Another USA warning to NATO members.....

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

Canada already covers more than its fair share of NATO.  6.6%

That's plenty.  More than most NATO members...   We'll pay lip service to an increase in defence spending until Trump is gone.  We certainly don't want to be helping the USA when its not even clear if Russia is having undue influence on American politics/defence policy.

Trump has only been in power for a month, he has nothing to do with why we don't spend what we should on defence. You paid it lip service before Trump and will continue to do so after Trump. Pure deflection.

If Russia is having undue influence on the US, all the more reason to look after ourselves.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

Canada shouldn't spend an extra dime on NATO until America deals with its Trump issue.

 

Why? Canada agreed to spend ~2% of its GDP on defense, when Trump was still on the Apprentice........as acknowledged by the head of NATO:

 

Quote

 

The secretary general of NATO has supported demands from the U.S. for European and Canadian members to increase their contribution towards the North Atlantic defense alliance.

 

Jens Stoltenberg told CNBC Saturday that the demands from the new Trump administration were "firm and fair" and come at a time when NATO is needed more than ever.

 

 

furthermore:

 

Quote

 

Stoltenberg said Europe and Canada were "moving in the right direction", with the alliance seeing a 4 percent increase in real spending in 2016.

 

Meeting the target will take longer for some countries than others, he admitted, and said he was confident all allies will meet the benchmark within a decade, as promised.

 

 

A gradual increase that will take longer then a two-term Trump administration

 

 

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

When you sign a contract for admitance to a defensive pact for 2 % , then that means the correct amount is 2 %want to change that then go back to the table........don't like it then get out of NATO.....it's really that simple..

 

And no different then when the European Common market members, namely West Germany, threatened trade deals with the then Trudeau government in the 1970s.......even after the PET Government went on a "spending spree" to replace a portion of our then dated WWII and Korean war era equipment, we were still considered a laughing stock and had near zero influence within NATO.

This of course was reflected by NATO's "commitment" to Canada in the 70s and 80s......a then undefended Canada was a major concern with the Reagan administration, resulting in the Trudeau government having little say in how the Americans thought best to defend the approaches to North America (i.e. USAF interceptors assigned to NORAD armed with nuclear weapons, that would have been used over Canadian soil against the Soviets, or USN subs operating within Canadian waters)

This "relationship" didn't change until Mulroney, that though he talked a good game, did little, and was "saved" once the wall came down.

 

Going forward, I don't know either how Trudeau will do it and how he can afford not to do......frankly, as I remember arguing with Argus and several other members, "doubling" our defense spending nearly overnight with result in a termendous amount of wasted money, graft, and pork barrel spending......the GoC and DND, with a doubling of funds, will be akin to trailer folk winning the Lottery........It won't be pretty for taxpayers.

 

 

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

It means NORAD will be revisited as well.   Canada is rapidly losing even basic defense capabilities, let alone expeditionary forces.

 

Yep and you bet.

 

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

Canada will always do what is in Canada's interest...  we don't give away our sovereignty that easily...   It's unpatriotic to hope that the country will just roll over to the USA.

 

What sovereignty? Aside from a very brief period in the 1950s through the early 60s, Canada has been a welfare recipient of the British and then American defense umbrellas......countless Canadian governments have "rolled over", in the case of the last Trudeau, to the West Germans.......It will be far cheaper for Canada to "roll over" another ~20 billion to defense then suffer any economic backlash......or having to defend ourselves outside of the NATO/US defense umbrellas.

 

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Just to make things clear, doubling our spending on defence means a 7% increase in federal revenue (income tax, sales tax, tariffs, etc.)  across the board.

 

Or cuts to other programs.........if the UK and Estonia can manage ~2% of GDP on defense, Canada (a G7 economy) doesn't have an excuse......Paying the piper isn't the concern, spending the money effectively and obtaining an increase in measured capability as return on investment will be the interesting part.

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Going forward, I don't know either how Trudeau will do it and how he can afford not to do......frankly, as I remember arguing with Argus and several other members, "doubling" our defense spending nearly overnight with result in a termendous amount of wasted money, graft, and pork barrel spending......the GoC and DND, with a doubling of funds, will be akin to trailer folk winning the Lottery........It won't be pretty for taxpayers.

That is the biggest danger here. Increase in defence spending is simply going to funnel its way into (mostly) American corporations. Perhaps that is the Trump goal, boot the American economy by trying to force his "friends" to buy more American arms. Any penny of defence spending should ensure that 100% of the money goes into Canadian corporations, and for the most part just more Troops. Revive some of those old bases (money for construction kept in Canada), and ensure that equipment comes from Canadian manufactures without any out of country parent company (no General Motors, General Dynamics. etc.). We don't need more fancy high-tech weapon systems.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

.... Revive some of those old bases (money for construction kept in Canada), and ensure that equipment comes from Canadian manufactures without any out of country parent company (no General Motors, General Dynamics. etc.). We don't need more fancy high-tech weapon systems.

