[Coach85]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm hearing that JT is shuffling cabinet members today in response to the US trade issues.

Also, the US Commerce Department is going to put tariffs on uranium from Canada even though we import it from an American owned company.

That's funny.

Typical American mentality. A government movement in another Country. Surely it's because of us.

Not everything that happens in Canada or in the rest of the world is in response to America; beyond the laughing.

[rickc]

Coach85 Coach85:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm hearing that JT is shuffling cabinet members today in response to the US trade issues.

Also, the US Commerce Department is going to put tariffs on uranium from Canada even though we import it from an American owned company.

That's funny.

Typical American mentality. A government movement in another Country. Surely it's because of us.

Not everything that happens in Canada or in the rest of the world is in response to America; beyond the laughing.

You are correct sir! Your failure to meet your NATO spending obligations has absolutely nothing to do with us or who our President is, you just like to pretend that it does. You like to use President Trump as an excuse to not do, what you had no intention of doing in the first place. It does not matter who is in the White House, your defense spending was never going to increase.

[Coach85]

rickc rickc:

You are correct sir! Your failure to meet your NATO spending obligations has absolutely nothing to do with us or who our President is, you just like to pretend that it does. You like to use President Trump as an excuse to not do, what you had no intention of doing in the first place. It does not matter who is in the White House, your defense spending was never going to increase.

Come and talk to me in 6 years. If you want to talk about the agreement, you should know it’s a target to hit in 10 years. Still 6 to go.

[martin14]

Coach85 Coach85:

rickc rickc:

You are correct sir! Your failure to meet your NATO spending obligations has absolutely nothing to do with us or who our President is, you just like to pretend that it does. You like to use President Trump as an excuse to not do, what you had no intention of doing in the first place. It does not matter who is in the White House, your defense spending was never going to increase.

Come and talk to me in 6 years. If you want to talk about the agreement, you should know it’s a target to hit in 10 years. Still 6 to go.

Oh please, we haven't been near 2% since the idea started in 2002.
We weren't before, we aren't now, and we aren't going to be in the future,
unless something real changes.

If you have any proof that some government is all of a sudden going to take it seriously,

post it.

Otherwise the 'we'll spend 2% in 2024 and 2024 only', is just BS.

[Coach85]

martin14 martin14:

Oh please, we haven't been near 2% since the idea started in 2002.
We weren't before, we aren't now, and we aren't going to be in the future,
unless something real changes.

If you have any proof that some government is all of a sudden going to take it seriously,

post it.

Otherwise the 'we'll spend 2% in 2024 and 2024 only', is just BS.

6 years is a lot of time. So much can change in a year let alone 6. I'm not going to assume what's going to happen or what the next government will do but perhaps you're right.

You can't set a goal to meet a number in 10 years and they complain at 4 years that you're not there.

You can't talk about the agreement but not give context to the goals and the timeline.

[Zipperfish]

Basically Trump's right. We need to spend more and we've been getting away with spending less. And we should be smart about it. Cyberwarfare and nukes, in my opinion.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Basically Trump's right. We need to spend more and we've been getting away with spending less. And we should be smart about it. Cyberwarfare and nukes, in my opinion.

How about we get them shoes and socks and ships that aren't caked in mould first?

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Basically Trump's right. We need to spend more and we've been getting away with spending less. And we should be smart about it. Cyberwarfare and nukes, in my opinion.

How about we get them shoes and socks and ships that aren't caked in mould first?

I think we need a new direction in defence spending; world events readily demonstrate this. I'd rather put the money into drones than socks. lol

[Tricks]

I have a genuinely stupid question.

2% right? What happens if in 2024 government jacks up spending to 2% for the year? Would that be meeting the agreement how it's written? Or is it 2% over the agreement length?

[martin14]

Tricks Tricks:

I have a genuinely stupid question.

2% right? What happens if in 2024 government jacks up spending to 2% for the year? Would that be meeting the agreement how it's written? Or is it 2% over the agreement length?

