Is Canada A Defense Free-loader?

[Morgan]

With regards to the following cut and paste article, is Lou Cuppens, a retired lieutenant-general and former deputy commander for NORAD, speaking the truth? Or is he just self-serving in his new vocation as a defense industry consultant?

Did the Liberal gov't cause Canada to miss out on opportunities for research grants, high tech employment and manufacturing?

Is the threat from China and North Korea substantial enough to both the USA and to Canada to justify the cost of a missile defense shield?

Is the Cdn. gov't's concern about the "weaponization" of space valid/sincere or is it just a smokescreen for the gov't wanting the US to cover all the costs of the missile defense shield? ie. defense free loading

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=35320

Canada told: 'Stop being defense freeloader'

Former NORAD boss chastises his government for waffling with U.S.

October 29, 2003

Canada must give up its passive role as a "defense freeloader" and participate in a missile defense shield under development by the United States, a former Canadian military official asserts.

Canada's high-tech defense industry has suffered from its government's political waffling over the U.S. ballistic missile defense program, said Lou Cuppens, a retired lieutenant-general and former deputy commander for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, the Canadian Press reported. "As a retired military member, I know Canada can't stand around and be a defense freeloader forever," Cuppens told participants at a conference on opportunities for aerospace, defense and security in Eastern Canada.

Canadian politicians have sat on the fence for over a decade while the U.S. has sought involvement in its missile shield, Cuppens said.

Now that the multibillion-dollar system is nearly completed, he added, Canada is beginning to consider its position, but all the educational opportunities that could have been gained from participating in the technology are lost.

Cuppens noted some parts of the system could be manufactured in Canada. "You are being denied one heck of an opportunity," he told the business audience, according to the Canadian Press. "This is high, high tech."

The Canadian Press said some government members are worried about the potential weaponization of space, Cuppens, now a defense consultant, insists the critical need for defense, noting the threat from China and North Korea, will push the project toward completion.

At the moment, the only thing American and Canadian military leaders can do in case of a first strike is inform the countries' leaders of the likely targets and time of impact.

"That's all that can be done," he said, according to the Press. "What's defending North America? Nothing."

[Craig Read]

Like i posted in the Cdn section, if you normalise the numbers here for military spend in Canada we would run a 2% + GDP deficit federally.

The fact is that politicians have taken this $25 billion and bought votes, preached anti-Americanism, saturated the air waves with anti-Semitic/anti-US propaganda and told you that socialised programs are wonderful.

It is pathetic when a nation has no interest in self defence.

[Aidan Pryde]

Self defense from what? Last I checked the Cold War ended over a decade ago. There aren't any foreign powers that threaten Canada anymore.

Our military nowadays seems to be for fighting other people's wars and battles.

If you think we lack defense capabilities perhaps we should withdraw from any foreign commitments and keep our military in Canada. After all, we spend almost as much as Israel on our military and no one ever accused them of being soft on defense.

[Craig Read]

First let's get some facts straight.

1. International commitments and military alliances are necessary in an anarchic world. Retreating in blind appeasement is ridiculous. You sound like a Chamberlain apologist.

2. National govts have as their main priority national security including borders, immigration, military power and international alliances and the ability to protect their citizens.

3. The Arab world in the past few years according to The Military Balance 2002-03 -IISS, London, 2002-, collectively spent $51bn in 2001 on their military budgets, representing 8.22% of Arab gross national product and 6.11% of the overall world military expenditure of $835bn for that year. In 2000, the Arabs' military budget amounted to $50.4bn, or 8.24% of their GNP and 6.11% of overall world military expenditure of $825bn.

Arab military expenditure thus increased by about $600m from 2000 to 2001, a jump of 1.34%. At the same time, Arab GNP rose by about $10bn, or 1.6%, from $611bn to $621bn.

Israeli military expenditure by necessity has to take the above into account and Israel spends about 8 % of its GDP on military spend, which is more than its immediate neighbours, but less than the Arab nations in the immediate region in aggregate.

Canada spends 1.5 % of its GDP on defence so your analysis that both nations spend the same is false.

[Military expenditure as a share of GDP: SIPRI Yearbook 2003, Appendix 10A, table 10A.4;

Income group: World Development Indicators 2002]

If you want to post at least have the courtesy to:

1. Understand the topic.

2. Provide some facts.

3. Add some vallue.

Otherwise don't post.

