Should Canada raise defence spending to 2% of GDP?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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/

So the military will continue to get boned.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So the military will continue to get boned.

That's not the message I took from that article at all. Harper's spokesperson even said that they're open to increasing defense spending when and where it makes sense to do so. Arbitrarily fixing DND's budget at 2% of GDP (which would effectively double what we're currently spending on the military) is not the right solution.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's not the message I took from that article at all. Harper's spokesperson even said that they're open to increasing defense spending when and where it makes sense to do so. Arbitrarily fixing DND's budget at 2% of GDP (which would effectively double what we're currently spending on the military) is not the right solution.

There has been a need for spending for as long as I can rememeber, yet it never happens, or cut rate equipment is purchased.

I am not saying that 2% is the magic number or bullet, but this really leaves the gov't free to neglect the military.

[GoinAllTheWay]

/\/\/\/\/\

Agree 100% I doubt we will ever have the latest and greatest as far as equipment goes but I don't think it's expecting too much at all to have good equipment that suits or needs and isn't aged well beyond its useful lifespan.

They way our governments have handled equipment purchases over the years is embarrassing to say the least.

[automaton 3]

A few purchases have gone ok, in particular the Globemasters and new Hercules. The key seems to be that those were bought pretty much "off the rack".

Where they seem to really get bogged down is when try to customize equipment to a high degree. We end up with either hugely expensive orphan fleets that never work quite right ie Cyclone, or industry throwing up their hands and saying we can't do that ie the UAV program that now has to be reset.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

A few purchases have gone ok, in particular the Globemasters and new Hercules. The key seems to be that those were bought pretty much "off the rack".

Where they seem to really get bogged down is when try to customize equipment to a high degree. We end up with either hugely expensive orphan fleets that never work quite right ie Cyclone, or industry throwing up their hands and saying we can't do that ie the UAV program that now has to be reset.

I don't know, I'm not an airforce guy, but the F-18's are unique in the world and that one went pretty smoothly.

The Halifax Class Frigates were a unique build, we could have gone out and bought a American class of vessel, but the Halifax's worked out.

Some of the sensor upgrades on Canadian recce vehicles worked out well too.

But the purchases as of late haven't been well handled. But to be honest, I don't think that there is such a thing as a smooth military procurement, and its getting more complex because weapons systems are getting way way more complex.

A Russian general at a conference a couple of years back complained that it used to be easy to recruit and train a infantry soldier, but now they have to recruit and train computer operators.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Before all else, Canada really needs to take a step back and figure out exactly what sort of a military it wants and needs in this day and age and how it's going to get there. We are a unique country given our massive size but modest population. We also reside next to the worlds only superpower (for now) and have or international obligations to consider, NATO being the biggest of all.

Not to mention the arctic, which some of our allies dispute even belongs to us, as has already been mentioned.

CC already mentioned how adept we're becoming at waiting until equipment replacement becomes an emergency before we take action. I think our procurement strategy gets a good hard look next. It's embarrassing how often we read about procurement problems and the subsequent money wasted as a result.

If that ever gets even to the point of something closely resembling being fixed te savings would be noticeable, IMO.

Id be in favour of increasing spending .1 or .2% GDP just to address these two issues alone once and for all (or as close as possible ). I think the long term savings and benefits would far outweigh an arbitrary increase of spending on defense with no clear objectives.

[CaptainCrunch]

Hopefully this doesn't run too long but its probably going to.

In terms of Canada's military spending strategy going forward. Because as mentioned above we have a relatively small military force and we have to protect a large land area and a highly spread out population logic dictates taht

1) you have to highly equip each soldier with what I'm going to define as the most advanced weapons system possible. You need to have a high kill ratio or even an over kill ratio.

2) That means that if you've got an airforce of 65 fighters, then you have to give each pilot the best option possible in terms of survivability and in terms of being able to do the most damage possible.

3) In terms of ground based weapons systems such as tanks and armored vehicle again you have to be able to get the maximum survivability and the maximum killing ability since you are going to be outnumbered whether its here in Canada or abroad.

4) In terms of the Navy, you have a small navy with very few major surface combat vessels and even fewer sub surface vehicles that not only have to cover two coast lines but a whole different arctic environment. To properly do this, you can do one of three things

A) Base your navy around power protection. This is not an option it was in the mid to later part of the 20th century when we had a naval strategy that included carriers. That's not an option anymore, Carrier operations are hideously expensive and not really needed for coastal defense.
B) Base your navy around interoperability, intelligence gathering and the ability to integrate with the American and British Navy. This allows you to cover the maximum area possible with fewer ships. In order to do this you need effective intelligence gathering assets (sonar nets, long range patrol aircraft, coastal defense vessels, long range patrol submarines, arctic hardened combat vessels). You also then need a task force on each coast that can respond to situations. This is still Canada's best bet, on top of that you need to have assets that you can deploy on NATO and UN missions that can inter operate with advanced ships from other navies.
C) You give up your coastal and arctic sovereignty to a friendly power. This should not be an option at all.

5) You have to be able to support your allies, that means deployment of weapons system and soldiers that are on par or better then your allies. That means that you have to be able to ensure that your people are going to come home.

