Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

It's insane how the anti-Trump crowd thinks that Trump nagging people to invest more in their own defense is going to be the death of NATO.

If he really wanted NATO to wither and die he'd say nothing and let it die on its own.

   

No. That is not the art of the deal.

The art of the deal is to remain at the negotiating table (Plan B) until the bitter end while working on Plan A concurrently.
negotiation = theater/distraction for the masses

   

And plan "A" is for it to wither and die?

Negotiation is how shit gets done.

   

Canada is in for some rough times, along with the rest of the global economy. To my mind, we probably should be spending more on defence, based on the risk of the US pulling out of NATO. Rather than this magic 2% number, it should be based on what Canada actually needs.

I'll likely vote for the party that will boost defence spending the most in the next election. It's that time.

   

Zip, if you're going to move your post then I have to move my reply:

Cheers, buddy!

   

That's the great thing about democracy, there's always an election around the corner - in this case, about a year away.






It actually has more to do with wealth (overall GDP) and less to do with population, i.e. we spend more because our economy is stronger. That's why 1.4% of our economy is worth far more than 2.3% of Greece's economy. They'd need to spend more than 10% to spend as many total dollars as we do.





Raw dollars are most definitely an indication of capability.

That's why Canada has a dozen blue water frigates capable of being part of a USN carrier battle group, while Estonia has three small minesweepers. Speaking of CBGs, a carrier battle group costs $5 billion give or take (for ships and planes) and another $1 billion a year to operate - only the wealthiest nations can afford such luxuries (USA, UK, France and China).

If per capita spending measured capability, Saudi Arabia and Israel would be the top ranked superpowers in the world, with the US coming in third (Oman, Singapore and Kuwait would also be world powers):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Meanwhile major powers like China, Russia, Japan and Germany don't even make it into the top 15.

Total dollars count far more than per capita dollars.





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.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/libera ... -1.4149473

And many of the equipment shortages the CAF now has can be squarely laid at the feet of the previous government - they dithered for nearly a decade on the AORs (cancelling the program TWICE), new trucks, armoured vehicles to replace the LAV IIIs, and all sorts of other gear for the Forces. Look up the Canada First Defence Strategy rolled out in 2008 - not one piece of equipment in that strategy was acquired under Harper. Instead they bought Chinooks that arrived AFTER we left Afghanistan and C-17s, while the Navy rusted out and hulls were not laid. And despite having a majority since 2011, they didn't move forward on getting new fighters for the RCAF either.

I completely agree we need to spend more, but an arbitrary goal of 2% ($40 billion give or take) is useless.

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%...

   

Canada could never fund a military large enough to defeat the US Armed Forces, even if we spent 100% of our federal budget ($320+ billion) on defence.

   

You never have to build a military large enough to defeat the US.

A band of opium-addicted Islamonutbags living in caves along the Pakistan-Afghan border have over the past forty years humiliated the combined might of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

Like these guys you just need to make the most of what you have. That's all.

Seriously, a decent enough military and an armed populace (militia) would be sufficient to deter just about anyone who isn't willing to go nuclear on you.

   

^ This!

   

I get that Canada is pissed at Trump over the tariffs, that makes sense. I and a lot of Americans do not support the tariffs. At the present moment the bottle of Canadian Mist that I am currently enjoying is probably the only Canadian import in my home. China however is another story. There are probably thousands of items in my home made in China. For the most part American factories are not packing up and leaving the states for Canada. Canada is not building islands out in the oceans of the world near countries that the U.S. has treaties to defend, proclaiming that the islands are sovereign Canadian space. No one in the U.S. in their right mind would see Canada as a threat. There should be zero friction between the two countries at the time. The friction is 100% of our making. I admit that and I apologize for it. I would prefer the U.S. and its allies put on a unified front against China. That is what it will take for any of us to survive. During the American Civil War the Union kidnapped and arrested a couple of Confederate envoys on their way to Europe on the British vessel RMS Trent down in the Bahamas. Britain was so upset that they began war preparations against the Union. Many in the Union were spoiling for another war with Britain. President Lincoln knew that it would be disastrous to wage war with Britain while simultaneously waging a civil war. He ordered the release of the Confederate envoys as well as an apology to Britain. "One war at a time Mr. Seward" Lincoln said to his Secretary of State William Seward. I have always thought that President Lincoln was one of the smartest Presidents that we have ever had. I wish that my current President had that kind of foresight. One war at a time. We need all of our allies for a trade war with China. Pissing our allies off is no way to win a trade war with China.

