[lenaitch]

Governments can announce multi-year spending programs, like the Canadian Surface Combatant spanning a couple of decades, I read the post as actual in-year spending for FY 2022-23. Capital projects can be carried forward, but so-called operating costs typically cannot. Government departments don't get a cheque at the beginning of the fiscal year, they get 'allocations'. If you've ever been around a government agency in the last fiscal quarter when they realize they will have money left over in their allocation that regular spending won't exhaust, it is truly a sight to behold. Drunken sailors on shore leave comes to mind.

Even if they could roust some contracts to upgrade things like housing, etc. I can't see them coming close to the unaccounted $15Bn. The larger the individual procurement, the longer it takes (see helicopters, sidearms, fighters . . . ), and they probably wouldn't move on a lot of the operational stuff because there is apparently a new white paper in the offing.

One billion for over-the-horizon radar doesn't seem like much more than in-year research costs (and not close to the $15Bn the PBO seems curious about). Heck, the Ontario government emergency services radio network upgrade will likely be over a billion when it is done.

I'm curious how a new, Canadian-based over-the-horizon radar will be value-added to the OTH radar that the US already deploys.

Solid State Phased Array Radar System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unless it is already determined to be getting long in the tooth with the development of more hypersonic platforms, especially non-ballistics ones.

After the fancy new system detects a threat, then there is the matter of what to do about it. Canada seems to have reservations about that next step.

I agree that a lot of the announcements might be placeholders intended to assuage out partners that we still belong at the grown-ups table, but they will still be watching for concrete action long after the Canadian voter has lost interest.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm curious how a new, Canadian-based over-the-horizon radar will be value-added to the OTH radar that the US already deploys.

See the hole in coverage? Given that these radars see in to space and that orbital bombardment is moving from science fiction to reality, gaps like that need to be plugged.

Unless it is already determined to be getting long in the tooth with the development of more hypersonic platforms, especially non-ballistics ones.

X-band covers all of this. Density of coverage also increases redundancy and reduces susceptibility to countermeasures. Also, warning times are substantially lower with hypersonics and orbital bombardment:

After the fancy new system detects a threat, then there is the matter of what to do about it. Canada seems to have reservations about that next step.

Indeed. It may have been right not to join BMD 17 years ago. But technology and doctrines have evolved since then. And we're increasingly proving obstinate. Maclean's had this recent piece:

Canada's hesitancy on military defence is leaving us vulnerable

Paul Wells: NORAD says the threats are higher than they’ve been in decades and action is needed now. Good luck getting Canada on board.

www.macleans.ca

The whole BMD debate is increasingly looking like the F-35 discussion with a whole lot of politically motivated partisans lining up to slam the idea based on a perception of where the tech was 15 years ago.

 

[Towered]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-senator-canada-freeloader-1.6448053

 

[kEiThZ]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-senator-canada-freeloader-1.6448053

He's not wrong (even if his exact figures are off). I'd be pretty annoyed if I was American. Canada not only refuses to join BMD, it refuses to spend the NATO 2% that it pushed for, then lectures the US on foreign policy. All while massively benefiting from the American security umbrella. I expect, to see future American administrations, particularly Republican ones get a lot more aggressive on trade and specifically cite Canada's security "freeloading" as an excuse.

 

[Northern Light]

He's not wrong (even if his exact figures are off). I'd be pretty annoyed if I was American. Canada not only refuses to join BMD, it refuses to spend the NATO 2% that it pushed for, then lectures the US on foreign policy. All while massively benefiting from the American security umbrella. I expect, to see future American administrations, particularly Republican ones get a lot more aggressive on trade and specifically cite Canada's security "freeloading" as an excuse.

Who are the United States to dictate the appropriate level of military spending of another country? Oh, that's right, no one.

The very temerity of any nation-state issuing such dictates is offensive.

The suggestion that we freeload is incorrect; but in any event is easily resolved by the U.S unilaterally cutting its military by 75%. We can they decide what adjustments to make for ourselves; and the U.S. can finally provide health insurance to its own citizens.

Let's add, the Senator in question is an ill-informed idiot: (from the report, beginning with a quote from the senator)

Being off by 40% (or more) does not speak well for the man. Perhaps he should actually do his research before his mouth opens.

 

[kEiThZ]

Who are the United States to dictate the appropriate level of military spending of another country? Oh, that's right, no one.

The very temerity of any nation-state issuing such dictates is offensive.

That is the typical Canadian response.

And my only answer to that is that alliances are based on burden sharing. Why exactly should the US give us privileged access to their markets and give us equal voice in NORAD when we don't pull our own weight?

