Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[carepov]

My god man, are you screwing with me?

A military "similar to what we have", but devoid of a modern combat capability

No, I am not screwing with you. The things I specifically mentioned we do not currently have anyways - hence I am proposing a military "similar to what we have".

Certainly (realistically though, 2-3 would be a viable minimum) based on the importance that the Pacific Rim will play going into the decades ahead within the 21st century………

OK, surely it is you screwing with me, n'est pas?

[Army Guy]

carepov, on 19 Aug 2013 - 4:38 PM, said:

So you are in favour of limiting Canada's military capabilities, wow, so am I!

Should Canada have aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, a submarine fleet, a modern tank division, portable anti-tank weapons, missile interceptors, bombers, paratroopers, mine sweepers, etc...?

One would think that if you were going to develope an opinion strong enough to post on line about that you would atleast do some research on it, or atleast be aware of our militaries current capabilites.

I'd be interested on why your so bent on limiting our capabilities, what is it about military that scares you so much,.....

[carepov]

One would think that if you were going to develope an opinion strong enough to post on line about that you would atleast do some research on it, or atleast be aware of our militaries current capabilites.

I'd be interested on why your so bent on limiting our capabilities, what is it about military that scares you so much,.....

Military matters do not scare me, please try not to make these kinds of assumptions, as I said before I am not anti-military. I hate waste and I feel that there is a lot of wasteful spending on defense, this is significant because defense spending is 9% of our budget.

With better allocation of resources I think that Canada can have a better military AND spend less money.

How much money do you think we should spend on the military?

Do you think Canada should have all the capabilities as the US military, if not which capabilities would you limit?

You see, we are better off admitting that our military cannot do everything and choose our capabilities strategically. What we seem to do now is pretend that we are capable of doing everything and then end up cutting programs ad-hoc when we realize that there is no more money/manpower. This is not only stupid and wasteful but I imagine quite demoralizing.

[bleeding heart]

How much money do you think we should spend on the military?

Do you think Canada should have all the capabilities as the US military, if not which capabilities would you limit?

As a bit of an aside, I would suggest that the US wouldn't allow this to happen. For a brief understanding of the relationship, see my sig.

[Army Guy]

Military matters do not scare me, please try not to make these kinds of assumptions, as I said before I am not anti-military. I hate waste and I feel that there is a lot of wasteful spending on defense, this is significant because defense spending is 9% of our budget.

With better allocation of resources I think that Canada can have a better military AND spend less money.

How much money do you think we should spend on the military?

Do you think Canada should have all the capabilities as the US military, if not which capabilities would you limit?

You see, we are better off admitting that our military cannot do everything and choose our capabilities strategically. What we seem to do now is pretend that we are capable of doing everything and then end up cutting programs ad-hoc when we realize that there is no more money/manpower. This is not only stupid and wasteful but I imagine quite demoralizing.

I think if you and for that matter, most Canadians really did some serious research on our current Military and it's present condition( Manpower and equipment) you would have other concerns, not with limiting our spending but rather trying to find a solution to fix the years of neglect and polictical medling.

It is hard not to make those assumptions when it comes out pretty clear in your posts, your concern about wasteful spending is however a valid one , one that has plagued every government dept for as long as i can remember, it is the way the system is set up, not just DND'd but the entire government is set up this way.

I don't think anyone on this board would disagree that this system needs to be fixed...I think where everyone disagrees is your thought process into changing our military current structure and what equipment it needs to accomplish that..

Keep in mind the military does not have a upto date white paper, that would detail what it is to accomplish and what missions it needs to concentrate on. That being said it needs to cover all aspects of our defense and foreign policy requirements.

How much do i think we need to spend, alot more than we are currently spending , and if you did some research on exactly where this funding goes and what it covers i think you'll agree as well. I don't see the government changing it's wastefull spending practices and procedures any time soon,so yes DND needs more funding alot more....

Canadian military will "never" have the same capabilities as the US,we don't have the funding nor will in the country to cover every aspect of defense or power projection. We already operate in a limited capacity in fullfilling our obilgations as a valid partner in NATO, NORAD....meaning we have already chosen the areas in which we want to cover and those we make a very limited contribution to. We can not limit those any further, with out some serious concerns from our allieds. In fact they have already mentioned this serveral times we need to up our game .

