There was never supposed to be basing of nuclear missiles in Canada. Canada has been willing to base intercepter missiles in the past - the Bomarc, for example, was based in Canada for ten years, and it’s exactly the type of missile we’d be talking about now. But I don’t think the Americans have even asked for basing missiles - just cooperation within NORAD, access to testing corridors (just like we granted for cruise missile tests in the 1980’s), and overfly privileges.
Gorsnak said:
You’re kind of picking nits here. Iceland is a special case, since its NATO deal is to get complete military protection from the U.S. in exchange for access to a very strategic piece of real-estate. Iceland is tiny and has no need for a standing army. It doesn’t have the resources or the people to launch its own credible defense anyway, so it fell under the protective umbrella of the U.S.
The 2.5% of GDP number came from memory - I didn’t bother adding up all the NATO countries on that link. It was accurate at one point, although it’s probably a few years out of date. 2.0% is close enough - it means that Canada still spends only slightly more than half the NATO average. Which makes my statement that Canada’s military should be almost twice the size still correct.
I don’t think I am picking at nits. First, Iceland isn’t the only country below Canada on the list, nor is the list complete. The unlisted NATO countries do appear in the cite, but I’ve no inclination to go collating that data. Moreover, I see no reason to try to compete with Turkey or the US for military spending as a portion of GDP. And whatever Canada spent in 03/04 is hardly relevant now, as a very substantial increase in military spending was just announced, which by my non-authoritative calculation brings the figure to 1.45%. This isn’t far off from what the other non-nuclear NATO members are spending, which are fairly evenly spread between 1% and 2%. Accounting for that budget increase, we have the 12th most expensive military in the world, and the 12th largest overall economy. I think you’re moaning a lot over nothing.
Definitely, the new increase in military funding is very good. Actually, I think that the Liberals have done a pretty good job with the economy overall, constraining spending, keeping taxes down, and running surpluses. But their shameful neglect of the military has been a major sticking point with me, and I’m sure with a lot of other conservatives. This new promise of major spending increases will be very good for the Liberals, because I think even their own constituents were becoming uncomfortable with the way the military was being treated.
There is the perpetual undertone that by following/joining the Americans Canada is essentially kowtowing and not setting it own policy. The fact that its own policy/interest could coincide with the Americans is a rarely admitted fact. There are many that see Canada as the junior partner when working with the Americans when normally we’re the minority partner. I mean it’s hard not to be the minority partner when the other guy out weighs you by a factor of 10.
In my view there’s more value to be involved and at the table than not. The BMD program and how it evolves will directly impact how Canada deals with continental defense and the American perception of foreign threats.
As to the “nationalists and paranoids”, I’ll admit to a bit of hyperbole. But nationalism is a strong current in the liberal party and could’ve been tapped into to provide the votes to win the house.
It’s a moot point now of course. Now we’re in, without being in and Martin gained nothing but scorn from all involved.
But nationalism is a strong current in the liberal party and could’ve been tapped into to provide the votes to win the house.