[Aidan Pryde]

1. International commitments and military alliances are necessary in an anarchic world. Retreating in blind appeasement is ridiculous. You sound like a Chamberlain apologist.

The Cold War is over. If you honestly think that Europe needs our help to defend themselves anymore then you need to go back to school.

2. National govts have as their main priority national security including borders, immigration, military power and international alliances and the ability to protect their citizens.

If you really think we have a problem with defending our country then you should lobby to have our military callled back home instead of spread out around the world.

Canada spends 1.5 % of its GDP on defence so your analysis that both nations spend the same is false.

Canada spends approximately C$12.5 billion on military while Israel spends around C$13.5 bllion. A difference of only a billion dollars. And those numbers don't inlucde the extra money recently spent on our military.

Israeli military expenditure by necessity has to take the above into account

That would seem to be an argument for less military spending. After all why do we need to spend as much as a nation surrounded by enemies when we have large oceans on three sides and a friendly neighbour on the fourth.

If you want to post at least have the courtesy to:

1. Understand the topic.

2. Provide some facts.

3. Add some vallue.

I'm sorry if i disproved your careful little rightwing lies with my evil facts, so sorry.

[FastNed]

Aidan yes, the Cold War is over and the enemy against whom we guarded the gates for fifty years no longer exists - or so we hope, only time will tell where Russia will go.

But any responsible government, acting on behalf of its citizens must perform a "Threat Analysis" of potential dangers to the civilization which it represents. This is, after all, one of the main reasons we form governments here in the West. To provide collective security for our families and lives.

Let's forget politics and just look at "Threats" - do you doubt that the NoK's are off-the-wall nut jobs? But they happen to be nut-jobs that have worked on development of long range missiles for quite some time. They have demonstrated an ability to overfly Japan with what is either a real good IRBM or a nascent ICBM. In either case, a rough measurement indicates that it would not take much more range to target our mutual West Coast from Alaska down. And they are selling this technology to any one with cash. I suggest that this constitutes sufficient threat that any government which ignores it is failing its responsibilities to protect its citizens.

Canada has missed deadline after deadline to participate in the missile shield (for about three years) and America has gone ahead, created a Command Structure - which unlike NORAD, does not have Canadian members - and is acting alone. If time and assets allow, we will shield Canada because you guys are family but this is not the same as active participation. Based upon the history of NORAD, you have also passed on millions of dollars of research and development contracts.

I don't believe Canadians should be this naif, but its your Country.

[KrustyKidd]

Adian

The Cold War is over. If you honestly think that Europe needs our help to defend themselves anymore then you need to go back to school.

Adian, remember "the peace dividend?" Little did anybody know that after the fall of the SU we would meet up with the most unexpected foe of our wildest imagination; Militant Islam. This is pretty expensive stuff. Just as a hypothetical example that is a mathematical certainty, what does a country do, when it needs another countrys help in fighting this new threat when there is no treaty? Say France has no real military presence in an area where it's attackers are based, and the US is swimming in military might and not so inclined to help? How about France needs to transport troops across Turkey to get to Lebannon but Turkey has no agreement. What if it needs to be done yesterday as they are killing a French Embassy Official every hour in Beruit?

FastNed

But any responsible government, acting on behalf of its citizens must perform a "Threat Analysis" of potential dangers to the civilization which it represents. This is, after all, one of the main reasons we form governments here in the West. To provide collective security for our families and lives.

Ned, be serious now. It would seem that the Liberal Party has done this so called "Threat Analysis" of yours and determined years ago that there isn't one, period. That is why we don't need to do anything to protect ourselves. Well, maybe from purple stuffed dinosaurs. Those Liberals, military prophets. OK, just lucky.

[Aidan Pryde]

Fastned,

Well first of all if in 10 or 20 years North Korea were to actually build an missile capable of reaching the West Coast and a nuclear weapon to be delivered by the missle. Why would they go after BC instead of a target along the American coast? That would be like Nazi Germany developing a nuclear weapon during WWII and using it on Brazil.

But if you really think that a North Korea nuclear missile is a threat to Canada then there really is no possible defense against it except our own nuclear arsenal. I don't really see the American missile shield as being much more than a modern version of the Maginot line.

Krusty,

I'm not disagreeing with you that Europe may need to stick together against a possible threat from the Arab nations to the south and south-east. But they don't really need our help do they? European NATO nations spend probably $250 billion on their militaries. I think they can handle any threats that comes their way.