I see the tariffs and the NATO payments as two separate entities.Canada made the agreement about the NATO payments with NATO, not the U.S. The agreements were made long before Trump came on the scene. From my understanding 2% of GDP has been agreed upon several times before 2014. I am not going to stake my personal reputation on that as it is like pulling teeth getting any factual info from NATO itself. I cannot provide any links from NATO. The world is a dangerous place and only getting worse. People need to take their security agreements seriously. Its not just security agreements, its all agreements. Anyone who is upholding their end of a deal has a right to call out those who are not meeting their end of the deal regardless of the deal. Every student has had to be part of a team project for a grade at some point in their life. Every team has had that one member or members who do not pull their weight. They do not show up on time (if they even show up at all), they do not do their assignments, they always have an excuse why they cannot meet their obligations. Its not fair that they get to share in the hard work (and grade) of others who do pull their weight. Trump may be the only one bringing it up, but he is not the only one thinking it.

   

They have frustrated the combined might of the Warsaw Pact and NATO, not really humiliated them. Almost every time there is any kind of real stand up battle with the Taliban, they wind up getting their asses kicked by artillery and air strikes, so instead they rely on terror to coerce the locals into non-cooperation and play the long game, hoping we'll get frustrated and just leave.

But their country has a puppet government that listens to foreign masters and has foreign soldiers on its soil that are there to protect said puppet government. Those so-called "Islamonutbags" cannot even walk the streets openly.

That is not truly free and neither would a Canada with a US-backed 'government', supported by US troops, be free.

I have no doubt that if the US was to invade us, they'd face some sort of insurgency, with some advantages that the Taliban doesn't have, like language, proximity, etc. If those fictional Canadian insurgents wanted, terror attacks inside the US would be much easier than it is for the Taliban/ISIS.

At the same time however, that proximity also means short supply lines for the US, instead of one that stretches to the other side of the planet like Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I cannot honestly think of any sort of military capable of standing off the US for very long - even one similar in size and capability to the Brits/Japanese/Germans. 1000 tanks just means you drop 2,000 smart bombs instead of 200 to take out the 100 tanks we have now. 300 fighters/attack aircraft means you just send in 1,000 instead of 200 to deal with the RCAF. Even if we built a couple carriers and assorted task forces, the USN still has 10 of them to deal with whatever we built.

About the only investment that would make sense if we were seriously worried about a US invasion would be a large fleet of nuclear subs (20+) that could operate for extended periods without surfacing and refueling. Even that would strain our resources and still be vastly outnumbered by the USN.

Around 1/4 of Canadians own firearms - there are between 8-10 million firearms in Canada, so a portion of those would likely be used by whatever fictional insurgents existed, along with whatever firearms they captured.

   

I think I prefer the Swiss model over the second amendment-y model. A gun in every home and military training on how to use it.

   

You don't use traditional tactics against any modern military, and the US military is not as good as you may think (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002). Lt.Gen. Paul van Riper proved that.

Most Militaries cannot deal with insurgent or hit and run tactics.

   

I agree armies have difficulties with insurgencies, but an insurgency does not stop another nation from invading and occupying Canada and installing a puppet government supported by their troops.

Sure a fictional insurgency could inflict pain and suffering on the US, even more so because of our proximity and language (initially it might even be easy to launch terror attacks on civilian targets inside the US), but the point is Canada occupied and fighting insurgent-style would NOT be a free nation.

   

Military spending should be increased despite Trump demanding it and we should get the best value equipment possible from NATO members regardless of origin. Don’t buy local unless it’s the best or very close to it - otherwise you end up with bad deals and impressive amounts of corruption.

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next