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

[Mormolyce]

Because looking at the number is the wrong approach. That puts budget infront of requirement. That's backwards. The requirement must DICTATE the budget, and if the requirement is too great, cut the requirement and have a lower budget.

Mmm, I completely agree but I suspect we don't agree on what the requirement should be. And how effective the armed forces have been at pursuing that objective, and therefore whether it's worth the money.

Okay here goes

Thanks for all that detail, that was interesting reading. Am I reading the cost per troop right - the overall cost has largely plateaued in adjusted $ in the last decade or so (the table on personnel costs per active)? But the total army & marine strength figure (and the navy as far as I can tell) seems about flat since the 90s (from the first figure, historical force allocation).

So unless your reserves/national guard has grown, shouldn't the net cost of personnel be roughly flat in the last decade or so?

[Skroe]

Mmm, I completely agree but I suspect we don't agree on what the requirement should be. And how effective the armed forces have been at pursuing that objective, and therefore whether it's worth the money.

That's a policy debate. And as I said, if the country truly wants to move in another direction (which I suspect it doesn't... its qualms about 'world police' mostly amount to a big humblebrag), then okay... fine. I think that's insane for about twenty reasons, but this is a democracy after all. I can lose on policy.

But right now, we're telling the US military to do a $750 billion mission (at least) on $600 billion. That needs to change.

Thanks for all that detail, that was interesting reading. Am I reading the cost per troop right - the overall cost has largely plateaued in adjusted $ in the last decade or so (the table on personnel costs per active)? But the total army & marine strength figure (and the navy as far as I can tell) seems about flat since the 90s (from the first figure, historical force allocation).

So unless your reserves/national guard has grown, shouldn't the net cost of personnel be roughly flat in the last decade or so?

Here is a better view of the graphic. It has an X axis.


So personnel costs in 2014 were roughly the same as 2009, but going by the following graphic, they're increasing due to healthcare costs overall.



But of note, personel costs in 20014 are nearly double what they were in 1998, and Healthcare costs are nearly three times as much.

As far as "force numbers", today's force numbers are close-ish to the 1998 numbers in terms of people. Putting those two together means that the military is paying more-per-person, which judging by the increase in benefits due to the Wars and the need to grow the force during them, shouldn't be all that surprising - troops in 2017 are paid better, equipped better and taken care of better, than 1998. The basic 'kit' alone for a single US army infantryman in 2017 is about $25,000.

So all in all, its' a more expensive military on a per-person basis, and if you compare ship, squadron, and division numbers between 2014 QDR and 1997 (the top graphic), you see a significantly smaller fighting force. Basically, same number of people, in fewer planes, on fewer ships, in fewer combat formations.

But this comes against a critical backdrop: the US military is doing a lot more in 2017 than it was doing in 1998. And there is a third aspect: in 1998 the 1980s and 1990s hardware that is the backbone of our military might was then relatively new. Today... well let me put it in perspective. To keep the 222 F-15Cs in service through 2040, the Air Force will need to rebuild their center fuselage, which are aging badly (cracks from stress), at the cost of $40-60 million PER F-15. So when people say "gosh do we really need to buy the $90 million F-35", keep this in mind: just keeping what we already have (albeit for a different job), will be 2/3rds as much as one.

The fault in this lies in the Iraq and Afghan Wars, which wiped out an entire era of military modernization in the mid 2000s. Had those wars never happened, we'd likely be retiring the F-15C by 2020, because we'd have 400 F-22s to replace them all. But the wars saw the F-22 buy cut to 183, of which 125 are combat coded, which necessitates keeping the F-15C until we build a fighter late next decade that can replace them both.

That small example is a microcosm of the costs coming down on the armed forces all at once: (1) a lot of missions that lead to a LOT of differed maintenance and training (2) increasing personnel costs (3) an aging military infrastructure that is a decade behind on replacement and has to be replaced within 15 years instead of a phase replacement over 25.