 

Sorry, but Canada lacks domestically owned capabilities to adhere to such a strict requirement.   Major platforms, platform systems/subsystems, weapons systems, munitions, sensors, fire control, propulsion, even basic design will have to be outsourced to foreigners.

Canada has let itself go badly in this regard.   Boeing Super Hornets come from St. Louis...not St. John's

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada has let itself go badly in this regard.

Yes, that is why we never again should elect a "Conservative" government. Canada however will rebuild. Don't shake the hand of the Great Satan.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, that is why we never again should elect a "Conservative" government. Canada however will rebuild. Don't shake the hand of the Great Satan.

 

Liberal...Conservative....doesn't matter.   Canada has been purposely rotting from the inside out for a long time.   AG has pointed to something as basic as medium and heavy duty trucks as an example....rusting rims...broken axles.   Even basic stuff that is under Canada's control....neglected....even when funded.... for political expediency.   Money never spent.

The Americans will still get your money...because Canada is penny wise, pound foolish (British term) on defense.

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, that is why we never again should elect a "Conservative" government.

Not for a couple of years, anyway. 

[Wilber]

25 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is the biggest danger here. Increase in defence spending is simply going to funnel its way into (mostly) American corporations. Perhaps that is the Trump goal, boot the American economy by trying to force his "friends" to buy more American arms. Any penny of defence spending should ensure that 100% of the money goes into Canadian corporations, and for the most part just more Troops. Revive some of those old bases (money for construction kept in Canada), and ensure that equipment comes from Canadian manufactures without any out of country parent company (no General Motors, General Dynamics. etc.). We don't need more fancy high-tech weapon systems.

Actually you do need fancy high-tech systems because low tech stuff is dog meat against it. During the Cold War NATO relied on its technological superiority to compensate for the Soviet's numerical superiority.

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Actually you do need fancy high-tech systems because low tech stuff is dog meat against it. During the Cold War NATO relied on its technological superiority to compensate for the Soviet's numerical superiority.

We got high-tech systems, we don't need no more. If this is about dollars, then keep those dollars in Canada. Invest in developing Canadian technology, especially technology that we can sell to others in both military and civilian roles. 

[Wilber]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

We got high-tech systems, we don't need no more. If this is about dollars, then keep those dollars in Canada. Invest in developing Canadian technology, especially technology that we can sell to others in both military and civilian roles. 

No we don't. Our newest warships are 25 years old and their helicopters which are just now starting to be replaced are 50 years old. Our fighters are pushing 35 years old. In spite of a bunch of bitching about sole sourcing, we bought C-17's and C-130 J's from the US. Why? because they are simply the best. We don't have the capability to build modern weapons systems because we don't have any industry with that expertise and there is no point in trying to develop one unless we go into exports in a big way. Even if we spent 3% of GDP our military wouldn't be able to support such an industry on its own. It's no accident that a large number of the worlds warships carry a Swedish gun, including ours.

Do you think Canadians would be OK with being a major arms exporting country? 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Wilber

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

 no point in trying to develop one unless we go into exports in a big way. Even if we spent 3% of GDP our military wouldn't be able to support such an industry on its own. It's no accident that a large number of the worlds warships carry a Swedish gun, including ours.

Sweden - population 10 million, GDP 270 billion

Canada - population 35 million, GDP 690 billion

 

Time to invest and compete, and as I said lets compete in technologies that we can also find civilian uses for so we can get an even larger market here and abroad.

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Increase in defence spending is simply going to funnel its way into (mostly) American corporations.

No more or no less then we already do (likewise European corporations), all that will change is the amount of actual money........and of course, that is assuming most of said increase goes into procurement, as opposed to an increase in personal......personal of course account for ~60-70% of spending by the DND.

 

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Any penny of defence spending should ensure that 100% of the money goes into Canadian corporations,

 

No, quite the opposite.........Canadian corporations should only receive contracts for items that actually offer a measure of capability, at a reasonable price, to the military.......what you suggest results in the Ross Rifle, CF-5 Freedom Fighter and the LSVW (and other such disasters)

 

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Revive some of those old bases

 

Infrastructure, without a doubt in my mind, would be a major portion of it.

 

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

We don't need more fancy high-tech weapon systems.

 

We do if we wish to remain apart of collective defense treaties.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Derek 2.0

[Wilber]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Sweden - population 10 million, GDP 270 billion

Canada - population 35 million, GDP 690 billion

 

Time to invest and compete, and as I said lets compete in technologies that we can also find civilian uses for so we can get an even larger market here and abroad.

