Does Canada spend too little on defence?
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
http://www.amenusa.org/milspend.htm
Does Canada spend enough.....well the United States will likely spend as much on defence next year as the rest of the world combined. Should the Liberal budget by approved??? the Canadian government will put the defence budget up to $13B. Should they plan on buying anything substantial, much more will be required. Our tanks (the few we have) along with Helicopters, ships, aircraft (both transport and fighter) are growing older by the day. Cold Lake has fighter aircraft in storage due to lack of pilots and money for training. These aircraft are being used as "spare parts" to keep the other ones flying. I am not sure but I think it takes about 3 hours of maintenance everytime one of the Sea King helicopters fly for one hour just to keep them in the air. Those helicopters are older than most of the pilots who fly them. At one time, during the cold war days, our ships had vacuum tubes in the electronic works of the ship, the only place you could buy them was in one of the Warsaw pact countries. The "protection" for the Cdn airfield in Lahr Germany had anti-aircraft guns off our aircraft carrier and the only way they could shot down enemy aircraft is if the pilot was co-operative.
So......do we spend enough on defence :?: :?: , if the Liberals, under Mr PET, did not cut spending and allow things to go down hill back in the 70s / 80s things might be better today and $13B would cover things. There are too many things that need replacement....so.... NO we do not spend enough.
Does Canada spend enough.....well the United States will likely spend as much on defence next year as the rest of the world combined. Should the Liberal budget by approved??? the Canadian government will put the defence budget up to $13B. Should they plan on buying anything substantial, much more will be required. Our tanks (the few we have) along with Helicopters, ships, aircraft (both transport and fighter) are growing older by the day. Cold Lake has fighter aircraft in storage due to lack of pilots and money for training. These aircraft are being used as "spare parts" to keep the other ones flying. I am not sure but I think it takes about 3 hours of maintenance everytime one of the Sea King helicopters fly for one hour just to keep them in the air. Those helicopters are older than most of the pilots who fly them. At one time, during the cold war days, our ships had vacuum tubes in the electronic works of the ship, the only place you could buy them was in one of the Warsaw pact countries. The "protection" for the Cdn airfield in Lahr Germany had anti-aircraft guns off our aircraft carrier and the only way they could shot down enemy aircraft is if the pilot was co-operative.
So......do we spend enough on defence :?: :?: , if the Liberals, under Mr PET, did not cut spending and allow things to go down hill back in the 70s / 80s things might be better today and $13B would cover things. There are too many things that need replacement....so.... NO we do not spend enough.
Blackleaf said:
Well per capita, it looks like we spend more on defense than Russia and about the same as Japan. Of course defense isn't dependant on population, but area of nation and in that way we are way behind. Absolute numbers are misleading. The interesting thing I find is that the two largest nations fall at the bottom of this list.
According to those numbers, every American (300 million) pays 1517.67$ a year towards the military) while each Canadian (32 million) pays 331.25$ towards the military each year.
RE: Does Canada spend too
Apparently Canada spends less than every other country in NATO per capita except Luxembourg
Apparently Canada spends less than every other country in NATO per capita except Luxembourg
RE: Does Canada spend too
How much should we spend, Toro? If you think we should spend anywhere near what the US spends, you are sadly mistaken. If you think we should spend it a way that compliments the US death machine, you are, once again, sadly mistaken.
Nobody disputes that we need to spend more though. It's a major part of every party platform.
How much should we spend, Toro? If you think we should spend anywhere near what the US spends, you are sadly mistaken. If you think we should spend it a way that compliments the US death machine, you are, once again, sadly mistaken.
Nobody disputes that we need to spend more though. It's a major part of every party platform.
Who exactly do we need to defend ourselves from? Our military is fairly weak, but that's a luxury we can afford by not stepping on many toes. If we're going to raise our military spending, it would only be justifiable to have it on aid and assistance, first and foremost. Then we can start to tackle the need for a well regulated military; but we could probably do without the higher end fancy toys.
It's also pretty deceptive that spending for the American military is classified as defense. I think it should be called offense spending.
It's also pretty deceptive that spending for the American military is classified as defense. I think it should be called offense spending.
RE: Does Canada spend too
The thing is to target it for peacekeeping. That still requires a real military, make no mistakes, but it requires different equipment and training than a war-fighting army.
We also need to show our sovereignty in the north...that requires different equipment and training again.
