Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[the janitor]

Given that Canada doesn't face any direct military threats, shouldn't Canada be spending .7% GDP on foreign aid (like we were supposed to do decades ago and some other nations already do) and cut back the military to the same amount (.7% GDP)? My logic is flawless.

Edited April 23, 2013 by the janitor

[Bonam]

No. Why should we just give 0.7% of GDP away? There are plenty of things that money could be well spent on in Canada for the benefit of Canadians.

[carepov]

Given that Canada doesn't face any direct military threats, shouldn't Canada be spending .7% GDP on foreign aid (like we were supposed to do decades ago and some other nations already do) and cut back the military to the same amount (.7% GDP)? My logic is flawless.

Yes, I 100% agree with your flawless logic.

[cybercoma]

Given that Canada doesn't face any direct military threats, shouldn't Canada be spending .7% GDP on foreign aid (like we were supposed to do decades ago and some other nations already do) and cut back the military to the same amount (.7% GDP)? My logic is flawless.

.7% = .7%

The math adds up, guys.

[segnosaur]

Given that Canada doesn't face any direct military threats, shouldn't Canada be spending .7% GDP on foreign aid (like we were supposed to do decades ago and some other nations already do) and cut back the military to the same amount (.7% GDP)? My logic is flawless.

First of all, the fact that we don't face any "direct military threats" doesn't mean that we don't have to prepare for the possibility of trouble. Even something as simple as buying fighters to escort planes that might have strayed in our own airspace is an expensive proposition, but one that must be done. (The same with setting up some sort of military presence in the north. We may not be going to war with the Americans, but if we don't have ships in the area, it makes it harder to say "This is our land! Back off!")

Secondly, you seem to forget that even our "military" often engages in humanitarian missions. For example, our military has "DART" (Disaster Assistance Response Team) which has helped out in countries where earthquakes and hurricanes have hit. And sometimes, sadly, simple aid won't work, and it becomes necessary to use the military to stop greater problems. (Perhaps the best example of that was when we joined Nato troops to stop what was seen as genocide in the Balkans several years ago.)

[carepov]

First of all, the fact that we don't face any "direct military threats" doesn't mean that we don't have to prepare for the possibility of trouble. Even something as simple as buying fighters to escort planes that might have strayed in our own airspace is an expensive proposition, but one that must be done. (The same with setting up some sort of military presence in the north. We may not be going to war with the Americans, but if we don't have ships in the area, it makes it harder to say "This is our land! Back off!")

Secondly, you seem to forget that even our "military" often engages in humanitarian missions. For example, our military has "DART" (Disaster Assistance Response Team) which has helped out in countries where earthquakes and hurricanes have hit. And sometimes, sadly, simple aid won't work, and it becomes necessary to use the military to stop greater problems. (Perhaps the best example of that was when we joined Nato troops to stop what was seen as genocide in the Balkans several years ago.)

I agree with you too but am convinced we we can accomplish the above objectives at a cheaper price - at least 0.7% of GDP cheaper.

[segnosaur]

I agree with you too but am convinced we we can accomplish the above objectives at a cheaper price - at least 0.7% of GDP cheaper.

Fine. Tell me... what part of military spending are you willing to sacrifice?

[carepov]

Fine. Tell me... what part of military spending are you willing to sacrifice?

Oooopps, after looking into the numbers I must admit that I was very wrong, we are spending about 1.2 % of GDP on Defence therefore reducing by 0.7% of GDP was an ignorant statement on my part. A more realistic stretch target may be 0.9% of GDP meaning foreign aid would need to come from other places.

Anyways, for specific cuts, please see http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/14/cutting-where-it-hurts-most/. I would agree with FT_Ward in the comments section.

[Keepitsimple]

You might want to see how Canada's military expenditures stack up against other countries. Where data is available, we're one of the top 15 military spenders - but we expend the lowest percentage of GDP with the exception of Japan - who have special considerations. It's probably best to compare us to Australia who have a similar population and area to cover. Australia spends about 20% more of it's GDP on the military.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Good job Canada.

