Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

Quote: OTTAWA (AFP) - Britain's high commissioner to Canada has chided his host country for falling behind its allies in per capita military spending, adding to a chorus of criticisms from the United States.

"It must have been uncomfortable to be saved from last place in defence spending by Luxembourg," David Reddaway told a luncheon meeting of the Royal Commonwealth Society in Winnipeg on Wednesday.

This follows a series of pleas by the United States, worried that terrorists might launch attacks on its soil from Canada, for Ottawa to improve its border security and military capabilities.

Such criticisms are not well-received by the majority of Canadians who do not see themselves as terrorist targets, despite their close ties to the United States.

The Canadian government is seeking to boost its military spending by 13 billion dollars (10.3 billion US dollars) in a government budget to be voted on Thursday night, Reddaway acknowledged, but fears persist in the United States.

Britain's high commissioner also distanced his government from the Chicoutimi submarine tragedy that killed one submariner and injured eight others on its maiden voyage under Canadian stewardship off the coast of Ireland last October.

"If you leave the door open in rough seas, you get some consequences," Reddaway said in response to audience questions, the same day its sister sub set sail off Canada's west coast for the first time since the tragedy.

The Chicoutimi was one of four British diesel-powered submarines purchased by the Canadian navy in 2000. It was crippled in open seas by a fire after water rushed in through two hatches that were left open to allow crew to fix an air vent in the vessel's tower before diving.

All four subs remained docked until this month when a Canadian naval board of inquiry concluded the blaze was an unfortunate accident, dismissing suggestions the British had sold Canada faulty subs.

"All I can say as a non-submariner is, 'Shut the door,'" Reddaway said.

That last bit about the submarine was probably a bit on the crass side, but apart from that, what do you think?

Source

[Lord Hargreaves]

It doesn't say much about your country if you can't be arsed to have forces to defend it, does it?: "Its not that we don't love our country, its just that we can't be bothered to defend it" :lol:

Canada wouldn't even agree to letting the USA station tracking devices on its soil as part of the Missile Defense Program, even though they knew that if the Missile Defense program had up and running it would be capable of defending Canada as well. Canada is pathetic really :wink:

[timmtc]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: It doesn't say much about your country if you can't be arsed to have forces to defend it, does it?: "Its not that we don't love our country, its just that we can't be bothered to defend it" :lol:

Canada wouldn't even agree to letting the USA station tracking devices on its soil as part of the Missile Defense Program, even though they knew that if the Missile Defense program had up and running it would be capable of defending Canada as well. Canada is pathetic really :wink:


No, what is pathetic is your knowledge of Canada and our military. The post is actually very misleading. Yeah, the Canadian military has alot of work to do but we spend more on our military then any of you would imagine - in relation to other countries. May I add that we are a country of 30 million, without any foreign affairs issues unlike the United States. Canada has proven in its history that we are quite capable of launching effective and large scale offensive operations abroad.

Your point about the missile defense program is also misleading and somewhat ignorant. You do realize, that the majority of missile detection takes place in NORAD which I may add is in Canada.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

This is before the 13 billion dollar spending increase, notice how we are above israel?

[Lord Hargreaves]

We are all grateful of past Canadian sacrifice in keeping the world, especially Europe, free from Nazism and totalitarianism.

However, per capita your military spending is still very low. You spend 1% of your GDP on the military (CIA 2003). In contrast the UK spends 2.5%, and your comparison to Israel is poor because it spends almost 9% GDP on its military.

Also it is true that your country will not take part in building the Missile system, paying for it or operating it, even though the plan could call for missiles to be shot down over Canada.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51588-2005Feb24.html

[Sparkalinda]

timmtc wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: It doesn't say much about your country if you can't be arsed to have forces to defend it, does it?: "Its not that we don't love our country, its just that we can't be bothered to defend it" :lol:

Canada wouldn't even agree to letting the USA station tracking devices on its soil as part of the Missile Defense Program, even though they knew that if the Missile Defense program had up and running it would be capable of defending Canada as well. Canada is pathetic really :wink:


No, what is pathetic is your knowledge of Canada and our military. The post is actually very misleading. Yeah, the Canadian military has alot of work to do but we spend more on our military then any of you would imagine - in relation to other countries. May I add that we are a country of 30 million, without any foreign affairs issues unlike the United States. Canada has proven in its history that we are quite capable of launching effective and large scale offensive operations abroad.

Your point about the missile defense program is also misleading and somewhat ignorant. You do realize, that the majority of missile detection takes place in NORAD which I may add is in Canada.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

This is before the 13 billion dollar spending increase, notice how we are above israel?


Timmy buddy long time no type. I see we have a topic we can both agree upon.

I will. agree that Canada cannot launch or maintain an aggressive military offensive but why would we want to?

We have some of the mose effective and elite military units in the world, carrying on the tradition established in WWI, WWII and Korea, links to follow, but we cannot compete with the mega forces of the world for obvious reasons but again why should we? To throw our economy into a tizzy simply to accommodate what others think we should be doing, I don't think so.

