Should Canada leave NATO?

[Smallc]

Goose Bay has extensive facilities (left over) for fighters (and bombers) and is a forward deployment location for our Hornets........Winnipeg could be served by Trenton and Moose Jaw......a SAR bird could be forward deployed to Winnipeg (if needed) without much in the way of support, unlike fighters.

I would say a small SAR base should stay in Winnpeg. Other than that I agree....but I still think Goose Bay should be closed, or at least shrunk considerably.

[jbg]

I bring up this topic for a number of reasons.

1. NATO was originally designed to counter the soviets in the cold war. Yet the cold war is long over, so has NATO outlived it's usefulness?

2. Being part of NATO means we are allied with Turkey. Yet Turkey has become more and more Islamist and they are enemies with our allies against ISIS, the Kurds. Not only that, arguably Turkey has let ISIS grow because they are more interested in overthrowing Assad.

http://news.yahoo.com/turkish-jets-hit-targets-syria-kurds-iraq-050807038.html

3. Many NDPers have long held the position that Canada should leave NATO. Not quite sure why though.

4. Even if we leave NATO, we are still informally allied with other developed liberal democracies.

5. NATO has some arbitrary requirement that member countries spend 2% of GDP on military expenditure. I get that we are at war with ISIS, but this money could be better spent elsewhere.

Are we being willfully blind to the obvious, that the U.S. and Canada work closely together?

[cybercoma]

Given the NDP would, in all likelihood, spectacularly downsize the military, I would think so.

Pretty tough to spectacularly downsize the military when your party's policy is to use it in peacekeeping missions.

[Derek 2.0]

Pretty tough to spectacularly downsize the military when your party's policy is to use it in peacekeeping missions.

Actually no it isn't, the majority of former UN Peacekeeping mission Canada took part in are inexpensive when contrasted with equally sized combat or NATO missions......hence why the bulk of UN Peacekeepers are contributed by Third World nations, that and the UN provides a stipend to Peacekeepers, in the case of many of the Third World Forces, acting as pay.

None the less, at the height of Canadian Blue Beret Peacekeeping, our contributions never totaled more than ~5-10% of our total force structure......as such, there would be plenty of military to cut...

[Derek 2.0]

I would say a small SAR base should stay in Winnpeg. Other than that I agree....but I still think Goose Bay should be closed, or at least shrunk considerably.

Why?

but I still think Goose Bay should be closed, or at least shrunk considerably.

In terms of personal and units based there, it has been since the Wall came down, coupled to our European NATO partners drastically reducing the sizes of their own air forces.

[Smallc]

Why?

Because it covers a very large area.

In terms of personal and units based there, it has been since the Wall came down

And now there's no one there, so it should close.

[Smallc]

I guess this is why bases don't close.

[Derek 2.0]

Because it covers a very large area.

And said "very large area" could be covered by the current resources in Winnipeg being moved to Moose Jaw and Trenton.

And now there's no one there, so it should close.

No one there? Both Canadian and American units are continually forward deployed to Goose Bay as part of NORAD, NATO and AFGSC...........Goose Bay is a far more vital location to the defense of North America then Winnipeg.

[Smallc]

And said "very large area" could be covered by the current resources in Winnipeg being moved to Moose Jaw and Trenton.

Trenton I can see, but why Moosjaw?

No one there? Both Canadian and American units are continually forward deployed to Goose Bay as part of NORAD, NATO and AFGSC...........Goose Bay is a far more vital location to the defense of North America then Winnipeg.

A logistics hub, like used up north, would work just fine for what you're talking about.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Or, how about we move Moosjaw to Goose Bay, close North Bay and Shilo, and move all transport and refuelling out of Winnipeg. A small SAR base can be left there or somewhere else in Manitoba.

[-1=e^ipi]

What the west should have done was not intervene at all in Syria. Then we wouldn't waste money funding Islamists. In the worst case, ISIS would spill over into Saudi Arabia and Turkey, in which case Saudi Arabia and Turkey would deal with them. Sunni majority countries could more easily deal with ISIS because then ISIS can't invoke the Quran to proclaim that it's every Muslim's duty to come to their aid and get more recruits.

Let the Saudi Islamists and the ISIS Islamists kill each other, then there would be less Islamists to fight us and kick gay people off buildings. Instead we fight a proxy war for the Saudi's, while the Saudis use their oil money to fund Wahabbism and spread the ideology that is the main cause of ISIS, Boko Haram and other groups. The Saudi's are richer than us and have the 4th most powerful military. Let them deal with their own mess.

[Derek 2.0]

Trenton I can see, but why Moosjaw?

Its home to NFTC and surrounded by farmland, as opposed to a city with an international airport.

A logistics hub, like used up north, would work just fine for what you're talking about.