[carepov]

You might want to see how Canada's military expenditures stack up against other countries. Where data is available, we're one of the top 15 military spenders - but we expend the lowest percentage of GDP with the exception of Japan - who have special considerations. It's probably best to compare us to Australia who have a similar population and area to cover. Australia spends about 20% more of it's GDP on the military.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Good job Canada.

Speaking of "special considerations", how many other countries are as peaceful as Canada and are good friends and neighbours to a country that spends 39% of the world's total military expenditures?

Anyways, it looks like there is a large amount of waste and we can have a stronger military by spending less money.

[segnosaur]

Oooopps, after looking into the numbers I must admit that I was very wrong, we are spending about 1.2 % of GDP on Defence therefore reducing by 0.7% of GDP was an ignorant statement on my part. A more realistic stretch target may be 0.9% of GDP meaning foreign aid would need to come from other places.

Anyways, for specific cuts, please see http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/14/cutting-where-it-hurts-most/. I would agree with FT_Ward in the comments section.

Normally I hate trying to respond to someone who's argument is "Look at this web site". (Its a rather lazy way to post).

But, I should point out a few things. Lets consider some of his suggested cuts:

- Cutting number of ships in the navy. His argument is that the forces are only "pretending" to be interested in the arctic. Ummm... don't you think a military presence is required up there? Canada has a whole lot of shoreline...

- Chinook helicopters. Claims we only needed them "when in afghanistan". By cutting helicopters you eliminate the ability for any future reaction. Want to fly troops in to prevent a genocide in some remote area in the future? Sorry... too bad.

- Snowbirds... Do they serve a functional purpose? Maybe not. (Although it could be argued that goodwill with the public has at least some value.) Yet the cost is quite minimal. They've been flying the same planes for, what, over 40 years? There are plans to replace their aging tudor jets (at a cost of around $700-800 million if I remember). That makes the cost of the planes around $20 million/year, or around 0.2% of our defence budget. Not exactly a big cost saver there

- Same with the military band... a tiny cost of the total budget

- Go with the F18 instead of the F35... This has been discussed at length in other threads, so I don't want to get too deeply into it. I'd be willing to consider an alternative to the F35; however, while going with the F18 might have a cheaper fly-away cost, it is also an older design with a smaller user base (which might affect spare parts supply). Plus, the twin-engines might make maintenance more expensive. You could find your initial cost cheaper, but in the long term end up paying more

So, all in all, his "analysis" consisted of lots of hand-waving "Don't want to do this" type arguments. (Not to mention a lack of specific dollar values attached to various items). Your claim was that we can accomplish our objectives at a cheaper price. But so much of the claims of that user didn't "accomplish the objectives"... it gutted them.

[segnosaur]

Speaking of "special considerations", how many other countries are as peaceful as Canada...

Why is that relevant?

Canada has a long tradition of assisting in global conflicts, as peacekeepers, peace makers, and in giving humanitarian assistance:

- Suez crisis, helping resolve a potential war, required us to send actual ground troops to the area

- Kosovo, where we sent fighter planes to help prevent genocide

- Iraq, where we not only provided direct military assistance in gulf war 1, but also sent ships to enforce sanctions, following U.N. requirements

- Afghanistan, a country that, you know, had been hosting an organization who's leader (bin Laden) actually stated he wanted to attack Canada, and which had attacked the U.S.

Had the country been following your "suggestions" Canada would not have been able to respond the way it did in any of these conflicts.

and are good friends and neighbours to a country that spends 39% of the world's total military expenditures?

Why is that relevant? Do you think it is a moral decision to "hide behind the Americans"?

Anyways, it looks like there is a large amount of waste and we can have a stronger military by spending less money.

Actually, going by your suggestion that we should follow the suggestions of the user in the other forum, you're not suggesting a "stronger military". You're suggesting a weaker military.

