Liberals party defence review

[Smallc]

Then how are we to defend ourselves from the Russians? Or do we just not bother, caring so much for Canada and all?

We don't. We never could. Thankfully, we've never needed to.

Actually, the funny thing is, our economy is almost as big as theirs, so we probably could afford it, but, priorities.

[Wilber]

We don't. We never could. Thankfully, we've never needed to.

Actually, the funny thing is, our economy is almost as big as theirs, so we probably could afford it, but, priorities.

Defending our rights isn't a priority. Every Scandinavian country spends a substantially higher percentage of its GDP on defence than Canada. We aren't even in the top 130 in the world.

[Smallc]

Defending our rights isn't a priority. Every Scandinavian country spends a substantially higher percentage of its GDP on defence than Canada. We aren't even in the top 130 in the world.

But in total spending, we're in the top 20 (we were in the top 15 until recently).

[Wilber]

But in total spending, we're in the top 20 (we were in the top 15 until recently).

Not even in the top 130 when it comes to percentage of GDP.

[Smallc]

Not even in the top 130 when it comes to percentage of GDP.

I don't find that to be a valuable measure. Neither did the Harper Conservatives.

[Wilber]

I don't find that to be a valuable measure. Neither did the Harper Conservatives.

Gee, governments find it a valuable measure when it comes to borrowing money, you have said so many times.

We have the world's second largest land mass and one of its longest coast lines together with a relatively small population. One would think our defence spending as a percentage of GDP would be higher than average.

[cybercoma]

you don't think we should be able to defend them ourselves?

smallc never said that. I'd hardly say the $20 billion he referenced is "not being able to defend them ourselves."

[cybercoma]

Gee, governments find it a valuable measure when it comes to borrowing money, you have said so many times.

We have the world's second largest land mass and one of its longest coast lines together with a relatively small population. One would think our defence spending as a percentage of GDP would be higher than average.

Borrowing money is a very different thing from comparing the size and capabilities of militaries. Absolute spending is a far more important measure for comparison of militaries than comparing numbers that are relative. We use proportional numbers for debt because the GDP is an indication of our ability to pay off that debt. You need to recognize why you use proportional or absolute measures. Edited July 4, 2016 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

Borrowing money is a very different thing from comparing the size and capabilities of militaries. Absolute spending is a far more important measure for comparison of militaries than comparing numbers that are relative. We use proportional numbers for debt because the GDP is an indication of our ability to pay off that debt. You need to recognize why you use proportional or absolute measures.

It's not different at all, it is just as much a measure of how much you can or are willing to spend as it is how much you can or are willing to borrow. I find Canadians very two faced when it comes to their military. If we just throw up our hands and say we can't defend ourselves so why bother and try, no other medium size or smaller country should bother to have a military either.

[Argus]

No one is threatening our position. Canadians don't see an external threat to our safety, and so they put little value in external protection (although we're still one of the top 20 spenders in the world). It's a completely reasonable circumstance.

The problem is by the time the threat shows up it's usually too late to prepare for it. And while we spend a lot almost all of it goes on salaries and buying vastly overpriced equipment built in government ridings.

[Argus]

I'm wondering how much we'd have to spend to defend ourselves against the Russians on our own.

The Finns did a reasonable job in WW2. It's why there was still an independent Finland. Anyway, you don't have to defend yourself against the Russians.

Human nature is human nature. People will wander through parking lots pulling on door handles, looking for the ones who don't lock them, or go through neighborhoods at night, trying doors, looking for the guy who 'doesn't foresee' any problems, and didn't lock his. I think Putin is an opportunist, and thinks much like your average thief. What can he take easily?

Then too, our membership in NATO is not an act of generosity. Nor is it one by the Americans. We didn't want to live in a world where the Soviets had taken over all the northern hemisphere and was working away at the south. We still don't. And Putin's Russia is little better than the Soviet Union.

[Argus]

But in total spending, we're in the top 20 (we were in the top 15 until recently).

Only because we spend so much on salaries and benefits. We pay our privates more than other countries pay their generals. You could probably equip and fund a third world brigade group for what we pay a corporal. We pay more for the DND's human resources workers than most countries spend on their entire military.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

I don't find that to be a valuable measure. Neither did the Harper Conservatives.

Because you, like the Harper Conservatives, seek to hide the truth. You can't measure by comparing to others on simple dollar terms.

Do you know how much Cambodia spends on its military? A lousy $192 million. They have 125k active service members and 200k reservists.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Because you, like the Harper Conservatives, seek to hide the truth. You can't measure by comparing to others on simple dollar terms.

Do you know how much Cambodia spends on its military? A lousy $192 million. They have 125k active service members and 200k reservists.

The number of people is also a less than relevant measure when it comes to defending Canada.

[cybercoma]

It's not different at all, it is just as much a measure of how much you can or are willing to spend as it is how much you can or are willing to borrow. I find Canadians very two faced when it comes to their military. If we just throw up our hands and say we can't defend ourselves so why bother and try, no other medium size or smaller country should bother to have a military either.

