I knew the Conservatives planned to spend more money on the military, but I didn’t see this coming:
Personnel increased by 40% (!!) by recruiting 33,000 new soldiers. (the cite below says 13,000 new full-time soldiers and 10,000 new reservists, but the National news tonight said the number of new soldiers would be 33,000)
Three new icebreakers to defend Canada’s northern territorial waters.
New strategic heavy airlift capability
Re-opening talks with the U.S. over a joint missile defense program.
A re-aligning of NORAD to bring closer cooperation between the U.S. and Canada in patrolling North American waters.
Personally, I think this is great. I hope they start by reinstating Canada’s airborne regiment, disgracefully disbanded by the Liberals. But I also agree with the Liberal critics who say that this is going to cost a lot more than the 5.3 billion increase over five years the Conservatives have said they’ll spend.
But, it’s a long time coming. The Liberals have neglected the military for so long that drastic measures are warranted to rebuild it, especially given current world conditions.
I doubt many Canadians would be against some level of rebuilding of our military.
Personally I think it is very important that such a rebuilding be relevant to the role we define for our military. That role and its scope needs to be on the table. There is little question that the role as defined by the Liberals shamefully exceeded the Armed Forces current human and material resources. I am far from an expert on the military but it seems to me that this sort of buildup points to a much bigger role. I also think that 5.3 billion, though a lot of money, is not near the amount that this buildup would really cost. Lets just make sure they have the resources they need to properly do the job we give them and lets keep that job within our means.
Im am tired of our personel dying in Seakings and second rate British pawn shop subs, having their legs blown off because they have nothing but unarmored bombardier golf carts to drive on mined roads. I know the new choppers are in the works but I would like to see the other equipment deficiencies addressed.
We do need to assert our arctic sovereignty if we dont want to lose it. David Wilkins has recently stated that the US considers the waters international. Denmark disputes even the land. If ice breakers and radar stations are what it takes lets get to it.
This is a big increase in personel, especially considering we are already running into training and recruitment issues at our current levels. We cant get enough recruits as it is, and many of the experienced personel we need to train them are coming to the end of their service. Doesnt make it an easy job.
As for stronger ties with the US? Missile defense? Still sounds like a pipe dream and a big financial blackhole to me. Current US foreign policy is ignorant and dangerous and a shameful insult to what I always thought America strove to represent. No thank you.
I am pleased to hear some of these issues are going to be addressed, but I am concerned what it means for foreign policy, and whether we can afford it. I smell a defecit on the wind.
The critics, and Sam, are right; if they want to do all that, their planned increase of $5.3 billion over five years is the purest fantasy. That wouldn’t even cover the salaries and benefits of 33,000 troops. It’s simple math; add it up. If the Conservatives planned an expansion of this size, their $5.3 billion figure is a lie. If they intend on sticking to $5.3 billion, they can’t expand what much.
Once again, you don’t start the discussion by saying what shit you want to BUY, you start it by saying what you want to ACCOMPLISH. To some extent they’ve done this by placing Arctic defense and overseas deployment as two goals, and in fairness that’s more than the Liberals ever did; they never once made any decision around this sort of thing. But what’re the extra 33,000 troops for? What specific roles do they have? What strategic capabilities are we adding, and why?
To pick on you, Sam, just because you’ve given us an easy example, you say you want the Airborne Regiment recreated. Why? What specific need for a centralized regiment of airborne troops do we need? We still have parachute capability, it’s just been distributed around. Is there a specific strategic need to combine it into a regiment? Why not expand it into a whole brigade? Why not keep it around a battalion level? Why an airborne regiment and not a modern tank regiment?
But I don’t mean to pick on you, because it’s everyone. I rarely ever seen anyone talk about capability, and then spending. Like I said, the Conservatives have done MORE talk around capability than we’ve heard in 13 years, and in smart areas, too. But I’m still not totally comfortable with what sounds to me like it’s still a lot of spend-first-plan-later talk.
I was listening on CBC radio to the Brig. Gen. in charge of the Canadian forces in Afghanistan. He was saying this is going to be our biggest deployment since Korea. My brother’s armoured reserve unit in fact is sending 30 people. The most they’ve sent since WWII and not just slotting there here and there to supplement reg forces, but as their own troop? (don’t know the correct terminology) . Not only that, the BG thinks that peace-keeping as we’ve known it for the last 30 years is over. It’s about to get a lot more ugly and Canadians better be prepared to hear about lots of casulties in Afghanistan. Our commitment to Afghanistan is intended to 2010 which means a very significant portion of our forces are going to rotated through there.
If this is all true, in order to keep up with our peacekeeping commitments and the new style of peacekeeping, we are going to need a lot more people and more equipment.
