Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

There probably isn't one. But, theres always a but, if we want them then we should be able to have them. We're either a sovereign nation or we aren't.

And our treaties and obligations need to evolve with the times or get torn up.

That captures the point.

Simply put we've declined to hold nuclear weapons because our neighbour had them and considered our terrain important enough to provide deterrence through the threat of their weapons against any hostile party. That situation has changed. The current US administration has made it clear that it won't come to the aid of its allies and has cozied up to our most logical opponents.

I'll go a step further. I can foresee two scenarios amongst others. The first is a 1939 Poland gambit whereby our two biggest neighbours decide between themselves that Canada's resources are worth having and sharing us up. The second is the colony gambit whereby the US does protect us as against a threat from Russia or China but extracts "payment" from Canada. Currently we can defend against neither of those in any serious way, given the right weapons Canada will no longer be the low hanging fruit that's easy to pick.

Yup. They're scenarios that seem fantastical but things have happened in the last three years that none of us saw as likely either. It's a whole new world - and not a better one - from the one that I grew up in. It's time to rethink a lot of things.

 

[CBH99]

Are we a vassal state of the US ?

Whether Canadians want to admit it to themselves or not is up to them, but yes we basically are.

There are 2 main countries in North America - Canada & the United States.

(I feel like Mexico should have been lumped in with Central America, personally. But they aren't relevant in this post anyway)


So 2 big countries. The world's longest border. Societies are quite intermingled with people from each country regularly travelling to the other & living in the other. Both have abundant natural resources.

One is a global superpower, and the other is Canada...



Do we have our own foreign policy? Yes
Financial & economic policies? Yes
Military equipment policies? Yes

Our policies may be made independently of the US, but we'd be kidding ourselves if we said America doesn't have a pretty influential say over us...


(The UK doesn't even own their own nukes, btw - and they share a close relationship with the US, re nuclear weapons. The missiles are built in the US & serviced in the US.)

(They are essentially American missiles deployed on British submarines that allows the UK to feel safe & puff out their chest about being a nuclear power, while giving America 1 more deployed nuclear boat that they don't have to pay for...)

 

[Underway]

The question is, IF Canada were to develop nuclear weapons we might trigger an unwanted US response. So to do so we would probably have to discuss things with them first to avoid an actual diplomatic fissure (lol) and trigger a scenario where we would need them.

The US does not want a nuclear armed state on this side of the Atlantic at all. It undercuts their own security, because they would be concerned if Canada becomes hostile somehow (think like Americans here).

 

[GR66]

That captures the point.

Simply put we've declined to hold nuclear weapons because our neighbour had them and considered our terrain important enough to provide deterrence through the threat of their weapons against any hostile party. That situation has changed. The current US administration has made it clear that it won't come to the aid of its allies and has cozied up to our most logical opponents.

I'll go a step further. I can foresee two scenarios amongst others. The first is a 1939 Poland gambit whereby our two biggest neighbours decide between themselves that Canada's resources are worth having and sharing us up. The second is the colony gambit whereby the US does protect us as against a threat from Russia or China but extracts "payment" from Canada. Currently we can defend against neither of those in any serious way, given the right weapons Canada will no longer be the low hanging fruit that's easy to pick.

Yup. They're scenarios that seem fantastical but things have happened in the last three years that none of us saw as likely either. It's a whole new world - and not a better one - from the one that I grew up in. It's time to rethink a lot of things.

To be a credible deterrent you have to be willing to use your nuclear weapons so I guess the question is this - are you willing to nuke American cities in response to a US attempt to annex Canada forcefully, knowing that the most likely consequence is that our own population centers will be nuked as well?

 

[Remius]

That, to me, is a clear signal that something is wrong with the system. And this is the fundamental reason why.

Yes agreed. Mind you it was not 15 years in the same spot. But totally agree.

A reservists who serves for 15 years (and don't take me wrong, I fully understand your motivation and contribution - and many have served out 20-30 years that way) is a participant in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge institutional game. With a series of slight-of-hand manoeuvres the CAF make a Class B life-time career a possibility. That allows the RegF to not only fill holes but also expand their full-time numbers beyond authorized limits and often at the expense of Class A budgets.