The idea that we need to spend massive amounts of money is wrong though. We need to spend money, a lot of it, but the important thing is that it be targeted to the right purposes.
The thing is to target it for peacekeeping. That still requires a real military, make no mistakes, but it requires different equipment and training than a war-fighting army.
We also need to show our sovereignty in the north...that requires different equipment and training again.
The idea that we need to spend massive amounts of money is wrong though. We need to spend money, a lot of it, but the important thing is that it be targeted to the right purposes.
Re: RE: Does Canada spend too
Well said Rev, I can call you Rev can't I?
To suggest we spend what US spends is nearing absurdity. However would we be better off is we were at place #7 or #6 on that list?
Reverend Blair said:
Well said Rev, I can call you Rev can't I?
To suggest we spend what US spends is nearing absurdity. However would we be better off is we were at place #7 or #6 on that list?
Sure, most people do. Some people call me other things, but I wish they'd quit it. :wink:
Or even a higher #8. The important thing is that we spend it properly.
Re: RE: Does Canada spend too
Exactly. Who the heck said we should spend as much as the US? That's you being presumptuous Rev.
I don't know how much we should spend but we've been bottom of the table for many years. I certainly don't think the average or median of NATO is unreasonable. There's a belief that Canada doesn't pull its fair share in the west, and if Canada wants to be heard at the table, its gotta walk the talk. If you don't pull your own weight in global security, why should the west - and especially America since Canada is so reliant on the States for protection - listen to issues that are of importance to Canada?
Sy said:
Exactly. Who the heck said we should spend as much as the US? That's you being presumptuous Rev.
I don't know how much we should spend but we've been bottom of the table for many years. I certainly don't think the average or median of NATO is unreasonable. There's a belief that Canada doesn't pull its fair share in the west, and if Canada wants to be heard at the table, its gotta walk the talk. If you don't pull your own weight in global security, why should the west - and especially America since Canada is so reliant on the States for protection - listen to issues that are of importance to Canada?
RE: Does Canada spend too
Perhaps we shouldn't bother being in NATO at all though. It is dominated by the US and Canada is not a war-like nation. The Soviet threat is pretty much gone now, after all. At any rate, NATO is no way to judge what we pay. The G-8 is better, although a measure of GNP should be used to be fair.
This talk of "global security" is silly because what we are really talking about is the ability to wage war, and in the context of the modern world those wars are going to be waged elsewhere.
We need to concentrate on peacekeeping. We shouldn't give a rat's ass what the rest of the west thinks, but instead be working with the UN and the entire world.
Perhaps we shouldn't bother being in NATO at all though. It is dominated by the US and Canada is not a war-like nation. The Soviet threat is pretty much gone now, after all. At any rate, NATO is no way to judge what we pay. The G-8 is better, although a measure of GNP should be used to be fair.
This talk of "global security" is silly because what we are really talking about is the ability to wage war, and in the context of the modern world those wars are going to be waged elsewhere.
We need to concentrate on peacekeeping. We shouldn't give a rat's ass what the rest of the west thinks, but instead be working with the UN and the entire world.
Re: RE: Does Canada spend too
I don't think NATO has anything to do with it, and it certainly has nothing to do with being "war-like". The Soviet threat may be gone, but other "Soviet threats" may lurk in the future. Even if your intent was to protect yourself from the US, or peacekeeping, or whatever, you do not have any of this capability.
Assuming you would leave NATO, you need to pour billions into R&D for military equipment. That alone will take years and put a strain on your government programs. Transfering technology not being a NATO ally is not something that will happen easily.
At best you get a few F-16's or other aircraft from Britain. You said before to invest wisely for peacekeeping, I would agree with you, but even if you spend $50 billion a year like France or GB does, it won't get you far for peacekeeping. How many troops are needed to quell a situation like we saw recently in Rwanda?
What if China invades Taiwan? What amount of peacekeeping forces will evict the invader? And if North Korea invades South Korea? They have a 2 million man army. What then?
All I'm saying there are no easy answers.
Reverend Blair said:
I don't think NATO has anything to do with it, and it certainly has nothing to do with being "war-like". The Soviet threat may be gone, but other "Soviet threats" may lurk in the future. Even if your intent was to protect yourself from the US, or peacekeeping, or whatever, you do not have any of this capability.
