2% Defense GDP by 2030

[DUI_Offender]

There was a time when Canada was respected by the World, for our strong military, and our fighting spirit. While our spirit has never diminished, beginning with the elder Trudeau in 1968, our military has been neglect for well over 50 years. At one point when we entered WW2, the Germans were terrified of the Canadian and Australian regiments, as they nicknamed up the "British SS."

How did we fall so far?

We need to increase our defence spending, and get to the 2% GDP. Canadians are some of the strongest people I know. Why are we neglecting our military? 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

There was a time when Canada was respected by the World, for our strong military, and our fighting spirit. While our spirit has never diminished, beginning with the elder Trudeau in 1968, our military has been neglect for well over 50 years. At one point when we entered WW2, the Germans were terrified of the Canadian and Australian regiments, as they nicknamed up the "British SS."

How did we fall so far?

We need to increase our defence spending, and get to the 2% GDP. Canadians are some of the strongest people I know. Why are we neglecting our military? 

I have a funny feeling that trump is going to want to see defense spending at 2% probably a little closer to 2025.

[ironstone]

I think Liberals and Conservatives can share blame on this issue. Governments of the past and present were always more talk than action when it came to procurement and recruitment.

[DUI_Offender]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I have a funny feeling that trump is going to want to see defense spending at 2% probably a little closer to 2025.

Trump can suck a big fat one.

[Dougie93]

4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Trump can suck a big fat one.

ha ha ha ha ha !

kneel before Zod, losers

[herbie]

On 11/29/2024 at 8:59 PM, DUI_Offender said:

There was a time when Canada was respected by the World

If military might is your definition of respect, go back to 1933 Germany please.

[DUI_Offender]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

If military might is your definition of respect, go back to 1933 Germany please.

Germany had a very weak military in 1933.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Germany had a very weak military in 1933.

Actually very true

[herbie]

Duh.
That was how they sold the very idea to the public.

 

[Aristides]

46 minutes ago, herbie said:

Duh.
That was how they sold the very idea to the public.

 

And the threat from NAZI Germany was the reason Britain had to massively increase defence spending in the late thirties. Which one do you think we are?

[herbie]

Neither. If Poland was still holding off Hitler at the frontier in 1941, they wouldn't have been shitting bricks.

Who's threatening us that new guns and tanks will stop? Who's got a Navy that subs will? Will shiny new weapons cause a rush of recruits? Or do any of you sword wavers even know what the security threats are and modern warfare is? Has no one thought we need to start by giving a reason to sign up, like better pay?

Like planes and carriers made battleships obsolete satellites, drones and missiles make bombers, armour and battle formations so too. It's 2024 not 1924.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, herbie said:

Who's threatening us that new guns and tanks will stop?

Russia, china, North Korea whom we're still technically at war with, and pretty much anyone else that NATO is likely to get into a fight with.

17 minutes ago, herbie said:

Who's got a Navy that subs will?

Russia China and North Korea

17 minutes ago, herbie said:

Will shiny new weapons cause a rush of recruits?

Yes, that is traditionally the case

 

You were so amazingly stupid it's not even funny

[suds]

On 11/29/2024 at 11:59 PM, DUI_Offender said:

We need to increase our defence spending, and get to the 2% GDP. Canadians are some of the strongest people I know. Why are we neglecting our military? 

Pumping more money into the military to meet our NATO commitments isn't likely to get anyone anymore votes at election time. And it's a disgrace.

[Queenmandy85]

On 12/3/2024 at 3:38 PM, DUI_Offender said:

Germany had a very weak military in 1933.

True, but in the summer of 1939, the Canadian Armed Forces had 4500 all ranks. A reserve unit in Cape Breton had a disarmed grenade the regiment used for practice. In the summer of 1945, we had one of the largest navies and airforces in the world. The armed forces had over one million personnel.

The current emphasis is on ships, tanks and over priced combat aircraft. The 2% figure is attached to our NATO commitment. In other words, war with Russia. 

Let's look at this scenario. Russia and Ukraine settle, giving Russia Crimea,and the Russian occupied parts of Ukraine. Ukraine agrees to not join NATO. 24 months later a refurbished Russian Army sweeps through Ukraine and invaded Latvia. Article 5 is invoked and NATO conventional forces are engaged. The conventional combat lasts between 12 and 24 hours. Then an all out nuclear exchange occurs. This phase of the conflict lasts between 40 minutes and two hours. It will involve every nation with a nuclear capability, because neither the US or Russia want China to be the "survivor." 

In any war between Russia, NATO, and China, tanks, ships and combat aircraft will be irrelevant. Conventional arms are a waste of Canadian taxpayers' money.  The only NATO forces that count are the French, British and American strategic nuclear forces. The requirement is that Putin and Xi know for certain that if they step on metre over the line, the nuclear forces of NATO will rain unholy hell on Russia and China, because the west would rather commit suicide than lose. The way to cause a nuclear war is to just give a hint we lack the resolve to use them. MAD is the best policy for peace in history. Just look at the extended peace between India and Pakistan.

If Canada is to pull its weight in NATO, we need to pull out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and put our money into nuclear weapons. And, the side benefit, they don't have to be there to deter just the Russians and Chinese. 

 

Edited December 8, 2024 by Queenmandy85

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

True, but in the summer of 1939, the Canadian Armed Forces had 4500 all ranks. A reserve unit in Cape Breton had a disarmed grenade the regiment used for practice. In the summer of 1945, we had one of the largest navies and airforces in the world. The armed forces had over one million personnel.

The current emphasis is on ships, tanks and over priced combat aircraft. The 2% figure is attached to our NATO commitment. In other words, war with Russia. 