We have a very limited ability to project power over seas, to be effective we need to commbine our resources with many allieds,but could not do it alone. To further limit these to one or two abilites would be crazy, we already depend heavily on NATO for defensive needs, meaning our current military could not even defend our nation, and is spread to the piont of breaking when forced to live up to our other defensive agreements...

It is crictical that we don't lose any more capabilities, but rather start filling in those we don't have just to keep a general all rounded force that can attempt to defend or protect our foreign interests.

DND has and will continue to let the government know exactly what we can or can not do, But this info has yet changed the government from over loading DND , forcing them to accomplish any tasking they send at it , because they know the job will get done regardless of the cost to equipment and manpower...It is this type of thinking that has put us in this present state of condition....lack of manpower and lack of modern equipment...lack of National will to fix it. why because for Canadians it is not a major concern...It takes the death of our soldiers to get any movment on most purchases, and then it is only an adhoc solution to please the public. And yes it is very demoralizing for all our members, to the piont many seek employment else where.

[carepov]

...

Thanks for the well though out post. We agree on a great many things:

-There is significant waste in all government departments that should be cut (including Defence as per Leslie 2011)

-Canada should work closely with our allies and live up to our commitments

-Canada cannot do everything that the US does (i.e. our capabilities are limited)

-The government expects DND to do too much with insufficient resources

-Military matters should be discussed more in the civilian public and we civilians should learn more about our military

-Canadian soldiers and their families are second to none and deserve great admiration and appreciation for the sacrifices they make

--The DND needs to change but it is resistant to change:

"Taylor, a former soldier, notes that the culture at the Department of National Defence is not one that embraces change.

"There's a culture of resistance, a culture of internal empire-building, so these guys are going to push back at everything.""

""morale is going into the toilet for the army.""

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html

Let's get to the differences:

I did do some research and my opinions are based on experts such as Taylor:

"For Taylor, that [current Harper] strategy is "a hodge-podge and every direction you look it's going to need huge amounts of money." If the military goes ahead with its current procurement plans, Taylor notes, the operating costs for the new equipment will be huge.

"We just can't move forward in all the directions they say they are going to move forward, not with the amount of money that's in the pot now," Taylor told CBC News."

Lagasse, also thinks that the current procurement strategy is unsustainable and we will end-up repeated the same mistakes of the past:

"At the same time, the military keeps going with its procurement programs, "even though they are unaffordable, and eventually force the government to be in a bind and have to give you more.""

Finally what I am proposing is consistent with what NATO reports call for:

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

In your opinion how much should we spend on defence? (we now spend ~1.3% of GPD, 9% of our budget) I propose a gradual decline in such a way that we more-or-less keep our same capabilities and that we are selective on the new capabilities - definitely not 65 F35s and no overpriced ships. Aside from cutting waste (including overpriced new equipment purchases), I do not think I would cut the budget. How much more do you think we should spend? Why do you think we should spend more? Where should the money come from?

[Army Guy]

-Canada should work closely with our allies and live up to our commitments

If you look at our current commitments such as NATO or Norad you'll find we actually commit very little,in comparison with our allieds.... Considering we are a G-8 Nation with plenty of resources,and most of these commitments are for our own defense and security. Our commitments continue to decline as our capabilities disappear, Once these are lost so is the expertise behind them, it takes years to regain, and cost more than if we had kept them upto date. For example in the Army our Air defense capabilty is almost non existent now most of that equipment is being sold off or put into long term storeage no replacement on books, we have already put our M109 SP heavy Arty vehs in storeage with no replacement on the books,the list reads like a book....Living up to our commitments will be a costly road to take.

-The government expects DND to do too much with insufficient resources

This is DND's curse, Canadian soldiers have been doing this for well over 30 years,and have become experts in overcoming obsticles placed in their paths, making do with what we have, jack of all trades master of none....to the piont we are known world wide because of it...Sad really when you consider every soldier in our military volenteers knowing the current state of our military, lack of nice new shiny equipment, and yet they still with out hesitation place their lives in danger without question....and in return all they ask is for Canadians and our government to atleast try and make some sort of contribution to that cause, in regards to manning,training and equipment. We really thought that the Cons were going to change all of that and for the most part they have done more for DND than past governments, but they have failing at fixing the mess left to them....

