Canada's defence spending hits new lows under P.M Trudeau

[Tyrianth]

Putin would be out of his gddmn mind to try to grab territory in North America, let alone territory belonging to a NATO member (like Canada).

Article 5 gets invoked, and the Russian Federation gets rekt.


I summon @Skroe. What is thy opinion on this hypothetical, o wise one?

Geopolitics is not static. Who says NATO will be around in 5 or 10 years? Who says the next Russian President won't be even more impulsive than the current US President?

[Heladys]

$1 Canadian only buys 75¢ US.

Trudeau can't afford to spend on defense.

Whatever will we do without our $12000USD toilet seats and $800USD hammers? Dang.

[Berengil]

Geopolitics is not static. Who says NATO will be around in 5 or 10 years? Who says the next Russian President won't be even more impulsive than the current US President?

Even if NATO goes poof (big dmn if), the US will never, ever permit a power foreign to North America to attack any other North American nation and take territory. There is no conceivable circumstance under which this would be permitted.

[jackofwind]

Trudeau is a disgrace.

Spending excessive money on our military is nothing but a waste when everyone knows the US would be there to protect us if we needed it.

That's what it means to have allies.

[Tennis]

Woo, who needs arctic sovereignty. We may as well just hand our territories to Russia now.

While 2% is a bit much I would be happy to see at least 1.5% of our budget going towards defense.

Wake up son. We're better off with healthcare and a social net than more military spending. You want a downtown relief line or some more useless jets.

[Tyrianth]

Even if NATO goes poof (big dmn if), the US will never, ever permit a power foreign to North America to attack any other North American nation and take territory. There is no conceivable circumstance under which this would be permitted.

The point is Canada should be able to defend itself not rely on another foreign power. There are plenty of circumstances that could occur were Canada might not be able to rely on US support. Are any of them conceivable in the near future? No, not really. But as I said before a military is insurance. You don't buy insurance when you already need it. You buy it in advance for when you do need it.

- - - Updated - - -

Wake up son. We're better off with healthcare and a social net than more military spending. You want a downtown relief line or some more useless jets.

Lol "son". Sorry, but you're the one living in a naive world. Healthcare, social security, and military spending are not mutually exclusive. Believe it or not, when you have a budget of a few hundred billion dollars, and a GDP of over 1 trillion, you can afford to spend money on quite a few different things.

[omfgreally]

Great to see! In a time where some are spending more on military, Canada is leading the way in another direction. This is what Canada is about. Diplomacy and peace. Not war and violence. I hope PM Trudeau continues spending on Canada as opposed to on a military we don't need.

I can see what a sick person you are, Glad to see a nation's laughable military is failing as the country is driving it's self down like Sweden with all of it's leftest fells and Arabs.

We see you for what you truly are.

- - - Updated - - -

Spending excessive money on our military is nothing but a waste when everyone knows the US would be there to protect us if we needed it.

That's what it means to have allies.

"Protect US" No you made your beds time to lay in them. Northern WALL! Also, most Americans forget about Canada 99.9% of the time.


[Infracted]

[Sandraudiga]

Spending excessive money on our military is nothing but a waste when everyone knows the US would be there to protect us if we needed it.

That's what it means to have allies.

Canada made a commitment to increase defence spending to 2%, as well as promised to at least not lower defence spending in the meantime. Canada is part of NATO and therefore has obligations that they agreed to.

Are you saying Canada's word is worthless? Why should anyone follow through with their commitments to Canada if Canada won't reciprocate? Canada has a very good reputation on the world stage, chipping away at that isn't a good thing.

[the game]

It's funny because the only reason Canada can afford to have that low of a budget is because the US military has got their back. Would be hilarious to see what happens if we didn't have their back.

[Berengil]

The point is Canada should be able to defend itself not rely on another foreign power. There are plenty of circumstances that could occur were Canada might not be able to rely on US support. Are any of them conceivable in the near future? No, not really. But as I said before a military is insurance. You don't buy insurance when you already need it. You buy it in advance for when you do need it.

That's a good point, and it's something that Canadians must decide for themselves. Canada would definitely be better served by a larger navy and air force more than it would by training and equipping a much larger ground army to operate in its more northern territories.