Well aware. And at times, many times, it helps the class a budget when Pres are on class b and still parade. Costing the unit nothing in class a for those types

 

[Halifax Tar]

That, to me, is a clear signal that something is wrong with the system. And this is the fundamental reason why.



At the legislative level, the RegF is defined as:

And the ResF as:


A reservists who serves for 15 years (and don't take me wrong, I fully understand your motivation and contribution - and many have served out 20-30 years that way) is a participant in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge institutional game. With a series of slight-of-hand manoeuvres the CAF make a Class B life-time career a possibility. That allows the RegF to not only fill holes but also expand their full-time numbers beyond authorized limits and often at the expense of Class A budgets.

IMHO, we have a basic problem with the RegF and ResF systems that can be fixed by making two classes of RegF service just as there are three for ResF. Let's call those two new classes Class U for unrestricted RegF service and Class R for restricted RegF service.

A Class U RegF member would in all respects be the same as the RegF is today.

A Class R, OTOH, would have certain restrictions and rights. Firstly the term of service would only be served within a defined geographic area, selected on enrollment, such as the Metropolitan Toronto area. The individual would be liable for operational tours and short duration exercises anywhere, be liable/eligible for a posting or promotion any where within the geographic area but can decline - without career implications - a posting or promotion that would take them outside the geographic area. Their pay would be less than a Class U (whether 15% or whether the Class Us receive an allowance is immaterial, just so long as there is a financial benefit for a Class U)

There would be the opportunity to elect back and forth between Class U and Class R contracts of service for fixed term contracts. As an example, a Class U could at the end of a fixed term Class U contract apply to convert to Class R service in a geographic area with an available vacancy. A Class U could convert to Class R at any time for a fixed term contract. (That obviously all needs some fine tuning and massaging but you get the basic idea - a class of full-time service in a defined geographic location so that families are guaranteed to stays put.

Class B's would be restricted to filling temporary holes in RegF positions with pay coming out of the RegF PY envelope. Class A budgets would be unaffected when unit members accept a temporary Class B contract.

Just because a position is Class B doesn't mean it should be a RegF position. Or that it was a RegF position at one time.

But I would happily take all the Class B RQ positions in the RegF and properly fill them with MMTs I just can guarantee you when I could actually fill them.

To be a credible deterrent you have to be willing to use your nuclear weapons so I guess the question is this - are you willing to nuke American cities in response to a US attempt to annex Canada forcefully, knowing that the most likely consequence is that our own population centers will be nuked as well?

Yes. For National survival.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Whether Canadians want to admit it to themselves or not is up to them, but yes we basically are.

There are 2 main countries in North America - Canada & the United States.

(I feel like Mexico should have been lumped in with Central America, personally. But they aren't relevant in this post anyway)


So 2 big countries. The world's longest border. Societies are quite intermingled with people from each country regularly travelling to the other & living in the other. Both have abundant natural resources.

One is a global superpower, and the other is Canada...



Do we have our own foreign policy? Yes
Financial & economic policies? Yes
Military equipment policies? Yes

Our policies may be made independently of the US, but we'd be kidding ourselves if we said America doesn't have a pretty influential say over us...


(The UK doesn't even own their own nukes, btw - and they share a close relationship with the US, re nuclear weapons. The missiles are built in the US & serviced in the US.)

(They are essentially American missiles deployed on British submarines that allows the UK to feel safe & puff out their chest about being a nuclear power, while giving America 1 more deployed nuclear boat that they don't have to pay for...)

So buy them from France.

 

[Czech_pivo]

To be a credible deterrent you have to be willing to use your nuclear weapons so I guess the question is this - are you willing to nuke American cities in response to a US attempt to annex Canada forcefully, knowing that the most likely consequence is that our own population centers will be nuked as well?

Well, if we focused on parts of inner Detroit I'm not sure if anyone would notice.

 

[Genetk44]

Why cant we do anything about it ? We seem to be able to buy what we want, LEOs, CPFs, F18s. Why do we have to listen to what the US says if we want nukes ? Like @Remius said tare up the treaty.

Are we a vassal state of the US ?

As far as nuclear weapons?…yes, essentially we are.

 

[GR66]

Yes. For National survival.

