hand out of foreign aid

[Derek 2.0]

Unless the country faces no military threats from nearby countries. Who is going to invade Canada? No one.

Defence from what? Exactly. It's just charity towards other countries.

Though I largely agree that Canada doesn’t face a plausible threat of invasion today, decades ahead that assessment could change with the race to the Arctic’s resources………

Of course, today Canada does face the possibility of an asymmetric attack and threats to Canadian interests around the world.

[Argus]

No, first there was a referendum, then Russia moved in. You can call it 'illegal' if you want,

No, first there was Russian propaganda and fearmongering aimed at the locals, then Russian agitators, agents and provocateurs moved in promising money and arms to anyone wanting to join Russia. Then Russian military advisers moved into help organize a few ragged assed locals while Russian Spetnatz moved in and took over major government institutions. Only THEN did Russia's local satrap hold a ridiculously phony so-called referendum which had no outside observers and which did not even offer a choice of remaining in Ukraine.

Every step of the way after the propaganda and fearmongering was illegal, by the way, in case you were in some doubt about that.

but the by that logic the USA is 'illegal' since they started an 'illegal' war against the British

There isn't a shred of logic in your comparison. It's laughable and ludicrous.

[Argus]

Unless the country faces no military threats from nearby countries. Who is going to invade Canada? No one.

Defence from what? Exactly. It's just charity towards other countries.

There is currently no fire in my house. With your logic, I am wasting my money on fire insurance.

The military is there 'in case of'. It not only defends the state from foreign aggression but from domestic violence from any large/organized group which the local police are unable to handle.

The very existence of the military generally precludes such domestic aggression, but absent military backup who knows what the likes of the natives or kooky religious or anti-government groups might get up to.

[dre]

You have that completely backwards.

The PRIMARY ROLE of any government is clearly security of its citizens. The military is the main delivery instrument for that essential mandate.

No the military is the main instrument for providing security for its citizens from EXTERNAL threats. THe vast majority of the real threats facing citizens are internal, so I would argue the police and the judiciary about 1000 times more important in that regard.

Instead, we rely and have relied on our alliances to deter aggressors.

No our allies have relied on us. We have bled the ground red in about a half dozen major wars on behalf of others, spend billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of lives.

The biggest reason why we enjoy relative safety and security is because we have very few international borders. Only one, and thats with another bunch of ex-brits with similar values.

[WestCoastRunner]

I agree that the title of this thread should have remained as 'hand out or foreign aid'. not 'hand out of foreign aid'

[-1=e^ipi]

Though I largely agree that Canada doesn’t face a plausible threat of invasion today, decades ahead that assessment could change with the race to the Arctic’s resource.

Yes, cause clearly we will have a war over the arctic with denmark and the US. *sarcasm*

The only country remotely a 'threat' is a nuclear Russia (which Canada will never be able to defeat), that wan't to follow the UN law of the sea to resolve Arctic territorial disputes.

Of course, today Canada does face the possibility of an asymmetric attack and threats to Canadian interests around the world.

Our 'interests' being our 'allies', which means that it is charity to other countries.

[-1=e^ipi]

so-called referendum which had no outside observers and which did not even offer a choice of remaining in Ukraine.

I'm not denying that the referendum was absurd.

At the same time, I reject the west's position that any referendum is illegal & the Crimeans have no right to self determination.

There isn't a shred of logic in your comparison. It's laughable and ludicrous.

There is. A referendum on separation being illegal because the country in which the referendum takes place declares that it is shouldn't matter because it denies people the right to self determination (and therefore the law is immoral). The Texans should have the right to separate if they want to , the Quebecois should have the right to separate if they want to, the Scottish should have the right to separate if they want to, the Basque region in Spain should have the right to separate if it wants to, etc.

You want a more recent example of an 'illegal' separatist movement gaining independence? Try Kosovo.

How can Kosovo have the right to separate from Serbia, but at the same time Crimea has no right to separate from Ukraine? The position of the West is absurd and hypocritical.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes, cause clearly we will have a war over the arctic with denmark and the US. *sarcasm*

The only country remotely a 'threat' is a nuclear Russia (which Canada will never be able to defeat), that wan't to follow the UN law of the sea to resolve Arctic territorial disputes.

Are you suggesting Russia and Canada do not have conflicting claims in the Arctic?

And you speak of not being able to defeat a nuclear Russia…….On our own, that’s correct, but of course being a NATO member, we fall under the American nuclear shield.

