Jump to content

Canada spend among the lowest on defense in NATO


shalab
 Share

Recommended Posts

Aren't GDP spend numbers pretty misleading because the US number include healthcare for military while other countries have health spending accounted elsewhere?

 

I think spending on Veterans is about $180B annually. I suspect most of it for health care. Justceyeballing the numbers , this would bring US defense spending to 3% of GNP. There is also about $92B in R&D spent in the DoD budget. Some of it is pretty basic research done at Universities that would probably go in a different bucket. It’s still more spending than other NATO partners, but it’s more like 2x the spending rather than 3-4x.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also look at it by troop and equipment strengths.  That gets rid of these issues with the pure defense $ amount and how efficiently it is allocated.  Obviously this is still deeply flawed but if does indicate Canada significantly under spends.  There are also whole classes of expensive weapons, stealth fighters/bombers and aircraft carriers where we don't have anything at all. 

 

http://armedforces.eu/compare/country_USA_vs_Canada

 

Just a few samples:

 

 

                                US          Canada

Total aircraft: 12 100 405

 

Helicopters:         5 000 165

 

Tanks:                 8 848 146

 

Aircraftcarriers: 20         0

 

Total artillery: 3 269 161

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't GDP spend numbers pretty misleading because the US number include healthcare for military while other countries have health spending accounted elsewhere?

 

I think spending on Veterans is about $180B annually. I suspect most of it for health care. Justceyeballing the numbers , this would bring US defense spending to 3% of GNP. There is also about $92B in R&D spent in the DoD budget. Some of it is pretty basic research done at Universities that would probably go in a different bucket. It’s still more spending than other NATO partners, but it’s more like 2x the spending rather than 3-4x.

 

I don't mean just for veterans, but for active military (non-deployed). Don't the cost of their healthcare gets accounted differently (at least in part) than for a soldier in say, Canada, who has a regular family doctor paid for through taxes rather than through some employer-provided benefits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't GDP spend numbers pretty misleading because the US number include healthcare for military while other countries have health spending accounted elsewhere?

 

I think spending on Veterans is about $180B annually. I suspect most of it for health care. Justceyeballing the numbers , this would bring US defense spending to 3% of GNP. There is also about $92B in R&D spent in the DoD budget. Some of it is pretty basic research done at Universities that would probably go in a different bucket. It’s still more spending than other NATO partners, but it’s more like 2x the spending rather than 3-4x.

 

I don't mean just for veterans, but for active military (non-deployed). Don't the cost of their healthcare gets accounted differently (at least in part) than for a soldier in say, Canada, who has a regular family doctor paid for through taxes rather than through some employer-provided benefits?

 

I don’t know. Most countries have their own health system for active duty personal , but I believe the bulking the medical spent on veterans at least in Germany is just through the public health care system. One would need to look at these numbers in much detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

I know this is just one report and it is not about Canada...but I was shocked to learn that Germany is having severe problem with it's military equipment.

 

So much so, that some of their troops have had to resort to using broomsticks instead of real guns:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11420627/German-army-used-broomsticks-instead-of-guns-during-training.html

 

I had previously heard stories that all of Germany's submarines are non-functional, no replacement parts.

 

There are also rumors that Germany has almost no heavy lift planes for the military...and most of their planes are grounded.  Once again, not enough spare/replacement parts.

 

If these reports are true, it is clear that some NATO states are not holding up their end of the bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Germany has issues too.  While we bicker about health care spend the equipment numbers are just brutal and even then may overstate the case.

 

The German magazine Spiegel recently revealed that most of the Luftwaffe’s—the modern German air force’s—128 Eurofighter Typhoons are not flightworthy.

 

In fact, only about ten of the aircraft are ready for operations, Spiegel said. This raises doubts about Germany’s ability to meet its NATO defense commitments.

...

But Germany, at least, has been playing games with the Typhoon’s operational readiness, according to Spiegel. “The Luftwaffe counts all Eurofighter jets that are allowed to fly as available. But this includes many who do not have a functioning self-protection system. These may be used with dummies on the wings for training flights or maneuvers. Real missions, such as airspace surveillance on the eastern edge of NATO, are excluded with these jets.”

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germanys-air-force-dying-slow-death-25157

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

I know this is just one report and it is not about Canada...but I was shocked to learn that Germany is having severe problem with it's military equipment.

 

So much so, that some of their troops have had to resort to using broomsticks instead of real guns:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11420627/German-army-used-broomsticks-instead-of-guns-during-training.html

 

I had previously heard stories that all of Germany's submarines are non-functional, no replacement parts.