Ah, the good ole "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." approach. Not much of a national survival when you've been nuked into the stone age.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ah, the good ole "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." approach. Not much of a national survival when you've been nuked into the stone age.

It's called MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction.

We agree that nukes are of no use if you won't use them, where we disagree is I would use them.

 

[Halifax Tar]

As far as nuclear weapons?…yes, essentially we are.

A sovereign nation isn't partially sovereign. It's a binary thing.

 

[FJAG]

The question is, IF Canada were to develop nuclear weapons we might trigger an unwanted US response. So to do so we would probably have to discuss things with them first to avoid an actual diplomatic fissure (lol) and trigger a scenario where we would need them.

The US does not want a nuclear armed state on this side of the Atlantic at all. It undercuts their own security, because they would be concerned if Canada becomes hostile somehow (think like Americans here).

I guess that depends on the approach you take and whether or not there is any truth in Trump's demands that NATO members take responsibility for their own defence.

If our position is that we are taking the defence of North America seriously and putting our resources where our mouths are then it shouldn't bother the US if we develop a nuclear capacity and an ABM capacity.

To be a credible deterrent you have to be willing to use your nuclear weapons so I guess the question is this - are you willing to nuke American cities in response to a US attempt to annex Canada forcefully, knowing that the most likely consequence is that our own population centers will be nuked as well?

That's been the question since 1949 when Russia tested its first bomb. Amazingly, and contrary to all skepticism, its worked so far.

I think the threat that Canada could take out Washington and New York, or better yet Nashville and whatever other places Republicans hold dear, would at least make crazy, greedy folks down south think twice about sending the 82 and 101 to seize our Aluminum refineries and smelters, SW Ontario, Alberta and BC waterways.

Long story short. That's for future generations to decide. I just want to give them the security blanket and the option. The only other CoA is to roll over at the appropriate time and let them rub our bellies while they give us the shaft. It's not Trump that worries me all that much - and he does worry me - but the 77 million Americans who are completely incapable of seeing the second order effects of what they do with their ballots. It's absolutely worrisome as to how many Americans - some of them thinking people - are getting on board with this shit simply because they like putting the boots to the liberal Democrats. And let's face it - Canadians are all liberal Democrats in their eyes.

This applies to Canada too.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I guess that depends on the approach you take and whether or not there is any truth in Trump's demands that NATO members take responsibility for their own defence.

If our position is that we are taking the defence of North America seriously and putting our resources where our mouths are then it shouldn't bother the US if we develop a nuclear capacity and an ABM capacity.

That's been the question since 1949 when Russia tested its first bomb. Amazingly, and contrary to all skepticism, its worked so far.

I think the threat that Canada could take out Washington and New York, or better yet Nashville and whatever other places Republicans hold dear, would at least make crazy, greedy folks down south think twice about sending the 82 and 101 to seize our Aluminum refineries and smelters, SW Ontario, Alberta and BC waterways.

Long story short. That's for future generations to decide. I just want to give them the security blanket and the option. The only other CoA is to roll over at the appropriate time and let them rub our bellies while they give us the shaft. It's not Trump that worries me all that much - and he does worry me - but the 77 million Americans who are completely incapable of seeing the second order effects of what they do with their ballots. It's absolutely worrisome as to how many Americans - some of them thinking people - are getting on board with this shit simply because they like putting the boots to the liberal Democrats. And let's face it - Canadians are all liberal Democrats in their eyes.

This applies to Canada too.

Well said. I wish we could still issue milpoints.

 

[ytz]

Perun has made an interesting video creating a hypothetical European force using only European equipment (with a token Canadian contribution). Not sure of a thread to put this. But I think the audience here would find it interesting. Lots of good picks.

 

[Genetk44]

I guess that depends on the approach you take and whether or not there is any truth in Trump's demands that NATO members take responsibility for their own defence.

If our position is that we are taking the defence of North America seriously and putting our resources where our mouths are then it shouldn't bother the US if we develop a nuclear capacity and an ABM capacity.

That's been the question since 1949 when Russia tested its first bomb. Amazingly, and contrary to all skepticism, its worked so far.

I think the threat that Canada could take out Washington and New York, or better yet Nashville and whatever other places Republicans hold dear, would at least make crazy, greedy folks down south think twice about sending the 82 and 101 to seize our Aluminum refineries and smelters, SW Ontario, Alberta and BC waterways.