Our 'interests' being our 'allies', which means that it is charity to other countries.

Canadian foreign investment is hardly charity……….Would you consider the benefits we receive from belonging to NATO and NORAD as charity?

[-1=e^ipi]

There is currently no fire in my house. With your logic, I am wasting my money on fire insurance.

Nope. That isn't 'my logic' at all.

The military is there 'in case of'. It not only defends the state from foreign aggression

No. Military spending today puts us in debt, which means that we are less able to spend on military in the future (and most of the military spending today will decay in 20 years time). Wouldn't it make more sense to have a more flexible approach to military spending and change spending based upon demand for military?

It not only defends the state from foreign aggression but from domestic violence from any large/organized group which the local police are unable to handle.

The police are supposed to deal with domestic violence. What organized groups are you referring to that the police cannot handle? Also, why does it make sense to give funding to the military as opposed to the police to deal with this issue?

[-1=e^ipi]

Are you suggesting Russia and Canada do not have conflicting claims in the Arctic?

Of course they have conflicting claims. They both claim the Danish territory of the North Pole.

But that is for short term political reasons.

In the long term, both countries are going to follow the law of the sea and peacefully resolve the Arctic dispute.

The exception of course, is if the West takes absurd positions on international issues such as Ukraine, which cause unnecessary tit-for-tat wars with Russia. Of course the West shouldn't take such absurd positions to begin with, so these tit-for-tat wars are avoidable.

And you speak of not being able to defeat a nuclear Russia…….On our own, that’s correct, but of course being a NATO member, we fall under the American nuclear shield.

It's called mutually assured destruction, both Russia and US/Canada want to avoid that. The issue will be resolved peacefully via the law of the sea.

Also, how does spending money on military today to deal with a potential threat in like 2-3 decades make more sense than not spending that money today, and spending it in the future when it will be more relevant?

Would you consider the benefits we receive from belonging to NATO and NORAD as charity?

Being a member of an organization is not charity. Spending 1.2% of our GDP on a military to defend other countries is charity.

[Argus]

Nope. That isn't 'my logic' at all.

Seems pretty similar. You're saying since we face no present external threat we can do without them.

Of course, what happens tomorrow is unknown.

No. Military spending today puts us in debt,

The government will spend about $280 billion this year. Of that, $18 billion will be spent on the military. That's roughly 6.4%. I don't think the military puts us in debt. I think incompetent government puts us into debt.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a more flexible approach to military spending and change spending based upon demand for military?

If you can promise we'll get many years notice before we need the military I suppose. I don't see how you can do that, though. The lead time just to order gear seems to be about ten years...

The police are supposed to deal with domestic violence.

The police are able to deal with non-violent civil unrest and crime. They are not trained or equipped to confront large groups of violent people resisting the government. That's why the military was called out during the Oka incident.

[-1=e^ipi]

Seems pretty similar. You're saying since we face no present external threat we can do without them.

Of course, what happens tomorrow is unknown.

And your position seems pretty similar to the climate alarmists:

'Because we don't have perfect information, the government should implement policies that waste economic resources needlessly'.

The government will spend about $280 billion this year. Of that, $18 billion will be spent on the military. That's roughly 6.4%. I don't think the military puts us in debt. I think incompetent government puts us into debt.

Every little bit matters. If you don't agree with me, then why don't you advocate increasing foreign aid to 1.2% of GDP as well?

If you can promise we'll get many years notice before we need the military I suppose. I don't see how you can do that, though. The lead time just to order gear seems to be about ten years...

Actually you do get a notice, it's called political warning signs. The spread of ISIS in Iraq has been years in the making, the Nazi's were in power for years spewing their militaristic propaganda before war took place, etc.

Also, today and in the future, military is a lot more capital intensive and less labour intensive. Training soldiers for years isn't as relevant as in the past compared to having the best technology and the infrastructure to use it. Therefore, our military expenditure should be capable of being more flexible than in the past.

The police are able to deal with non-violent civil unrest and crime. They are not trained or equipped to confront large groups of violent people resisting the government. That's why the military was called out during the Oka incident.

Or the police were underequiped and incompetent. The military shouldn't be necessary for this stuff; law enforcement should deal with these issues.

[Big Guy]

Some interesting history of how we came to be spending about 2.5 $billion a year in foreign aid.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/foreign-aid/

Some countries (like Canada) will use their government as a market to subsidize industry and agriculture. The government purchases these commodities at market value and then gives those commodities to other countries under the umbrella of foreign aid.