Assuming you would leave NATO, you need to pour billions into R&D for military equipment. That alone will take years and put a strain on your government programs. Transfering technology not being a NATO ally is not something that will happen easily.
At best you get a few F-16's or other aircraft from Britain. You said before to invest wisely for peacekeeping, I would agree with you, but even if you spend $50 billion a year like France or GB does, it won't get you far for peacekeeping. How many troops are needed to quell a situation like we saw recently in Rwanda?
What if China invades Taiwan? What amount of peacekeeping forces will evict the invader? And if North Korea invades South Korea? They have a 2 million man army. What then?
All I'm saying there are no easy answers.
Re: RE: Does Canada spend too
A defense system isn't supposed to protect specific areas, it protect the whole. Sure the attack on Yellowknife is remote, but no more remote than an attack on Idaho, Maine or other less prominent areas of the US.
You don't want to leave any gaps unprotected. Once you allow an enemy to get a stronghold within, it is much harder to remove. If anywhere needs the increased defense spending, it is these remote and often overlooked places in the North and along our coastline.
Twila said:
A defense system isn't supposed to protect specific areas, it protect the whole. Sure the attack on Yellowknife is remote, but no more remote than an attack on Idaho, Maine or other less prominent areas of the US.
You don't want to leave any gaps unprotected. Once you allow an enemy to get a stronghold within, it is much harder to remove. If anywhere needs the increased defense spending, it is these remote and often overlooked places in the North and along our coastline.
Re: RE: Does Canada spend too
Why in heaven's name would be not give a rat's ass about the west considering that 95% of our trade is with the west? Canada is a western nation, not a third world one. Canada benefits enormously from being part of the western world. I highly doubt we'd remain at the G-8 if we turned our back on the west just so we can send peace keeping troops to Zaire. You don't see the connection to that? That's a bad, bad idea.
Our focus should be on defending our country, not peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is noble but should come down the list. But of course, if thumb our nose at the west, then we'll be spending a lot more defending ourselves.
Reverend Blair said:
Why in heaven's name would be not give a rat's ass about the west considering that 95% of our trade is with the west? Canada is a western nation, not a third world one. Canada benefits enormously from being part of the western world. I highly doubt we'd remain at the G-8 if we turned our back on the west just so we can send peace keeping troops to Zaire. You don't see the connection to that? That's a bad, bad idea.
Our focus should be on defending our country, not peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is noble but should come down the list. But of course, if thumb our nose at the west, then we'll be spending a lot more defending ourselves.
5000 according to the plan Dallaire was trying to get put into place. The US and France wouldn't let the UN give clearance though.
Oh yeah, I forgot....there is no use doing anything unless there's a profit motive.
Reverend Blair said:
This is exactly what you said
Reverend Blair said:
That's a far cry from saying we should assist elsewhere in the world. You'd disdainly dismiss the west - the part of the world that puts food on our table - so we can embark on a quixotic journey into the third world, where we have no history, where we have no ties and where we have no economic interests.
OK......what enemy are we referring to ??? And WHO's enemy??
As things stand now, which nation has the most "enemies" or potential for same???
Seems an entirely different approach is called for. Cooperation, and assistance where such is needed.
Happen to agree, that Ca's focus should be peacekeeping. (definatly not military buildup) All military buildup does is create a competition for more military buildup and then each nation is poised for "war" at any given time......on the slightest provocation.........or not, as we have seen the US do now. Peace and peace engendering actions , words should be the emphasis, not how much military power one has. Military is important , but one has to define how it is to be used. The way the US uses it's military is hardly a model to follow.
Seems the key is diplomacy, tact and a non confrontational approach. THere are many nations that do not emphasize their "military" ......and least of all the way the US does.
Would never support such a testosterone laden aggressive approach in CA.
Brains over braun. and braun to be used as a LAST RESORT. Will not live on fears the way the US does now.(But then CA does not go around antagonizing everyone either. Would rather have a low profile on this planet, and do more towards peace. Might and power never lasts all that long. We have seen it throughout history. The idea is to work out solutions diplomatically and if some compromise is nec. so be it. Pre-emptive notions are very dangerous and can be abused as we have seen in the US.
Collaboration and cooperation must eventually replace hard nosed competition. .....if humanity is to evolve.
(IMHO)
Ocean Breeze said:
So rather than a strong defense, you would rather sit and wait until someone or something attacks?
I don't want a military for external issues, I just want our own borders tightly sealed and controlled.