[Keepitsimple]

I suggest you quit while you're behind.....

Speaking of "special considerations", how many other countries are as peaceful as Canada and are good friends and neighbours to a country that spends 39% of the world's total military expenditures?

Anyways, it looks like there is a large amount of waste and we can have a stronger military by spending less money.

[carepov]

I suggest you quit while you're behind.....

Thanks for the suggestion - but you are wrong - I am ahead: I have learned a couple of things and that is the main reason that I participate on MLW. I have definitely softened my position based on seg's posts and after more thought I may even end up changing it. hmmm....

[carepov]

Normally I hate trying to respond to someone who's argument is "Look at this web site". (Its a rather lazy way to post).

But, I should point out a few things. Lets consider some of his suggested cuts:

- Cutting number of ships in the navy. His argument is that the forces are only "pretending" to be interested in the arctic. Ummm... don't you think a military presence is required up there? Canada has a whole lot of shoreline...

- Chinook helicopters. Claims we only needed them "when in afghanistan". By cutting helicopters you eliminate the ability for any future reaction. Want to fly troops in to prevent a genocide in some remote area in the future? Sorry... too bad.

- Snowbirds... Do they serve a functional purpose? Maybe not. (Although it could be argued that goodwill with the public has at least some value.) Yet the cost is quite minimal. They've been flying the same planes for, what, over 40 years? There are plans to replace their aging tudor jets (at a cost of around $700-800 million if I remember). That makes the cost of the planes around $20 million/year, or around 0.2% of our defence budget. Not exactly a big cost saver there

- Same with the military band... a tiny cost of the total budget

- Go with the F18 instead of the F35... This has been discussed at length in other threads, so I don't want to get too deeply into it. I'd be willing to consider an alternative to the F35; however, while going with the F18 might have a cheaper fly-away cost, it is also an older design with a smaller user base (which might affect spare parts supply). Plus, the twin-engines might make maintenance more expensive. You could find your initial cost cheaper, but in the long term end up paying more

So, all in all, his "analysis" consisted of lots of hand-waving "Don't want to do this" type arguments. (Not to mention a lack of specific dollar values attached to various items). Your claim was that we can accomplish our objectives at a cheaper price. But so much of the claims of that user didn't "accomplish the objectives"... it gutted them.

Thank you for responding to my admittedly "lazy" post (I prefer the term "efficient")

No I do not think we need a significant military presence in the North. Why would we?

I also would rather avoid a lengthly discussion on the F35 - but the price of these things is what got me so upset about military spending in the first place. My understanding is that the total costs (purchase plus operating) of the F35 would be about double the those of a F18 - for no significant advantages. This is an perfect example of cheaper and not weaker.

[Guest Derek L]

Thank you for responding to my admittedly "lazy" post (I prefer the term "efficient")

No I do not think we need a significant military presence in the North. Why would we?

I also would rather avoid a lengthly discussion on the F35 - but the price of these things is what got me so upset about military spending in the first place. My understanding is that the total costs (purchase plus operating) of the F35 would be about double the those of a F18 - for no significant advantages. This is an perfect example of cheaper and not weaker.

Well actually the Lockheed F-35 will…….ahh….never mind.

[carepov]

Why is that relevant?

Canada has a long tradition of assisting in global conflicts, as peacekeepers, peace makers, and in giving humanitarian assistance:

- Suez crisis, helping resolve a potential war, required us to send actual ground troops to the area

- Kosovo, where we sent fighter planes to help prevent genocide

- Iraq, where we not only provided direct military assistance in gulf war 1, but also sent ships to enforce sanctions, following U.N. requirements

- Afghanistan, a country that, you know, had been hosting an organization who's leader (bin Laden) actually stated he wanted to attack Canada, and which had attacked the U.S.

Had the country been following your "suggestions" Canada would not have been able to respond the way it did in any of these conflicts.

Why is that relevant? Do you think it is a moral decision to "hide behind the Americans"?