This isn't just about defence spending either. We don't meet climate targets. We don't meet foreign aid targets (Millennium Development Goals). Etc. Also, while the Senator was off on the exact amount, we're still in the bottom 5 of NATO on the 2% target. So context doesn't exactly make us look much better.

It may get hackles up in Canada. Getting called out is always hard to take. But the Senator is not wrong. And I suspect this is one of the many reasons we were left out of AUKUS, which despite all the posturing in Canada, is quickly becoming a technology sharing arrangement that is leaving Canada out.

 

[Northern Light]

That is the typical Canadian response.

And my only answer to that is that alliances are based on burden sharing. Why exactly should the US give us privileged access to their markets and give us equal voice in NORAD when we don't pull our own weight?

Because we give them energy and resources we could sell to others at a higher price.

Because it serves their best interest to be able to access our raw materials and the power we export to them.

Because as a sweety pie country, they don't have to ready or position their military as if we were the potential threat.

Because we are their largest supplier of high-skill imported labour.

Because we give them nearly unfettered access to our country economically, in ways most countries would not.

Because we are a fully integrated part of their supply chains, not just in manufacturing but in beef, and a host of other commodities, even though this often contradicts our national interest.

Because in 2019 we were the single largest buyer of U.S. exports on the entire planet, buying almost 18% of all of their worldwide exports.

That seems reasonable enough.

This isn't just about defence spending either. We don't meet climate targets.

That is almost entirely a function of the Oil Sands, as we have a relatively clean electricity supply. I don't think the Americans would appreciate our shutting those down seeing as they refine and use most of that product.

I would personally be quite happy to nix the oil sands. I think some resource exploitation is absolutely sensible, I don't think the ROI for Canada is there on the oil sands when considering we don't refine or gain value-add on most product and giving weight to the environmental costs and future clean-up/restoration expense.

We'd be better off tapping our natural gas reserves more heavily.

We don't meet foreign aid targets (Millennium Development Goals).

As a percent of GDP, neither does the U.S. and in fact, they contribute materially less than we do.

Canada 0.26% of GDP, U.S. 0.18%

Mapping the Global Flow of Foreign Aid

This infographic looks at who is giving – and who is receiving – the billions of dollars in foreign aid that flows between countries each year.

www.visualcapitalist.com

That said, I agree we can and should do better on this score.

 

[kEiThZ]

Because we give them energy and resources we could sell to others at a higher price.

Because it serves their best interest to be able to access our raw materials and the power we export to them.

We don't do this out of some principled arrangement based on friendship. We do this because we don't want to build the infrastructure to facilitate exports to other markets, because it is so easy to sell to the US. Let's be honest here.

Because we are their largest supplier of high-skill imported labour.

Again. Not something we do out of the goodness of our hearts. Our best and brightest leave because they lack opportunity in Canada, simple as that. And if they closed off export access to their market, even more of our best and brightest would leave.

Because as a sweety pie country, they don't have to ready or position their military as if we were the potential threat.

If it ever came to that, it would be the end of Canada. Highly doubtful the US would tolerate a legitimate security threat on their border. But again, this isn't a great talking point from a supposed ally.

Because we give them nearly unfettered access to our country economically, in ways most countries would not.

Because we are a fully integrated part of their supply chains, not just in manufacturing but in beef, and a host of other commodities, even though this often contradicts our national interest.

Because in 2019 we were the single largest buyer of U.S. exports on the entire planet, buying almost 18% of all of their worldwide exports.

That seems reasonable enough.

And yet as we saw with USMCA talks and then COVID restrictions, we aren't nearly as important to them as we think we are. They clearly believe their economic future is with Mexico.

If you really think we have that much leverage with the US, let's start playing hardball and pull out of USMCA, NORAD, etc. See how that goes.

I have said this before and I will say it again. We are getting left behind. AUKUS should have been a major wake up call. But the typical defensive reactions to these comments really shows that Canadians don't understand how much the world has changed and how much our place in it has fallen.

 

[kEiThZ]

As a percent of GDP, neither does the U.S. and in fact, they contribute materially less than we do.

Canada 0.26% of GDP, U.S. 0.18%

Indeed. The US is a laggard in many areas. But unlike Canada, they don't generally pretend that national credibility and global positioning should be based on these commitments. Nor do they generally lecture other countries for not meeting them (outside of NATO spending targets).

We tend to talk far more than we actually do. The Americans may not give as much on foreign aid, but the next time there's a tsunami or hurricane just watch how many people ask for the US Navy to park a carrier nearby.

 

[Northern Light]

We don't do this out of some principled arrangement based on friendship. We do this because we don't want to build the infrastructure to facilitate exports to other markets, because it is so easy to sell to the US. Let's be honest here.



Again. Not something we do out of the goodness of our hearts. Our best and brightest leave because they lack opportunity in Canada, simple as that. And if they closed off export access to their market, even more of our best and brightest would leave.