--The DND needs to change but it is resistant to change:

I disagree with this statement, i think it is getting confused with professionals trying to save what they can in regards to their profession, and our nations security....if anything we are the nations leaders in adapting to change it is one of the corner stones of our etho's , in fact it is one of the pionts on each individuals annual performance reviews. Like i said above jack of all trades master of none, to accomplish that you need to adapt to many changes...Now if you look at our nation, can you tell me the same, Our military is in the state of decay, and risks becoming irrelvent if not repaired, every Canadian knows this, every poltician knows this, and yet who is afraid of change i ask..

I also disagree with Mr Taylors assessment of these procurements will cost huge amounts to operate. let me ask you this, when you purchase a new piece of equipment for your home, what is one of the reasons you do so, the older piece is costing to much to repair, it's not available to use when it's being repaired, the new equipment has new tech in it which makes doing the job easier,cheaper, and safer....how does that translate in costing more, not sure, maybe it is the new math....operating new equipment is almost always cheaper...

Finally what I am proposing is consistent with what NATO reports call for:

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

Alot of these overlapping capabilities are there for a reason, they are required for that Nations defence, which is a prime consideration for all militaries defending their own nation,NATO commitments come second... second that capability might have a high attrition rate, meaning they are expecting major losses on the battle field, such as Aircraft, tanks, IFV etc....each nation must keep it's core military capabilities, which is what Canada is trying to do.

How much do we spend 2.5 or 3.0 of GDP until we start fixing our problems this would have to be extended 20 to 30 years...unless you happen to have 400 bil in your pocket right now.

The funding that the military has proposed is just that keeping our existing capabilities there is no new stuff on the books but rather replace our old and decaying equipment with new mordern stuff that is up to the job, and brings our troops home in one piece ...

Having nice new fighters is not a nice to have but rather a must have, military equipment works like rock paper, scissors, it is all designed to provide a protection to ground forces, I know this is going to piss the navy and airforce guys off....the Navy keeps the sea lanes open so ground forces can get the supplies they need, the airforce keeps the skys clear, so the ground forces don't get pounded....F-35's and new navy ships are part of that, neglecting those parts will result in heavy cas....an example of that was the during op Mudusa, when a American A-10 mistakenly made servral gun runs on a RCR rifle company, within seconds it mangled a full rifle company to the piont it was combat ineffective, meaning less than 45 % of it was effective...

Why do i think we should spend more....Well having the latest equipment saves lives, until our government changes it's mind about having a military or changes it's defense agreements then it should live up to the same commitment as it asks our soldiers to do. Right now it has failed in that task and so has it's citizens.... Where is it all coming from, i do not have a clue, but i'm sure if DND has waste so does every other dept it would be a good place to start. keeping in mind that for years DND has been the first place the government goes to get funding for other projects maybe it is time to reverse that.

[carepov]

..

Regarding Canada's contribution to NATO, Canada made more than its fair share of commitments in Afghanistan. Also, NATO is primarily in place to protect Europe and is full of G8 nations with plenty of resources.

It is sad the way the government makes promises that it cannot deliver and then expects the military to pick up the slack. Unfortunately the current path of F35s and 35 Billion on overpriced ships will make this problem worse.

Regarding adaptability, I did not make myself clear, Canadian troops are very adaptable, I am sure Taylor would agree. It is the bureaucracy that is rigid.

Regarding operating costs, I get your point but and in general you are right it is almost always cheaper... but did you look up the projected operating costs for the F35's? Crazy!

So you want to at least double our military spending. No thanks. You speak of potentially heavy casualties, where? You speak of defending Canada, from whom?

[dre]

Canadas military spending is about where it should be.

And Canadians dont want to spend more...

The national survey, conducted by Leger Marketing, asked: With Canada's military roll ending in Afghanistan next year, what should the focus be on the government's military spending?

Almost 60% of those questioned believe: "Canada should take a peace dividend and cut back on military spending to focus on other more pressing social issues at home."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/thane_burnett/2010/03/05/13125096.html

Only 28% of Canadians want to keep spending levels where they are, or increase them. Those people are free to cut a personal check to the DND for the ammount of their choosing.

[Wilber]

Canadas military spending is about where it should be.

And Canadians dont want to spend more...

Only 28% of Canadians want to keep spending levels where they are, or increase them. Those people are free to cut a personal check to the DND for the ammount of their choosing.

The trouble with taking peace dividends is that they invariably turn out to be very costly when peace ends.

It is a duty of government to look after the security of the country and take unpopular decisions if necessary. Would you be in favour of government revisiting abortion laws or reimposing capital punishment, if it turned out poles indicated a majority favoured it?