Actually, going by your suggestion that we should follow the suggestions of the user in the other forum, you're not suggesting a "stronger military". You're suggesting a weaker military.

I am saying is that Canada's unique geopolitical situation is relevant in establishing our military objects and therefore our defence budgets. Surely you agree?

Firstly we are "hiding behind the Americans" no matter what we do. Secondly, I would call it more like "working with our allies".

"In 2010, NATO proposed that its members eliminate some overlapping capabilities, with just one or a few members specializing in some tasks."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html. This idea is analogous to our Space Program where we specialized in the Canad-Arm. I am not suggesting a weaker military because working with our allies does not equate to weakness. I am suggesting better results at a lower cost.

[segnosaur]

No I do not think we need a significant military presence in the North. Why would we?

The 'north' is our territory. It has value, both for potential natural resources (e.g. oil and gas), and as a transportation corridor. And with the potential warming of the north, its value will likely increase.

There is no guarantee that even friendly nations with respect Canada's sovereignty in the area. (The Polar Sea incident and the Turbot war are examples of this). The ability to have a military presence in the area, both for search and rescue purposes, and to more or less wave the flag in order to say "this is our territory" is often seen as having at least some value (even if we're not expecting to get into an all-out war.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Polar_Sea_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

I also would rather avoid a lengthly discussion on the F35 - but the price of these things is what got me so upset about military spending in the first place. My understanding is that the total costs (purchase plus operating) of the F35 would be about double the those of a F18 - for no significant advantages. This is an perfect example of cheaper and not weaker.

Yes, planes are expensive. Unfortunately that's the nature of military technology.

The F18 would definitely be cheaper to purchase. Cheaper operating costs? Much less certain... As I pointed out before, being an older design (and one in less use) makes purchasing spare parts/upgrades harder in the future, and combined with the fact that it has 2 engines (which are one of the big maintenance costs) you might find that the F18 has higher operating costs.

Then you also have the issue of potential industrial spin-offs... These things are often quite complex; Canada may agree to make a purchase of some new plane, but only if certain parts are made in Canada. The F35, being 'newer', and having a larger world-wide fleet, has the potential to bring in more jobs/investment into Canada. (Granted that's not strictly a military decision.)

I'm not completely convinced that the F35 is the best plane for us to purchase; I just recognize that these decisions are a lot more complex than "what can we buy that's cheapest".

But OK, lets assume we did decide to go with the F18. (I'm assuming you mean super Hornet). Lets say it really did cost half the price to buy and operate as the F35. Right now, the claim is that the F35 will cost $40 billion, but that would be over the course of roughly 40 years. Going with the "cheaper" F18 would save $500million per year. (Like I said, I'm pretending that its cheaper to operate). According to Wikipedia, our military spending was $22.5 billion in 2013. The "cheaper" F18 would only cut our overall spending by roughly 2%. (And again, that's actually assuming they are cheaper to maintain.) That's less than 1/5th of the savings that the original poster wanted. You'd still have to find roughly $11 billion in savings per year.

Edited April 24, 2013 by segnosaur

[Charon]

No. Why should we just give 0.7% of GDP away? There are plenty of things that money could be well spent on in Canada for the benefit of Canadians.

Because millions are starving, and Canadians are spoiled rich in resources, while we spend billions on a military we don't need and bully the world with, in conjunction with the neo-colonial aspirations of Western Europe and the States.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Charon

[carepov]

The 'north' is our territory. It has value, both for potential natural resources (e.g. oil and gas), and as a transportation corridor. And with the potential warming of the north, its value will likely increase.

There is no guarantee that even friendly nations with respect Canada's sovereignty in the area. (The Polar Sea incident and the Turbot war are examples of this). The ability to have a military presence in the area, both for search and rescue purposes, and to more or less wave the flag in order to say "this is our territory" is often seen as having at least some value (even if we're not expecting to get into an all-out war.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Polar_Sea_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

Yes, planes are expensive. Unfortunately that's the nature of military technology.