Huh? We already own Goose Bay, SAC was kind enough to build one of the largest runways in the world there, its surrounded by training areas, has a surplus of infrastructure that would allow rapid expansion if required and is connected to a seaport with a container terminal........

[Smallc]

has a surplus of infrastructure

See, this is what I have a problem with. This costs a lot of money to maintain.

[Derek 2.0]

See, this is what I have a problem with. This costs a lot of money to maintain.

No it doesn't.......the largest expenditure the Forces have is personal.......empty hangers, munitions bunkers and runways do not equate to large personal outlays and in turn, money.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ploting ln GDP per capita PPP vs military expenditure as a percentage of GDP for the developed G20 countries excluding the USA (the USA is an outlier) and performing a quadratic fit suggests that GDP per capita is optimized with military expenditure is ~ 1.6% of GDP. If you take into account the loss of consumption due to higher military expenditure, then consumption is optimized when military expenditure is ~1.35% of GDP. If you consider the geographic isolation of Canada, a 1% GDP military expenditure level seems reasonable. I see no reason Canada should commit to the 2% military expenditure NATO target. This is pretty weak empirical evidence, though better than nothing. A cross-country regression might be a good way to take into account the positive externalities associated with military expenditure.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I bring up this topic for a number of reasons.

1. NATO was originally designed to counter the soviets in the cold war. Yet the cold war is long over, so has NATO outlived it's usefulness?

Not if the new Soviets are just as dangerous.

2. Being part of NATO means we are allied with Turkey. Yet Turkey has become more and more Islamist and they are enemies with our allies against ISIS, the Kurds. Not only that, arguably Turkey has let ISIS grow because they are more interested in overthrowing Assad.

This is arguably true, but what do you propose? If NATO expels Turkey it turns them into our enemy and they will turn more and more towards Islamic politics.

4. Even if we leave NATO, we are still informally allied with other developed liberal democracies.

In what way?

5. NATO has some arbitrary requirement that member countries spend 2% of GDP on military expenditure. I get that we are at war with ISIS, but this money could be better spent elsewhere.

I don't believe it is arbitrary. If you are going to join a group dedicated to mutual defense than it seems reasonable to me that each member be required to furnish a percentage of that defensive ability.

[Army Guy]

-1=e^ipi

​I'm just curious what you think sovereignty actually means for a nation, and how would a nation keep its sovereignty intact without the means to defend or enforce it.....How do we enforce Canada's 200 mile exclusion zone, see turbot war for an example. there are many other examples.....

Without a military of some sort willing to use force in necessary to protect the nation, others would not give pause considering the losses they would incur in the attempt......they would just take what they wanted....... we would be like a kindergarden kid in a high school hangout....Have you read any history at all.

[Argus]

Without a military of some sort willing to use force in necessary to protect the nation, others would not give pause considering the losses they would incur in the attempt......they would just take what they wanted....... we would be like a kindergarden kid in a high school hangout....Have you read any history at all.

What are you talking about? International law will protect us! Didn't you know that!?

[Army Guy]

What are you talking about? International law will protect us! Didn't you know that!?

I guess i missed that in history class

[Topaz]

Canada also have the other Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand, Britain and others.

[-1=e^ipi]

In what way?

By the fact that similar values are shared, so the public opinion of one developed liberal democracy is more likely to be in favour of the actions of another developed liberal democracy in the event of a conflict with a non-liberal democracy.

Like for example, suppose North and South Korea go to war (well technically the war never ended, but whatever). Even without a formal alliance, the public opinion of Europe, North America, Australia, Japan, Singapore, etc. is likely to be in favour of South Korea because South Korea is a developed liberal democracy.

​I'm just curious what you think sovereignty actually means for a nation, and how would a nation keep its sovereignty intact without the means to defend or enforce it.....How do we enforce Canada's 200 mile exclusion zone, see turbot war for an example. there are many other examples.....

1. Could you clearly define sovereignty to me because it means different things to different people. Do you just mean enforcement of a country's territorial boundaries?

2. Different nations face different levels of external threat. A country located in the middle east has a much greater need for a military than Canada. Realistically what threats to sovereignty does Canada face?

From the USA, basically zero. We are allied and maybe there are some minor disputes such as over the Beaufort sea, although I think the USA's position makes more sense. There is also a dispute over the North West Passage being 'international waters'. Although I think the USA could be convinced that it's in their best interest to have Canada have control over the North West passage.

From Denmark? There is a tiny dispute over Han's Island, which can easily be solved by diplomacy, and then there is a dispute over territorial boundaries in the Arctic Ocean, which are primarily artificial and created by the present government due to nationalism. The North Pole is Danish territory, and dispute over Arctic territory can easily be resolved peacefully by just studying the Arctic Sea floor.

