2% Defense GDP by 2030

[Aristides]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

If we Canadians spend  5% of our GDP on military stuff, as a member of NATO, we are buying US stuff..

I reckon that's how Biden got Sweden and Finland to join NATO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sweden has a well developed defence industry and builds most of its own stuff. Aircraft, ships, artillery etc. Finland is buying F-35's but most of their equipment is also European sourced, tanks, ships etc. 

[Aristides]

On 12/8/2024 at 2:19 PM, 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. 

 

I disagree, a strong conventional force reduces the likelihood of a nuclear exchange because it discourages aggression in the first place.

[Aristides]

Russia attacked Ukraine because they thought it would be a walkover.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Russia attacked Ukraine because they thought it would be a walkover.

 Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[Queenmandy85]

A question for those more learned in military affairs. If Canada upgrades our defence posture to a level in compliance to NATO's requirements, (2%), and then we are invaded by a NATO member, (the USA), if we invoke article 5, will NATO come to our aid?

I am sure Greenlanders have the same question.

Edited January 29 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

I disagree, a strong conventional force reduces the likelihood of a nuclear exchange because it discourages aggression in the first place.

Under Russian offensive doctrine, the first stage of attack begins with overwhelming bombardment to neutralize resistance. They do not differentiate between conventional and nuclear ordinance. The first opening salvo will be nuclear weapons. Ukraine has had the effect of reinforcing that long held doctrine. It was based on the miscalculation of Ukrainian resistance and they won't make that mistake again.

A stong nuclear force capable of killing everyone, reduces the likelihood of any military engagement. 

The benifit of a large Canadian arsenal is it will discourage  anyone who would attack us, not just the Russians. 

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A question for those more learned in military affairs. If Canada upgrades our defence posture to a level in compliance to NATO's requirements, (2%), and then we are invaded by a NATO member, (the USA), if we invoke article 5, will NATO come to our aid?

I am sure Greenlanders have the same question.

NATO would not come to Canada's aid from SHAPE in Brussels

like, don't forget, West Germany was a NATO member, while it was occupied by the United States

so the precedent for occupying another NATO member by the United States is entirely consistent with the Treaty

 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The benifit of a large Canadian arsenal is it will discourage  anyone who would attack us, not just the Russians. 

too bad you're a bunch of unmartial effeminate peaceniks

whom actually refused to accept nuclear weapons when America offered to give them to you

culture is destiny

7 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Under Russian offensive doctrine, the first stage of attack begins with overwhelming bombardment to neutralize resistance. They do not differentiate between conventional and nuclear ordinance. The first opening salvo will be nuclear weapons. Ukraine has had the effect of reinforcing that long held doctrine. It was based on the miscalculation of Ukrainian resistance and they won't make that mistake again.

why haven't the Russians used their nuclear weapons against Ukraine then ?

[Dougie93]

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

I disagree, a strong conventional force reduces the likelihood of a nuclear exchange because it discourages aggression in the first place.

then why does Canada only have 35,000 total personnel available for deployment right now ?

[Aristides]

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Under Russian offensive doctrine, the first stage of attack begins with overwhelming bombardment to neutralize resistance. They do not differentiate between conventional and nuclear ordinance. The first opening salvo will be nuclear weapons. Ukraine has had the effect of reinforcing that long held doctrine. It was based on the miscalculation of Ukrainian resistance and they won't make that mistake again.

A stong nuclear force capable of killing everyone, reduces the likelihood of any military engagement. 

The benifit of a large Canadian arsenal is it will discourage  anyone who would attack us, not just the Russians. 

A nuclear attack ensures a nuclear response. Having only a nuclear response leaves one no other options if attacked. Suicide is not a good defence strategy, or for that matter, offensive strategy.

Edited January 29 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

A nuclear attack ensures a nuclear response. Having only a nuclear response leaves one no other options if attacked. Suicide is not a good defence strategy, or for that matter, offensive strategy.

the Russians are already demonstrating how it is an empty threat

there are American missiles raining down on Russian cities right now

Russian territory has been invaded by an American proxy

Russia has invoked its nuclear red line several times now, and it hasn't had the slightest effect

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

too bad you're a bunch of unmartial effeminate peaceniks

whom actually refused to accept nuclear weapons when America offered to give them to you

culture is destiny

why haven't the Russians used their nuclear weapons against Ukraine then ?

It was the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker who refused the nuclear weapons. The Liberals under Mike Pearson ran on a promise to arm Canada with nuclear weapons. The Liberals won and we got the nukes. 

Funny old world, isn't it.

 

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

NATO would not come to Canada's aid from SHAPE in Brussels

like, don't forget, West Germany was a NATO member, while it was occupied by the United States

so the precedent for occupying another NATO member by the United States is entirely consistent with the Treaty

 

So, if we are invaded by the US (I still think it is unlikely, but they are the only nation in a geographical position to invade Canada) all that money we spend on NATO will not protect us. We are, in fact, members of NATO to defend Europe, not Canada. In my opinion, that is a good thing. The American claim that they are spending their money to defend us is incorrect. Nobody is going to protect us. 

It would be prudent to look for more reliable allies than the US. 

On the other hand, we need to commit to defend Greenland if it should come to that.

I have advocated for decades that Canada have a military capable to defend us, but no political party and certainly not the taxpayers, are willing to make the sacrifice. 