The F18 would definitely be cheaper to purchase. Cheaper operating costs? Much less certain... As I pointed out before, being an older design (and one in less use) makes purchasing spare parts/upgrades harder in the future, and combined with the fact that it has 2 engines (which are one of the big maintenance costs) you might find that the F18 has higher operating costs.

Then you also have the issue of potential industrial spin-offs... These things are often quite complex; Canada may agree to make a purchase of some new plane, but only if certain parts are made in Canada. The F35, being 'newer', and having a larger world-wide fleet, has the potential to bring in more jobs/investment into Canada. (Granted that's not strictly a military decision.)

I'm not completely convinced that the F35 is the best plane for us to purchase; I just recognize that these decisions are a lot more complex than "what can we buy that's cheapest".

But OK, lets assume we did decide to go with the F18. (I'm assuming you mean super Hornet). Lets say it really did cost half the price to buy and operate as the F35. Right now, the claim is that the F35 will cost $40 billion, but that would be over the course of roughly 40 years. Going with the "cheaper" F18 would save $500million per year. (Like I said, I'm pretending that its cheaper to operate). According to Wikipedia, our military spending was $22.5 billion in 2013. The "cheaper" F18 would only cut our overall spending by roughly 2%. (And again, that's actually assuming they are cheaper to maintain.) That's less than 1/5th of the savings that the original poster wanted. You'd still have to find roughly $11 billion in savings per year.

I was right about the airplanes: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html

Of course the North is valuable and we certainly need search and rescue. But there is no threat. Two words regarding your incidents: "big deal". I am convinced that we could spend less money without any decrease in the value of our north.

By the way I admitted my earlier mistake and am no longer suggesting we cut military spending by 0.7% of GDP to from 1.3 to 0.6% of GDP or $11 Billion. Perhaps a gradual reduction to 0.9% or 15.5 Billion would be more reasonable. Scrapping the F35 would be a significant step, as for the rest of the savings I will use Harper's line when asked how he will balance the budget: they will come from reducing inefficiencies. What would your defence budget be?

[segnosaur]

Because millions are starving,

Yes they are. However, many of those 'starving' people are subject to political situations which are preventing food aid from being properly distributed. In many cases, giving "more" through foreign aid would be of little or no use.

And as I pointed out earlier.. while millions are starving, millions are also suffering (and some cases dying) directly from the actions of foreign governments or organizations. Those people cannot be helped by "giving food", because food is not the issue. (The individuals who were killed or left as refugees in Kosovo did not need food, they needed military protection. Same with those in Rwanda, which unfortunately we did little to help.)

and Canadians are spoiled rich in resources, while we spend billions on a military we don't need

I see... what makes you think we "don't need" the military?

Do you think that other countries will automatically respect our territorial claims in the North?

Do you think that tomorrow, every country/dictatorship in the world will decide "We will stop harming our own people"?

Do you think that groups like al Qaeda will just give up and say "You know, we'll never attack the west again"?

and bully the world with, in conjunction with the neo-colonial aspirations of Western Europe and the States.

Wow... just, wow. Certainly getting those dogmatic keywords in there. Surprised that you didn't work in the word "imperialistic" in there too.

Lets see... A few decades ago Canada used its military to try to stop genocide in the Balkans. Now that the war is over, did Canada or Nato "take over" the territory? Nope... pretty much left them alone. I can of course point to other cases where our military got involved in a conflict, but ended up leaving once the 'war' was done.

If we're being 'neo-colonial' we're doing a pretty awful job at it.

[segnosaur]

I was right about the airplanes: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html

Errr... not exactly.

First of all, keep in mind that at least some of the claims about "half the price" are coming from Boeing. That's like asking my local Toyota dealership whether the Corolla is a better deal than the Civic.