If it ever came to that, it would be the end of Canada. Highly doubtful the US would tolerate a legitimate security threat on their border. But again, this isn't a great talking point from a supposed ally.



And yet as we saw with USMCA talks and then COVID restrictions, we aren't nearly as important to them as we think we are. They clearly believe their economic future is with Mexico.

If you really think we have that much leverage with the US, let's start playing hardball and pull out of USMCA, NORAD, etc. See how that goes.

You seem to be an unabashed fan of the U.S.; and rather down on your own country. Perhaps you should reconsider which uniform you wear?

I don't mean that in a hostile way. But if you don't like being a part of a more peaceful, kinder society, there is a different one just to the south.

The U.S. is not evil; and Canada is far from perfect; we can and should improve, so should they.

But I grow weary of Canada bashers who want us to be more like a country that ranks below our own on freedom, middle-class standard of living, life expectancy, crime etc etc.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

 

[kEiThZ]

You seem to be an unabashed fan of the U.S.; and rather down on your own country. Perhaps you should reconsider which uniform you wear?

What a ridiculous personal attack.

I don't mean that in a hostile way.

You do. You should at least be less cowardly about it.

Disgusting. Reported.

Somebody not agreeing with you on foreign policy doesn't make them disloyal to Canada. Nor is it Canada bashing, just because you get hot under the collar to read views which don't conform with your own.

 

[kEiThZ]

FWIW, I think of the UK when I think of what Canada's foreign policy should be. A country that meets it's foreign aid commitments, military spending targets and is ahead of schedule on emissions reductions. That is the country I would like us to emulate. Brexit crazy aside.

Several of the Scandinavian countries are also in the same basket.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Who are the United States to dictate the appropriate level of military spending of another country? Oh, that's right, no one.

The very temerity of any nation-state issuing such dictates is offensive.

The suggestion that we freeload is incorrect; but in any event is easily resolved by the U.S unilaterally cutting its military by 75%. We can they decide what adjustments to make for ourselves; and the U.S. can finally provide health insurance to its own citizens.

Let's add, the Senator in question is an ill-informed idiot: (from the report, beginning with a quote from the senator)

View attachment 399663

Being off by 40% (or more) does not speak well for the man. Perhaps he should actually do his research before his mouth opens.

Well, we are part of a trans-atlantic alliance with that level of spending as a guideline - we agreed to be part of that alliance willfully, so even if we take issue a US senator from the most freeloading state of them all (it's Alaska - bridge to nowhere) lecturing us, we really should own up to our commitment without needed to be prompted. Promising lots while delivering little might be a winning voter strategy - but it isn't an effective defence (or foreign policy) strategy. Our friends (nevermind adversaries) aren't fools - they shape they dealings with us on our deeds - not our words.

There is a time for a peaceful, kinder society - but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that we are at end of a geopolitical cycle and things will get rocky in the next few decades (and if I am being truly mean, I'd say that we have became a country no, cannot do during these lotus eating days).

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, we are part of a trans-atlantic alliance with that level of spending as a guideline - we agreed to be part of that alliance willfully,

This isn't just with defence spending. We never once met a climate target or foreign aid target. If we aren't going to meet these commitments, I'd prefer we be honest as a country and pull out. I hate being a hypocrite.

It's so easy to hide behind, "We're not the US." But all those socialist countries that left leaning Canadians love to cite, actually do meet those commitments with room to spare. I doubt anybody is going to accuse Sweden and Finland of being American lapdogs anytime soon.

Lastly, it's interesting that I can aspire to have European urbanism and infrastructure on this website. But if I think we should follow along with foreign, defence and climate policies, I am a bad Canadian who should just move to the US.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And if we aren't going to meet these commitments, I'd prefer we be honest as a country and pull out. I hate being a hypocrite.

Also, this isn't just with defence spending. We never once met a climate target or foreign aid target.

It's so easy to hide behind, "We're not the US." But all those socialist countries that left leaning Canadians love to cite, actually do meet those commitments with room to spare. I doubt anybody is going to accuse Sweden and Finland of being American lapdogs anytime soon.

Lastly, it's interesting that I can aspire to have European urbanism on this website. But if I think we should follow along with foreign, defence and climate policies, I am a bad Canadian who should just move to the US.

I'd argue a strong defense posture (along with other forms of "soft power") is precisely what allow us more independence in our foreign policy. Like the good old days of peacekeeping isn't simply because we have a few nice words to say at the UN - but that we actually contribute meaningfully. I mean, for all our talk about the north, did we ever muster the will to do something about enforcing our sovereignty there - other than some much delayed and watered-down gestures? It cut across all stripes across all eras.

AoD