[KrustyKidd]

Well first of all if in 10 or 20 years North Korea were to actually build an missile capable of reaching the West Coast and a nuclear weapon to be delivered by the missle. Why would they go after BC instead of a target along the American coast? That would be like Nazi Germany developing a nuclear weapon during WWII and using it on Brazil.

Supposing this missile hit San Francisco you can be sure that it would bode devastation for our economy first and for sure our way of life. Security would be paramount to all other considerations. Our little chats here tonight would vanish pretty quick, trips across the border to shoot hoops would also disappear. Matter of fact I would imagine that martial law would be in place in every town or city with any kind of population. That to me is worth kicking a few bucks into the pot.

Thank you for responding personally to me Adian. In response I will try and recite the jist of a European stratigist who was extolling the value of Paratroopers when they first came into being. The lines are close but don't hold me to it.

"Show me the prince that is so rich as to be able to place an army so vast that it covers his land from border to border so that all areas are safe from the enemy."

Nobody knows where a terrorist wil strike. When they do you need an army there fast. What if one struck in Victoria and a day later in Montreal? The next Toronto and the following Ottawa? We would start runnng out of little green men pretty quick, might want to call an ally or two, but what if they are too busy eating fois gras or taking over third world countries to view it as their problem? I just don't think that there is anything wrong with getting together for something like this.

[Aidan Pryde]

Supposing this missile hit San Francisco you can be sure that it would bode devastation for our economy first and for sure our way of life. Security would be paramount to all other considerations. Our little chats here tonight would vanish pretty quick, trips across the border to shoot hoops would also disappear. Matter of fact I would imagine that martial law would be in place in every town or city with any kind of population. That to me is worth kicking a few bucks into the pot.

I think if any country got hit by a North Korean nuclear missile that you'd find increased security across the nation simply because of the fact that someone's starting launching nukes and no one is sure if it'll end at just one.

I don't feel we should help defend another country simply because we have economic interests in that country.

Nobody knows where a terrorist wil strike. When they do you need an army there fast. What if one struck in Victoria and a day later in Montreal? The next Toronto and the following Ottawa? We would start runnng out of little green men pretty quick, might want to call an ally or two, but what if they are too busy eating fois gras or taking over third world countries to view it as their problem? I just don't think that there is anything wrong with getting together for something like this.

I think that civilian agencies like the RCMP and CSIS would be the ones fighting domestic terrorism not the military. And it's not like our military is immobile, we have bases near major cities. Most likely each individual unit would the city they're located in or close to.

[KrustyKidd]

Supposing this missile hit San Francisco you can be sure that it would bode devastation for our economy first and for sure our way of life. Security would be paramount to all other considerations. Our little chats here tonight would vanish pretty quick, trips across the border to shoot hoops would also disappear. Matter of fact I would imagine that martial law would be in place in every town or city with any kind of population. That to me is worth kicking a few bucks into the pot.

I think if any country got hit by a North Korean nuclear missile that you'd find increased security across the nation simply because of the fact that someone's starting launching nukes and no one is sure if it'll end at just one.

I don't feel we should help defend another country simply because we have economic interests in that country.

Nobody knows where a terrorist wil strike. When they do you need an army there fast. What if one struck in Victoria and a day later in Montreal? The next Toronto and the following Ottawa? We would start runnng out of little green men pretty quick, might want to call an ally or two, but what if they are too busy eating fois gras or taking over third world countries to view it as their problem? I just don't think that there is anything wrong with getting together for something like this.

I think that civilian agencies like the RCMP and CSIS would be the ones fighting domestic terrorism not the military. And it's not like our military is immobile, we have bases near major cities. Most likely each individual unit would the city they're located in or close to.

Adian, the increased security would not end at the border, just as increased security at Airports did not end there. A missile strike on Seattle to us is far different than one say, in Brussels. The phsycological impact alone would dictate security unlike anything seen before in Canada let alone the economics of businesses shut down. Tell me, what do you do with ten million people in a country of twenty five million who have no money, no job , no unrestricted freedom to look for food, work recreation without having to carry a letter of some kind alowing them to cross a certain checkpoint? This is what terrorists (and North Korea if Kim felt there was no option for him) would like to create. Far fetched, but possible. This is worth a few token million dollars to me.