Bilateral aid to many countries, such as Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan is normally provided not in cash but in Canadian goods and services, including wheat and flour, railway locomotives and parts, equipment for hydroelectric generation and transmission, fertilizer, seeds and farm implements, and personnel to serve as advisers or instructors.

So it is not always a bunch of tax money being transferred out of the country.

[Argus]

And your position seems pretty similar to the climate alarmists:

'Because we don't have perfect information, the government should implement policies that waste economic resources needlessly'.

No, it's nothing like that. The problem with the climate situation is not the desire to spend money in order to deal with the issue facing us in the future, but that we have no idea if spending the money will have the least effect or impact on that issue.

Every little bit matters. If you don't agree with me, then why don't you advocate increasing foreign aid to 1.2% of GDP as well?

For the same reason I don't stop paying my insurance bill and give the money to unemployed people.

Actually you do get a notice, it's called political warning signs. The spread of ISIS in Iraq has been years in the making, the Nazi's were in power for years spewing their militaristic propaganda before war took place, etc.

You don't get that much warning, and you can't build a military overnight, and given human nature there's no way you'd ever be able to divert a significant portion of the budget into building a military unless a threat was absolutely imminent, in which case it would be far too late.

Also, today and in the future, military is a lot more capital intensive and less labour intensive. Training soldiers for years isn't as relevant as in the past compared to having the best technology and the infrastructure to use it.

I disagree. There was a time you could slap a wool uniform on a guy, give him some fitness classes, give him a rifle, and ship him off in a couple of months. That day is long past. The training needed in the tools of military technology is far more time consuming. As well, a good military springs from the traditions and knowledge of its long-time members. You don't simply start up a military with all new people, tell some they'll be generals and others they'll be colonels and sergeants, and expect anything much but chaos. The ongoing institutional knowledge and experience of long serving members is irreplaceable.

And to repeat, the time delay for ordering things like planes and tanks and APCs and ships is ten years or more. What do you intend to do, hire on a bunch of soldiers, sailors and airmen, then wait a decade for the tanks, ships and planes to train them in? And who trains them?

Or the police were underequiped and incompetent. The military shouldn't be necessary for this stuff; law enforcement should deal with these issues.

You really want to give the RCMP fighter bombers? You want the Toronto Police to be driving around in APCs carrying automatic rifles?

[-1=e^ipi]

So it is not always a bunch of tax money being transferred out of the country.

No, but the net effect is still negative to Canada, which is the point.

No, it's nothing like that. The problem with the climate situation is not the desire to spend money in order to deal with the issue facing us in the future, but that we have no idea if spending the money will have the least effect or impact on that issue.

Sure we do. Taxing CO2 emissions will reduce economic output and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions, which will have an impact on CO2 levels in the future.

For the same reason I don't stop paying my insurance bill and give the money to unemployed people.

What reason is this?

You don't get that much warning, and you can't build a military overnight, and given human nature there's no way you'd ever be able to divert a significant portion of the budget into building a military unless a threat was absolutely imminent, in which case it would be far too late.

And you don't suddenly need a military overnight either. And what are you implying with respect to 'human nature'? The military labour input is relatively inflexible, I agree. But the physical capital input into military is relatively flexible. And given that military is becoming more capital intensive and less labour intensive over time, it will become more flexible. It is much easier to divert resources to produce a UAV than it is to recruit a soldier.

I disagree. There was a time you could slap a wool uniform on a guy, give him some fitness classes, give him a rifle, and ship him off in a couple of months. That day is long past. The training needed in the tools of military technology is far more time consuming. As well, a good military springs from the traditions and knowledge of its long-time members.

Or... you could just build a bunch of robots, and have them fight.

You don't simply start up a military with all new people, tell some they'll be generals and others they'll be colonels and sergeants, and expect anything much but chaos. The ongoing institutional knowledge and experience of long serving members is irreplaceable.

Clearly you did not understand what I meant by more capital intensive.

And to repeat, the time delay for ordering things like planes and tanks and APCs and ships is ten years or more. What do you intend to do, hire on a bunch of soldiers, sailors and airmen, then wait a decade for the tanks, ships and planes to train them in? And who trains them?

Mass train soldiers? This isn't the first world war. Military is far more capital intensive than that.

You really want to give the RCMP fighter bombers? You want the Toronto Police to be driving around in APCs carrying automatic rifles?