From Russia? The overlap of claims of the Arctic Ocean is very small and again primarily a result of nationalism and political interference from the Canadian and Russian governments. Most of the territorial claim overlap is Danish territory anyway. Russia is a relatively rational actor and the territorial result could eventually be resolved peacefully. Also, unless we wish to get nuclear weapons, we are unlikely to ever have the military strength to challenge Russia alone.

3. Realistically, our military is primarily aid to foreign nations because we simply don't face many external threats. Don't get me wrong, aid to other countries can be justified on its own merits, and we should help the Kurds and help South Korea in the event of a conflict. But just be realistic, our military isn't primarily about 'defence'. It's offense.

4. I don't advocate the position of zero military, even though realistically we are one of the few nations on Earth that could get away with it. I just don't see the point in spending as much as 2% GDP on military and I don't see why we should be in a military alliance with Turkey when they fight our Kurdish allies and when they are run by an Islamist government which is somewhat sympathetic to ISIS.

5. To be honest, their are far bigger issues than just total military expenditure. Such as having proper diplomacy and sensible foreign policy. Just look at the past 2 years, the west polarized the situation in Ukraine which has lead to a completely unnecessary civil war, and it blindly supported the 'rebels' in Syria in order to fight a proxy war against Russia; now we have ISIS. Also, I think we should ask if the way we distribute military funding makes the most sense. Maybe we should focus on trying to figure out how to make autonomous machine learning robots for military purposes and how to mass produce them, to get ahead of the competition. We have a small population but plenty of natural resources.

others would not give pause considering the losses they would incur in the attempt......they would just take what they wanted....... we would be like a kindergarden kid in a high school hangout....Have you read any history at all.

Who are these 'others'? Name one 'other' that would do this. The USA and Denmark would never get enough public support and it would likely not be in their best interest.

Edited August 26, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Army Guy]

Canada already has new defensive agreements with these countries, which include all those that are listed including the US.

[Army Guy]

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulatingits internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce withforeign nations.

Or use this

In international law terms, sovereignty denotes the international legal personality of a state. Only states are persons (legal actors) at international law; and the state's sovereignty, for these purposes, is projected in its legal control of territory, territorial waters and national air space, and its legal power to exclude other states from these domains; its legal power to represent and vindicate the claims and interests of its citizens with other states; and its own representation in international legal arenas such as the UNITED NATIONS and international diplomatic conferences, and before international tribunals such as the World Court.

1. Could you clearly define sovereignty to me because it means different things to different people. Do you just mean enforcement of a country's territorial boundaries?

That is about as clear as one can make it,

So without a standing military how does a nation enforce any laws or policies regarding not just the defense of the nation and its borders internally as well as externally, How do you enforce these laws. Explain to me how any nation without a military would convince another nation to respect it's laws.

2. Different nations face different levels of external threat. A country located in the middle east has a much greater need for a military than Canada. Realistically what threats to sovereignty does Canada face?

Yes Canada is very lucky to be geographically placed on the map, but like many other Canadians you seem to think we are immune to threats from around the globe....today we live in a world were we can be any where in the world within 24 hours, we no longer need massive fleets of ships to project power or do amb landings...and it does not take a massive army to create complete chaos in any nation, the Terrorist in Afghanistan are proof of that.....

I think someone once asked how a bunch of goat herders armed with small arms could hold back NATO for 10 plus years.....the threats to Canada are real, whether or not they happen is another question.....But we as a nation must be prepared for every threat, how would the PM explain to the people that it cost to much for defense so we no longer stand on guard for thee.....would you re elect a government if anything happend and they refused to react because they spent that insurance money on some other program....

Most major world events around the world have an impact on our nation one way or the other, some are small, such as handling a few refugees, to major such as sending Combat troops to Afghanistan.....I guess i'm saying we are not an island....The examples you provided are threats, and while you may brush them off your not in charge of 38 million lives, and every threat must be looked at in detail....

3. Realistically, our military is primarily aid to foreign nations because we simply don't face many external threats. Don't get me wrong, aid to other countries can be justified on its own merits, and we should help the Kurds and help South Korea in the event of a conflict. But just be realistic, our military isn't primarily about 'defence'. It's offense.

Threats to our nation does not mean they have to direct an attack on our nation, we also have foreign interests as well, on top of defensive agreements becuase i mean lets face it ...Our military and it's current condition if faced with a serious threat such as a major earth quake, dirty bomb, major hurricane would be quickly over whelmed and would need outside assistance. To say our military is offensive in nature is almost funny..

considering the size of most of our known enemies.....