For your navy, my personal recommendation would be attack subs, lots of them. For your air force, air superiority fighters.

Why? Because to take any of the Canadian Arctic territories, an enemy would have to come in by sea or air, and subs along with air-to-air fighters could deny them. Of course if they try to come through Alaska, they're f'ed.

And then there's the nuclear option. Canada could obtain short range (600 miles or less) missiles tipped with tactical (5kt or less) nuclear warheads, and spread them all over the northern islands.

[Tennis]

It's funny because the only reason Canada can afford to have that low of a budget is because the US military has got their back. Would be hilarious to see what happens if we didn't have their back.

Nonsense. Canada isn't about to be invaded by Russia or China anytime soon. We can spend less than 1% of our GDP and instead focus on our people

[Tyrianth]

That's a good point, and it's something that Canadians must decide for themselves. Canada would definitely be better served by a larger navy and air force more than it would by training and equipping a much larger ground army to operate in its more northern territories.

For your navy, my personal recommendation would be attack subs, lots of them. For your air force, air superiority fighters.

Why? Because to take any of the Canadian Arctic territories, an enemy would have to come in by sea or air, and subs along with air-to-air fighters could deny them. Of course if they try to come through Alaska, they're f'ed.

And then there's the nuclear option. Canada could obtain short range (600 miles or less) missiles tipped with tactical nuclear warheads, and spread them all over the northern islands.

I would love for Canada to become a nuclear nation, we already have the knowledge and capabilities, hell Canada played role in the Manhattan Project. It will never happen though.

And I agree. Canada does not need a large ground army. We are surrounded by 3 oceans and the US to our south. Canadian military should be focused on the Navy and Air Force.

Canada has a very interesting military history. Historically we had a damn good military for a country our size. When things started to cool down on the world stage we became known as some of the world leaders in peace keeping. Now our military can't even do that. I really do find our current military a disgrace to this nation and its history and would happily accept higher taxes if it meant having a decent military again.

[jackofwind]

I can see what a sick person you are, Glad to see a nation's laughable military is failing as the country is driving it's self down like Sweden with all of it's leftest fells and Arabs.

We see you for what you truly are.

- - - Updated - - -



"Protect US" No you made your beds time to lay in them. Northern WALL! Also, most Americans forget about Canada 99.9% of the time.

That's fine, IDGAF what Americans think about Canadians. The US government would never let Russia acquire arctic sovereignty because it's not in the best interest of America.

Helping us protect ourselves is the way you maintain your secure source of necessary natural resources. Without Canada as your source you'd be fucked.

Paying for and sustaining a large ground army is nothing but a giant waste of money for Canada. If any extra spending on the military should be undertaken it should be in a nuclear program and in armored support roles and navy - that's the role we'll play in conflicts anyways.

5 of 28 nations fulfil their obligations. 5 of 28. It's not like Canada is some weird anomaly in NATO.

- - - Updated - - -

Canada made a commitment to increase defence spending to 2%, as well as promised to at least not lower defence spending in the meantime. Canada is part of NATO and therefore has obligations that they agreed to.

NATO obligations are meaningless according to the US, so who are they to tell us to uphold our own? Again, 5 of 28 nations - less than 20% of the alliance - uphold their defense spending commitments. It's not like we just started not meeting the commitments either - we've so for years even under Conservative leadership. Trudeau has little to do with this, and your personal opinion of him makes no difference in the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny because the only reason Canada can afford to have that low of a budget is because the US military has got their back. Would be hilarious to see what happens if we didn't have their back.

Sure it would, but the nature of the Canada - US relationship is such that the American Government will literally always have our backs.

[Sandraudiga]

That's fine, IDGAF what Americans think about Canadians. The US government would never let Russia acquire arctic sovereignty because it's not in the best interest of America.

Helping us protect ourselves is the way you maintain your secure source of necessary natural resources. Without Canada as your source you'd be fucked.

Paying for and sustaining a large ground army is nothing but a giant waste of money for Canada. If any extra spending on the military should be undertaken it should be in a nuclear program and in armored support roles and navy - that's the role we'll play in conflicts anyways.

- - - Updated - - -



NATO obligations are meaningless according to the US, so who are they to tell us to uphold our own?

