render "average" quite meaningless.

[William Ashley]

First off I believe in a self supporting military. Second I beleive that Canadian war material should be made in Canada.

Sadly the Conservatives have the habit of buying and leasing foreign equipment, not Canadian made equipment. So that money represents money leaving our economy.

Also the $7300 over 20 years is probably drastically reduced, and represents what they would like to buy in the next 5 years and pay for over the next 20. Multi Billion dollar aircraft purchases are the big spending item with JSF and Transports. They are incredibly expensive an a vast minority of production of parts for the projects are in Canada - with the bulk of proceeds going into the US for US military research and development of their major war companies.

While defence spending isn't necessarily a bad thing, Canada needs to be rational in its approaches and realize that it cannot support or man a hard power military - nor would it have anything constructive to do with a large military due to its relatively small population and no need to exert itself to force contracts, because Canada is able to be self reliant, and has no need to control foreign governments or shape cultural beliefs. Canada isn't that type of country, and the population isn't that type of people. Canada is not America. Canadians don't want to always be at war, Canadians are peace lovers, atleast the majority are. Americans make enemies, and historically Canadians are responsive, not aggressive in wars. The US has the habit of starting wars by illegal acts in foreign countries, or by deception. Canada historically is one that supports the united nations framework for dispute resolution.

While the conservatives are certainly more American with picking sides and waging wars based upon foreign conflicts, Canadians in general are not interventionist, and are not in a position to be interventionists.

So while $730 isn't a lot - everyone giving the us 500$ is a little much.

Edited February 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

I have said this before, our spending as a $ of our GDP falls way below most countries.

out of 174 nations ours ranks 131.

By contrast

• Greece - Ranking 25
  
• USA -27
  
• France -60
  
• Australia -68
  
• UK -69
  
• Norway -85
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

[Smallc]

An as I've said before, our dollars per capita fall right in the middle, and our total dollars fall near the top. Economic activity has very little to do with military need.

[Smallc]

We can't let the military fall to tatters as we did before the bosnia intervention.

I don't think we'll ever let that happen again, but a freeze in spending or a small reduction could very well happen.

[DogOnPorch]

In combat, there is no such thing as 'average spending'. Either you have the best aircraft in the sky, tank on the ground, submarine on the seas (etc) or you do not. It really pays to have the best in this regards.

[Smallc]

In combat, there is no such thing as 'average spending'. Either you have the best aircraft in the sky, tank on the ground, submarine on the seas (etc) or you do not.

Then I guess we'd just better stop trying. Canada will never be able to have the best of everything. We have a good navy and land force now, and we have a competent airforce. There are some projects in the near line that will bring up the standards of all of those branches, but if we're trying to be the best of the best then we'd better just quit.

[M.Dancer]

An as I've said before, our dollars per capita fall right in the middle, and our total dollars fall near the top. Economic activity has very little to do with military need.

Per capita is meaningless...per capita doesn't rationalize need.

And while we can compare ourselves to every nation, that too is meaningless when most nations do not have our resources... We have comparitors and to those we are near the bottom.

Excluding the US...China..

France $45.0 billion

Germany $35.1 billion

Italy $28.2 billion

Australia $16.9 billion

Canada around $10 Billion

[William Ashley]

I have said this before, our spending as a $ of our GDP falls way below most countries.

out of 174 nations ours ranks 131.

By contrast

• Greece - Ranking 25
  
• USA -27
  
• France -60
  
• Australia -68
  
• UK -69
  
• Norway -85
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

And in miltary spending it ranks #7

what is your point?

Where does most of the GDP go, not to the average Canadian -// Canada is 13th in PPP. In terms of PPP Canada outspends its economic position.

Canada is also half a trillion dollars in debt. Austrailia paid off its national debt in 2006.

Canada is supporting the battlefield, what more defence spending can you ask for.

7 large cities 10 smaller ones and a few large industrial developments = Canada - if push comes to shove just melt down the plants. Invasion solved. Nothing beats a deterent to mass invasion like nuclear irradiation. Its the nuclear age we don't need large militaries we need delivery systems and warheads.

