Should Canada raise defence spending to 2% of GDP?

[CaptainCrunch]

You have a choice, you can either consistently spend a 2% and actually put in a planned military road map that rotates equipment upgrades and purchases and recruiting.

Or you can do what this country idiotically does in which they ignore it until it becomes a emergency and then people complain at the exorbitant costs involved in fixing it.

Canada's been incredibly fortunate in terms of service related death due to poor equipment going far past the end of life.

Canada was fortunate that the casualties were so low at the start of the Afghanistan campaign.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You have a choice, you can either consistently spend a 2% and actually put in a planned military road map that rotates equipment upgrades and purchases and recruiting.

Or you can do what this country idiotically does in which they ignore it until it becomes a emergency and then people complain at the exorbitant costs involved in fixing it.

Canada's been incredibly fortunate in terms of service related death due to poor equipment going far past the end of life.

Canada was fortunate that the casualties were so low at the start of the Afghanistan campaign.

The Iltis............that is all.

[Flash Walken]

That's a big part of it for me, CC.

Military worksafe standards appear to be lower than those of the private sector, and that's wrong.

It's cruel to expect someone to use some of the equipment we require our forces to use, to the jeopardy of us all.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That's a big part of it for me, CC.

Military worksafe standards appear to be lower than those of the private sector, and that's wrong.

It's cruel to expect someone to use some of the equipment we require our forces to use, to the jeopardy of us all.

A little OT, but I don't think you can apply civilian job standards to the military.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

A little OT, but I don't think you can apply civilian job standards to the military.

Agreed.

I meant more that many of the jobs are dangerous enough without having to worry about the equipment you're relying on, often to survive.

Serving in a sub is dangerous enough without a good chance it catches on fire, etc...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The Iltis............that is all.

That whole thing should have been a bigger scandal then it was for Bombardier and the government at the time.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That whole thing should have been a bigger scandal then it was for Bombardier and the government at the time.

Of course there is this POS:

Spoiler!

Had to go backwards up hills....

[PsYcNeT]

Who are we defending against?

[CaptainCrunch]

The LSVW aka the Kim Campbell special.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The LSVW aka the Kim Campbell special.

What is sad, is we could break CP by just posting all the ####ty pieces of kit the military has had over the years....

[FlamesAddiction]

Do you think it would be better for NATO countries to focus spending in specific areas, where countries would support NATO in a specific capacity as opposed to spreading the money thin?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Do you think it would be better for NATO countries to focus spending in specific areas, where countries would support NATO in a specific capacity as opposed to spreading the money thin?

I've never agreed with that concept. Each country is responsible for their own defense ultimately, with countries donating units to their allies on a as needed basis. Or coming to their defense against invasion.

but each country has to be able to provide for their own defense.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What is sad, is we could break CP by just posting all the ####ty pieces of kit the military has had over the years....

Chapter one - The Ross Rifle, it looked like a rifle but was more of a spear

[automaton 3]

Most effectively used as a club from what I read. You know its bad when our troops were dropping it mid battle and picking up a Lee-Enfield at first opportunity.

[dammage79]

Probably a good idea to increase spending if they want some of these things:

[Aarongavey]

I am not sure if we can get to 2 percent, but surely Harper can spend as much on the military as a percentage of GDP as Chretien did. I thought Harper supported the military? It is surprising that Chretien was a bigger financial supporter of the military in the 90's than Harper is. Get it up to the 1.3 percent of GDP that Chretien spent first I think. Baby steps. 2 percent of GDP is a real commitment, not just a slogan for the team.

[Ashartus]

Arbitrarily saying 2% of GDP seems to be a recipe for mismanaging money and resources to me. I'd rather see an approach where clear goals are set for the role, size and make-up of our military as well as how often equipment needs to be upgraded/replaced, and using that to establish the cost. It could be 1% of the GDP or it could be more than 2%, but the budget should be based solely on what is needed to do the job properly.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You have a choice, you can either consistently spend a 2% and actually put in a planned military road map that rotates equipment upgrades and purchases and recruiting.

Or you can do what this country idiotically does in which they ignore it until it becomes a emergency and then people complain at the exorbitant costs involved in fixing it.

I agree with the general principle behind this post (it costs less in the long-term to pro-actively replacing obsolete hardware rather than trying to extend its use past its expected end-of-life), but I'm not sure how you can conclude that 2% of GDP is a magic number we should be spending every year. What if the economy crashes and the GDP contracts; should we cancel/delay military procurement deals as a result? What if we enter a boom cycle of short-term economic expansion; should we start buying a whole bunch of toys we don't need just to maintain military spending at 2% of GDP?

DND should actively maintain a long-term plan for equipment lifecycle management based on current and projected future needs. Maybe that means we spend 2% of GDP in some years and slightly more or less in others. Maybe that averages to ~2% of GDP over a 10 or 20 year period, but it's not as simple as saying we should spend a fixed percentage amount each year.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Arbitrarily saying 2% of GDP seems to be a recipe for mismanaging money and resources to me. I'd rather see an approach where clear goals are set for the role, size and make-up of our military as well as how often equipment needs to be upgraded/replaced, and using that to establish the cost. It could be 1% of the GDP or it could be more than 2%, but the budget should be based solely on what is needed to do the job properly.

I think the 2% comes from NATO agreements, no?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think the 2% comes from NATO agreements, no?

Not to my knowledge. The current 2% target is a recent proposal that NATO members should try to attain, but it's not a binding part of the treaty itself.

Also, it looks like Canada and Germany have already shot the plan down, for precisely the reasons Ashartus and I outlined in our previous posts above. I don't always agree with The Harper Government, but credit where it's due for making the right call in this case.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09...nding-targets/

But Germany and Canada have both said they won’t agree to NATO’s two per cent target.

“We are open to increasing military spending when and where it makes sense and in response to particular needs,” a senior Canadian government official said. “But the notion of setting an arbitrary target does not make sense.”

The prime minister’s spokesman Jason MacDonald said Tuesday night that Canada has agreed to “compromise language” with NATO allies. But Canada will still not formally commit to the two per cent target.