JMHO

[timmtc]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: We are all grateful of past Canadian sacrifice in keeping the world, especially Europe, free from Nazism and totalitarianism.

However, per capita your military spending is still very low. You spend 1% of your GDP on the military (CIA 2003). In contrast the UK spends 2.5%, and your comparison to Israel is poor because it spends almost 9% GDP on its military.

Also it is true that your country will not take part in building the Missile system, paying for it or operating it, even though the plan could call for missiles to be shot down over Canada.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51588-2005Feb24.html

I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. I am fully aware that Canada will not officially be included in the missle shield (as in having a seat at the table) however there was a NORAD ammendment in August 2004 made by Paul Martin that disclosed NORAD's distinct role in the missle defense system.

Comparing military spending on GDP is somewhat useless because it excludes population and geography, not to mention you still haven't taken into account the $13 billion supplememntal included in our most recent budget. I will be one of the first to stand up and say Canada needs the top of the line equipment and training available, however saying that we need to drastically beef up our military for defensive purposes is clearly wrong. Canada and the USA share several security responsibilities to protect North America. Each country plays a different role, and the US plays a huge role in the coastal defense of Canada.

I mean honestly, who is going to launch a full scale trans atlantic/pacific attack on Canada?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Your military does "co-operate" with the USA but it appears to me at least that it is a somewhat uneven relationship. Canada should be aiding finacially and practically to the Missile Defense program and not just technically and diplomatically. It is also about time Canada aquired its own nuclear arsenal.

But % spending of GDP does include population and geography. When a state like Israel whose entire populaion is less than that of Toronto and whose area from top to bottom is less than the distance between Toronto and Ottawa spends only slightly less in real terms than Canada on its military - that says a lot

And you ask who is going to launch an attack on Canada. Probably no one, but it seems your government is willing to take the chance.

[timmtc]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Your military does "co-operate" with the USA but it appears to me at least that it is a somewhat uneven relationship. Canada should be aiding finacially and practically to the Missile Defense program and not just technically and diplomatically. It is also about time Canada aquired its own nuclear arsenal.

But % spending of GDP does include population and geography. When a state like Israel whose entire populaion is less than that of Toronto and whose area from top to bottom is less than the distance between Toronto and Ottawa spends only slightly less in real terms than Canada on its military - that says a lot

And you ask who is going to launch an attack on Canada. Probably no one, but it seems your government is willing to take the chance.

I'm sorry, you completely lost me. I am seriously pro military, however I see no need...ever...ever...ever for Canada to aquire nuclear weapons. You're basically insisting that Canada spend excess amounts of money on defence against, well nothing. Our troops if anything should have a strong offensive military, that is capible of conducting combat operations abroad incase things in Iran and North Korea flare up. Seriously, to think that anyone would ever consider a trans-atlantic/pacific attack is just flat out rediculous. This isn't the 1940's you know.

Canada should be part of the missle defence in my opinion, however for political reasons we are not (although our prime minister supports it). You do fail to see the link between NORAD and the BMD system however. Further, yes the military relationship between Canada and the US is uneven, yet you expect Canadians to become convinced we're in need of drastic defense improvements? Canada hasn't been involved in serious combat operations since the 1950's. I think it is a little unrealistic to expect Canada to pump out billions and billions of dollars to build nuclear arsenals and to manufacture defensive units.

Due to the size of our population and our small (in comparison) economy to the US, we simply cannot compete with the US military. Additionally, the best we can do is specialize in a few fields to assist in any operations that take place; such as special forces, transportation, medical assistance, recon etc.

[thundertaker]

I don't think Canada should aquire nukes (the less countries that have them the better), but I do think she should have one or two aircraft carriers, maybe along the lines of the new CVF...

And I don't think the issue of being able to protect Canada from outside aggression is the issue, it's more a one of is it really fair to let the american taxpayer bear the brunt of protecting canada, when they should be taking responsibility for themselves?

[timmtc]

thundertaker wrote: I don't think Canada should aquire nukes (the less countries that have them the better), but I do think she should have one or two aircraft carriers, maybe along the lines of the new CVF...

And I don't think the issue of being able to protect Canada from outside aggression is the issue, it's more a one of is it really fair to let the american taxpayer bear the brunt of protecting canada, when they should be taking responsibility for themselves?

I agree, I think if Canada needs to focus on any type of element it should be the air force and carriers. However, it isn't like Canada asked the US to protect us and they do not patrol our waters or anything. By protection, we mean that if someone ever invaded Canada the US would be right there to help us, so it isn't really an issue of taxpayers money at all.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Canada will remain the 51st State of the USA until it bothers to defend itself - and that means acquiring nuclear weapons. In the 21st century you can not be a truly independent state if even the most fundamental issue of defending that independence is reliant upon another country

[thundertaker]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Canada will remain the 51st State of the USA until it bothers to defend itself - and that means acquiring nuclear weapons. In the 21st century you can not be a truly independent state if even the most fundamental issue of defending that independence is reliant upon another country

Speaking of nuclear weapons and not being reliant on another country for your defence, don't Britain's Trident missiles depend on the US-controled GPS network for guidance?

