[BeaverFever]

bootlegga 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.).

Historically it’s also been a common political “tripwire “ in Canada for a government on its way to being voted out of office to promise major expenditures especially military. This basically forces the next government coming in to office to choose between being saddled with massive expenditures not part of their platform or cancelling huge projects with cancellation fees, sunk costs, lost business to Canadian contractors etc.

[Vbeacher]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

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..

Talking about having multiple divisions of infantry is nothing but pie-in-the-sky given the low level of interest Canadians have in their military. We have what, 3 understrength, under-equipped regular regiments now? If we did have the kind of military you envision it would have to be spread out more, for political purposes. And you need to show the flag, need to show Canadians their military, need to familiarize them with it. A recent poll showed most Canadians don't have a clue what our military does or its size, or in many cases even that we have one. We never should have closed the bases in Toronto and Ottawa. I'm also not sure you can even base fighters in the far north for any length of time without a huge increase in maintenance and repair.

[Vbeacher]

bootlegga bootlegga:

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

So given we spend roughly a little less than a third what Russia spends, we have roughly one third their capability. Is that right?

$1:

My point is that total dollars are still a better indication of capability.

The best indication of capability is how many tanks, aircraft, warships and soldiers you have, and how are they equipped.

$1:

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

Have you seen me defending Harper?

$1:

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.

Canadians don't care about it because we aren't told anything about it. The media is left wing and generally anti-militaristic. And the Liberals and NDP are the same. Except when in power in the case of the Liberals.Meanwhile the Conservatives, under Harper, were more the 'pragmatist' party, caring only for what would get them votes as opposed to actual conservative ideological beliefs.

[bootlegga]

martin14 martin14:

bootlegga bootlegga:

to stave off the Soviet Union. Everything the USSR sought to

Yeah, ok, we won that one in 1989. 30 years ago.

Yeah, and the French won World War 1, only to get occupied 22 years later...the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact may be over, but we're in a new one with Russia (and maybe even China) now.

You might want to rest on those laurels from 1989, but the rest of the world sees Russia as a threat.

[bootlegga]

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

bootlegga bootlegga:

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

So given we spend roughly a little less than a third what Russia spends, we have roughly one third their capability. Is that right?

Not apples to apples at all. Russia may pretend it's a developed country, but it barely has its toe in the First World, if at all. Try comparing us to Italy or another similar country in population size and GDP.

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

$1:

My point is that total dollars are still a better indication of capability.

The best indication of capability is how many tanks, aircraft, warships and soldiers you have, and how are they equipped.

Fine, I'll revise that to: total dollars are still a better overall indication of capability than per capita GDP, when comparing states with similar levels of GDP and economic activity.

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

$1:

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

Have you seen me defending Harper?

I didn't say that, it was meant as a reflection that this is a non-partisan issue that no government has really cared about since the end of the Cold War - I might actually argue longer than that.

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

$1:

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.

Canadians don't care about it because we aren't told anything about it. The media is left wing and generally anti-militaristic. And the Liberals and NDP are the same. Except when in power in the case of the Liberals.

That's a vast generalization - the Global TV chain and most of the Sun newspapers (Edmonton, Toronto, Calgary) are certainly not left-wing nor anti-military. The same can be said for many rural newspapers which use use their copy almost verbatim in both news and op/ed articles.

I will agree that some of the media is definitely left-leaning (Toronto Star and Metro papers, CBC).

And we are told about the CF when it's deemed news worthy - like when we had troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in combat - as the unfortunate journalist adage goes, if it bleeds, it leads.

Otherwise, the military generally is not seen as very news worthy, and so not mentioned very often, if at all. The most recent stories I've seen are on CF are in regards to the UN mission to Mali.

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

And the Liberals and NDP are the same. Except when in power in the case of the Liberals.

I'd agree that many in the current generation of Liberals have a low regard for the military, but wouldn't call them anti-military. Many just see them as an obstacle to more social programs/spending. Frankly, the current crop of Liberals is very disappointing, because the post-war Liberals knew the value behind defence spending (having fought WW2).

The NDP however, would pretty much disband the CAF as per their LEAP manifesto BS. As such, they must never be allowed to form a majority government.