It should be Canada who tells itself it should meet the obligations it agrees to, or it simply shouldn't make them. What another country does or doesn't do shouldn't affect whether you keep your promises. Canada has an extremely proud military history, one of the best in the world, upholding that should be a priority even without the obligation forcing the issue.

[jackofwind]

It should be Canada who tells itself it should meet the obligations it agrees to, or it simply shouldn't make them. What another country does or doesn't do shouldn't affect whether you keep your promises. Canada has an extremely proud military history, one of the best in the world, upholding that should be a priority even without the obligation forcing the issue.

You're right, we do have a proud military history. We also have a long history of not meeting NATO spending commitments.

It has nothing to do with the current PM.

[Sandraudiga]

You're right, we do have a proud military history. We also have a long history of not meeting NATO spending commitments.

It has nothing to do with the current PM.

How is that any sort of excuse? Canada pledged in late 2014 to increase spending to 2% and to immediately half any spending cuts in the meantime. Trudeau has had plenty of time to keep Canada's promise, and not only has he not implemented a plan to increase spending, but broken the promise not to cut spending further.

Is the 2% target legally binding? No. However, making the pledge and not only not attempting to make it, but to openly and brazenly break that pledge as Trudeau has is a stain on Canada's reputation that isn't easily cleaned.

[Wyrt]

It's funny because the only reason Canada can afford to have that low of a budget is because the US military has got their back. Would be hilarious to see what happens if we didn't have their back.

Um, nothing would happen?

Who's going to attack them? Greenland?

[jackofwind]

How is that any sort of excuse? Canada pledged in late 2014 to increase spending to 2% and to immediately half any spending cuts in the meantime. Trudeau has had plenty of time to keep Canada's promise, and not only has he not implemented a plan to increase spending, but broken the promise not to cut spending further.

Is the 2% target legally binding? No. However, making the pledge and not only not attempting to make it, but to openly and brazenly break that pledge as Trudeau has is a stain on Canada's reputation that isn't easily cleaned.

A stain that less than 20% of the NATO allies share then I guess. A stain shared by Canadian PMs for a long time before Trudeau ever came along, for that matter.

That stain you're talking about isn't something that other countries even recognize. Canada still has the same good global reputation, despite not meeting the NATO commitments. It's not making a shred of difference, and again, it's been going on for a lot longer than Trudeau has been in power. It was happening under Conservative governments too.

Your first post was "Trudeau is a disgrace" - were you saying "Harper is a disgrace" too? Because he wasn't meeting the commitments either. Come on man, it hasn't been at 2% GDP since 1988, and it's been around 1.2% for the vast majority of that time. Canada's reputation hasn't suffered whatsoever during that time.

TL;DR - You're massively overblowing the seriousness and implications of Canada not meeting its 2% pledge, and laying it at the feet of someone who is doing the exact same thing that our country, along with most other countries in NATO, has been doing for decades.

PS: Have you actually looked into the 2% metric? It's got a long list of deficiencies and is essentially nothing but a political tool as opposed to an effective and realistic one.

I suggest you give this a read.

[Zomis]

I do not know why Canada would bother spending any money on defense.
They have their southern border big brother to protect them.

Exactly, the Connucks know that we would protect our oil

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense. Canada isn't about to be invaded by Russia or China anytime soon. We can spend less than 1% of our GDP and instead focus on our people

We give Americans jobs by putting funding into our military, that gives people money and us a kick ass military, you just give money to people to sit around and smoke weed and shit post on MMO Champ.

[Lynarii]

I don't think the 2% target has any great meaning, but I do strongly think that Canada has to make some serious commitments to the military for other reasons. No, Canada does not have to worry about being invaded. It won't happen, the US would never allow it to happen, it's a silly scenario to plan around. However, especially with the ice in the north melting, having an effective military is about a lot more than just preventing an invasion. If we want a northwest passage to be the powerful trade route that it can be (and it strongly benefits us to have that) it needs to be patrolled, kept safe, and generally made clear that it's going through Canadian waters and Canadian laws are enforced there. To do that we need both a naval and air presence capable of responding to situations in a timely manner, and currently we're a ways off from being able to field that. We don't have to be able to win a war on our own, we have no need to be getting into an arms race with another country, but if we can't even provide basic security in our own territory then we might as well hand it over to someone who can.