 

Edited January 30 by Queenmandy85

[Dougie93]

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, if we are invaded by the US (I still think it is unlikely, but they are the only nation in a geographical position to invade Canada) all that money we spend on NATO will not protect us. We are, in fact, members of NATO to defend Europe, not Canada. In my opinion, that is a good thing. The American claim that they are spending their money to defend us is incorrect. Nobody is going to protect us. 

It would be prudent to look for more reliable allies than the US. 

On the other hand, we need to commit to defend Greenland if it should come to that.

I have advocated for decades that Canada have a military capable to defend us, but no political party and certainly not the taxpayers, are willing to make the sacrifice.

NATO is the Washington Treaty

so NATO will not defend you from Washington

but you have to consider how the Americans would defeat Canada

it's not going to be by invasion

the American arm of decision would be blockade

effectively a naval blockade, which is what the Trump tariffs are in essence

you can't take to the high seas to find a trading partner to replace the Americans

so the Americans have got you by the balls, nary a shot fired

America is a seapower;  he who rules the waves rules the world, to include Canada

it was actually in the face of the Fenian Raids of 1866

wherein the British Empire determined that it could no longer defend Canada

from an American naval blockade

that was actually the moment when America supplanted Britain as Canada's Hegemon

Confederation 1867 was not Canada asserting independence

Canadians did not want that in 1867, quite the opposite

Confederation 1867 was Britain throwing Canada out of the Empire in the face of America

with the Canadians kicking and screaming about it all the way 

this is why the Canadians charged into the First World War

to prove to London that they were still British to the bone

Vimy Ridge became the myth of Canadian Nationalism therein, but not in real time

it wasn't until the 1930's that Canadians rallied around the Vimy Myth

that was Canadian Nationalism right up to Expo 1967

then in 1968, the Trudeau Liberals replaced it with Multiculturalism

hence how we got to the Post National State we live in now

wherein, as you point out, the population is not indoctrinated to fight & die for the Colours

quite the opposite in fact, the overwhelming majority being wholly unmartial cosmopolitans

who view "tolerance" as being the highest virtue

so Donald Trump has them at his mercy, no invasion required

the idea that this soft as warm baby shit Canada would use nuclear weapons ?

please, Canadians now are terrified of using guns, never mind nukes

America wouldn't even need its military to invade Canada

 American civilians could just drive up here in their pickup trucks and take over with their AR15's

Edited January 30 by Dougie93

[I am Groot]

On 11/30/2024 at 1:59 AM, 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.

We could put money into upgrading our bases quickly enough. Try to get rid of the mold and leaky roofs and broken windows, and build enough housing for members and their families. But we won't.

[I am Groot]

On 1/11/2025 at 11:15 PM, DUI_Offender said:

It certainly would not take us long to become a veritable force, if we aimed for 2.5% GDP spending. Look at Poland. They have really put an effort into their military, and they are now arguably the strongest army in mainland Europe.

The way we are going we could get to 3% just from the ridiculously overpriced stuff we buy. Our 'arctic patrol' ships, for example, cost a billion apiece, way more than other countries, but are slow and largely unarmed. Our frigate will be the most expensive ever made in the history of the world, on par with the aircraft carriers the British built recently. I'm sure everything else we buy or build will be similarly overpriced so that while we won't get much of a military, we'll meet the percentage requirement. 

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

We could put money into upgrading our bases quickly enough. Try to get rid of the mold and leaky roofs and broken windows, and build enough housing for members and their families. But we won't.

I have little doubt that there would require no effort to find lots of places where we can spend at least that much and barely scratch the problems we have starting tomorrow without a procurement process.

But of course what will actually happen is the liberals will hire an independent company that just happens to be friendly to one of the liberal people somewhere to study the issue for 2 years and producer report saying exactly what you just said. And all for the low low cost of $25 million dollars.

[August1991]

On 1/29/2025 at 9:28 AM, Aristides said:

Sweden has a well developed defence industry and builds most of its own stuff. Aircraft, ships, artillery etc. Finland is buying F-35's but most of their equipment is also European sourced, tanks, ships etc. 

Sweden and Finland joined NATO for practical reasons.

They are buying American stuff.

But 5%?

[eyeball]

On 2/2/2025 at 9:52 AM, I am Groot said:

We could put money into upgrading our bases quickly enough. Try to get rid of the mold and leaky roofs and broken windows, and build enough housing for members and their families. But we won't.

You need to think bigger. We could just declare our national insecurity a national security emergency, print a trillion dollars and go shopping.

We could easily be invincible within a couple of years.

Go push our weight around for awhile. Apparently we have an abundance of fat soldiers so...

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

You need to think bigger. We could just declare our national insecurity a national security emergency, print a trillion dollars and go shopping.

Do we look like trudeau?

[eyeball]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Do we look like trudeau?

Nope, ya'll look like a proverbial enemy within.

[Aristides]

On 1/29/2025 at 1:16 PM, Dougie93 said:

then why does Canada only have 35,000 total personnel available for deployment right now ?

I never said we have a strong conventional force. We should have. 

[Aristides]

On 2/2/2025 at 7:12 PM, August1991 said:

Sweden and Finland joined NATO for practical reasons.

They are buying American stuff.

But 5%?

Other than the Finnish airforce, almost all of Sweden and Finlands military equipment is European sourced

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Nope, ya'll look like a proverbial enemy within.

So i DO look like trudeau! 

Wow.  Well i'm off for a haircut and to change my socks. That's a good way to get shot these days. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So i DO look like trudeau!

No, you look like any old MAGA chud to me.