As for RCMP, CISIS and the Armed Forces do the math. RCMP is doing what they do now, CISIS analizes intelligence and both depend on the army to do what we have just discussed. Where is the army? All 17,000 of them? Preparing to go, on, just comming back from UN missions. Even if they were at their bases they could not control a terrified population intent on getting out of town and finding no supplies to do it with. How many of those people moving through town are terrorists? Criminals intent on taking advantage of the situation? Don't forget there are millions of people in Toronto and how many army guys? LOL, couple hundred. As well, there are more but we are talking mechanics, pay masters, cooks and such. They support the guys who you hope are manning the road blocks that the RCMP does not have the manpower for because they are hunting bad guys that the intelligence guys at CISIS have told them to.

[Craig Read]

According to the APs of the world, there are no threats, the world is stable, freedom is the natural state of affairs, evil does not exist, and states do not have to protect themselves or their borders.

This ignores the entire history of mankind but let's not get hung up on details shall we.

He states that Israel spends only $13.5 B on defence, which is 8 % of GDP - a greater share than the US. One must compare military spend with the size of the economy not in total $. This type of lame brain thinking permeates such soft headed ideals such as Kyoto, which compares Canada to Belgium and ignoring population density, geographic size, transportation requirements and energy usage patterns, decides that those wonderful democratic Belgians, when not busy eating chocolate, guzzling beer, and yelling at each other in Flemish and French, are better enviro citizens than Canadians.

Nonsense.

Per capita and relation to GDP are the vital factors.

Canada underspends dramatically on its military. We need to spend at least $20 billion more annually to protect our borders, the oceans, the arctic and project international relevance.

Canadians like Sampson get beaten in Saudi jails and what does Canada do ? Basically squat. Nothing but diplomatic mumbo jumbo. A Canadian gets killed in Iran, what does Canada do ? Registers its outrage. Big deal. Registering some guns in their direction would be more effective.

Wake up. Anarchy is the nature of the world order. Freedom needs to be defended. We are in an important change in geo-political affairs.

Participation is necessary not standing around scratching oneself.

[Aidan Pryde]

He states that Israel spends only $13.5 B on defence, which is 8 % of GDP - a greater share than the US. One must compare military spend with the size of the economy not in total $

When it comes to military spending, percentage of GDP spent is not relevent. Total $ is what counts in the end.

The fact is that Israel spends barely any more of defense than Canada and they are surrounded by hostile powers while Canada is bordered by ocean on three sides and a friendly nation on the fourth.

[Whistler]

The US also relied on geography as a natural defense we do not now however.

Australia is surrounded by oceans and though unpopular supported the US in all and more particularly recent events. The difference however is the “friendly neighbor to the south” which I fear Canada might appear to take for granted. Unfortunately, this will reflect in trade.

[KrustyKidd]

I am definitely not a defense or economics expert however I would point out some differences between Israel and Canada.

Israel has a militia as it's main source of defence. These people are not on strength 24/7 but rather called on for a period each year to keep current on military matters and then return to civilian life until needed. Big $ savings as no need to attract them by lucrative pay and benifit packages as they are drafted.

Israel is much smaller, both territory wise and population wise. Less distance to travel for logistical support as well as command and control.

The military is totally integrated with society. This eliminates the need for expansive bases and headquarters complexes such as NDHQ and such.

Israel is in a constant state of war. Not too many NATO exercises going on as tanks and planes remain in place ready to kick butt.

Soldiers are motivated by obvious reason so eliminates the need for adventure, education, pensions and such.

No severe winter. No cold starts, snow removal, winter clothing, light tracked vehicles and winter exercises.

No large territory to patrol or conduct search and rescue operations.

No serious amount of co-operative exercises or operations halfway across the world.

No large Navy that spends most of it's time supporting UN resolutions.

Just some obvious things I thought I would remind you of. Do you think that they are meaningless or present a real dollar difference?

[Craig Read]

What kind of puerile analysis is it to state that per capita military spend and economic size of states is irrelevant ? This is incredible. I wonder how people rationalise their ideas at times.

As a % of their economies both the Arab world and the Israeli's spend about 8 % of their GDP on military spend. This is a huge amount of GDP - 7x greater than that of the post modern, soft power Canadians. Israel also receives another 3 % of its GDP in military aid from the US.

