Harper's Tough Talk on Defense and Russia is just empty words

[Derek 2.0]

As a measure of the nation's ability to pay. Clearly a country of 40 million with a reasonably good economy can afford to spend more on its military than a country of five mlllion, or a bigger one with a backward economy. It's still not the perfect measure, since, of course, it fails to take into account that countries like Canada spend most of the money they spend on high salaries and benefits for their mlitary, while other countries spend very little on that, allowing them to have a much larger military.

Perhaps as a nations ability, but not wiliness nor desire…………

As I said, if he'd left it at 1.4% it wouldn't be horrifically difficult to at least move it closer to the goal of 2%, especially in light of what is happening around the world.

From ~22-23 billion (1.4% GDP) a year, to ~60 billion (2% GDP) a year?

[Peter F]

If you can't protect your own sovereignty then you are not a sovereign country. Do you feel we should join the United States?

We cannot protect our own sovereignty even at 2% of GDP or 4% for that matter or 8%. .... and yet here we are a sovereign country.

[Argus]

Perhaps as a nations ability, but not wiliness nor desire…………

From ~22-23 billion (1.4% GDP) a year, to ~60 billion (2% GDP) a year?

I'm not sure where your poor math skills are coming from, but I would like to remark that you would have done an excellent job as an apologist for the Chretien government in explaining why we really don't need a military and why any amount of cuts is fine.

[Bonam]

From ~22-23 billion (1.4% GDP) a year, to ~60 billion (2% GDP) a year?

If 1.4% of something is 22-23 billion, then 2% of that same something is ~32 billion. The error in your math makes it unclear what you are referring to.

[Argus]

We cannot protect our own sovereignty even at 2% of GDP or 4% for that matter or 8%. .... and yet here we are a sovereign country.

You are not a sovereign country if your sovereignty rests upon other countries "letting you" exorcise control over a particular area. Because the moment they decide to stop letting you that's it.

[Derek 2.0]

If 1.4% of something is 22-23 billion, then 2% of that same something is ~32 billion. The error in your math makes it unclear what you are referring to.

What is Canada's GDP?

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not sure where your poor math skills are coming from, but I would like to remark that you would have done an excellent job as an apologist for the Chretien government in explaining why we really don't need a military and why any amount of cuts is fine.

Your link in the OP

Government sources in Canada say committing 2 per cent of Ottawa’s spending to military aims within a decade is far too costly a pledge. They said it would mean boosting defence expenditures to $60-billion from about $20-billion today. That would entail increases of $4-billion per year annually for 10 years.

Did you read it?

[Bonam]

What is Canada's GDP?

$1.8 trillion USD as of 2012, according to Google. So 1.4% of that would be $25 billion, and 2% of that would be $36 billion. Not sure where your $60 billion number came from though.

[Derek 2.0]

$1.8 trillion USD as of 2012, according to Google. So 1.4% of that would be $25 billion, and 2% of that would be $36 billion. Not sure where your $60 billion number came from though.

Argus's link in the OP.

[Bonam]

Argus's link in the OP.

I see. I guess it estimates that Canada's GDP will be $3 trillion in a decade. That seems to assume over 5% per year GDP growth for the rest of the decade, which is far faster than seems likely or has been experienced in recent years.

Seems more meaningful to compare numbers using today's values.

[Argus]

Argus's link in the OP.

Yes, quoting anonymous government sources whose clear aim was to discourage anyone from expecting Stephen Harper to live up to his word. He did sign the agreement, remember. Why did he do that?

Edited September 2, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Yes, quoting anonymous government sources whose clear aim was to discourage anyone from expecting Stephen Harper to live up to his word. He did sign the agreement, remember. Why did he do that?

So you're now saying your linked OP is wrong?

[Argus]

So you're now saying your linked OP is wrong?

No, I'm saying that the quote from 'anonymous government sources' pooh-poohing the entire idea as unrealistic has to be taken with quite a few grain of salt.

[Derek 2.0]

No, I'm saying that the quote from 'anonymous government sources' pooh-poohing the entire idea as unrealistic has to be taken with quite a few grain of salt.

So you only want to roughly double defence spending then?

So who's taxes do we raise and what current services do we cut further?

[Argus]

So you only want to roughly double defence spending then?

It would not require doubling. You're simply making up numbers.

So who's taxes do we raise and what current services do we cut further?

We can start by putting the GST taxes he removed back in place.

And by the way, if Stephen Harper was a conservative, if he was anything like the man he used to pretend to be, he wouldn't have spent millions and millions of dollars on those stupid "Canada's Economic Action Plan" ads over the years.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

I see. I guess it estimates that Canada's GDP will be $3 trillion in a decade. That seems to assume over 5% per year GDP growth for the rest of the decade, which is far faster than seems likely or has been experienced in recent years.

Seems more meaningful to compare numbers using today's values.

What was our GDP a decade ago?

[Bonam]

Regardless of any misrepresentation in the OP, I don't see a good argument to blindly raise military spending to x% of GDP. Rather, we should identify specific equipment or funding that the military needs or lacks and try to address the issue.

[Derek 2.0]

It would not require doubling. You're simply making up numbers.

I'm not making up numbers, I'm using the numbers you provided.

We can start by putting the GST taxes he removed back in place.

And by the way, if Stephen Harper was a conservative, if he was anything like the man he used to pretend to be, he wouldn't have spent millions and millions of dollars on those stupid "Canada's Economic Action Plan" ads over the years.

So you’d have the Tories campaign on raising the GST to boost funding to the military………..Once the Liberals come to power after the Tories are defeated, then what’s your angle?