Do I get to opt out of paying for anything I don't approve of?

[dre]

The trouble with taking peace dividends is that they invariably turn out to be very costly when peace ends.

It is a duty of government to look after the security of the country and take unpopular decisions if necessary. Would you be in favour of government revisiting abortion laws or reimposing capital punishment, if it turned out poles indicated a majority favoured it?

Do I get to opt out of paying for anything I don't approve of?

I dont put civil rights and government spending in the same categories.

I also dont really think that there is a direct connection between military spending and security, in fact military spending can cause great insecurity because once the government spends a zillion dollars on hardware the temptation is there to use it for non-defensive purposes. This is why the west now faces all these assymetric threats.

I feel pretty secure as a Canadian. We have an excellent geographical defense, and not many international borders. We need a small airforce with some kind of cost effective patrol craft, and a small defensive army. I might add a citizens militia similar to what some nordic countries have.

[PIK]

I dont put civil rights and government spending in the same categories.

I also dont really think that there is a direct connection between military spending and security, in fact military spending can cause great insecurity because once the government spends a zillion dollars on hardware the temptation is there to use it for non-defensive purposes. This is why the west now faces all these assymetric threats.

I feel pretty secure as a Canadian. We have an excellent geographical defense, and not many international borders. We need a small airforce with some kind of cost effective patrol craft, and a small defensive army. I might add a citizens militia similar to what some nordic countries have.

Today maybe ,tommorrow who knows. But we need more than a defence force and look at the size of this place compared to the nordic countries.

[carepov]

Today maybe ,tommorrow who knows. But we need more than a defence force and look at the size of this place compared to the nordic countries.

Don't forget we are in NATO therefore we have all of NATO defending us against an attack.

[dre]

Today maybe ,tommorrow who knows. But we need more than a defence force and look at the size of this place compared to the nordic countries.

Our size is to our advantage. We have an excellent geographic defense here, and only one international border with a close ally. The only countries besides the US that could even think about trying to move enough military resources here to mount an invasion or Russia and China... and there is absolutely no way that we are going to be able spend enough to stop them.

And if there IS an invasion, then every single citizen that can walk should head down the armory and gear up.

Basically, I dont think we should fight anyone unless we have to, and if we have to... then EVERYONE should have to fight.

Edited August 23, 2013 by dre

[dre]

Don't forget we are in NATO therefore we have all of NATO defending us against an attack.

I wouldnt count on nato. Most of our so called nato countries wont even put their troops in harms way.

We chould pull out of nato, and only offer support when we think its the right thing to do. Same goes with UN enforcement actions. If Canada wants to play a constructive role in global security we should be working with both our allies and potential adversaries to reduce military spending globally.

Edited August 23, 2013 by dre

[Wilber]

I dont put civil rights and government spending in the same categories.

I also dont really think that there is a direct connection between military spending and security, in fact military spending can cause great insecurity because once the government spends a zillion dollars on hardware the temptation is there to use it for non-defensive purposes. This is why the west now faces all these assymetric threats.

I feel pretty secure as a Canadian. We have an excellent geographical defense, and not many international borders. We need a small airforce with some kind of cost effective patrol craft, and a small defensive army. I might add a citizens militia similar to what some nordic countries have.

That's your problem, it's not all about spending, it's about the defense of the country. If all you are concerned about is spending, get rid of the military all together.

When it comes to military spending as percentage of GDP, in 2012, Sweden spent 0.1% less than Canada, Norway and Finland spent more. This is only for 2012 so the numbers don't reflect long term spending. Sweden could have very well spent more on a long term basis but because their military is more modern, they just bought less in 2012. For example, when it comes to fighter aircraft , one of the aircraft that was considered for our F-18 replacement was the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The Swedes presently operate 140 of them with 60 more on order. We are having a fit over 65 F-35's.

We do have a militia, we call them reserves. A bigger one might be a good idea but they still need modern weapons to fight with, unless you are just interested in cannon fodder.

[Army Guy]

Regarding Canada's contribution to NATO, Canada made more than its fair share of commitments in Afghanistan. Also, NATO is primarily in place to protect Europe and is full of G8 nations with plenty of resources.

It is sad the way the government makes promises that it cannot deliver and then expects the military to pick up the slack. Unfortunately the current path of F35s and 35 Billion on overpriced ships will make this problem worse.