Edited February 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[DogOnPorch]

Then I guess we'd just better stop trying. Canada will never be able to have the best of everything. We have a good navy and land force now, and we have a competent airforce. There are some projects in the near line that will bring up the standards of all of those branches, but if we're trying to be the best of the best then we'd better just quit.

During the early days of the War in the Pacific, thousands of Allied airmen died trying to match the A6M2 Zero and the Ki-43 Oscar with outdated and inferior aircraft. You literally get what you pay for.

Old subs get sunk...old tanks get their turrets removed violently with you in 'em...old planes get shot down having never seen what did the deed.

[Smallc]

Canada around $10 Billion

That number is far out of date. Canada spends over $20B per year. The only country that is really ahead of us is Australia at about $24B. The other countries you lsit are above us.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Smallc

[M.Dancer]

And in miltary spending it ranks #7

what is your point?

Read twice post once...

our spending ranks 131

That's my point

[dizzy]

I have said this before, our spending as a $ of our GDP falls way below most countries.

out of 174 nations ours ranks 131.

By contrast

• Greece - Ranking 25
  
• USA -27
  
• France -60
  
• Australia -68
  
• UK -69
  
• Norway -85
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

We don't live with the same imposing threats that much of the world lives with. NATO is a better comparison base because our primary expeditionary duties lie here. Our domestic responsibilities are varied and will be higher this year (olympics, G8/G20) but are generally not extreme when compared with what a country like Israel, Greece, Spain or India might have to deal with. All in, I think the current funding level at 1.3% of GDP is almost enough, if new equipment is excluded. Where I do agree with the conservatives is the need to strengthen our presence in the north but, again, we are not talking about a huge shift in resources to do so.

What we should commit to is maintaining the money we are spending in afghanistan if/when we draw down our forces, and invest it in other needed areas. Right now, we could be spending more on family, casualty and veteran supports. We've damaged much more than just a bunch of LAVs over the past few years...

Edited February 23, 2010 by dizzy

[Smallc]

Old subs get sunk...old tanks get their turrets removed violently with you in 'em...old planes get shot down having never seen what did the deed.

And we don't have any of those things. Our subs (the ones that have finished refit) are among the most capable non nuclear subs in the world, our tanks are barely used and are now undergoing refit, and our fighters are in them middle of a multi billion dollar upgrade program.

[Smallc]

Read twice post once...

our spending ranks 131

That's my point

What he is referring to is the fact that our spending total ranks 7th in NATO.

[William Ashley]

During the early days of the War in the Pacific, thousands of Allied airmen died trying to match the A6M2 Zero and the Ki-43 Oscar with outdated and inferior aircraft. You literally get what you pay for.

Old subs get sunk...old tanks get their turrets removed violently with you in 'em...old planes get shot down having never seen what did the deed.

Old subs used poorly and old tanks used poorly are use poor uses of the weapons. It doesn't mean they can't be used to effectiveness you just need to use them appropriately.

Much like the aircraft mentioned could be put to productive use in the event of a war.

An old rifle will still kill. An old model can still serve a purpose.

And while technologies grow it doesn't mean the platform is no longer usable, itjust means you may need to modify the platform.

It is all about tactics and strategy, not about the age of equipment - equipment that is old can still be useful. Knives are still fairly common in some militarizes, the design hasn't changed much in thousands of years.

Edited February 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[Army Guy]

Sadly the Conservatives have the habit of buying and leasing foreign equipment, not Canadian made equipment. So that money represents money leaving our economy.

How do you tie this to the con's, The liberals also have a record of buying US, why because it's cheaper to buy rather than concieve a new piece of equipment.

Canada can not have it's cake and eat it as well...Military R&D takes 3 to 4 times the amount to produce a viable piece of equipment...It's hard enough to peurchase equipment already, can you imigine the pill the Canadian tax payer would have to swallow if we designed and built our own equipment here in Canada...

While defence spending isn't necessarily a bad thing, Canada needs to be rational in its approaches and realize that it cannot support or man a hard power military -

What would be a perfect size for our military, with just over 36 million as a population base...and while i will agree with you that we don't need a huge military but if you put it into context we have only 15,000 pers in the army of which only 7500 are in combat trades, thats only 7500 combat troops for the 2 and largest nation in the world...So your right Canada does need to rationalize it's approach to our military....

