- cross-posted to:
- canadapolitics@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canadapolitics@lemmy.ca
You must log in or # to comment.
Yeah any modern military without a drone strategy is way behind already.
Agreed. Just looking out the door at what’s going on with Ukraine - we really should be taking a hard look at what we should be doing to prepare for warfare today instead of 30 years ago.
wtf, eh?
It’s a good thing, we need to modernize to survive.
From whom or what are these drones increasing survival?
Survive against nations with larger pools of manpower and firepower. If we can’t be the biggest we can at least be more technologically advanced.
We don’t even pay our share of NATO fees. It’s something like 2% of GDP and we don’t even contribute that to the largest defense pact on the planet.
We don’t have the capacity the Americans do with tech offensively; we tend to find commercial applications (see CANDU reactors vs nuclear bombs) rather than warfare ones.
If any nation with larger pools of manpower and firepower attack us, it’s going to be responded to with guerilla warfare in the forests. The only chance we have to survive is asymmetrically, and even then it’s a short lived campaign. We’re very lucky that we are surrounded by water on all sides geographically and have the most technologically advanced military to the South.
I am aware of all these problems, it’s a shame Canada cannot uphold even the most basic of obligations from our treaties. In truth the only reason we have been able to neglect the armed forces for so long is because of our unique position as America’s hat. In case of any invasion an American occupation to meet the enemy head on is more likely.
So I want to jump in here to correct what has been a rampant misconception for about 17 years now. That Canada does not have treaty obligations to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending.
This misconception is so old it has its drivers license.
NATO met in 2006 and set a spending target. A non-binding benchmark spending amount, that’s it. No obligation, no treaty, no penalty, no enforcement mechanism.
In 2014 they met again and revamped the language, making it a goal to move towards over a ten year period.
In August 2023, they updated the language agreement again, committing to a goal to move towards a 2% minimum ‘in the future’.
The language has been very specific and intentionally not a requirement. Both the Harper and Trudeau government have intentionally sought this kind of softer, target oriented language to keep us from having to commit the funds.
Here is a recent article that confirms the goal vs obligation:
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg intended to make NATO’s current military spending target of 2% of national GDP a minimum requirement rather than a goal to aim for. https://www.reuters.com/world/nato-allies-agree-spend-at-least-2-their-gdp-defence-diplomats-2023-07-07/
Oh so we specifically skirt around the 2% by using weirld language in the treaties. That does not inspire anymore confidence than before.
During WW2 they had Battle Plan Crimson, which was designed as an eventuality to be carried out if the Axis powers ever managed to make a beachhead on North American soil, because the most insecure ports were on either end of the Canadian coasts. NS and BC were basically open for the taking and we were very lucky that the war stayed mostly in Europe and Asia.