Regarding adaptability, I did not make myself clear, Canadian troops are very adaptable, I am sure Taylor would agree. It is the bureaucracy that is rigid.

Regarding operating costs, I get your point but and in general you are right it is almost always cheaper... but did you look up the projected operating costs for the F35's? Crazy!

So you want to at least double our military spending. No thanks. You speak of potentially heavy casualties, where? You speak of defending Canada, from whom?

What is your measure when you compare contributions in Afghanistan ? NATO is alot more than just Europe, last time i checked Afghanistan is not even close, Nor is the the NATO fleet patroling Southern tip of Africa, NATO is a global contribution..

It's not just the Government , but also Canadian citizens that are not living up to their end of the bargin. I'm not sure how these purchases are going to make things worse....If you mean it is going to cost alot of taxpayers funding , then yes it is, but lets remember it is the first stop when the government is looking at finding additional funding for what ever, military has advised the government on numerous occasions what the consquences are of not properly funding the military, and replacing the equipment on a timily basis....some where some how someone is going to have to either pay the final bill or dismantle the military.....

The Upper chain of command are rigid for a reason, they are protecting the nations ability to not only defend itself and live up to our defense agreements....DND has been cut to the bone already, their is very little fat left to trim...

Yes it is pretty easy to scare anyone if you add in 30 years of operating costs which are a best guess to start with... (I Say best guess because if that equipment is used on operations those costs will be alot higher) maybe that is what the car dealers should start doing your 30,000 new car suddenly jumps to 300,000 over 30 years....i wonder how many cars would get sold......do you think you could talk the wife into a 300,000 car.....

Operating costs for each piece of equipment the military has is already been calculated into each years annual Budget why do it twice it makes no sense, The government seems to think the public needs to know except if you wanted to jack up the total number and cost, to catch someone attention, in this case the publics.....like i said who wants to buy a 300,000 car, over 30 years, who wants to keep a car for 30 years makes no sense.

[Army Guy]

Regarding operating costs, I get your point but and in general you are right it is almost always cheaper... but did you look up the projected operating costs for the F35's? Crazy!

So you want to at least double our military spending. No thanks. You speak of potentially heavy casualties, where? You speak of defending Canada, from whom?

Operating costs are calculated by a best guess, And depts, ie airforce, Navy can cut back on these costs simply by not operating this equipment for short periods. Airforce is famous for doing this, shut certain aircraft down for 2 weeks to save funding, to spend else where. But yes it cost alot to operate any fighter...

I'm sorry but that is what is needed, to keep our current capabilites sooner or later it will happen or the government will face further redutions, until we have nothing left...The example i provided is one ,had we had Canadian air cover, they would have known the exact postion of our troops and this incident may have been avoided ( that day the company lost over 60 pers due to injury and death)....Heavy Casualties are the price you pay when a) your equipment is not as upto date as the bad guys, history is full of examples of this ie Sherman tank in WWII, was totally inferor to anything the Germans had, and because it could be mass produced cheaply we went with it, many allied tank crews died because of it.... you have never trained on modern equipment nor know the full capability of that equipment...Like i said before Canadian military history is full of examples.

Those that do not support a large robust military force typically use that very comment (defend from whom) last time Canada was directly threaten was the war of 1812, when the US tried to invade...and yet it did happen...and yet when questioned would it happen again, and would you stake your life on it not happening ....most would say no...there is no Garentee it will never happen again...and if it did , who would the people blame for allowing it to happen...."themselfs" not likely..The government still needs to do it's part and provides that security has part of its mandate to the people.

And our Sovereignty is tested on a regular basis, Denmark claims it owns Hans island,in fact it's military regular stops at the island to take the Canadian flag down and re insert the denmark flag.... the Turbot wars in the Atlantic,the Spanish actually sent a warship over to ensure it's fishing ves went unmolested while fishing in our waters.... kind of hard to inforce our sovereignty if we don't have a modern force to do that. infact it would be hard for our country to set any regulations that we could not support....Countries could sieze any land claims they wished, or break any regulations in regards to our fishieres....and with the north opening up, there are off shore oil, plus many other untapped resources all needs to be considered....

