Derek 2.0 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) And that's fine - some people seem to think it's a big problem though. I'm putting forward a solution within the budgetary framework. A solution to what? NORAD, the RCAF and the USAF binned central interceptor sectors over 40 years ago for a reason....... Edited July 5, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 A solution to what? NORAD, the RCAF and the USAF binned central interceptor sectors over 40 years ago for a reason....... And yet, intercepts of Russian aircraft are the one sign of a possible threat to Canada. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 And yet, intercepts of Russian aircraft are the one sign of a possible threat to Canada. There is no "and yet", NORAD doesn't need (Canada) to have a permanent presence in the middle of the continent. Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 There is no "and yet", NORAD doesn't need (Canada) to have a permanent presence in the middle of the continent. We are speaking of asserting our arctic sovereignty which only we can do, not reenacting the Cold War. NORAD has nothing to do with it. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Army Guy Posted July 5, 2016 Author Report Posted July 5, 2016 Not quite sure what your statement above means. I looked at your source, and it shows that we rank as 15th in terms of 2011 GDP, 20th in terms of absolute 2007 military spending, and since that 2007 spending was 1.1% of our 2011 GDP then we are 127th in terms of spending as a percent of GDP (sort of). The graph is split into two groups Both for 2011, the first graph is what we spent in percentage to our GDP numbers. the second Graph shows over all military expenditures in which we rank 127 . Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted July 5, 2016 Author Report Posted July 5, 2016 I suggest that we drastically shrink the army, and focus more of our resources on the navy and airforce. Based on what exactly ? your speaking out of both ends, one says their are Absolutly no threats to our national security, And investing in our Military is a waste of resources.....Now your talking about reducing the army and expanding NAVY and Airforce.....How much savings do you really think you see with reductions to ground forces.....Because it is after all what we are talking about right saving money.....or as you say wasting resources....One could re equip and expand ground forces for just the price of the Frigate replacement program....Why is Canada army the largest element today, because it is the cheapest to maintain....reducing army pers and increasing pers in the other 2 elements is just a card shuffling exericise, trading one number with another....I mean with an increase of equipment means your going to need people to operate them and maintain them.....heres another kicker, most airforce trades receive much higher pay rates then the army and so should they....which means less personal for more funds..... Regards how you carve up the current military, it is going to require more resources something you and others are again'st.....there is a line in the sand, pick a side only one side..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Half of the budget goes to personnel. Reducing the army to half it's strength would save significant money. Any threat that would exist to Canada is going to come from the external. Canada has only one land border, and I'm not all that concerned about it. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 5, 2016 Author Report Posted July 5, 2016 Thanks for reading all my post.....In case you missed it.... reducing army pers and increasing pers in the other 2 elements is just a card shuffling exericise, trading one number with another....I mean with an increase of equipment means your going to need people to operate them and maintain them.....heres another kicker, most airforce trades receive much higher pay rates then the army and so should they....which means less personal for more funds..... Where are these savings your talking about ? Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Which is why I advocate having a stronger airforce No, you actually don't. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 The only halfway credible threat to Canada is Russian intrusions in our arctic, as has been said. Which is why I want powerful ice breakers. You, however, do not. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 We're a small country. We are one of the world's largest and wealthiest countries. We are 37th out of about 180. Of those above us about 25 are third world countries. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 No, you actually don't. That's why I'm saying we should have another squadron of fighters - because I'm not. Quote
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Which is why I want powerful ice breakers. You, however, do not. I'd rather submarines if we're going to spend a lot of money. Quote
