EyeBrock wrote:
Boots, I don't think we have to (currently at least) see the US as a military threat to us. We can defend our southern border in the same way we have for decades, with a customs booth.
What we do need to look at is being able to defend our north, the Atlantic approaches and the Pacific approaches. By NATO and western standards, we spend little on defence. All of us agree that the Arctic should have a viable Canadian military presence.
Maybe we can't hack the Aussies 3% of GDP expenditure on defence but if we truly want to be sovereign in a world that is becoming increasingly fractured and dangerous, we need to invest more than 1% of our GDP in protecting our country.
Well, I did say that the Yanks haven't been a threat for 150 years...and like I said, even if they were, there's not much we could do about it.
As far as the 3%/1% discussion goes, I don't buy it. Tying defence spending to GDP is silly. They are plenty of nations that spend way more per capita than we do (some middle eastern nations for example), but have a far less effective military than we do.
I think total defence spending dollars are a far more accurate measure than a percentage of GDP is.
And I fully agree we should spend more - but the problem is on what? Do we want nuke subs to patrol the Arctic or do we want amphibs to project force overseas? Do we want F-35s for deployment on overseas missions or something more affordable, in larger numbers to patrol the Arctic? Or do we even want fighters at all - when UAVs might be even better? Do we want a big army for missions like Afghanistan or an elite force of commandos for spec ops missions? The list goes on and on.
That's why I heartily agree with the need for a new defence white paper.
The CF needs some guidance on what kinds of missions it will be expected to do and the government needs some guidance on what kind of equipment the CF will need to do those missions.
CKA Super Elite 
I shit you not.