Long story short. That's for future generations to decide. I just want to give them the security blanket and the option. The only other CoA is to roll over at the appropriate time and let them rub our bellies while they give us the shaft. It's not Trump that worries me all that much - and he does worry me - but the 77 million Americans who are completely incapable of seeing the second order effects of what they do with their ballots. It's absolutely worrisome as to how many Americans - some of them thinking people - are getting on board with this shit simply because they like putting the boots to the liberal Democrats. And let's face it - Canadians are all liberal Democrats in their eyes.

This applies to Canada too.

…”then it shouldn't bother the US if we develop a nuclear capacity and an ABM capacity.” Woulda, coulda, shoulda……your line of reasoning is rational but irrelevant…..you already answered the question. The Americans intend to be the only nuclear-armed power on this side of the Atlantic. For god sakes they don’t even want us to have nuclear powered subs because they worry we could use them to impede their freedom in the arctic. There is no way in hell in our lifetimes they are going to allow Canada or any other country in the new world to have any type of nuclear weapons….its a red line they won’t allow us to cross.

 

[Halifax Tar]

…”then it shouldn't bother the US if we develop a nuclear capacity and an ABM capacity.” Woulda, coulda, shoulda……your line of reasoning is rational but irrelevant…..you already answered the question. The Americans intend to be the only nuclear-armed power on this side of the Atlantic. For god sakes they don’t even want us to have nuclear powered subs because they worry we could use them to impede their freedom in the arctic. There is no way in hell in our lifetimes they are going to allow Canada or any other country in the new world to have any type of nuclear weapons….its a red line they won’t allow us to cross.

So what do they do if we disregard them ?

 

[FJAG]

. . . you already answered the question. The Americans intend to be the only nuclear-armed power on this side of the Atlantic.

That's not what I said at all. That may be true, but is contradictory to the message they are sending that they won't protect an ally that doesn't take realistic steps to defend themselves. My position is entirely along the line of let's take them up on that and show them we are ready willing and able to defend ourselves and thereby be worthy of their added protection. As a by-product we create a credible deterrence against any aggression by a future James Maddison who believed Jefferson when he said in 1812 that:

“The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching; & will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, & the final expulsion of England from the American continent.”

 

[Remius]

That You brought up a Cpl making 6 figures as a hard no. I wanted to know why.

Not quite what I said. So what do you base the remuneration on? Wanting more is not a valid rationale.

Because:



I am assuming you you were drawing a equivalence to something like the PS with its different organizations representing different groups of workers to the CAF and our different trades, branches and ranks.

And I was wondering if the foreign militaries that are unionized have different bargaining groups or not. And I thought you might have that info.

No. You need a comparator to base your salary benchmark. You don’t need just that obviously but it is a factor in calculating your pay. The RCMP has comparators. The CAF uses the best comparator it has. The PS. If not the PS then what comparator would be used? The private sector? You’d see pay drop in most cases when using the whole formula. Which includes leave, pensions, medical, dental etc etc.

So educate me. How is it broken down ? Is it incorporated as part of the make up of our salary ?

Yes. It amounts to just over 15% above the comparator. For NCMs. 13 or so for officers. It’s about 8% for reservists because they don’t get posting instability and the seperation part (I don’t recall the exact term). Personal Limitation and Liability, overtime and acting pay are all applied reg or reserve.

The Mil factor is one part to it. Comparators, benefits etc etc all fall into that.

I have no doubt. But my concern is CAF members.

And that’s fine but if we want pay increased there has to be a reason beyond just doing it because.

If you want to delink from the PS sure, but you’ll likely lose out over time.


Edit: here is the link now that I am off my phone and on a proper tablet.

Understanding military pay - Canada.ca

How pay rates are determined for ranks, occupations, and types of service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Special Forces, including the Reserves.

www.canada.ca

 

[Genetk44]

So what do they do if we disregard them ?

For nuclear weapons?.. first diplomacy, failing that then veiled threats, then very open and public threats and muscle flexing and finally eventually push comes to shove….they would take very targeted military or covert action to destroy the material,infrastructure,development sites and any launchers