And while those events were closer to home , Canada traditional sends her forces overseas to fight there. the Boar war, WWI, WWII, Korea and major conflicts in which Canada sent her troops to fight.... In just before WWI our miltary consisted of 9500 troops, how many young men died because of the lack of training or equipment....WWII no different we learned very little from WWI , again our young men and women paid a price for not being prepared...that price was the lives of our citizens....Those wars you could build a ship in 30 days, a plane in a few, todays conflict is come as you are, it takes months to build a modern aircraft, years to build a ship....we will not have that opition......

We as a nation contribute very little to our NATO allieds, and they have grown accustomed to that some what, but they have not forgotten it, in fact many times they have demanded we do something to correct that.....So if we are not making usefull contributions to our NATO defense agreements one day we could find ourself outside looking in....force to defend ourselfs....which would be a much more costly adventure, you think Canadians don't like spending now, wait until we have to do it on our dime....

Candians will more than likely fight another conflict in some far away land, our soldiers will be more than willing to do that, i just hope that it's citizens can sleep at night , asking themselfs did we do everything we could for those men and women, Because it may mean some of those men and women are your children, father, or wife then serving our nation will take on a whole new ball of wax....

[carepov]

...

Regarding costs and spending:

My best guess is that the F35 will cost about double to operate versus a Super Hornet.

"According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html

It seems like an idiotic waste.

We are paying $250,000,000 only for the design of a ship when similar ships are designed AND built for $100,000,000. Don't you think that this smells of idiotic waste?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html

I agree with most of what you write - what I am saying is that we should use some of the money saved in the above examples and spend it on things that will actually be useful to protect our troops and accomplish our missions. One example would be better communication and training with allies to ensure that the Tarnak Farm incident is not repeated.

Basically we have a choice:

a) spend money wildly now and in the future, double or triple the budget, "spend whatever it takes"

b.) cut every corner we can and spend as little as we can on defence

c) recognize that out resources are limited so spend our money wisely and carefully, be realistic about our capabilities

d) spend (waste) all the money now and the see what happens and hope for the best later, ignore the fact that there will be no money later (some other government will be in power anyways)

Our government has chosen d).

Your position is a). If I understand dre's position correctly it is b.) and I say c). I think that your position is unrealistic, it will never happen, so basically it becomes the same as option d). Compared to Option c), option d) will take resources away from where troops need it and will end up hurting morale and endangering troops in future missions.

[Army Guy]

Our size is to our advantage. We have an excellent geographic defense here, and only one international border with a close ally. The only countries besides the US that could even think about trying to move enough military resources here to mount an invasion or Russia and China... and there is absolutely no way that we are going to be able spend enough to stop them.

And if there IS an invasion, then every single citizen that can walk should head down the armory and gear up.

Basically, I dont think we should fight anyone unless we have to, and if we have to... then EVERYONE should have to fight.

Thats not how the real world works, our government will do everything within it's power to stop any agressive action or invasion, our troops will be deployed regardless it is what they do, regardless of how we equiped them....

This is just wishfull thinking to think that it was that easy ....walk into an armoury and get suited up.....suit up with what by the way ? There is no extra wpns, or equipment, infact there is barely enough for our Regular force members, and what they have is old and needs replacement....our reserves will be lightly armed, with very little major equipment to fight with....This is not call of duty , where you choose your wpn and gear then head out with no training, no nothing....you'll be dead before you even hit the battle field....But hey you'll be happy in the fact that we refused to allow our government to equip our troops with the tools we need , so we could do something useful like put more funding into welfare, unemployment, or building more low income housing......

Yes, because traditionally Canada has been a war machine, crushing nations around the globe for shits a giggles...History will tell you that....The Canadian military already knows this,it is not trying to expand into another huge military force for expansion, it has sent you countless warnings though if we do not act now there will not be any form of miltary left....to do anything...

[Army Guy]

Basically we have a choice:

a) spend money wildly now and in the future, double or triple the budget, "spend whatever it takes"

b.) cut every corner we can and spend as little as we can on defence

c) recognize that out resources are limited so spend our money wisely and carefully, be realistic about our capabilities

d) spend (waste) all the money now and the see what happens and hope for the best later, ignore the fact that there will be no money later (some other government will be in power anyways)

Our government has chosen d).

Your position is a). If I understand dre's position correctly it is b.) and I say c). I think that your position is unrealistic, it will never happen, so basically it becomes the same as option d). Compared to Option c), option d) will take resources away from where troops need it and will end up hurting morale and endangering troops in future missions.