[Derek 2.0]

Regardless of any misrepresentation in the OP, I don't see a good argument to blindly raise military spending to x% of GDP. Rather, we should identify specific equipment or funding that the military needs or lacks and try to address the issue.

I agree, on the condition that prior a review is conducted to find efficiencies already within the department, coupled with examining how the Australians are able to field a similar size, deployable force, with in some areas, more effective equipment, on a budget (in actual dollars) similar in size as our own.

Only then would I favour any incremental increases.

[Argus]

I'm not making up numbers, I'm using the numbers you provided.

So you’d have the Tories campaign on raising the GST to boost funding to the military………..Once the Liberals come to power after the Tories are defeated, then what’s your angle?

If you don't expect Justin Trudeau to be PM after the next election you're kidding yourself. Nobody likes Harper. Nobody trusts Harper. And Harper no longer stands for anything. He's just another craven Chretien, wanting to stay in power so he can stay in power. He has no ideas, and he doesn't care about any kind of conservative polices. A Joe Clark PC government would have been more conservative than this "Conservative" government. I think they still own the copyright. They should just change the name back to Progressive Conservatives.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

If you don't expect Justin Trudeau to be PM after the next election you're kidding yourself. Nobody likes Harper.

As I’ve said in the election thread, and I’ll restate here, I’ve no doubt the current Government will remain in power after next year’s election…….

Nobody likes Harper. Nobody trusts Harper. And Harper no longer stands for anything. He's just another craven Chretien, wanting to stay in power so he can stay in power. He has no ideas, and he doesn't care about any kind of conservative polices. A Joe Clark PC government would have been more conservative than this "Conservative" government. I think they still own the copyright. They should just change the name back to Progressive Conservatives.

Nobody liked Christy Clark here in BC either, especially Premier Adrian Dix……….

None the less, since you feel next year’s election will see a change in Government, are you now suggesting the Trudeau Liberals should run on a promise to increase taxes, so as to fund a dramatic increase in defense spending? How will this fit into their Carbon Tax regime of taxes, and what effect will it have on their plans for National Daycare and whatever else they have (and will) promise?

Edited September 3, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

As I’ve said in the election thread, and I’ll restate here, I’ve no doubt the current Government will remain in power after next year’s election…….

Nobody liked Christy Clark here in BC either, especially Premier Adrian Dix……….

None the less, since you feel next year’s election will see a change in Government, are you now suggesting the Trudeau Liberals should run on a promise to increase taxes, so as to fund a dramatic increase in defense spending? How will this fit into their Carbon Tax regime of taxes, and what effect will it have on their plans for National Daycare and whatever else they have (and will) promise?

Oh yeah they did like Clark. You probably bought into the type of poll that failed so bad in Alberta's election. When they get it wrong, they really get it wrong.

The tax revenue from legal pot and the hopeful ditching of the F 35 "money pit" will pay for a lot of good programs the CPC have ditched in their reign.

[-1=e^ipi]

Putin has a plan and nothing short of war will change his mind. And I don't think war will either.

Putin's goal from the beginning was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the EU. That's why Russia initiated the entire conflict a year ago when they pressured the Ukrainian government to halt the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement.

Of course the west didn't help the situation when they blindly supported the protesters in Western Ukraine, even as they included various fascist groups and violently overthrew the democratically elected government in Kiev (despite that government making various concessions to the protesters). The west didn't help the situation when the west was completely hypocritical by supporting the protesters in Western Ukraine as freedom fighters but condemning counter protests in Eastern Ukraine as terrorists. And of course the west didn't help the situation by denying the rights to self determination of the Crimeans or the Eastern Ukrainians. There is plenty of blame to go around, be it to Russia, to the West, to the Western Ukrainians or to the Eastern Ukrainians.

Putin never planned to annex Crimea. The Russians simply took advantage of the situation after the unexpected overthrow of the government in Kiev.

Putin's goal remains preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and the EU. This is the main reason he doesn't want Eastern Ukraine to separate from Western Ukraine. Because he wants to use Eastern Ukraine as a bargaining chip and make Ukraine into a 'federation' that is incapable of joining NATO or the EU.

[-1=e^ipi]

he was faced with a Canadian population that had no interest in defending Canada either.

Defending Canada from what?

The purpose of a military is two fold. The primary purpose is to defence the country against any enemy.

Defending us from what????

No one is going to invade Canada. Be realistic here. Canada's military is basically charity to other countries and its purpose is offensive not defensive.

[-1=e^ipi]

Funny, I think I heard this before. Oh yes, it came from Neville Chamberlain, claiming that what had happened in Czechoslovakia could have been avoided with proper diplomacy. He then exercised that diplomacy with regard to Poland, ensuring peace in our time.

That was 80 years ago. Please understand that the world today is very different from 80 years ago.

The moral of the story is twofold.

The moral of the story is that military spending advocates throughout the western world will continue to use WW2 as justification of increasing military spending regardless of the political situation of the country, and they will try to associate dissent with nazi supporters.

Canada in 2014 is very different from Europe in 1939. How hard is that to understand?

The second part is you never know when you need to stop someone, and assuming, as you have stated you do, that once we know there's going to be a crisis (because, of course, we always get a decades warning) we can then recruit a military, train it, buy equipment, and be all ready, is short-sighted lunacy.

You never know when a giant pink unicorn will appear out of nowhere and invade Canada with magical rainbow farts! Does that mean we should spend money on magical pink unicorn insurance? Your position is basically an extreme version of the precautionary principle.

The probability of an outcome is relevant in decision making, not just if the outcome is a possibility or not.