The gravy train they have enjoyed for far too long is pulling into the station.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/06/for...ncertainty

Quote:Canadians need to spend billions on “hard power” military capability because they can’t rely on the U.S. or others for protection, says Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Quote:The speech is meant to foreshadow the release of Wednesday’s defence policy review, which is expected to make the case for billions in new military spending.

According to NATO, Canada currently only spends 1.02% of GDP on defence expenditures. That's far shy of the requested commitment of 2% put forth by NATO and puts Canada near the bottom of member countries.

Quote:Her emphasis on hard military power is a tougher expression of the country’s international interests than Canadians are used to hearing.

She said that notwithstanding the “incredibly good relationship” with the U.S., Canada cannot just rely on American military protection.

“To rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state,” she said.

They've been a "client state" for over a 100 years. They were just a client who didn't pay for the service we provided.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/07/lib...ext-decade

Quote:Canada will increase annual defence spending by $13.9 billion over the next decade, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Wednesday as he unveiled the Liberal government’s long-awaited vision for expanding the Canadian Armed Forces.

The money will be used to put another 5,000 troops in uniform and add new modern capabilities, such as letting the military conduct cyberattacks and to buy armed drones for unmanned airstrikes.

It will also go towards offsetting the skyrocketing financial — and political — cost of buying new warships and fighter jets.

“If we’re serious about our role in the world, we must be serious about funding our military,” Sajjan told a news conference.

“And we are.”

Quote:Still, while some of the money will start flowing right away, the long-awaited defence policy document shows the taps aren’t expected to open all the way until after the next election.


Officials say the delay is necessary to make sure money is available for when it’s needed.

But the delay in major new funding is expected to raise concerns among those who wanted to see immediate spending increases as a hedge against future cost-cutting efforts aimed at fighting the deficit.

That is what happened with the last such vision, unveiled by the previous Conservative government in 2008 but quickly rendered unaffordable and subjected to billions of dollars in spending cuts.

Quote:The policy makes the case for a major expansion of Canada’s military capabilities by three trends: growing tension between global powers; the changing nature of conflict; and rapid technological advancements.

The plan also comes as Canada and other NATO allies have faced pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to dramatically increase defence spending to reach two per cent of GDP.

Canada currently spends about one per cent of GDP on defence, which puts it at the back of the pack among NATO members.

But the policy document says Canada has been under-reporting its defence spending for years by not including the money spent by other departments on such items as peacekeeping and veterans’ benefits.

As a result, it says defence spending is actually closer to around 1.19 per cent this fiscal year, and that it will increase to 1.4 per cent of GDP by 2026-27.

So what they are proposing is better, but still falls short of their 2% NATO obligation.

So I take it our newfound refusal to support other countries militarily (a welcome change btw) will lead to some serious cuts and savings in the "defense" budget?

(06-07-2017 05:12 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  So I take it our newfound refusal to support other countries militarily (a welcome change btw) will lead to some serious cuts and savings in the "defense" budget?

Probably not anytime soon. Most of that money has been "spent" already, other than current expenses, salaries, food that kind of thing. The rest (training and fighting stuff) is ordered and developed often decades in advance.

Plus, we need to recover from the devastation the pathetic last regime did to our Armed Forces. Get them back in the air training, swell our soldier/sailor/Marine ranks to acceptable levels and have them ready to go, not in the condition they currently are.

Now, that said, if they are successful in getting these leeches to stand on their own, at least better if not 100%, then great. Once they've secured and provided for their own defenses I'm ALL in favor of bringing tens of thousands of our guys and gals home. Keep skeleton crews on these bases to keep them functional if the need arises, but there's no reason we have 50,000 troops in Germany, let's say and others in something like 150 Countries around the world.

I'd think we could certainly trim that back.

(06-07-2017 05:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Now, that said, if they are successful in getting these leeches to stand on their own, at least better if not 100%, then great. Once they've secured and provided for their own defenses I'm ALL in favor of bringing tens of thousands of our guys and gals home. Keep skeleton crews on these bases to keep them functional if the need arises, but there's no reason we have 50,000 troops in Germany, let's say and others in something like 150 Countries around the world.

I'd think we could certainly trim that back.

Never going to happen. Take Germany for instance, it's propping up the entire EU and bleeding cash on the millions of migrants that have entered which aren't giving anything back to society in the form of taxes. They simply dont have the money necessary to outfit an army. Besides the issue of if Europe wants Germany to have a large standing army in the first place. That's why we have such a presence in Germany, to negate the need for Germany to have its own military. Anyone that's read a history book knows that Germans can get squirrelly when they have their own stuff.

Merkel is basically in a pissing match with Hungary over them not accepting migrants. If she had a strong standing army... i dont doubt for a second she wouldnt use troops to enforce the EU decree.

But the point of having troops in Germany isnt simply for Germany's sake... but for all of Europe. If something happens anywhere in Europe, the US can respond within hours with tens of thousands of troops. If we have a skeleton force there, it'd take days to get them to the front lines. Troops in the US dont usually live on base, they have their own houses, in an emergency they have to get to base, get equipped, get briefed, then start transport... all that takes time. On bases like Ramstein AFB, there is a huge standing force ready to go on a minutes notice.

IF Russia invaded say... Poland with tanks, jets would be off the ground in minutes, trucks with troops would start rolling out within an hour. That's not possible if the troops are back in the US and we only have people around to maintain the base in case we need to move people there.

It's the same reason Cops are stationed around a district and dont sit back at the station all night until something happens. Response times matter.

The other thing you have to keep in mind, with modern tactics, a skeleton base crew isn't a good idea when you can air drop thousands of troops into a base within a few hours. If the US emptied Ramstein of all but 'basic' personnel in case the base was needed for a place to launch forward operations... it could be overrun a whole lot easier than if it's fully manned. Using Russia again, they could launch an attack and be over Ramstein probably within an hour of taking off. There is no way for the US to re-enforce a base that quick. We don't want a base captured and its weapons and technology being seized and used against us.