6) We have to have a military that can respond to a maximum of two internal deployments, ie natural disasters or civil situations.

7) We have to be able to support our own military abroad. The renting of air lift capability and naval logistics has to end, you can't count on external logistics if things go bad. Also having heavy air lift and naval logistics ships means that we can take care of our citizens and troops abroad in bad situations.

In terms of the why, you have to be able to at minimum protect your land and navy space and show that your serious about it in order for you to stay in an alliance.

If you show that you're not going to one of two things will happen.

1) If that day comes and god willing it doesn't, and you have the Americans here fighting your battle, chances are they won't leave, or they will wring concessions out of you.

2) Chances are if Canada is attacked, that means that our allies are under attack and they won't spare the man power or equipment to bail us out.

3) We have to support our allies in their missions abroad, and as much as it makes me retch, we have to support UN peace keeping abroad.

In order to live up to the above, we have to have a multi-dimensional military that completely inter-operates, with well equip troops and the most effective weapon platforms available. We need to be able to support and supply them, and all aspects of the military need to be deployable over seas.

Its ok to have a small military, but if you have a small military you need to be able to punch over your weight class.

Canada in the past has failed its military, and its not just the liberals, Conservative governments under Mulroney and even to extent this government have taken very stupid views on how to support and utilize the military.

1) You can do what's been done, you neglect it until it hits rust out, then you frantically make a lot of emergency purchases, meanwhile morale goes in the pooper as does training and the forces rot from the inside. People don't realize that the Canadian Forces nearly hit its rust out position, and even now after the war in Afghanistan the Forces is currently not an effective fighting forces and needs to be rebuilt.

2) You can do the smart thing that every business owner does, you can spend consistently and a bit generiously and start rolling equipment in terms of purchasing and upgrades, you can also spend lavishly on training and taking care of your soldiers so that it becomes a destination career and you can attracts the best and the brightest.

While 2% might be a bit lavish, I do think that there needs to be a serious increase in defense spending I believe that a initial increase from about 1% to 1.3 or 1.4% and a stable commitment to that level isn't too much to ask.

[GoinAllTheWay]

/\/\/\

Why don't you just save us all a ton of time and money and run for Defence Minister?

Seriously.

With the power of CP behind you, what could stop us?

Minister Crunch......I like the sound of that.

[takinghits]

Begin by telling us how much our taxes are going to raise or what you plan on cutting before we increase military spending

Health care costs are only going up as everyone continues to live longer....

[FlamesAddiction]

I just think that politically it is a tough sell. The average Canadian does not see the difference in military spending. I am not saying that it isn't important, but the effect isn't as easily noticeable in the short term. It's a tough sell when Prime Ministers are always looking forward to the next election. It's an unfortunate side-effect of democracy. When you look at the list of countries that spend 2% or over of the GDP on the military, not too many liberal democracies are on it.

I wouldn't be against more spending, but we absolutely need smarter spending.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by takinghits

Begin by telling us how much our taxes are going to raise or what you plan on cutting before we increase military spending

Health care costs are only going up as everyone continues to live longer....

Trust me when I say there is a lot of wastage and pet programs that could probably be cut back to find the money for an essential service.

We spend something like the 3rd most per person in health care spending in the world and don't have good services delivery in this country.

You could probably find the money in programs that aren't essential fairly easily.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Trust me when I say there is a lot of wastage and pet programs that could probably be cut back to find the money for an essential service.

We spend something like the 3rd most per person in health care spending in the world and don't have good services delivery in this country.

You could probably find the money in programs that aren't essential fairly easily.

First off, thank you for all your informative posts across many threads, I always enjoy the insight.

I hear these generalization that the government has to much fat or it is easy to find the fat.... yet... rarely does anyone post a list of specific examples of what should be cut.

I tried Googling the Canadian taxpayers society, and it looks like a decent place to start, however I find I disagree with a lot of the issues they are trying to tackle. I also don't know enough about them or their interests to advocate for them here.

I don't want to really hijack this thread into a government waste thread, but it isn't terribly inappropriate considering the money has to come from somewhere if we are to increase military spending.

So, does anyone a clear cut list of items for which the majority of the population would agree and wonder why in the world we are spending money on these items? I wouldn't be looking for contested items such as the arts, as when we say our government is bloated and the waste is "easy to find", I would assume there would be many money larger uncontested items.

Or am I missing the boat here?

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know, I'm not an airforce guy, but the F-18's are unique in the world and that one went pretty smoothly.

The Halifax Class Frigates were a unique build, we could have gone out and bought a American class of vessel, but the Halifax's worked out.

Great comments Captain.

Yep there has for sure been some procurements that worked out. The Halifax class has done well despite some production problems. The biggest mistake there was building up all that expertise then stopping cold. Hopefully the new national shipbuilding procurement strategy will help address this issue.

Perhaps one of our avgeeks can clarify, but I understand that our Hornets were nearly identical to the production US Navy and Marine corps versions, right down to the arrester hook and folding wings. The biggest difference was a spotlight installed on the side of the fuselage.