I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,475
- Points
- 1,160
50% of Canadians live south of this line, along with all the voters that matter.
What's north of that line? North Bay. A great place for an American branch plant. North Bay is too far north for Torontonians to consider it as cottage country.
What else is north of the line? Cold Bay, Bagotville, Comox, Gander, all the FOLs and Alert. Anchor the system with Thule, Elmendorf and Colorado Springs and let the US Air Force continue to do what it has been doing since it was the US Army Air Corps.
It just doesn't register.
- Reaction score
- 7,475
- Points
- 1,160
You're right. I wasn't alluding to regional attitudes. My point was that the most of Canada is unknown territory, Terra Incognita, to the vast majority of Canadians. And it has been since the US opened up Prince Rupert, Placentia, Gander, Goose Bay, Frobisher Bay, Eureka, Alert and all the radar stations. There may be some Canadian tax dollars at work, largely US dollars laundered through Canadian branch plants, and the Canadian flag may fly over them, but all of them were built on US initiative.
- Reaction score
- 1,014
- Points
- 1,160
The Line Matt Gurney: Our military is accomplishing its mission: giving the politicians cover
Matt Gurney: Our military is accomplishing its mission: giving the politicians cover - 16 Dec 22
The sorry state of our armed forces isn’t a failure of our policy. This is our policy.
Canadian politicians have an inputs problem. Maybe that's actually the wrong way to describe it — the problem is with the outputs. But it's the inputs they love talking about.
If that all sounds a little vague, maybe this sounds familiar: “Hey there, citizen. Alarmed about Troubling Issue X? Well, don’t worry. We’re pledging $300 million over the next six years to Troubling Issue X. Oh, and Annoying Irritant Y? We’re announcing a task force to report back on that.”
Does Troubling Issue X get solved? Does Annoying Irritant Y get less annoying and irritating? Eh. We probably don’t collect enough stats to even know. The purpose of the announcement isn’t to solve the problem. It’s to announce something and hope people stop paying attention.
A few weeks ago, I returned from the beautiful city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, where I was a guest of the Halifax International Security Forum. The forum, put on by Washington, D.C.-based HFX, brings military, defence and intelligence experts and leaders to Halifax from across the free world for a three-day conference on the pressing issues of the day. (Ukraine was obviously a big part of this year's agenda.) As I left the conference, I sketched out four broad ideas worth writing about; the first two of those are already online here and here, and the fourth is a little more tangential, and I'll get to it in the new year.
The third topic, though, ended up being a bit more challenging to write about than I'd expected, but for a happy reason: someone else said it better than I would have.
A big part of the conference, which is funded in part by the Canadian government, is showing that Canada is pulling its weight in its alliances. More than one person observed to me at the conference "how lucky" Canada is to have landed a plum annual event like the Forum, precisely because it gives us a chance to centre ourselves in key discussions in a way our actual substantive contributions to international security alone do not. I had thought I'd write a column about that idea, linked to Canada's fairly underwhelming plan for the Indo-Pacific region, but then retired LGen. Michael Day, a long-serving veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, wrote a better piece (and with more authority!) than I ever could. He laid bare the problems with our Indo-Pacific plan: it sounds good, but it's lacking in actual goals and any real way of measuring success or even failure. There isn't much there there. It’s just … an announcement.
I won't repeat the general's arguments at length. You can just read his piece! But his argument, and the one I was originally going to make, share a common theme: we are good at talking but not at doing. And the reason for this is because, for the purposes of the government, the talking is the point. The doing isn't really necessary. A lot of what looks like policy failure in Canadian foreign and military affairs only looks like a failure when you forget that accomplishing something wasn't the point. Being photographed and videotaped saying you'll accomplish something was the point. And the announcement itself accomplishes that!