Why are fighter bombers necessary for law enforcement to deal with domestic crime?

[Bonam]

We are still a little ways away from being able to field a fully non-human fighting force and have it be effective. Probably about 20 years before human soldiers are largely obsolete would be my guess.

In any case, recent military acquisition programs aptly illustrate that you can't just get modern military equipment overnight. These acquisition programs take years, sometimes decades. If in 15 years we want to have the latest military technology, we have to start shelling out for it today, not 14 years from now. And while you might be able to predict wars some time away, that time frame is small compared to the time it takes to build a useful modern military force, whether it relies largely on human soldiers or not.

[Argus]

Sure we do. Taxing CO2 emissions will reduce economic output and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions, which will have an impact on CO2 levels in the future.

So? What does that get us? The fact is nothing Canada could do will have any significant effect on global warming. Nothing.

And you don't suddenly need a military overnight either.

You never know. The Oka thing arose within months. Ten years ago, while people like me felt the Russians would never change, all the political classes were gushing about how they were our friends. Over the last several years, while all western nations were drastically reducing military spending the Chinese (and Russians) have been drastically expanding military spending. There could be major trouble with China at any time. You certainly aren't going to get ten years notice of it.

I'm sure you've heard of Sun Tzu. I assure you everyone in China has. One of his 'five essential points for victory' is "He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared."

And it is a military axiom, by the way, to prepare for what enemies and rivals MIGHT do, what they CAN do, what they COULD do, not what you think they're likely to do -- unless you're a mind reader.

And what are you implying with respect to 'human nature'?

People's ability for self-deception, to ignore what seems unpleasant and hope it goes away. There's also a habit of fooling ourselves into thinking everyone thinks the same way we do, have the same priorities and beliefs, despite knowing that just isn't true.

It is much easier to divert resources to produce a UAV than it is to recruit a soldier.

Really? We've been trying to buy helicopters for about twenty years now with no success.

And who flies this UAV of yours?

And how do you get a government to suddenly find $10 or $20 billion in the budget for a war which we don't know will ever be fought years in the future on the basis of world tensions?

Or... you could just build a bunch of robots, and have them fight.

Yes, yes, and a death star will eliminate war. Get your head out of your comic books.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

We are still a little ways away from being able to field a fully non-human fighting force and have it be effective. Probably about 20 years before human soldiers are largely obsolete would be my guess.

We don't even have robots that can serve us a coffee. I think you're a tad on the optimistic side here. Give it fifty years easily, and even then there'll be a need for special forces.

[Big Guy]

We are still a little ways away from being able to field a fully non-human fighting force and have it be effective. Probably about 20 years before human soldiers are largely obsolete would be my guess.

...

While I disagree with the time lines I do agree that it will be the direction of active warfare. A few years ago if you claimed that a person sitting at a console in Phoenix would be controlling an airplane in air space over Pakistan and successfully guiding missiles to knock out a moving vehicle then you would have been written off as "overly optimistic" or demented. The use of robots has just begun to change the process of war.

In the past, the nation which had the more expendable population for warfare usually came out a winner. Might was right and if you could throw far more soldiers into a conflict than the other side then you would only have to match the enemy death rate to be the winner. With robotics it is the rich nations which have the great advantage. Why take the chance of losing a top notch pilot, which cost you $millions to train, when you can always send in a drone? That one gets knocked out then send in another etc. The side with a better strategy and more money for drones will win that conflict.

I agree that to be the direction Canada should be looking. Already the ground war tactics are being reviewed with the accelerated development of drone armed ground vehicles. Now a single tank (or someone at a console) could be maneuvering a number of other tanks in a ground battle.

Human soldiers get killed and have to be processed, their dependents have to be paid. Injured soldiers have to healed and supported until they are able to rejoin the workforce - if ever. Increasing casualties put pressure on governments to compromise and try to find negotiated resolutions to conflicts. With drone warfare, you get a couple blown so then send out a few more. The side with unlimited assets and support of a drone program will have to be the eventual winner - unless of course if one side sends nuclear missiles into the host country to knock out those consoles.

The success of the Canadarm indicates that we have the technical knowledge to pursue further development of robotic technology that could be applied to the killing fields. It could become a very lucrative export to fuel our economy as well as protect our borders.

[-1=e^ipi]

So? What does that get us? The fact is nothing Canada could do will have any significant effect on global warming. Nothing.

