Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[dimsum]

No we won’t. This country will quit before the mass dying starts and everybody knows it.

A long time ago, I mentioned that 158 Canadians died in Afghanistan to some Aussies (they lost about 45).

Their answer: We would have left Afghanistan far earlier than you did.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Canada of 2024 is but a limp wristed shadow of Canada in 2004.

 

[dimsum]

Canada of 2024 is but a limp wristed shadow of Canada in 2004.

Meh. When Afghanistan kicked off, there were doubts about how the coddled Millennials would do in hard situations, because we were seen as “soft”.

Turns out that as a whole, we weren’t that different than generations past.

 

[FJAG]

Meh. When Afghanistan kicked off, there were doubts about how the coddled Millennials would do in hard situations, because we were seen as “soft”.

Turns out that as a whole, we weren’t that different than generations past.

Previous generations didn't have to hump 70-100 lbs of gear in 40*C + temperatures. I give today's folks a lot of credit.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Previous generations didn't have to hump 70-100 lbs of gear in 40*C + temperatures. I give today's folks a lot of credit.

Previous generations occasionally had to fight Germans while suffering from dysentery. There are all kinds of burdens.

 

[KevinB]

Meh. When Afghanistan kicked off, there were doubts about how the coddled Millennials would do in hard situations, because we were seen as “soft”.

Turns out that as a whole, we weren’t that different than generations past.

It isn’t the Soldiers and other members of the CAF that concern me.

It’s the general Canadian public and politicians…

 

[Edward Campbell]

Regional? UK on the East of Canada, America below, and Australia on the West (or Far East Depending on ones point of view)
You aren't in AUKUS because you are not reliable - it has zero to do with geography.


Keep telling yourself that.
You are in NORAD because it suits us, and mainly because Canada used to be reliable...

Actually we're in NORAD mainly because of an indisputable geographic fact.

Both president Eisenhower and Prime Minister St Laurent were very aware of the Soviet maned bomber and ballistic missile threat and they recognized the need for a series of radar "chains" all across Canada: the far North Distant Early Warning (DEW) line, the Mid Canada line and the Pinetree line (see below) and they agreed, in the mid 1950s, that and the should cooperate, formally -- diplomatically, militarily and financially - to build and manage/control all three.

The result was NORAD. Neither country really wanted a combined (multi-national) military command but there didn't, still doesn't, seem to be any other way to get the geographic necessity for the protection of the US strategic deterrent unless the US violated Canada's sovereignty in ways that ware, and remain unaccounted unacceptable to both countries - maybe president Trump excepted (sorry, couldn't resist).

 

[FJAG]

they recognized the need for a series of radar "chains" all across Canada: the far North Distant Early Warning (DEW) line, the Mid Canada line and the Pinetree line (see below)

And the Bomarcs and Voodoos.

The Bomarcs and Voodoos are gone without a viable replacement - the Russian manned bombers are still there as are their ballistic or cruise missiles.

The moat around a castle is only as good as it is covered by fire. Does anyone see the problem here?

 

[Kirkhill]

And the Bomarcs and Voodoos.

The Bomarcs and Voodoos are gone without a viable replacement - the Russian manned bombers are still there as are their ballistic or cruise missiles.

The moat around a castle is only as good as it is covered by fire. Does anyone see the problem here?

Let us not forget that the diversity of viable launch platforms has also increased.

 

[dimsum]

Actually we're in NORAD mainly because of an indisputable geographic fact.

Both president Eisenhower and Prime Minister St Laurent were very aware of the Soviet maned bomber and ballistic missile threat and they recognized the need for a series of radar "chains" all across Canada: the far North Distant Early Warning (DEW) line, the Mid Canada line and the Pinetree line (see below) and they agreed, in the mid 1950s, that and the should cooperate, formally -- diplomatically, militarily and financially - to build and manage/control all three.

The result was NORAD. Neither country really wanted a combined (multi-national) military command but there didn't, still doesn't, seem to be any other way to get the geographic necessity for the protection of the US strategic deterrent unless the US violated Canada's sovereignty in ways that ware, and remain unaccounted unacceptable to both countries - maybe president Trump excepted (sorry, couldn't resist).

One interesting point is that the US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) area of responsibility includes Canada and the Bahamas.

Now, would the US unilaterally do anything? It’s not like USEUCOM randomly deploys in Austria or the Netherlands…

 

[McG]

Now, would the US unilaterally do anything? It’s not like USEUCOM randomly deploys in Austria or the Netherlands…

Neither European country is an approach to the US. If the US determined that American boots needed to be on Canadian soil to counter an imminent and significant threat, they are more likely to tell us what they are doing than to ask our permission.

That being said, it is difficult to imagine what hypothetical threat might actually trigger such a behaviour so long as we remain a contributing, cooperative partner in NORAD.

The calculus changes under a Trump admin, as Edward mentions above. The MAGA camp has already pontificated about using military force against Canada and about “liberating” Canada. It would possible to see a Trump administration conflating failure to meet the NATO 2% GDP commitment with a failure to meet continental defence obligations (it would not be unreasonable for any administration to connect these two things despite there being technically separate). It would not subsequently be completely improbable to see a Trump administration leap to the conclusion that America must occupy the delinquent Canada to secure itself.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It would not subsequently be completely improbable to see a Trump administration leap to the conclusion that America must occupy the delinquent Canada to secure itself.

A number indistinguishable from zero births another conspiracy theory.