It's not that Canada accomplishes nothing on the world stage. We accomplish things. Sometimes we even play an outsized role — Canada did, for instance, perform well and above expectations in Kandahar. The odd exception aside, though, when it comes to foreign policy generally and especially with defence policy, successive Canadian governments have set a very clear target: we will do, technically, more than nothing. We won't often do much more than that. But we'll do enough to not get kicked out of the club of allied nations.
Why do we want to be in the club? Not because we feel any sense of duty or obligation to lead and take on any real burden. But because being in the club makes us safer, and it would, after all, be embarrassing to get kicked out.
It's important to remember that Canada is, by any standard, a rich country. We could be an actual force for good and stability on the world stage if we wanted to. We could build a bigger fleet and patrol more places, more often — we’d be welcome! We could have a bigger army and lead more peacekeeping missions, or contribute more to NATO. A bigger air force, likewise, could contribute more to our allies, especially in Europe in these unsettled times. In a parallel universe where we did these things, we'd then be able to say with a straight face that the purpose of Canada's navy was contributing to the safety and security of the seas, the purpose of our army was to assist allies and provide peacekeepers to help end international crises, and the purpose of our air force was to project power and bring support to threatened allies.
In the world we actually live in, though, the purpose of the navy is to technically have a navy that technically does things, the purpose of the army is to technically have an army that technically does things, and the purpose of the air force ... you see where this is going, right?
Our navy does things! It shows up places, and patrols areas. But only as much as necessary to technically tick that box. The army is in much the same condition; with a growing number of domestic commitments sapping its strength and budget, even its ability to assist with disasters at home is largely maxed out, but we send a few hundred soldiers here and there, thereby allowing ourselves to proclaim that we’ve … sent soldiers somewhere. The air force, as was just reported this week, can't even really do even that much this year. The exhausted force is skipping the very modest — a half-dozen fighter jets — annual mission to Europe. The air force is just too burnt out to sustain even that tiny mission.
This is a big and growing problem. Canada, again, is rich enough to make a difference in global security affairs, if we chose to make different choices with how we spend our money. We have made the opposite choice. We field just enough of a military to be able to make just enough difference to avoid being accused of being total deadbeats, and no more.
Can it fight? Eh, maybe a bit. Can it make a difference? Depends how you define “difference,” I guess. Does it make the world and our allies safer? In a way? Can it keep Canadians safe at home? Sort of.
This isn’t a failure of our policy. This is our policy. We show up with as little as possible for as brief a time as possible, but gosh, do we ever talk about the showing up.
And that's where we get back to the real purpose of it all: the government wants just enough of a military to assure our allies we technically have one, and that also applies at home. Every political leader likes showing up at conferences, visiting the troops, sailing with a frigate for a day or two, and so on. The military isn't a huge issue in Canadian domestic politics, so a few photo ops a year are sufficient. Once the political needs of the government are met, it loses interest, until it either needs some new photos, has a juicy procurement contract to announce, or the military does something so stupid the government has to be seen doing something. (The unfolding sexual misconduct crisis in the ranks is a damn topical example of that kind of stupid thing.)
But otherwise, in this, the Canadian Armed Forces serves the same goal for both foreign and domestic audiences. "Here's our warship. See?"
There's two big problems with this policy, and I should note that it’s not a particular Liberal failing — they’re bad, but the Tories aren’t really any better. The first problem is that the manifest state-capacity failures that are eroding Canadian capabilities across the board are cutting into the military, too. When the bar for the size and capability of the force is deliberately set at "Just barely enough," you don't have much room for attrition via incompetence. It doesn't take a lot of missed recruiting goals or delayed procurements to put our armed forces into a real capacity crisis. There just isn't any muscle left, every cut goes right into the bone.
And the second problem is a moral one: do we want to be a force for good? Are we satisfied not doing all we can to make the world a more stable, peaceful place?