I think you misunderstanding my postion, DND's current postion and it's state of equipment most of it is in dire need of replacement, that and our current purchasing model is flawed beyond belief....means if it is not replaced within the next 10 years or so, there will not be a military with any meaningful capabilities. The replacement of said equipment has been put on hold for many years, or cancelled because other concerns within the country....i get all that, but someday soon, there will not be an option, we either buy it, or slice that capability off the charts.....and then be forced by our allied to re invest, much like our old leo's or F-18, US government suggested trudeau we buy them.

My postion is alot of this equipment is needed today, sea king helo replacement, new AOR ships, logistic vehs..... the other half of this equipemnt is going to be needed within the next 10 years, like our fighters, , etc.....and with our state of the art procurement policies we have in place, these programs need to be started now with some investment involved

[carepov]

What is your measure when you compare contributions in Afghanistan ? NATO is alot more than just Europe, last time i checked Afghanistan is not even close, Nor is the the NATO fleet patroling Southern tip of Africa, NATO is a global contribution..

When I talk military commitments it means blood and treasure. My reading has suggested that Canada makes significant contributions to NATO and is not a "freeloader".

"Mr Hutton will suggest that the reticence of some Nato members has left a small group of countries including Britain, the US and Canada to do an unfair share of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/4240957/John-Hutton-says-Europeans-are-freeloading-on-Britain-and-US-in-Afghanistan.html

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm

"Gates did cite Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Canada for "punch(ing) well above their weight" fighting in Libya,"

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-21-US-stuck-with-NATO-bill_n.htm

[Wilber]

What's fair? If something needs doing, should one step up or wait and see what others do and if they do nothing, use that as an excuse to do nothing themselves?

[dre]

What's fair? If something needs doing, should one step up or wait and see what others do and if they do nothing, use that as an excuse to do nothing themselves?

The problem is that what "needs doing" is a gigantic gray area and we are supposed to trust people who cant even fix the potholes in our roads to decide. And its not clear to the electorate what our foreign policy even IS, or what the parties we elect might do. We ignore large humanitarian crisis and conflicts and get involved in small ones. We side with dictators in one conflict, then terrorists in the next. Democracy in one conflict, and autocracy in the next.

And its not altogether clearn whos interests are driving all these policies.

So under these circumstances, I dont think that having interventionalist foreign policy is the best interests of Canadians.

[Army Guy]

When I talk military commitments it means blood and treasure. My reading has suggested that Canada makes significant contributions to NATO and is not a "freeloader".

"Mr Hutton will suggest that the reticence of some Nato members has left a small group of countries including Britain, the US and Canada to do an unfair share of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/4240957/John-Hutton-says-Europeans-are-freeloading-on-Britain-and-US-in-Afghanistan.html

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm

"Gates did cite Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Canada for "punch(ing) well above their weight" fighting in Libya,"

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-21-US-stuck-with-NATO-bill_n.htm

New Canadian cuts to it's limited support to NATO, During the last 30 years Canada has degraded it's contribution to NATO to the piont it is today. A few ships in the ATlantic, limited support in Afghanistan, and Lybia, when in comparison to other NATO countries.

http://://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/17/canada-pulls-out-of-nato-airborne-surveillance-programs-to-

http://www.cbc.ca/includes/ads/bbframe.html?ord=7169069780747165&adsite=cbc.news.ca&adzone=politics&adsection=politics&contcat=Politics&adpagetype=story&addcopt=dcopt=ist;&tile=2&pos=tobpox&adexclusions=

And while some of the below articles have little to do with our topic, they do drive the piont that we as a nation are not a huge contributor to NATO, infact we are a small contributor. And that remarks made by our allieds are pionted towards Canada and many other Nations..

As NATO moves forward into the future, many nations are questioning it's usefullness, infact many cracks have already formed, the Creation of ABCA is a sign of that, America, Britian, Canada, Australia, (perhaps New Zealand) these nations already have new defense pacts signed. With such a small organization it becomes nessicary to have a stronger defense force...it also means leaving european AO and concentrating on the pacific area...

http://www.warmuseum.ca/education/online-educational-resources/dispatches/canada-and-nato/

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/lawless-anarchiq-eng.asp

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Is%20NATO%20Still%20Necessary%20for%20Canada.pdf

Don't get me wrong , i am not trying to take anything away from what our military did in Afghanistan or Lybia, what i'm saying is for a nation of 40 mil, and a Mid ranged G-8 nation we could have done alot more....