Harper will end up getting lots of flack for this, if the poll in today’s Globe and Mail is any indication. 62% oppose the war in Afghanistan? It’s amazing what having a few soldiers killed by U.S. troops will do…
No way will the Canadian people accept missile defence (which is a useless program if every there was one).
But I have to wonder exactly what is the point of expanding our military. Will we create more special ops units, like JTF2? Will we expand coastal patrols to safeguard fishing grounds? Or will we just end up with a bunch of grunts that help Toronto dig out from the next big snowstorm?
The Airborne wasn’t “disgracefully disbanded” by the Liberals, those idiots brought it on themselves.
What co-operation is being asked of the Canadians in regards to the missile defense program? Is Canada being asked to pay anything, or just allow some installations on their territory and permission to use thier airspace? If I were Canada, I wouldn’t allow the former (I agree the program is a waste) but the latter wouldn’t really hurt Canada any, and indeed would probably get some American money spent north of the border.
What happened to the plant to build 5 nuclear powered attack submarines, to operate under the polar ice? Did the bill come in too steep? Imagine: a war between Canada and Denmark:under the ice!
As far as missile defense, if I were Canada, I would tell the US something like the following:
“Hey, US, we love the idea of a missile defense system. Just as soon as you guys have a deployable and completely functional system, we’ll happily help expand it to cover Canada.”
See? Then you guys don’t have to worry about the issue for another 100 years.
Are you holding your breath? Do you expect the ice to be gone by, oh, say next year or something? Even if you are correct and all the polar ice disappears (I’m unconvinced but thats another debate) I’d say that IF Canada really feels they need subs to operate under the ice that they can build them, crew them, and operate them for many years before the ice all goes away. The most pesimistic time table I’ve seen (that wasn’t of the tin foil variety) gives us about a century before all the ice is by by.
As to the OP…I think its good that Canada is starting to think about rebuilding its military. I also agree that everything I’ve read (and my own thoughts) indicate that 5 billion isn’t going to be near enough to do all the things I’ve seen on the table. Not even double that would cover it. Like the Euro’s, Canada is going to face the fact that to get a viable and deployable military its going to be necessary to spend the money.
That said, I agree with the posters saying that really Canada needs to start by assessing its actual (and projected) military needs…not just spending a lot of money. Once the requirements are established THEN spend the money to make it happen…or don’t if it is going to cost too much (after all, you can continue to rely on the good will and protection of your good buddies to the south ). Form following function and all that.
Did you read the OP? This budget plan includes icebreakers. Surface ships. Not subs. The ice is obviously thin enough already. It doesn’t have to disappear entirely first.
You can take that smiley back until you’ve thought about it a little more.
New (actually replacing long-defunct) strategic airlift capacity is mandatory.
New icebreakers is a damn good idea.
Huge increase in numbers? I would really need to be convinced. I’d rather see a focus on making sure our existing forces are properly equipped and trained, possibly in conjunction with a more modest increase in numbers.
Missile defense? Good luck. The Opposition will shoot that down in a heartbeat.
As for capabilities, if it were up to me we’d be focusing on topnotch light mechanized infantry, not only because the hardware costs are relatively low, but because it’s most likely to be useful in most sorts of foreseeable deployments.
Icebreakers would be used to assert sovereignty over the Northwest Passage as it becomes more navigable. They wouldn’t be intended to venture deep into the icecap - though it can be done. Large icebreakers have made it to the North Pole.
Did you read the snippet from ralph124c that you were replying too? He mentioned nuclear (nukulahr) subs.
Another intersting fact about subs is…they will work underwater reguardless of the ice above. They also do a lot of other interesting things for that matter.
And I’ll keep in the smileys if you don’t mind…or if you do for that matter.
Because Canada is a soveriegn nation with a territory to defend, and it’s hard to defend territory without an army.
Becuase Canada has specific defense commitments to other nations, including, for instance, our commitment to defend the United States if it is attacked, which we are doing right now.
Because Canada uses its armed forces abroad to render assistance to those who need it.
Because having a military gives Canada the ability to engage in peacekeeping missions.
To fight wars when need be, such as in 1991 or 1999.
Because if a REALLY big war happens, we will already have an operational infrastructure for an expanded military.
You’ve asked this question before. It’s been answered.
As to the question of submarines, that plan is like twenty yyears old. There’s been no recent plan to acquire nuclear submarines. The cost is prohibitive and it’s not politically safe, since a lot of people think “Nuclear submarines” are nuclear weapons.
Are you holding your breath? Do you expect the ice to be gone by, oh, say next year or something? Even if you are correct and all the polar ice disappears (I’m unconvinced but thats another debate) I’d say that IF Canada really feels they need subs to operate under the ice that they can build them, crew them, and operate them for many years before the ice all goes away. The most pesimistic time table I’ve seen (that wasn’t of the tin foil variety) gives us about a century before all the ice is by by.
). Form following function and all that.