Let's look at this scenario. Russia and Ukraine settle, giving Russia Crimea,and the Russian occupied parts of Ukraine. Ukraine agrees to not join NATO. 24 months later a refurbished Russian Army sweeps through Ukraine and invaded Latvia. Article 5 is invoked and NATO conventional forces are engaged. The conventional combat lasts between 12 and 24 hours. Then an all out nuclear exchange occurs. This phase of the conflict lasts between 40 minutes and two hours. It will involve every nation with a nuclear capability, because neither the US or Russia want China to be the "survivor." 

In any war between Russia, NATO, and China, tanks, ships and combat aircraft will be irrelevant. Conventional arms are a waste of Canadian taxpayers' money.  The only NATO forces that count are the French, British and American strategic nuclear forces. The requirement is that Putin and Xi know for certain that if they step on metre over the line, the nuclear forces of NATO will rain unholy hell on Russia and China, because the west would rather commit suicide than lose. The way to cause a nuclear war is to just give a hint we lack the resolve to use them. MAD is the best policy for peace in history. Just look at the extended peace between India and Pakistan.

If Canada is to pull its weight in NATO, we need to pull out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and put our money into nuclear weapons. And, the side benefit, they don't have to be there to deter just the Russians and Chinese.

this is not 1983 anymore, Boomer

the number of warheads on alert now is only a small fraction of that paradigm

and the vast majority of warheads on alert now are counterforce weapons to strike military targets

thus, even if there was an Interpolar exchange with all available warheads

that would not end the war, the sun would come up the next day, with a global seapower war still in progress

[herbie]

On 12/4/2024 at 12:54 PM, CdnFox said:

You were so amazingly stupid it's not even funny

And you're too stunned to know 'Red Dawn' was propaganda.
Tremble under your bed before the N Korean landing craft sneaking across the Pacific Ocean.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, herbie said:

And you're too stunned to know 'Red Dawn' was propaganda.

Tell that to ukraine. 

What, did you get a note signed by Putin that he'd never invade a country that we're obliged to protect? Or that he'd never contest our artic? etc etc?

You woke leftie losers are the only ones i know who feel that the best way to deal with your own stupidity is to try to outdo it. 

[DUI_Offender]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Tell that to ukraine. 

What, did you get a note signed by Putin that he'd never invade a country that we're obliged to protect? Or that he'd never contest our artic? etc etc?

You woke leftie losers are the only ones i know who feel that the best way to deal with your own stupidity is to try to outdo it. 

^ This post has been officially endorsed by the Kremlin.

[herbie]

17 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This post has been officially endorsed by the Kremlin.

Not so fast, he knows all about those troop submarines, armoured snowmobiles and tunnels through the Earth's core you're building.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, herbie said:

Not so fast, he knows all about those troop submarines, armoured snowmobiles and tunnels through the Earth's core you're building.

Sounds about as accurate as anything you say   

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

this is not 1983 anymore, Boomer

the number of warheads on alert now is only a small fraction of that paradigm

and the vast majority of warheads on alert now are counterforce weapons to strike military targets

thus, even if there was an Interpolar exchange with all available warheads

that would not end the war, the sun would come up the next day, with a global seapower war still in progress

As always, I defer to your expertise. As you say, the arsenals have dropped considerably, but those tactical nuclear weapons will destroy the conventional forces. People seem to minimize the effect of a nuclear blast. All those expensive tanks and ships gone. Most will never fire a shot.

The idea that a war between Russia, China and NATO is survivable is the most dangerous idea of all. Stalin, a homicidal psychopathic maniac had the control of a few nuclear weapons and they terrified him. When people stop being scared of them, we will have the most terrible war in history.

If a war between NATO and Russia and China were to remain conventional (I don't believe that is possible, but for the sake of argument...) what would it be like? Imagine a slaughter house like Gaza or Ukraine (a nation with the same population as Canada) on a global scale. We have to do all we can to make WW3 too horrifying to contemplate. 

Another factor to contemplate is that, since 1945, the super powers have not fared well when they attacked a little nation. The Americans got kicked out of Viet Nam and Afganistan. Russia gor turfed out of Afganistan and have their hands caught in the wood chipper that is Ukraine. China thought it would be fun to invade Viet Nam. They limped home after only a couple of weeks.

 

 

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If Canada is to pull its weight in NATO, we need to pull out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and put our money into nuclear weapons. And, the side benefit, they don't have to be there to deter just the Russians and Chinese. 

There's only one country and one direction from which we'll ever be invaded.

In any case I've long suggested we simply build the mother of all cobalt bombs and tell the world to go pee up a rope. If they don't like it go make peace with one another and get back to us.

[Dougie93]

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

As always, I defer to your expertise. As you say, the arsenals have dropped considerably, but those tactical nuclear weapons will destroy the conventional forces. People seem to minimize the effect of a nuclear blast. All those expensive tanks and ships gone. Most will never fire a shot.

ah, but even tactical weapons are in limited supply

bear and mind that most of the early Cold War arsenals have long ago been dismantled

furthermore, for security reasons, tactical nuclear weapons are centralized at very few locations

so most of those weapons would be destroyed in the initial counterforce stage

the larger issue however, is that you are vastly overrating the effects of nuclear weapons

devastating as they may be, they are really just very large firebombs

while those may be very effective when it comes to killing civilians in cities

they are not so effective against military forces dispersed in the field

particularly when the opposing military forces are trained and equipped to fight on a nuclear battlefield

[herbie]

Start by putting the Coast Guard and Border Patrol as part of the Forces. Toss in funding for a Cyber Guard. Maybe the Port Police too.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Start by putting the Coast Guard and Border Patrol as part of the Forces. Toss in funding for a Cyber Guard. Maybe the Port Police too.

The way we fund our forces if we make the coast guard and border patrol part of them then their entire patrol capacity will involve two rowboats and a slightly underpowered golf cart