On that second point, the answer is sadly obvious: we do not want to be a force for good (assuming we have to actually work hard) and we are indeed satisfied — or at least not particularly dissatisfied — doing less than we could. The world probably does need more Canada. There are small countries warily eying Russia and China that would be assured by a regular Canadian naval presence in their region. There are people living under real danger of brutal personal violation and death today who’d love a battalion of Canadian peacekeepers in their city or country. But Canada isn't interested. We feel bad for y’all, but we’ve done enough for this year’s Christmas photo album. So sorry. Good luck and everything, though, eh?
And this is our inputs/outputs problem. A critically understaffed and underarmed army is fine if it can still throw a few sandbags after a flood. A few warships on patrol, a few times a year, on the world’s largest ocean, means we get mentioned in the U.S. military tweets about the allied exercise, and who could ask for more? And the air force. Well, best not to ask about them. They’re in a pinch right now, sadly. Those are the inputs the government needs. For them, it’s mission accomplished.
No one worries much about our lack of outputs: meaningful, tangible accomplishments and contributions to global security, and a Canadian Armed Forces with enough personnel, equipment and training to be a real, effective fighting force, ready and able to keep Canadians safe at home and contribute to peace and security missions abroad.
And we could have that. It would cost a lot, in both money and political capital. But it’s a realistic goal. And it’s also what all the politicians are telling you they’re doing. We have to start calling them out on this. It’s nonsense, and transparently so. Every time they dribble out some new announcement — new pistols! a new ship is commissioned! — we have to ask them the key question: what is the mission of the Canadian Armed Forces, and is it currently capable of carrying out that specific mission?
I’m not holding my breath, to put it mildly. But the world isn’t getting any friendlier. We can fix this now, when all it costs is money and political capital, or we can rush to fix it later, when it may cost us lives.
Subscribe
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
Matt Gurney: Our military is accomplishing its mission: giving the politicians cover - 16 Dec 22
The sorry state of our armed forces isn’t a failure of our policy. This is our policy.
Canadian politicians have an inputs problem. Maybe that's actually the wrong way to describe it — the problem is with the outputs. But it's the inputs they love talking about.
If that all sounds a little vague, maybe this sounds familiar: “Hey there, citizen. Alarmed about Troubling Issue X? Well, don’t worry. We’re pledging $300 million over the next six years to Troubling Issue X. Oh, and Annoying Irritant Y? We’re announcing a task force to report back on that.”
Does Troubling Issue X get solved? Does Annoying Irritant Y get less annoying and irritating? Eh. We probably don’t collect enough stats to even know. The purpose of the announcement isn’t to solve the problem. It’s to announce something and hope people stop paying attention.
A few weeks ago, I returned from the beautiful city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, where I was a guest of the Halifax International Security Forum. The forum, put on by Washington, D.C.-based HFX, brings military, defence and intelligence experts and leaders to Halifax from across the free world for a three-day conference on the pressing issues of the day. (Ukraine was obviously a big part of this year's agenda.) As I left the conference, I sketched out four broad ideas worth writing about; the first two of those are already online here and here, and the fourth is a little more tangential, and I'll get to it in the new year.
The third topic, though, ended up being a bit more challenging to write about than I'd expected, but for a happy reason: someone else said it better than I would have.
A big part of the conference, which is funded in part by the Canadian government, is showing that Canada is pulling its weight in its alliances. More than one person observed to me at the conference "how lucky" Canada is to have landed a plum annual event like the Forum, precisely because it gives us a chance to centre ourselves in key discussions in a way our actual substantive contributions to international security alone do not. I had thought I'd write a column about that idea, linked to Canada's fairly underwhelming plan for the Indo-Pacific region, but then retired LGen. Michael Day, a long-serving veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, wrote a better piece (and with more authority!) than I ever could. He laid bare the problems with our Indo-Pacific plan: it sounds good, but it's lacking in actual goals and any real way of measuring success or even failure. There isn't much there there. It’s just … an announcement.