[M.Dancer]

Our subs (the ones that have finished refit) are among the most capable non nuclear subs in the world,

our tanks are barely used and are now undergoing refit, and our fighters are in them middle of a multi billion dollar upgrade program.

And are approaching (CF18) obsolesence...Leopards get daily workouts in the battlefield...

My mistake about the CDN spending, you are correct, we are near 20B

[dizzy]

What would be a perfect size for our military, with just over 36 million as a population base...and while i will agree with you that we don't need a huge military but if you put it into context we have only 15,000 pers in the army of which only 7500 are in combat trades, thats only 7500 combat troops for the 2 and largest nation in the world...So your right Canada does need to rationalize it's approach to our military....

I think we need more army. The deployment tempo has been too much and, while we may shrink our commitments in afghanistan in the next couple of years, the next big cause is just around the corner.

We could stand to automate the defence of the borders more. I know we are losing our auroras in favour of UAVs. More armed UAVs and stationary monitoring equipment in exchange for less navy and manned air force (excluding strategic lift capacity) would be a good thing.

Question: Does anyone know what our commitments to the Joint Strike Fighter program entail?

[William Ashley]

How do you tie this to the con's,

Cause I've followed their defence purchases and even if they do come from the CF's requests I don't like them and find them to be poor expenditures of foreign product. Personally I don't see the benefit of large lift aircraft other than foreign invasion. Other purchases and leases are operational to Afghanistan which in itself is a waste of money to support US foreign policy and doesn't benefit Canadian foreign policy or domestic security.

Canada can not have it's cake and eat it as well...Military R&D takes 3 to 4 times the amount to produce a viable piece of equipment...It's hard enough to peurchase equipment already, can you imigine the pill the Canadian tax payer would have to swallow if we designed and built our own equipment here in Canada...

It takes that money when you don't already have it designed and a private company does it. The game you propose Canada play is a one which is can't win.

What would be a perfect size for our military, with just over 36 million as a population base...and while i will agree with you that we don't need a huge military but if you put it into context we have only 15,000 pers in the army of which only 7500 are in combat trades, thats only 7500 combat troops for the 2 and largest nation in the world...So your right Canada does need to rationalize it's approach to our military....

In the long run it costs more to move things and replace them when you don't bring them back.

It is proposterous that a handful of ak47 wielding fundamentalists can hold off the largest and most powerful militaries for a decade - this says something about the approaches and capacities of our "high tech" militaries. It is a waste of money - Canada isn't an offensive nation. It won't fill the role, and it is stupid to put it in that position - it can't afford to fund it, and it can't perform the role effectively.

I support public and private militias to make up for manpower shortages, as well as a mandatory service period for domestic defence preperations (where people have the choice between military or civil service) - something done mandatorily in the youth years, then phased to optional status approaching 30, and ending and becoming voluntary at around 40. Things like fitness facilities, and providing a social organizational link of citizens is a good thing. The emergency situations training would also benefit society in making almost all citizens capacble of first aid. 1 basic training block before 20, then the odd couple days each month. The civil branch would help people prepare for emergency situations, and disasters, first aid, fire response, emergency agriculture, and act as a civil medium of building a social order, and making ties among the citizens of a given community. The military branch would serve to prepare people to serve an active military role in supporting the defence establishment in times of military crises such as invasion.

We live in a non shielded reality - we are at the whim of superpowers and nonthreatened by anyone else on our own ground. It is an odd redundancy that puts Canada as little more than a contigency wing for larger powers such as the EU or US. Technology via robots does allow a new mechanization but this isn't likely, and I honestly don't feel a global threat.

Edited February 23, 2010 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

And are approaching (CF18) obsolesence...Leopards get daily workouts in the battlefield...

That's why the CF-188s are undergoing a massive multi billion dollar upgrade...and the Leopards in the field aren't the ones that I'm talking about. The ones we bought from the Dutch have just begun their refit. Some of those will go to Germany to replace the ones we borrowed, but we'll still be well set after that.