Secondly, the article does refer to U.S. figures regarding costs of operation. But the quoted Super Hornet costs are for current operations. The issue is not just what is happening now; the question is what will happen in 2 or 3 decades, if "the world" has adopted the F35 as the standard fighter plane, and Canada is left as the lone user of the SuperHornet. (My car was pretty cheap to operate when I bought it new. Now that its 10 years old I have to spend a lot more bringing it the mechanic.)

Of course the North is valuable and we certainly need search and rescue. But there is no threat.

Two words regarding your incidents: "big deal".

So you're quite happy with any and all countries in the world traveling through Canadian territory with no impedments. Nice to know.

I am convinced that we could spend less money without any decrease in the value of our north.

By the way I admitted my earlier mistake and am no longer suggesting we cut military spending by 0.7% of GDP to from 1.3 to 0.6% of GDP or $11 Billion. Perhaps a gradual reduction to 0.9% or 15.5 Billion would be more reasonable. Scrapping the F35 would be a significant step, as for the rest of the savings I will use Harper's line when asked how he will balance the budget: they will come from reducing inefficiencies.

Here's the thing... although I voted for the Conservatives last time, I do not believe them when they say that significant savings can come from "reducing inefficiencies". Any organization (especially the size of a federal government) will have areas where money gets wasted. I didn't like the Chretien government, but I didn't think they were specifically going out to run the government "inefficiently".

What would your defence budget be?

I'm fairly happy with the level that its currently at, at least for the time being. The problem is, the defense budget got severely reduced at points during the Liberal's time in power. However, military equipment does occasionally need to get replaced. That's what's happening now... the reduced spending of the past has resulted in a case where equipment has been used passed the end of its expected lifetime, and the current government has to pay for it now.

Edited April 24, 2013 by segnosaur

[Charon]

There's two ways to approach this really, try to conquer the world through military means (pretty silly and just a cash cow for the war profiteers) or work with the world to alleviate its problems such as starvation and famine (anathema to the same profiteers). The latter can be done successfully through on the ground actions, which include full auditing, as opposed to just sending cash into the abyss (of course nothing approaching the military budget).

The truth is, and its obvious. Canada has no real enemies. NATO is a front for neoliberal/neocolonialist policies.

It had a legitimate role during the Cold War, but with the collapse of the Soviet Block, its merely become a tool for the neoconservatives to unilaterally and through military force advance their worldwide agenda.

NATO acts on the agendas of the big oil companies and not on humanitarianism. That's why it did nothing over Rwanda and Darfur and did everything over oil rich Libya, Iraq/Afghanistan (with some abstaining members) and Uranium rich Mali.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Charon

[PIK]

In the end buying a F-35 or the new F-18, they will cost about the same in the long run. And lets say in the future and china is hungry for what we have up north and make a move. Well the chinese are building their own 5-gen fighter and if sucessfull, our super hornets would all be destroyed going up against them. And that is the threat I would bet the goverment is planning for.

[carepov]

Errr... not exactly.

First of all, keep in mind that at least some of the claims about "half the price" are coming from Boeing. That's like asking my local Toyota dealership whether the Corolla is a better deal than the Civic.

Secondly, the article does refer to U.S. figures regarding costs of operation. But the quoted Super Hornet costs are for current operations. The issue is not just what is happening now; the question is what will happen in 2 or 3 decades, if "the world" has adopted the F35 as the standard fighter plane, and Canada is left as the lone user of the SuperHornet. (My car was pretty cheap to operate when I bought it new. Now that its 10 years old I have to spend a lot more bringing it the mechanic.)

So you're quite happy with any and all countries in the world traveling through Canadian territory with no impedments. Nice to know.

Regarding the planes, there are unknowns and possibly the F35 will end up at the same cost or possible it will be three or four times the cost - all we know is that most likely it will cost double.

No, I am not happy about it but I am not upset enough to spend billions of dollars on it either. Going back to the original premise, these billions would be better spent on effective foreign aid. I would rather donate the money to the Bill and Mellinda Gates foundation.