I won't repeat the general's arguments at length. You can just read his piece! But his argument, and the one I was originally going to make, share a common theme: we are good at talking but not at doing. And the reason for this is because, for the purposes of the government, the talking is the point. The doing isn't really necessary. A lot of what looks like policy failure in Canadian foreign and military affairs only looks like a failure when you forget that accomplishing something wasn't the point. Being photographed and videotaped saying you'll accomplish something was the point. And the announcement itself accomplishes that!
It's not that Canada accomplishes nothing on the world stage. We accomplish things. Sometimes we even play an outsized role — Canada did, for instance, perform well and above expectations in Kandahar. The odd exception aside, though, when it comes to foreign policy generally and especially with defence policy, successive Canadian governments have set a very clear target: we will do, technically, more than nothing. We won't often do much more than that. But we'll do enough to not get kicked out of the club of allied nations.
Why do we want to be in the club? Not because we feel any sense of duty or obligation to lead and take on any real burden. But because being in the club makes us safer, and it would, after all, be embarrassing to get kicked out.
It's important to remember that Canada is, by any standard, a rich country. We could be an actual force for good and stability on the world stage if we wanted to. We could build a bigger fleet and patrol more places, more often — we’d be welcome! We could have a bigger army and lead more peacekeeping missions, or contribute more to NATO. A bigger air force, likewise, could contribute more to our allies, especially in Europe in these unsettled times. In a parallel universe where we did these things, we'd then be able to say with a straight face that the purpose of Canada's navy was contributing to the safety and security of the seas, the purpose of our army was to assist allies and provide peacekeepers to help end international crises, and the purpose of our air force was to project power and bring support to threatened allies.
In the world we actually live in, though, the purpose of the navy is to technically have a navy that technically does things, the purpose of the army is to technically have an army that technically does things, and the purpose of the air force ... you see where this is going, right?
Our navy does things! It shows up places, and patrols areas. But only as much as necessary to technically tick that box. The army is in much the same condition; with a growing number of domestic commitments sapping its strength and budget, even its ability to assist with disasters at home is largely maxed out, but we send a few hundred soldiers here and there, thereby allowing ourselves to proclaim that we’ve … sent soldiers somewhere. The air force, as was just reported this week, can't even really do even that much this year. The exhausted force is skipping the very modest — a half-dozen fighter jets — annual mission to Europe. The air force is just too burnt out to sustain even that tiny mission.
This is a big and growing problem. Canada, again, is rich enough to make a difference in global security affairs, if we chose to make different choices with how we spend our money. We have made the opposite choice. We field just enough of a military to be able to make just enough difference to avoid being accused of being total deadbeats, and no more.
Can it fight? Eh, maybe a bit. Can it make a difference? Depends how you define “difference,” I guess. Does it make the world and our allies safer? In a way? Can it keep Canadians safe at home? Sort of.
This isn’t a failure of our policy. This is our policy. We show up with as little as possible for as brief a time as possible, but gosh, do we ever talk about the showing up.
And that's where we get back to the real purpose of it all: the government wants just enough of a military to assure our allies we technically have one, and that also applies at home. Every political leader likes showing up at conferences, visiting the troops, sailing with a frigate for a day or two, and so on. The military isn't a huge issue in Canadian domestic politics, so a few photo ops a year are sufficient. Once the political needs of the government are met, it loses interest, until it either needs some new photos, has a juicy procurement contract to announce, or the military does something so stupid the government has to be seen doing something. (The unfolding sexual misconduct crisis in the ranks is a damn topical example of that kind of stupid thing.)
But otherwise, in this, the Canadian Armed Forces serves the same goal for both foreign and domestic audiences. "Here's our warship. See?"
There's two big problems with this policy, and I should note that it’s not a particular Liberal failing — they’re bad, but the Tories aren’t really any better. The first problem is that the manifest state-capacity failures that are eroding Canadian capabilities across the board are cutting into the military, too. When the bar for the size and capability of the force is deliberately set at "Just barely enough," you don't have much room for attrition via incompetence. It doesn't take a lot of missed recruiting goals or delayed procurements to put our armed forces into a real capacity crisis. There just isn't any muscle left, every cut goes right into the bone.