Israel is in a war and has been since 1948. 11 % of GDP to fight a war, is rather low by historical standards but still a considerable portion and overall there is little doubt that historically militarised societies are weaker economically than they would be under normal peace time conditions. Private wealth is displaced by state owned resources.

If you were to normalise Canadian military spend to be 2.5 to 3 % of GDP, which it should be in a dangerous world, it would necessitate another $20-25 billion in spend. Canada would run huge deficits of 2 % of GDP.

Economic size has everything to do with your ability to project any variety of international power. The fact that the Canadian economy is chewed up by taxes and debt payments [$40 billion per year just on the Fed debt in interest costs], means that politicians who need to prostitute themselves to gain your votes, will spread the butter around and ignore the guns. That $40 billion in debt interest would be better spent on the military.

But according to the analysis stated above the US and Australia don't need military spend since they are protected by Oceans. They should spend more on butter and special interest groups. Gee Good analysis boys.

Military projection is a critical factor in nation state relevance and world respect. Soft power is just another crummy form of socialist justification for doing --- NOTHING. It is rather irritating reading the sanctimonious nonsense of Canadians as they ignore reality and free load off the US military.

Your freedom comes at a price and you have to pay to play. Israel by necessity understands this. Canada has no clue.

[SirRiff]

As a % of their economies both the Arab world and the Israeli's spend about 8 % of their GDP on military spend

if you want to live in a nation that spends 8% on GDP, you will have to go to israel or the middle east.

canadians dont want to. we want health care and education too.

why dont you tell us how those 8% nations do compared in other social issues. not nearly as well i bet.

everything has a price, 8% military means 8% less of somethign else.

do you have this extra 8% laying around in an old box?

if you got the money sure we can spend it, but tell us how you are going to get and maintain this massive increase in military spending. and what are we going to use it for every year?

SirRiff

[Aidan Pryde]

If you were to normalise Canadian military spend to be 2.5 to 3 % of GDP, which it should be in a dangerous world, it would necessitate another $20-25 billion in spend. Canada would run huge deficits of 2 % of GDP.

That $40 billion in debt interest would be better spent on the military.

So on one hand you advocate Canada running a deficit and on the other you whine that if we didn't have such a large debt we could have a larger military. Do you even read what you type?

Do you not see the contradiction? If we were the run a defecit now to add billions upon billions to our military now it would just ensure we would have to make even deeper cuts in the future when those debt payments catch up to us.

Military projection is a critical factor in nation state relevance and world respect.

Well if you want to live in a country that resembles the Soviet Union back during the cold war with massive amounts of wealth going towards a massive military be my guest. I prefer the high standard of living and lack of massive deficit that we enjoy todasy.

[Schilly]

All I want to say, even though I didn't read more than a few posts in this topic, is that you have a country before you have anything else and as Canada is one of the G8 nations this should matter.

[Craig Read]

Canada steals US IP [intellectual property for the liberals], and then price controls it to buy senior votes domestically, and now is rather ambivalent about stopping Cdn pharmacies from shipping these drugs back south of the border.

This is called IP theft and contravenes every trade agreement now in existence.

If you were to normalise Cdn spending to account for the IP infringement and price controlled drug sector the health care spending would inflate by several billions per year.

So much for the legerdemain surpluses that are announced federally.

Drug and military free riding is immoral, unnecessary and detrimental to the country's best interests.

Buying votes using US money and R&D does not make a country moral.

[KrustyKidd]

Drug and military free riding is immoral, unnecessary and detrimental to the country's best interests.

If the shit hits the fan, will I at least get to vote for the Taliban candidate of my choosing? If I can't then at least let me vote Liberal or Communist (NDP)

[Craig Read]

Sure well Canada is a benign dictatorship at all levels:

-50 % of the population votes [60 % from the voting lists but this is different than the total # who CAN vote]

-35 % wins a majority gov't

-MPs are powerless, power is centralised in the PM, Premier's office

-Gov't is so poll centric that reforms are impossible

-Taxes and absolute debt levels [including unfunded liabilities] have gone up

-Socialisation of the economy is standard practice [50 % of the economy is state directed]

-National jingoism permeates all gov't initiatives - this stifles debate and thought

-Charter of rights and judicial activism excludes Parliament

Talibanic ? In a sense yes - socialism + nationalism = fascism.

Canada needs checks and balances, proportional representation and real leadership.