 

There are also rumors that Germany has almost no heavy lift planes for the military...and most of their planes are grounded.  Once again, not enough spare/replacement parts.

 

If these reports are true, it is clear that some NATO states are not holding up their end of the bargain.

 

Why spend? The U.S. will do it for them.

 

The United States, on both a domestic basis, and international one, has become the grand enabler for freeloaders everywhere. Both it's citizens, and other countries, you can rely on good ole Uncle Sam to do things for you, that you don't want to do yourself. That's why we have so many "allies". Notice the grumbling once it is even hinted people get cut off? Like petulant infants getting removed from the tit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why spend? The U.S. will do it for them.

 

The United States, on both a domestic basis, and international one, has become the grand enabler for freeloaders everywhere. Both it's citizens, and other countries, you can rely on good ole Uncle Sam to do things for you, that you don't want to do yourself. That's why we have so many "allies". Notice the grumbling once it is even hinted people get cut off? Like petulant infants getting removed from the tit.

 

I think self-interest may have worked its way into US spending decisions over the years.  Hegemony comes at a high cost.

 

And petulant = "childishly sulky or bad-tempered".  Of all the people at that NATO meeting, who best deserves that adjective? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Germany has issues too.  While we bicker about health care spend the equipment numbers are just brutal and even then may overstate the case.

 

I don't know anything about military, but every time I read about Canadian equipment purchases I get a kind of embarrassed feeling.  You know, four leaky used submarines from England..  one catches fire on its way to Canada, the others need all sorts of work, news reports like this:

 

"Navy technicians caused "catastrophic damage" to one of Canada's trouble-plagued submarines two years ago, says a Halifax newspaper report that cited military documents.

The technicians blew out the electrical system when they hooked up HMCS Victoria to a modern electrical generator, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald reported Saturday.

"Attempts to use a DC [direct current] feed … caused catastrophic damage to certain onboard filters and power supply units," the Chronicle-Herald reported, quoting recently released military documents about the incident, which occurred in British Columbia. The navy is now spending about $200,000 to buy old electrical equipment that mirrors the original equipment found on the submarine."

 

But it must be difficult for smaller countries, given the absolutely staggering cost of military equipment these days.  If you have a relatively small budget, how do you best spend the money?

 

And on the other hand, I'm amazed it makes any sense at all (upon cost-benefit analysis) for the US to spend so much on things like new stealth battleships, or next gen aircraft carriers.  Aren't we at a point where a $2m torpedo has a very good chance of taking out a multi-billion dollar ship?

 

This is probably super ignorant, so any military watchers please feel free to school me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone would argue that the US mil could be more efficient with their spending.  However wasteful spending in the US does not adds/subtract to an argument that NATO allies must pay their fair share.

 

You all like to talk and throw crap at the argument to try to distract the conversation but it's really simple.  The US is pulling more than their fair share militarily.  Trump is calling the western liberal bluff and saying if you don't believe the US military is effective and necessary then fine, just kick the US out of NATO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States, on both a domestic basis, and international one, has become the grand enabler for freeloaders everywhere. Both it's citizens, and other countries, you can rely on good ole Uncle Sam to do things for you, that you don't want to do yourself. That's why we have so many "allies". Notice the grumbling once it is even hinted people get cut off? Like petulant infants getting removed from the tit.

 

Last I checked Canada didn't start any wars or stick its nose in other countries businesses with military action.  Who's bailing who out and which country is overspending on military?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all like to talk and throw crap at the argument to try to distract the conversation but it's really simple.  The US is pulling more than their fair share militarily.  Trump is calling the western liberal bluff and saying if you don't believe the US military is effective and necessary then fine, just kick the US out of NATO.

 

Yeah it's really annoying when a fair/good point gets lost in a bunch of distraction, misdirection, and bravado.  (See:  Trump, Donald J.)

 

Have any of the NATO allies said that they don't believe the US military is effective and necessary?  Honestly, that would be big news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 no_free_lunch

 

Love your logic and certainly in short supply since a while on this website with the pro-Liberal attitude.

 

Cardboard

 

I was at a conference of logicians fairly recently.  You would have despised the pervasive pro-liberal attitude!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 no_free_lunch

 

Love your logic and certainly in short supply since a while on this website with the pro-Liberal attitude.

 

Cardboard

I was at a conference of logicians fairly recently.  You would have despised the pervasive pro-liberal attitude!

Here's what I don't get about the taking advantage bit. Is the US planning to cut military expenditure? It's not. Donald Trump himself has stated many times that he wants the US spend more on military. So if the US doesn't save any money if Germany or Canada spend more how are Germany, Canada or other freeloaders or whatever?