It is supposed to be 2% a year. But there are no teeth to it, it's not like
we are going to get kicked out of NATO over it.

Merkel said some nonsense about maybe getting 1.8% by 2030.
'The Americans will protect us' is really the prevailing attitude, and it's
fine their soldiers use broomsticks for training.

The Russians can see that.. so can the Chinese.

[Vbeacher]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

Again, raw dollars are not really an indication of ability. The majority of money in western military budgets is spent on salaries, benefits and pensions. All of these are vastly higher than in a place like, say Russia. And in addition, every piece of hardware we buy, from aircraft to tanks to ships to guns to boots, costs way, way more than the Russians or Chinese have to spend on theirs. So simply comparing dollars is pointless.

Raw dollars are most definitely an indication of capability.

What do you think a million bucks buys you in Canada? It costs, basically, a million dollars to field one soldier in Afghanistan for one year. Yep. That's what it works out to according to numerous cites on the cost of fielding one US soldier. Of course, to just have them sit at home is cheaper. $22 billion divided by 80,000 military equals $255,000 per man. The US, by comparison, spends $575,000 per man.

Russia's (reported) budget is $69.3 billion. Which gets them 1,000,000 men equals $69,000 per man. China pays about $87k per man, by comparison.

So comparing straight out military budgets doesn't work.

$1:

I agree we need all sorts of things, and the one thing Trudeau has actually committed to is buying 88 new fighters (up from Harper's 65), replacing the DDHs & FFHs, and adding 5,000 more personnel to the CAF.

Committed to it? But with a timeline which will allow them to go through TWO more elections before anyone can hold them to that commitment.

$1:

And many of the equipment shortages the CAF now has can be squarely laid at the feet of the previous government

Absolutely. Once Afghanistan turned into an embarrassment and a problem for them they wanted nothing to do with the military.

$1:

We need to spend whatever it takes to build a decent three ocean navy, fund a few wings of fighters and attack aircraft and a couple of reserve infantry divisions in addition to what we have now. Odds are, that will actually cost more than 2%...

I am all for that, but I would be astounded if any of it happened under Trudeau. We are in boom times, yet he is running a big deficit with no sign of that ending, while postponing all major capital spending for the mlitary until well after the next election.

[Canadian_Mind]

Jesus Christ, this thread is a shitshow.

Personally, I don't give a fuck about the 2% GDP limit. I really don't. Somone brought up the polish example, where a country with MORE people is MEETING the 2% target, but overall is spending less. While it shows the Polish commitment (a poorer country willing to give me that a richer country, IS indeed giving more), it also shows how irrelevant the GDP ratio is.

I have always maintained that we need to step up our military spending in order to provide adequate defence for ourselves. In doing so, we will end up with more than enough resources to contribute to NATO. This consists of two basic goals. The first is, on each coast, have air and naval assets designed to intercept/interdict foreign incursions, as well as a reservist force capable of resisting enemy landings. The second is to maintain an "internal" force more outfitted and tasked to supporting NATO Ops.

Here is how it would break down:


Defence


Airforce;
1-2 Air Wings. Based in CFB Comox, CFB Yellowknife, & CFB Gander Min (3 total). CFB Iqaluit {new} & CFB Greenwood Max (5 total), each consisting of:
- 1x fighter squadron (preferably with EW assets) (24 manned units)
- 1x anti-sub/naval squadron (3 manned units)
- 1x SAR Sqn (unit composition as local needs dictate)
- 1x AWACS attached from a central unit in Trenton (1 manned unit, Comox, Yellowknife, and Gander based units only)
- 1x Aerial refueling attachment from a central unit based in Trenton (1 manned unit; Comox, Yellowknife, and Gander based Units only)