And the second problem is a moral one: do we want to be a force for good? Are we satisfied not doing all we can to make the world a more stable, peaceful place?
On that second point, the answer is sadly obvious: we do not want to be a force for good (assuming we have to actually work hard) and we are indeed satisfied — or at least not particularly dissatisfied — doing less than we could. The world probably does need more Canada. There are small countries warily eying Russia and China that would be assured by a regular Canadian naval presence in their region. There are people living under real danger of brutal personal violation and death today who’d love a battalion of Canadian peacekeepers in their city or country. But Canada isn't interested. We feel bad for y’all, but we’ve done enough for this year’s Christmas photo album. So sorry. Good luck and everything, though, eh?
And this is our inputs/outputs problem. A critically understaffed and underarmed army is fine if it can still throw a few sandbags after a flood. A few warships on patrol, a few times a year, on the world’s largest ocean, means we get mentioned in the U.S. military tweets about the allied exercise, and who could ask for more? And the air force. Well, best not to ask about them. They’re in a pinch right now, sadly. Those are the inputs the government needs. For them, it’s mission accomplished.
No one worries much about our lack of outputs: meaningful, tangible accomplishments and contributions to global security, and a Canadian Armed Forces with enough personnel, equipment and training to be a real, effective fighting force, ready and able to keep Canadians safe at home and contribute to peace and security missions abroad.
And we could have that. It would cost a lot, in both money and political capital. But it’s a realistic goal. And it’s also what all the politicians are telling you they’re doing. We have to start calling them out on this. It’s nonsense, and transparently so. Every time they dribble out some new announcement — new pistols! a new ship is commissioned! — we have to ask them the key question: what is the mission of the Canadian Armed Forces, and is it currently capable of carrying out that specific mission?
I’m not holding my breath, to put it mildly. But the world isn’t getting any friendlier. We can fix this now, when all it costs is money and political capital, or we can rush to fix it later, when it may cost us lives.
Subscribe
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
- Reaction score
- 4,946
- Points
- 1,060
So, 133 pages in and what exactly has he done? Or is this another trudeau 'ethereal promise'?
- Reaction score
- 9,126
- Points
- 1,360
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,093
- Points
- 1,040
I can guess how such an attitude arises. Canadians have a neighbour who is the best possible trading partner and guarantor of security. With nothing to worry about, small minds turn to busybody preoccupations.
- Reaction score
- 18,781
- Points
- 1,360
Added to Urban Dictionary’s database…
Urban Dictionary: speaking moistly
To speak to a Canadian within a two-metre radius of yourself as specks of spittle fly from your lips.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,179
- Points
- 1,040
Canada is the ultimate "Karen" of the world!
Plus being from Windsor and working with Americans everyday....we are the smug freeloaders that complain how we get our new stuff.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,179
- Points
- 1,040
Like they say "it's not bug but a feature"
As I look around the world and the messed up stuff.....I am coming to the conclusion that its F$#%$ for a reason and somebody wants it that way.
.......I have that tin foil somewhere........maybe Hellyer is telling the...........
;(
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,025
- Points
- 1,160
Like they say "it's not bug but a feature"
As I look around the world and the messed up stuff.....I am coming to the conclusion that its F$#%$ for a reason and somebody wants it that way.
.......I have that tin foil somewhere........maybe Hellyer is telling the...........
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,692
- Points
- 1,140
I find a good number of Canadians look down their noses at the USA BUT continue to go to Disney venues, Universal Studios etc. Personally I like the USA.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,025
- Points
- 1,160
'America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.'