This is by the way, one reason I think all those alt-right idiots wanting to pick a fight with ISIS, or bomb North Korea, or bomb Iran, are completely out of their fucking minds. Sure they US could do it now. And it would win. But just like the Iraq War, everything being cycled up to replace the aging military infrastructure we got will be delayed or canceled yet again, and before you know it and it'll be 2025 and we'll be talking about how we can fly F-15Cs, a plane that first flew in 1977, until 2060.

And it'll have to do it at a time boomers are retiring and medicare costs are surging.

Basically this is easily avoided if we budget smart and predictably, pick our battles wisely, and really work to push down healthcare costs in the military.

[Kellhound]

For whatevever reason, when most people in these parts think war they think this:



Let's invade and conquer some territory boys!

No. War in the 21st century is going to mean long range (conventional) ballistic missiles and cruise missiles neutering a country's ability to make war.

Canada's aviation industry in particular is deeply enmeshed with the US defense industrial complex. You think China, Russia or whoever else wouldn't launch long range missiles at a Canadian factory producing aircraft for US forces? It would take years to rebuild a facility, nevermind the lost institutional knowledge which could never recover. Of course they're going to blow it up. And by the way, that's exactly what the US would do to China. Target the factories... cut off their ability to produce more than what they already have.

This is why I said Canada needs to spend it's money on missile defense, long range missiles, air craft and mid-sized naval craft. Because if China or anybody else thinks they can cripple the US defense industry's ability to produce, they'll take that opportunity. A Canadian flag (or any flag) or Tennisance's myopic principles nobody cares about won't protect them.

This is one of those rare times I disagree with you. Airpower (and missiles are part of it) has never won a war on its own, and ICBMs are too expensive and carry too many risks to use with conventional warheads except in very small number of specialty cases.

[Eldar45]

This is what Canada is about. Diplomacy and peace. Not war and violence.

This is all well and good, but what about those that do want war and violence? What do you do about them? Send peaceful diplomats to ask them not to take all your natural resources by force? Good luck with that.

Canada is just a hop, skip and jump away from Russia and they aren't all that friendly and are among the most powerful nations in the world. Do you really want to be in a staring contest with the Russian bear without the metaphorical big stick to back yourself up with.

Imagine if Nazi Germany built the first Nuclear Weapon. We'd all be speaking German and the world would have a serious shortage of Jews. Just be glad that the United States did it first because both the Germans and the Soviets were working on it.

We need to keep ahead on the military power scale so that when the next war mongering tyrannical asshole comes along we can put him in his place and keep our peaceful way of life. The world wasn't ready for Nazi Germany and we nearly lost it. The world will be ready for the next one, even if the United States has to bear the brunt of most of that sacrifice.

Also, lets not forget that the forces of freedom and democracy were outclassed in World War 2 because we weren't ready for it. It actually really came down to the war between two villains of the world, the Nazis and the Soviets. Thankfully the war unified and strengthened the West. Otherwise I don't believe the Soviets would have stopped with Germany.

[Ghostpanther]

This is one of those rare times I disagree with you. Airpower (and missiles are part of it) has never won a war on its own, and ICBMs are too expensive and carry too many risks to use with conventional warheads except in very small number of specialty cases.

Exactly. Air power alone cannot conquer a country. Ground troops are still a vital part of any successful penetration/offensive when the goal is to take over and control a country.

[Tierbook]

Exactly. Air power alone cannot conquer a country. Ground troops are still a vital part of any successful penetration/offensive when the goal is to take over and control a country.

Canada doesn't need to conquer, they just need to be capable of defending themselves. WITHOUT asking for the US's help

[Tyrianth]

Who says Superman won't fly around saving people? Who says pigs won't sprout wings and start flying? Your hypotheticals are pretty worthless.

Except my hypotheticals are a very real possibility. Only someone with the mentality of a 12 year old thinks something like NATO will be around forever, or that a population wont elect a warmongering maniac to office. Hell we have a very real and recent historical example of the later.

[Tyrianth]

Your hypotheticals aren't nearly as real of a possibility as you seem to think. And 5 to 10 years isn't forever bud.