4. I don't advocate the position of zero military, even though realistically we are one of the few nations on Earth that could get away with it. I just don't see the point in spending as much as 2% GDP on military and I don't see why we should be in a military alliance with Turkey when they fight our Kurdish allies and when they are run by an Islamist government which is somewhat sympathetic to ISIS.

You may not be saying it directly, but that is what i'm hearing.....todays Canadian military is around 64,000 reg force members, of which maybe 20 % of them are Combat troops , and yet Canadians still complain on the size and the amount we spend on them....Name one country in the world that does not have some form of military force, para military, or security forces let alone with a population as large as ours or as much coast line as we do........

Our nation has rarely spent 2 % of GDP on defense even with a military friendly government. In fact DND only dreams of 2 %,

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canadian-military-spending-by-the-numbers

what do spend the other 98 % of GDP on, if you wanted to take on a crusade why not health care, is it worth the amount we spend on it , are we getting our money worth.....I don't about where you live but here in New Brunswick, waiting times can be as long as 6 to 8 hours.....i have on serveral occasions waited 4 hours to get a prescription fill, no family doctor, that waiting list is 2 or more years.....

5. To be honest, their are far bigger issues than just total military expenditure. Such as having proper diplomacy and sensible foreign policy. Just look at the past 2 years, the west polarized the situation in Ukraine which has lead to a completely unnecessary civil war, and it blindly supported the 'rebels' in Syria in order to fight a proxy war against Russia; now we have ISIS. Also, I think we should ask if the way we distribute military funding makes the most sense. Maybe we should focus on trying to figure out how to make autonomous machine learning robots for military purposes and how to mass produce them, to get ahead of the competition. We have a small population but plenty of natural resources.

Perhaps you can explain to me how well diplomacy really works.....you blame the ukraine crisses on the west , i guess we forgot about russia role in that mess, how did diplomacy work in that case, tell me how it has worked in say conflicts in the last 10 years.....How effective has the UN been at diplomacy, Liberal minded thinkers have said diplomacy should be the only wpn in a politicians tool box......can you list some effective examples.....that have resolved issues without the need for military force......

Who are these 'others'? Name one 'other' that would do this. The USA and Denmark would never get enough public support and it would likely not be in their best interest.

Would you risk your life or the life of your families on that fact or the other 38 million citizens.....Canada without a standing military would be a very mouth watering target for anyone.....it would not be long before we lost our full sovereignty, It would not be in the US best interest to have Canada undefended....and in their own interest they would be force to act.....

[Derek 2.0]

2. Different nations face different levels of external threat. A country located in the middle east has a much greater need for a military than Canada. Realistically what threats to sovereignty does Canada face?

You answered it here:

From Russia? The overlap of claims of the Arctic Ocean is very small and again primarily a result of nationalism and political interference from the Canadian and Russian governments. Most of the territorial claim overlap is Danish territory anyway. Russia is a relatively rational actor and the territorial result could eventually be resolved peacefully. Also, unless we wish to get nuclear weapons, we are unlikely to ever have the military strength to challenge Russia alone.

As a member of NORAD and NATO we have no need to challenge Russia alone.......

3. Realistically, our military is primarily aid to foreign nations because we simply don't face many external threats. Don't get me wrong, aid to other countries can be justified on its own merits, and we should help the Kurds and help South Korea in the event of a conflict. But just be realistic, our military isn't primarily about 'defence'. It's offense.

You're wrong, for example, the majority of our fighter force for nearly the last 60 years has been committed to NORAD.....likewise the primary mission of the navy since WW II being the defense of our own and international sea lanes......Until the army left Germany in the 90s, its primary mission was the defense of Western Europe and Norway.

5. To be honest, their are far bigger issues than just total military expenditure. Such as having proper diplomacy and sensible foreign policy.

A nation's military is nothing more than an extension of its "diplomacy and foreign policy"........Two examples, in the early 50s, prior to the formation of NORAD, the Americans made it quite clear, if we had then passed on the shared defense of North America, that they would have been forced to defend their own nation against Soviet bomber streams, over Canadian (populated) territory with nuclear weapons.......as opposed to the Arctic and our remote North.

Another example, in the 70s, several member nations of the European Common Market tied our declining defense commitments through NATO with trade negotiations and our political relationships in general....When PET attempted to be a leading voice in support of the NIEO in the 70s, much of Western Europe and the United States simply ignored him.........furthermore, well Trudeau was attending a conference on non-nuclear proliferation (IIRC in Japan) in 1974, one of the few issues (like NIEO) he attempted to put to the fore front of a diminished (then) Department of External Affairs, the Indian's detonated their first Atomic bomb, well making it known that they did it with the aide of Canadian nuclear technology.........

The point, a country seen as a weakling or laggard on defense, has diminished influence on the World stage........as Al Capone once said:

[Smallc]

I'm pretty sure the Conservatives have put us in that position now.