- Arnold Toynbee
- Reaction score
- 4,946
- Points
- 1,060
I like going to the States. I like shopping there, visiting there and partying with friends there. On a good day, I can leave home and be on I-75 in about 15 minutes. Contrary to common belief, I find most Americans friendly, helpful and laid back. The idea of the 'ugly Aamerican' is a fallacy and utter bullshit. You want self centered, smug, asshole attitude, you can find that here in spades. Like liberals, we scoff and make fun of of them, to hide our own insecurities and failures as a nation. Taking all of our own shitty characteristics and putting them on
- Reaction score
- 4,946
- Points
- 1,060
Sorry guys. I'm having tech difficulties and trouble posting. Hence stopping in the middle of the last post.
Cont'd -
Taking all of our own shitty characteristics and putting them on the US to shift to blame and morally judge. The same as if a politician was calling us racists, misogynists, fringe minority science deniers. All the while that politician is really the biggest major offender of those ideals. It's called narcissistic blame shifting and it's a psychopathic condition. One need only look at the political forums with their wailing and gnashing of teeth, hundreds of pages about the US, mostly Trump and decisions made by the US, that people get offended about, as if they had skin in the game. Meanwhile, trudeau and his pack get a free ride and the Canadian political forums languish and collect cobwebs, with the exception of the odd kerfuffle that grabs our attention for a few days. Our only thread that consistently hammers our government is the Gun Control thread. And that's only because we're pissed he's stealing our personal property for his own gain. No longer the quiet professional, but the loudmouth on the soap box pointing fingers and deflecting blame.
Our systems of government are different, but we share the same swamp, with the same caustic creatures as our compatriots have. We have leaders, who while years apart, share the same ideals and mental capacities. As well the same goals for their countries. And both are enthralled with and devoted to Red China, who is the biggest enemy the world faces right now.
We also have the same problems. Ours are just less pronounced. 35 million people v. 350 million.
I don't see an us and them. A US and Canada. I see us all collectively as North Americans. I just wish Creepy Joe would afford the northern border the same attention he shows the southern one. Maybe it's my one mile proximity to them here in South Detroit that makes me feel the kinship.
We're damn lucky they let us share a bed with them. Otherwise, we would have been raped and left laying out in the cold a long time ago, while someone else sits at our hearth, sipping our broth.
Cont'd -
Taking all of our own shitty characteristics and putting them on the US to shift to blame and morally judge. The same as if a politician was calling us racists, misogynists, fringe minority science deniers. All the while that politician is really the biggest major offender of those ideals. It's called narcissistic blame shifting and it's a psychopathic condition. One need only look at the political forums with their wailing and gnashing of teeth, hundreds of pages about the US, mostly Trump and decisions made by the US, that people get offended about, as if they had skin in the game. Meanwhile, trudeau and his pack get a free ride and the Canadian political forums languish and collect cobwebs, with the exception of the odd kerfuffle that grabs our attention for a few days. Our only thread that consistently hammers our government is the Gun Control thread. And that's only because we're pissed he's stealing our personal property for his own gain. No longer the quiet professional, but the loudmouth on the soap box pointing fingers and deflecting blame.
Our systems of government are different, but we share the same swamp, with the same caustic creatures as our compatriots have. We have leaders, who while years apart, share the same ideals and mental capacities. As well the same goals for their countries. And both are enthralled with and devoted to Red China, who is the biggest enemy the world faces right now.
We also have the same problems. Ours are just less pronounced. 35 million people v. 350 million.
I don't see an us and them. A US and Canada. I see us all collectively as North Americans. I just wish Creepy Joe would afford the northern border the same attention he shows the southern one. Maybe it's my one mile proximity to them here in South Detroit that makes me feel the kinship.
We're damn lucky they let us share a bed with them. Otherwise, we would have been raped and left laying out in the cold a long time ago, while someone else sits at our hearth, sipping our broth.