5 to 10 years was just an example, it could be 10 to 50 years down the line. The point is that no one, not even you, has any idea what's going to happen in the future. You can pretend that you know what will happen in the future but the truth of the mater is that neither myself, the government, or even you, knows what's going to happen. Canada needs a military to be able to protect itself from those possibilities.

[Nitros14]

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.

As if the United States would let Russia have arctic territory that close to US soil.

No amount of money Canada could spend could hope to match Russia or do anything to stop her, Canada is too small.

Any Canadian military spending in the arctic is purely symbolic.

[kail]

Exactly. Air power alone cannot conquer a country. Ground troops are still a vital part of any successful penetration/offensive when the goal is to take over and control a country.

Canada has no motivation to conquer anybody, just keeping itself safe. In that regard, air power does play a major role.

[Tierbook]

As if the United States would let Russia have arctic territory that close to US soil.

No amount of money Canada could spend could hope to match Russia or do anything to stop her, Canada is too small.

Any Canadian military spending in the arctic is purely symbolic.

Bulllllll Shit. Your realize Canada's economy is roughly the same size as Russias correct?

[Nitros14]

Bulllllll Shit. Your realize Canada's economy is roughly the same size as Russias correct?

If wikipedia is to be trusted

Canada
GDP (PPP) 2016 estimate
• Total
$1.672 trillion[6] (15th)

Russia
GDP (PPP) 2017 estimate
• Total
$3.9 trillion (6th)

Sourced from the International Monetary Fund.


Not counting Russia's much higher population. Shrug.

Like I said, Canada doesn't need to spend anything, America won't let Russia have territory that close.

[Tierbook]

If wikipedia is to be trusted

Canada
GDP (PPP) 2016 estimate
• Total
$1.672 trillion[6] (15th)

Russia
GDP (PPP) 2017 estimate
• Total
$3.9 trillion (6th)

Sourced from the International Monetary Fund.


Not counting Russia's much higher population. Shrug.

Like I said, Canada doesn't need to spend anything, America won't let Russia have territory that close.

Blehhh PPP so their haircuts are cheaper, big deal. When it comes to actual government funding that's not that relevant.

[Glorious Leader]

It's called having zero balls. Why spend money on strengthening your country when you can just cry to the US for help militarily if things go bad for you?

Yes the real men with the biggest balls always have the biggest guns and are never over compensating.

[Deleted]

It is sad, watching the vilification of Canada.

Canada has historically been one of the USA's closet allies. Regardless of some of it's residents that post on this board, I have faith in the Canadians and am glad that they are our neighbors and allies.

[Kellhound]

If wikipedia is to be trusted

Canada
GDP (PPP) 2016 estimate
• Total
$1.672 trillion[6] (15th)

Russia
GDP (PPP) 2017 estimate
• Total
$3.9 trillion (6th)

Sourced from the International Monetary Fund.


Not counting Russia's much higher population. Shrug.

Like I said, Canada doesn't need to spend anything, America won't let Russia have territory that close.

Yet in actual GDP, Canada is higher. And even being nice and using PPP, per capita Canada is almost 2x better off.

[wowaccounttom]

has canada ever gone asking for help from the u.s?

[Whitedragon]

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

Ya was going to say the same lol, anything happens it don't matter what Canada is spending big bro U.S. will come bail their bums out of the fire... They will love us for a year or two then go back to chastising us for our overblown military spending....

It is sad, watching the vilification of Canada.

Canada has historically been one of the USA's closet allies. Regardless of some of it's residents that post on this board, I have faith in the Canadians and am glad that they are our neighbors and allies.

I don't think I would call it vilifying Canada, More just having a cheep laugh at Tennisace's expense.

[Tennis]

has canada ever gone asking for help from the u.s?

The U.S. tried to invade in the war of 1812. That's the last real threat we faced.

[SupBrah]

has canada ever gone asking for help from the u.s?

They haven't needed to. Everyone and their mother knows even poking the Canadian bear will get USA involved.

Canada and U.S. military are super, super tight. During 9/11, only 1 other country's planes and military aircraft was allowed to fly through our airspace when we went on alert, and that was Canada.