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) We are one of the world's largest and wealthiest countries. We are 37th out of about 180. Of those above us about 25 are third world countries. 37th in what? Canada spends the 16th most in the world. Edited July 5, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 In those days, the Arctic was never considered a target of its own, but buffer between the Soviet Union and southern Canada and the US. That is changing. Harder to defend your territory if your enemies have bases closer to it than you do. That is not the only threat. Russia has proven adept at funding and training local terrorist and guerrilla groups in neighbouring countries they want to cause trouble in. With Canada's growing multitude of ethnic groups it wouldn't be hard to find some troublemakers with a grudge and feed them arms, weapons and ideas. Heck, they could find a lot of interested people among the Mohawk warriors, for example, or other native groups, never mind our growing population of Muslims. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Then everyone should give up their military except the US, Russia and China. The reason countries like Canada are members of NATO is for collective security. A thousand guys each aren't an army, but if you've got thirty groups of them that's a sizable force. But if Canada continues to shirk its obligations it's questionable whether they'll want us to even stay in NATO, let alone feel much obligation to us. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 That is not the only threat. Russia has proven adept at funding and training local terrorist and guerrilla groups in neighbouring countries they want to cause trouble in. With Canada's growing multitude of ethnic groups it wouldn't be hard to find some troublemakers with a grudge and feed them arms, weapons and ideas. Not a lot of ethnic Russians in Canada. That's where the problems have generally come from. Quote
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 The reason countries like Canada are members of NATO is for collective security. A thousand guys each aren't an army, but if you've got thirty groups of them that's a sizable force. But if Canada continues to shirk its obligations it's questionable whether they'll want us to even stay in NATO, let alone feel much obligation to us. Yes, they're going to throw out the country that spends one of the highest totals in their organization. Quote
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 That is a reality. Even in Granatstiens wildest CAF fantasies we could field a mere pittance in the Arctic compared to what the Ruski's are conceivably capable of. A Pittance. Really? During WW 2, when Canada had less than a third its present population, we had a million men under arms. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) Really? During WW 2, when Canada had less than a third its present population, we had a million men under arms. Is that what you want? You're looking at about $100B in personnel costs alone. Edited July 5, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Wilber Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 The reason countries like Canada are members of NATO is for collective security. A thousand guys each aren't an army, but if you've got thirty groups of them that's a sizable force. But if Canada continues to shirk its obligations it's questionable whether they'll want us to even stay in NATO, let alone feel much obligation to us. I see two different issues here. Regarding NATO we are looking at collective defence from outside threats but NATO is of little help to us when some of our NATO allies dispute our territorial claims in the arctic. We have to be prepared to be on our own if we are serious about asserting our sovereignty in the arctic. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) Yes, they're going to throw out the country that spends one of the highest totals in their organization. You continue to be desperately impressed by the big salaries and benefit cheques we write to our servicemen, and the fat cheques we cut to our industries to produce overpriced military equipment . By your lights, if we simply paid a few dozen people millions of dollars a year and by them ten million dollar riles that would be just as impressive. I doubt our NATO allies are as impressed, however. Our spending is less, by GDP, than all NATO members except for Slovenia, Belgium, Luxemburg and Spain (unemployment rate of 23%). Edited July 5, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Is that what you want? You're looking at about $100B in personnel costs alone. You are being absurdist again. No one is calling for a million men in uniform. I simply pointed out that his suggestion Canada was incapable of anything more than a 'pittance' was wrong. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 Our spending is less, by GDP, than all NATO members except for Slovenia, Belgium, Luxemburg and Spain (unemployment rate of 23%). And that measure is largely irrelevant in terms of our actual contribution to common defense. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 5, 2016 Report Posted July 5, 2016 The only halfway credible threat to Canada is Russian intrusions in our arctic, as has been said. Radical right wing lone wolf attacks are a threat, as well as lone wolf radical Islamist attacks. Another threat to our national security is a concentrated indigenous uprising. There's all kinds of threats but what type of military force we need to address them is debatable. Consider that individual radical attacks ought to appropriately be addressed by police and intelligence services. It's disingenuous to consider those military threats. The only military on the planet that threatens us today is the Russian military over arctic sovereignty. Even that is a potential threat with very little activity at the moment. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.