Fine, but it won't happen over night and it won't be cheap. Personally, I think pooling resources with other countries to develop systems is a better way to go. Europe has done it with combat aircraft like the Typhoon, Tornado and Jaguar. The cost of developing and building some of these systems is enormous and there is a lot of competition for a limited number of sales, because of their cost. In today's dollars you could buy over 80 WW2 fighters like a P-51 or 30 B-17 bombers for the cost of one modern fighter. Modern weapons they carry is whole other story.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Wilber

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

personal of course account for ~60-70% of spending by the DND.

Not sure where you get that figure from. I have been trying to find it, and while I can get good breakdown by program there is no detail by personal vs. equipment. If your figure is correct, then we are spending $120k/person, both uniformed and civilian. While there are no doubt some that make that and much more, I expect on both sides there are a lot of entry level soldiers and even civilians.

6 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I think pooling resources with other countries to develop systems is a better way to go.

Yes, certainly on the real high-end systems but they are not the bulk. Also we don't have to own the entire system, or even do final assembly as the shipbuilding contract is focused on, some of the high value subsystems are much more lucrative.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Trump has only been in power for a month, he has nothing to do with why we don't spend what we should on defence. You paid it lip service before Trump and will continue to do so after Trump. Pure deflection.

 

Roger that...pure deflection.   Canada's defense woes certainly precede Trump by many, many years. 

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, certainly on the real high-end systems but they are not the bulk. Also we don't have to own the entire system, or even do final assembly as the shipbuilding contract is focused on, some of the high value subsystems are much more lucrative.

We couldn't build entire systems. Not even the US builds all its own stuff.

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Not sure where you get that figure from. I have been trying to find it, and while I can get good breakdown by program there is no detail by personal vs. equipment. If your figure is correct, then we are spending $120k/person, both uniformed and civilian. While there are no doubt some that make that and much more, I expect on both sides there are a lot of entry level soldiers and even civilians.

 

The number is factual, and the norm across all Western forces.........and $120k/person is peanuts, when one accounts for benefits (remember their families) and pensions.....and of course training.......

[Derek 2.0]

11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, certainly on the real high-end systems but they are not the bulk. Also we don't have to own the entire system, or even do final assembly as the shipbuilding contract is focused on, some of the high value subsystems are much more lucrative.

 

The actual "steel bashing" of a modern warship accounts for ~20% of the total cost.......and Canadian companies, and Canadian subsidiaries of American/European companies, are already heavily involved in joint partnerships, that have/will have far more of a benefit to our economy then a singular Canadian effort.......case in point, the Avro Arrow, versus today's F-35.

[dre]

This is stupid. We should be encouraging the whole world to spend less, including our potential adversaries. The likely "allied" powers already spendi about 40 times what the likely "axis" powers do. This is a joke. Mike Pense can go fvck himself.

And make no mistake about it... if we do increase spending it wont be to hire more soldiers or equip the ones we have better. It will be made purchasing super expensive stuff from government lobbying corporations. The US spends hundreds of billions on its military but troops still show up to fight without body armor or properly armored vehicles, and they go home in body bags or so mentally damaged they end up homeless. And the government and military treats them like shit when they get back.

This is all a huge scam. Canada will spend what its citizens feel like spending.

Edited February 21, 2017 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

.....case in point, the Avro Arrow, versus today's F-35.

 

Yes...the CF-105 Avro Arrow is exactly how Canada failed to execute on such a strategy.   

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes...the CF-105 Avro Arrow is exactly how Canada failed to execute on such a strategy.   

And as a direct contrast, a perfect example of economies of scale and shared risk on investment........

[SpankyMcFarland]

2% is reasonable but the timeline sounds a bit unrealistic for such a politically unpopular move. The fundamental idea is surely to strengthen the alliance, not break it up. 

[Derek 2.0]

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

2% is reasonable but the timeline sounds a bit unrealistic

 

Which timeline? 2018 is the timeline for everyone to have their arse in gear with a plan, but they have a decade to achieve ~2%.........Trudeau went from a ~surplus to 30 billion in the hole in months......spending another ~20-30 billion could be done, thats not a problem, the issue is will we be spending it effectively?

Edited February 21, 2017 by Derek 2.0

[SpankyMcFarland]

23 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Which timeline? 2018 is the timeline for everyone to have their arse in gear with a plan, but they have a decade to achieve ~2%.........Trudeau went from a ~surplus to 30 billion in the hole in months......spending another ~20-30 billion could be done, thats not a problem, the issue is will we be spending it effectively?

OK then, that sounds reasonable to me. Still a challenge but less so given the way things are going in Europe. 

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Trudeau went from a ~surplus to 30 billion in the hole in months

Surplus, smurplus, there was no surplus.

b.t.w. we were over 1.4% of GDP for military spending in 2009 & 2010 and then Harper got his coveted majority and brought us down to less than 1%. Any imaginary surplus you are claiming would have been on the backs of soldiers anyway. Stop with the silly partisan finger pointing and lets address what we need and how we are going to pay for it. If everyone is not willing to cough up 7% increase in their taxes (personal, corporate, GST, tariffs, etc.) then something has to give.