It's a measure. Yeah. To say that proportional measure is not different from an absolute measure is just plain wrong. You're just unwilling to recognize why you would use one or the other.

[Wilber]

It's a measure. Yeah. To say that proportional measure is not different from an absolute measure is just plain wrong. You're just unwilling to recognize why you would use one or the other.

Then why do politicians (and some on this forum) use a proportional measure as an excuse to borrow? The debt and the interest we pay on it is an absolute measure, no different from what we spend on the military.

The bottom line is do you think your country is worth defending or not and if it is, how much do you need to spend in order to provide a reasonable deterrent to those who would take advantage of you. With climate change and the Northwest Passage opening up, this country is going to face territorial challenges it has never had to before. Yes, it would be very difficult to defeat an invasion by a determined major power but we could make trying it not worth the trouble. As Argus mentioned, the Finns managed to stop a Soviet invasion in 1939, not because they could have won, but because the Soviets were finding the cost of winning to be too great.

[Wilber]

The number of people is also a less than relevant measure when it comes to defending Canada.

What does that mean?

[Argus]

The number of people is also a less than relevant measure when it comes to defending Canada.

It's not? I know that quality tends to win out, but as Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own.

And Canada's military quality seems to be deteriorating, as well as it's quantity.

[Big Guy]

The topic of this thread is the decision by the Liberal government of consulting with the electorate on what direction Canada should take in the future regarding our military. I have already made my official submission. The process appears to have merit because of the diverse views within the Canadian public.

[waldo]

"At some point you'll need to recognize that there is neither a people's will, a political will or a fiscal reality that will align with your (and others want) to get all the toys you dream over. Given those wills and fiscal reality, why not set-out the D2.0 top 5 for Canadian role/want/need... inclusive of domestic and international forays - within domestic don't forget to factor Search & Rescue, Coast Guard, Border Security, Surveillance/reconnaissance, etc.."
.

I have numerous times before, but yet again, an approach that starts with the defense of Canada (and its interests) and expands outwards, with the full understanding that defending Canada proper (and its interests) is best achieved by starting outwards into the World and reverting back to Canada proper.

A modern day revision of how the British defended themselves and their overseas interests.......an influential blue water navy (combined with a modern air force) and a minuscule regular army, more of a cadre of a force able to train and lead a "local force overseas" and/or our own reserve army...............

Such a defense policy, a revamp of Victorian gunboat diplomacy, ensures that no Canadian Government will be able to partake in foreign conflicts and open ended deployments sans local support in said countries and/or the expenditure of huge amounts of political capital as the Government "calls-up" the citizens army.

thanks for the answer; however, I'll ask for a re-do... one in which you shelve your dreams/wants/aspirations for Canada's "force projection" upon..... upon... who/what? Drop that "force projection" nonsense ("influential blue-water navy", oh my!), get a grasp on fiscal realities... and try again! Focus on domestic, sure you can!
.

[Argus]

The topic of this thread is the decision by the Liberal government of consulting with the electorate on what direction Canada should take in the future regarding our military. I have already made my official submission. The process appears to have merit because of the diverse views within the Canadian public.

Even those who know and care nothing about the military or world realities, and only want more money spent on welfare.

[Argus]

"At some point you'll need to recognize that there is neither a people's will, a political will or a fiscal reality that will align with your (and others want) to get all the toys you dream over.

You mean like trucks that work? Enough armored vehicles to carry the infantry around? Some anti-air ability? Mortars that aren't older than the soldiers? Radios? Enough money for training? Do you consider these outlandish pie in the sky things that the military doesn't really need?

Edited July 4, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

Ok, so we want to spend more on the military. Of those with their hands up, will you agree to a 2% increase in income tax across the board (personal and business) and use that to fund the military? If not, then go home and never again complain.

[cybercoma]

Then why do politicians (and some on this forum) use a proportional measure as an excuse to borrow?

.

Like I already said, our gdp indicates our ability to service the debt. If you're just comparing the amount of money a country spends on their military, proportional spendings meaningless in terms of what kind of military they actually have. If I spent 100% of my income in military hardware, would that make me better equipped than the United States military? Of course not. Because proportional measurement is stupid for that kind of comparison. Now if my debt exceeded my income, then in some aye that would be comparable to a nation's debt exceeding its income. They are measuring different things and are more informative in certain contexts.

If you want to say we COULD spend more on our military, as in we have the capacity, then a proportional measure is fine.

What Smallc was saying is that we don't NEED to spend more because our absolute spending puts our military capabilities in line with similar sized nations.

[Argus]

Ok, so we want to spend more on the military. Of those with their hands up, will you agree to a 2% increase in income tax across the board (personal and business) and use that to fund the military? If not, then go home and never again complain.

You haven't demonstrated that it would require a 2% increase in income tax across the board, nor does your insistence allow for those who feel we should be spending more on the military and less on the arts, for example.