Idk, 2% of CO2 output is significant to me. Maybe we have different definitions of significant.

You never know. The Oka thing arose within months.

Again, military isn't needed to deal with these domestic affairs, especially not a 1.2% of GDP military.

Ten years ago, while people like me felt the Russians would never change, all the political classes were gushing about how they were our friends.

They weren't our friends, nor are they our enemies. The same is still true. Of course having many politicians stuck in the cold war mentality and creating avoidable situations like in Eastern Ukraine does not help.

There could be major trouble with China at any time. You certainly aren't going to get ten years notice of it.

At any time? That is a bit of a stretch. The Chinese Communist party acts in the best interest of preserving their own power, they won't risk that anytime soon.

Also, aren't you changing the nature of the question? The Chinese are a potential threat to our allies (Taiwan, South Korea & Japan), not to us. Thus our military expenditure is charity to our allies.

I'm sure you've heard of Sun Tzu. I assure you everyone in China has. One of his 'five essential points for victory' is "He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared."

Yes, except it is not the Chinese warring states period. And which enemy are we taking about here? Sun Tzu also said 'know your enemies', so perhaps you should identify these enemies you wish to prepare against and explain why you think they are going to invade Canada.

And it is a military axiom, by the way, to prepare for what enemies and rivals MIGHT do, what they CAN do, what they COULD do, not what you think they're likely to do -- unless you're a mind reader.

Sounds like the European precautionary principle.

People's ability for self-deception, to ignore what seems unpleasant and hope it goes away. There's also a habit of fooling ourselves into thinking everyone thinks the same way we do, have the same priorities and beliefs, despite knowing that just isn't true.

This statement is very true for the majority of people. I agree.

And who flies this UAV of yours?

A pilot. I recognize labour expenditure is inflexible. But you don't need multiple UAVs (or even any) to train multiple UAV pilots. At the same time, in a war scenario, a UAV pilot can consecutively fly multiple UAVs. So if capital expenditure on UAVs can be made flexible, then military expenditure can be made flexible.

One way you could make capital expenditure more flexible is to give tax credits to various companies such that these tax credits incentivize them to keep assets that can enable them to quickly change production to something with greater military application. For example (as a hypothetical), suppose you have a nail factory, that could potentially use their equipment to produce bullet casings if they keep around some molds that would allow them to do so. Of course, the nail factory would have no incentive to do so, except during war time, so they would not keep around the additional equipment to produce bullet casings instead of nails. Now the government could give a tax credit to the nail factory to keep that equipment around. Such a tax credit would make military expenditure more flexible and may be cheaper than building an entirely new factory, or importing bullets from foreign markets.

And how do you get a government to suddenly find $10 or $20 billion in the budget for a war which we don't know will ever be fought years in the future on the basis of world tensions

It's called going into debt.

[-1=e^ipi]

In the past, the nation which had the more expendable population for warfare usually came out a winner. Might was right and if you could throw far more soldiers into a conflict than the other side then you would only have to match the enemy death rate to be the winner. With robotics it is the rich nations which have the great advantage.

Not only that, but 20 years from now, most other nations will have larger and younger populations. Canada and other developed countries (except maybe the US) are simply not going to be able to win a war in the conventional way (vs a medium powered nation state) like in the past.

[Bonam]

While I disagree with the time lines I do agree that it will be the direction of active warfare. A few years ago if you claimed that a person sitting at a console in Phoenix would be controlling an airplane in air space over Pakistan and successfully guiding missiles to knock out a moving vehicle then you would have been written off as "overly optimistic" or demented. The use of robots has just begun to change the process of war.

Not really, the use of remotely piloted aircraft has been a long time in the making. They were easily predictable (and, indeed, predicted) up to about 20 years ago.

[Big Guy]

Not really, the use of remotely piloted aircraft has been a long time in the making. They were easily predictable (and, indeed, predicted) up to about 20 years ago.

I guess a few years is a relative term. Two years ago, I was speaking to one of our vets who had just returned from Afghanistan. He had been involved in the Canadian contingent who was trying to deal with drones. He explained that while the concept appeared viable they were having all kinds of problems with facilitation at that time. Perhaps you have information that predates mine.

[On Guard for Thee]

Over 5 years ago they were using lot's of drones in AFG and quite successfully.

[Big Guy]

Over 5 years ago they were using lot's of drones in AFG and quite successfully.

I am restricted by the information that I receive. If what you say is indeed true, then I thank you for the correction.