Navy;
3 Naval Fleets/Task Forces. Based in CFB Esquimalt, CFB Churchill (new), and CFB Halifax, each consisting of:
- 1x AAD vessel (Atlantic/Pacific)
- 2x ASW vessels (Atlantic/Pacific)
- 2x ASuW/GP vessels (Atlantic/Pacific)
- 1x AOR (Atlantic/Pacific)
- 6x coastal patrol vessels (All)
- 3x diesel-electric/AIP submarines (All)
- 3x Heavy AAD/ASW/GP Icebreakers (Arctic)


Army:
- 1x Reserve Mountain/Motorised Division; 4 x Brigades - BC, Yukon, SW Alberta (Red Deer, Calgary, Lethbridge)
- 1x Reserve Arctic/Motorised Division; 4 x Brigades - NWT, Nunavut, N & E AB, SK, MB, W Ontario (Kenora, Thunder Bay)
- 3/4 Reserve Motorised Divisions; 4-5 x Brigades each - Everything east of S.S. Marie

Purpose of Reserve Units would be aid to civil power, quick response to and repulsion of ground invasion, engaging in and facilitating guerilla warfare against an occupational force, peacetime military presence among civilian populace, & augmenting Reg. Force in foreign deployments.

Wheeled vehicles from Reg forces would be re-appropriated to reservist units, with priority given to "armoured" units for the purpose of mounted recce, convoy escort, and general cavalry role. Mountain and Artic units would also receive as part of their general issue, specialised kit for their specific tasks (snow mobiles, rappelling kit, survival gear, etc)







For Nato Commitments:

Airforce:
2-4 Air Wings, Based in CFB Cold Lake & CFB Bagotville Min (2 total). CFB Winnipeg & CFB Trenton Max (4 total).
- 1x Fighter Squadron (24 manned aircraft)
- 1-2x Ground Attack Squadron (12-18 manned Attack Helos, 12-18 manned CAS Planes)
- 1x SAR Sqn (Units as needs dictate)\

Navy;
1 Detachable Task Force:
- 1x AAD
- 2x ASW
- 2x ASuW/GP
- 3x Corvette/Minesweeper
- 1x AOR

Army;
1 Armoured Mechanised Division:
-5x Brigade (-), each consisting of 2x INF Battalions, 1x Armoured Regiment, 1x Arty Regiment, etc. Idea is that each Brigade can generate 2 full Battle Groups, giving the Division 10 total.

Currently, CF can currently generate: 3 Battle Groups with all assets, 3 Battle Groups minus Tanks, 1 Motorised/dismounted Battle Group lacking Tank and Artillery Assets, and 2 motorised/dismounted Battle Groups wholly lacking Armoured & Artillery assets. After reorg, all combat vehicles would be converted to tracks, sans some Recce Assets, as all wheeled combat vehicles would be redistributed to reservist units.


Obviously I am skipping out on some logistical units: mostly transport aircraft and logistical vehicles of various odds and sods. ultimately they would simply scale up compared to what we have now.

Regarding the naval and air assets listed, with respect to the Fighter and Attack Helo/CAS Squadrons at 24 & 18-24 aircraft apiece respectively, all numerical values are given with intent that numbers given are those at operational reediness, & appropriate spares will be procured to round out the numbers. For example, assuming 60% readiness rates, this means there would be 15 diesel-electric/AIP submarines, despite only 9 being listed above.




Seems like a lot, but even with the maximum air force distribution, with 9 total combat wings, we would be looking at a 2.5-3% GDP expenditure (specifically, about 2.8%, minimum air power would put us at about the 2.2% mark).

So why do I say I don't give a fuck about the 2% NATO target?

Because if we actually gave a fuck and spent towards our defensive needs, we would not only meet, but exceed this irrelevant target.

[bootlegga]

Tricks Tricks:

I have a genuinely stupid question.

2% right? What happens if in 2024 government jacks up spending to 2% for the year? Would that be meeting the agreement how it's written? Or is it 2% over the agreement length?

The goal is for all countries to reach 2% by 2024 and keep it there permanently.

Based on historical figures, the 2% goal appears to be tied to what many NATO countries (including Canada) spent during the Cold War.

According to SIPRI, Canada spent 1.9 - 2 % each year until 1992 (1.8% in 1993).