Last edited:
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,393
- Points
- 1,210
Europe Is Rushing Arms to Ukraine but Running Out of Ammo
The continent is struggling to produce enough ammunition for Ukraine and for itself, jeopardizing NATO’s defense capacity and its support for Kyiv, officials and industry leaders say.
www.wsj.com
While Ukraine related, this shows the startling lack of readiness for a conflict by NATO member states. Germany for example barely makes any ammo any more, and it's own stocks would last two days at Ukrainian war levels of fighting. We have let our capabilities atrophy, and I think we need to invest more heavily in production of ammunition and arms. The benefit to this would be allow more range time for our troops.
- Reaction score
- 6,490
- Points
- 1,310
L
Whoa whoa whoa.... you make it sound as if our cushy, socio-democratic Western nations need to be on a War footing? Do you know the Climate Change/GBA implications of what you're suggesting?
Seriously though, this is a hard fact that we have ignored since at least the early 60s. No need for large scale, conventional munitions because "push button, MAD, lights out everywhere" meant no one would ever dream of another large scale global conflict. What with the UN, Peacekeeping, and the Peace Dividend... why worry?
24 Feb 2022 should have been the wake up call we all needed, but a lot of folks in the West of all political stripes went back to hitting snooze, like they have for the past 60 years.
Europe Is Rushing Arms to Ukraine but Running Out of Ammo
The continent is struggling to produce enough ammunition for Ukraine and for itself, jeopardizing NATO’s defense capacity and its support for Kyiv, officials and industry leaders say.
While Ukraine related, this shows the startling lack of readiness for a conflict by NATO member states. Germany for example barely makes any ammo any more, and it's own stocks would last two days at Ukrainian war levels of fighting. We have let our capabilities atrophy, and I think we need to invest more heavily in production of ammunition and arms. The benefit to this would be allow more range time for our troops.
Whoa whoa whoa.... you make it sound as if our cushy, socio-democratic Western nations need to be on a War footing? Do you know the Climate Change/GBA implications of what you're suggesting?
Seriously though, this is a hard fact that we have ignored since at least the early 60s. No need for large scale, conventional munitions because "push button, MAD, lights out everywhere" meant no one would ever dream of another large scale global conflict. What with the UN, Peacekeeping, and the Peace Dividend... why worry?
24 Feb 2022 should have been the wake up call we all needed, but a lot of folks in the West of all political stripes went back to hitting snooze, like they have for the past 60 years.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,393
- Points
- 1,210
Canadian Army feeling squeeze of more demands, fewer soldiers
The head of the Canadian Army says his force is facing more demands at home and in Europe even as the number of soldiers under his command continues to shrink.
Army commander says we are short 1200, and possibly an additional 800 in 2023. Thsts really not looking good for us long term if we are expanding Latvia
I think General Eyre is being far too kind in his assessment, and seems to be playing it safe with the government.Canadian Army feeling squeeze of more demands, fewer soldiers
The head of the Canadian Army says his force is facing more demands at home and in Europe even as the number of soldiers under his command continues to shrink.www.ctvnews.ca
Army commander says we are short 1200, and possibly an additional 800 in 2023. Thsts really not looking good for us long term if we are expanding Latvia
I’d say we are WELL short of far more than 1200… you could recruit that 1200 and pipe every single one of them to combat arms RegF units, and we would just be flushing out their authorized numbers.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,991
- Points
- 1,010
He is probably doing the best he can given the incompetent and corrupt current but temporary Liberal government.
If he resigned in protest, the truth is most Canadians would be like "what happened now? Who is he?" It wouldn't have the splash effect that it should.
The truth is, the current Armed Forces reflects the current Trudeau government total not give a $hit attitude about it which is an extension of Canadians "m'eh" attitude overall.
@Fishbone Jones well said and on point. Too many Canadians are wallowing in the false idea that Americans are bad and Canadians loved by all because...Canada! Sure as hell doesn't help that CBC and government paid MSM contribute to that nonsense
Similar threads
- Article