[Lord Hargreaves]

thundertaker wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Canada will remain the 51st State of the USA until it bothers to defend itself - and that means acquiring nuclear weapons. In the 21st century you can not be a truly independent state if even the most fundamental issue of defending that independence is reliant upon another country

Speaking of nuclear weapons and not being reliant on another country for your defence, don't Britain's Trident missiles depend on the US-controled GPS network for guidance?

Yes it is true, all our missiles are purchased from the USA, maintained by the USA, and use US guiding systems;yet we still have ultimate sovereignty over the big red button and the power to launch a nuclear strike whenever we like - Canada cannot

[thundertaker]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: thundertaker wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Canada will remain the 51st State of the USA until it bothers to defend itself - and that means acquiring nuclear weapons. In the 21st century you can not be a truly independent state if even the most fundamental issue of defending that independence is reliant upon another country

Speaking of nuclear weapons and not being reliant on another country for your defence, don't Britain's Trident missiles depend on the US-controled GPS network for guidance?

Yes it is true, all our missiles are purchased from the USA, maintained by the USA, and use US guiding systems;yet we still have ultimate sovereignty over the big red button and the power to launch a nuclear strike whenever we like - Canada cannot

It's a bit pointless then isn't it? The US Gov't can switch off the GPS system whenever it wants, which means they won't let us nuke anything that they wouldn't want nuking themselves. May as well scrap the Nukes (or support the European Gallileo system and integrate the 'IND' with that as a back-up)....

In any case, I don't see why a nation is considered incapable of defending itself unless it has it's very own big ones.....

[Lord Hargreaves]

thundertaker wrote:
It's a bit pointless then isn't it? The US Gov't can switch off the GPS system whenever it wants, which means they won't let us nuke anything that they wouldn't want nuking themselves. May as well scrap the Nukes (or support the European Gallileo system and integrate the 'IND' with that as a back-up)....

You can't just switch the GPS on and off like a light switch - it takes time - and that means that the USA would have to disable its own nuclear ability, which it isn't going to do just to be spiteful. Bottom line - we have a nuclear capability, Canada does not.

thundertaker wrote: In any case, I don't see why a nation is considered incapable of defending itself unless it has it's very own big ones.....

and what about if the attacker has nuclear weapons? Then its f*cked. And anyway, nukes are not meant to be used, they are meant to deter an attack in the first place

[xerwer]

The best way to achieve peace is to ....
a) bump off some Iraqi's ass.
b) More $ in interior defense of the country.
c) Assume the minimal size of army needed for helping people in demand (humanitarian aid & interior catastrophes)
d) Kill everybody project

I don't understand how people want to give freedom to 6 billion people in spending more money to buy guns... it's a non-sense to me.

Xerwer

[The_Right_Honourable]

Dear Gid we don't need more nuclear armed nations. The need for nuclear 'deterrents' has gone. Now the nuclear threats come from countries who dont care about Muatually assured Distruction so whats the point? The US, Russia, China and Europe has enough weapons to waste any attacker. We dont need a nuclear Canada!

But the Canadians should do their 'fair share'. They have done alot in the past and ive heard are excellant peace keepers. Many of the more liberal/socialist western states seem to have let their military spending slip.

Britain needs alot of investment to recover from Tory cut backs. I remember when some navy ships ran out of fuel...

[Sparkalinda]

Our civil defence capacity including coast guard has been severely compromised in the past 20 years because of chronic under-spending and we are talking about “if” Canada should have nukes to deter an attack, which will likely never come.

Why spend billions on nukes when we haven’t the ability to pluck three of your own citizens off of the side of a mountain, as was the case this past weekend on Mt. Logan. (Thank you Americans for doing that job for us by the way.)

We would make more lives secure by being able to respond to emergency situations within our own boarders rather than dropping cash into the bottomless nuclear money pit.

By the way Canada has some of the worlds leading nuclear scientists. If we wanted them, I am thinking we wouldn’t need them “given” to us due to our inability to develop the technology

[timmtc]

Sparkalinda wrote: Our civil defence capacity including coast guard has been severely compromised in the past 20 years because of chronic under-spending and we are talking about “if” Canada should have nukes to deter an attack, which will likely never come.

Why spend billions on nukes when we haven’t the ability to pluck three of your own citizens off of the side of a mountain, as was the case this past weekend on Mt. Logan. (Thank you Americans for doing that job for us by the way.)

We would make more lives secure by being able to respond to emergency situations within our own boarders rather than dropping cash into the bottomless nuclear money pit.

By the way Canada has some of the worlds leading nuclear scientists. If we wanted them, I am thinking we wouldn’t need them “given” to us due to our inability to develop the technology

I agree.

Not to mention that Canada has large uranium deposits. Canada is fully capible of making nuclear weapons - don't think otherwise.

[Roxanne of the world]

Canadas army may be small, i admit, but for its size it is very effeciant. Our soldiers are by far given much more and thourough training. each soldier is extensively trained, and is qualified to do more than just one job. We go for quality rather than quanitiy. Yes more money would definatly improuve it, thats obvious