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/fil ... %20GDP.pdf

Then it looks like most NATO countries, the US included (spending dropped from over 5% to around 3%), took the so-called peace dividend and cut spending because of a lack of threats. The end of the Soviet Union/Cold War is why Canada never got the nuclear subs as Mulroney's White Paper recommended (as well as 18 frigates, new tanks, etc.).

[bootlegga]

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

Again, raw dollars are not really an indication of ability. The majority of money in western military budgets is spent on salaries, benefits and pensions. All of these are vastly higher than in a place like, say Russia. And in addition, every piece of hardware we buy, from aircraft to tanks to ships to guns to boots, costs way, way more than the Russians or Chinese have to spend on theirs. So simply comparing dollars is pointless.

Raw dollars are most definitely an indication of capability.

What do you think a million bucks buys you in Canada? It costs, basically, a million dollars to field one soldier in Afghanistan for one year. Yep. That's what it works out to according to numerous cites on the cost of fielding one US soldier. Of course, to just have them sit at home is cheaper. $22 billion divided by 80,000 military equals $255,000 per man. The US, by comparison, spends $575,000 per man.

Russia's (reported) budget is $69.3 billion. Which gets them 1,000,000 men equals $69,000 per man. China pays about $87k per man, by comparison.

So comparing straight out military budgets doesn't work.

You need to compare apples to apples, not oranges. Of course third world countries will field troops cheaper than Western nations.

My point is that total dollars are still a better indication of capability. Japan has spent 1% on defence since it rearmed in the 1950s, which works out to around $46 billion USD annually. By just about any measure, their Self-Defence Forces are the most capable in the region (especially their Air and Naval arms).

Meanwhile, nearby Brunei spends almost 3% annually and fields a far smaller and less effective air force and navy. Why? Because 3% of Brunei's economy works out to $348 million USD.

Finally, the US spends 3% on defence, which works out to well over $600 billion annually, and allows them to field the largest air force and navy on the planet, as well as one of the largest armies.

Raw dollars count.

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

$1:

I agree we need all sorts of things, and the one thing Trudeau has actually committed to is buying 88 new fighters (up from Harper's 65), replacing the DDHs & FFHs, and adding 5,000 more personnel to the CAF.

Committed to it? But with a timeline which will allow them to go through TWO more elections before anyone can hold them to that commitment.

Well, the only question is how long it takes him to actually do it, but given the rust out we're facing after almost 20 years of low defence spending, he doesn't really have a choice and will have to pony up.

I'd like to see the procurement system can be revamped to speed things up, but given politician's love of pork - and the Liberals are no different from the Conservatives in that regard, maybe even worse - I won't hold my breath.

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

$1:

We need to spend whatever it takes to build a decent three ocean navy, fund a few wings of fighters and attack aircraft and a couple of reserve infantry divisions in addition to what we have now. Odds are, that will actually cost more than 2%...

I am all for that, but I would be astounded if any of it happened under Trudeau. We are in boom times, yet he is running a big deficit with no sign of that ending, while postponing all major capital spending for the mlitary until well after the next election.

A lack of will to spend on defence isn't limited to Trudeau - Harper spent just as little as Trudeau:

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3%

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/fil ... %20GDP.pdf

The fact is Canadian politicians don't care about defence spending because Canadians don't care either. Unless we collectively hold their feet to the fire, we'll never see adequate defence spending.

[CharlesAnthony]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm hearing that JT is shuffling cabinet members today in response to the US trade issues.
Also, the US Commerce Department is going to put tariffs on uranium from Canada even though we import it from an American owned company.

Help us out here: Is this good a thing? or Is this bad thing?
This news you are hearing sounds like Americans and Canadians working together on mutual defence interests to me.

Billary is not the only One who benefited from Uranium deals. There is a fucking huge cross-border legal mess that needs to be cleaned up.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

So why do I say I don't give a fuck about the 2% NATO target?

-- because you got the talking points in front of you.