 

Furthermore, if the US just wants to shower its military industrial complex in cash just cause it feels like it and the result is a military whose umbrella casts a shadow so big that it covers its allies is a high level of expenditure really required on their part? What is the purpose of such spend and why is it logical? The answer is that it's not logical. And it has nothing to do with liberals or anything like that. Btw, since you bring up ideology, as far as i know conservative ideology is against useless government spending.

 

Finally, Germany is a big issue in all that is going on right now. I'll spare everyone the suspense. Germany will never get to 2% GDP military spend. Anyone that understands Europe will understand that. It doesn't matter how many tantrums Donald Trump throws. It won't happen. At best they'll cook the books to make it seem like it's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I don't get about the taking advantage bit. Is the US planning to cut military expenditure? It's not. Donald Trump himself has stated many times that he wants the US spend more on military. So if the US doesn't save any money if Germany or Canada spend more how are Germany, Canada or other freeloaders or whatever?

 

It's unclear to me what he has in mind, but I assume his idea is either that the US would spend less directly on NATO (i.e. smaller percentage of the pie) as other countries spend more, or that wants any shortfalls to stop being borne by the US.  Just guessing.

 

In any case, I don't see why it's incongruous that he wants to generally increase US military spending but decrease NATO's reliance on US support.

 

This is part of the problem:  There are so many half-truths and fabrications that it's hard to know what he wants with any precision.  Tweeting about countries owing the US back-payments and being delinquent is great tough-guy talk for his base, but doesn't help convince anyone who's not already in his corner that he has a reasonable plan in mind. 

 

A similar thing happens with regard to trade.  Have they published anything that would help us understand more specifically what they have been asking of China?  It seems there's bipartisan consensus that China does not play fair, but everything I've read has been very vague.  Surely they have some specifics in mind.  I would have liked to have seen Trump use the G7 summit to rally allies toward a more aggressive collective stand on Chinese trade practices, with some specific, reasonable asks. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc, for someone who professes ignorance on such topics you make some good points.

 

First, let me expand a bit on NATO. It was never meant really meant as a warfare organization. It was meant as an organization for peace. The idea behind it is that there is so much force concentrated in the alliance. Yes, the US was meant to be the main force. But if you actually fancy a tumble with Britain or France there's something seriously wrong with you. Add to that the fact that Article 5 doesn't mince any words and what you get is that you would have to be insane to attack any member of the Alliance. It's all about deterrence.

 

Now of course that the behavior of the Unites States seriously undermines that deterrence. Deterrence doesn't work reality TV style. Stay tuned for next weeks episode to see which members are still part of the Alliance.

 

But you actually hit the nail on the head when you speak about the half truths and vague statements. The current setup of the NATO is with the US being the main force, the other powers basically flanking it, and the smaller members providing support. In this situation you would make a certain set of investments. But if the US wasn't in the picture you'd invest into a whole different set of capabilities. So by being vague and disruptive and vague you paralyze the Alliance. Even if they want to spend they won't.

 

As for trade, forget about it. Fat chance your Allies will show up to the fight for you after you've sucker punched them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for trade, forget about it. Fat chance your Allies will show up to the fight for you after you've sucker punched them all.

 

Well my comments were in a hypothetical world where Trump didn't come out blazing against his allies, but instead had used his unorthodox style to unite them on the big prize. 

 

Even still, if he were to change his tone I think all would be forgotten.  He clearly likes the bad-cop good-cop routine. He just likes doing it alone.  Other leaders must know not to take his antics personally. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I don't get about the taking advantage bit. Is the US planning to cut military expenditure? It's not. Donald Trump himself has stated many times that he wants the US spend more on military. So if the US doesn't save any money if Germany or Canada spend more how are Germany, Canada or other freeloaders or whatever?

 

To counter China the US will have to increase military spending.  If they can get their allies to take care of some of that increase, this will result in a lower increase.  It may also make the situation less dangerous if the defense is spread across multiple countries.

 

As for trade, forget about it. Fat chance your Allies will show up to the fight for you after you've sucker punched them all.

 

If you are somehow implying that NATO allies will ignore an article 5 due to hurt feelings then NATO is every bit as corrupt and obsolete as Trump suggests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for trade, forget about it. Fat chance your Allies will show up to the fight for you after you've sucker punched them all.

 

If you are somehow implying that NATO allies will ignore an article 5 due to hurt feelings then NATO is every bit as corrupt and obsolete as Trump suggests.

 

See highlighted text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that doc.  I have read it and re-read it.  If you put both sentences together it implies that the 'allies' won't honor their defense commitments as they are having a temper tantrum over tarriffs.  I just don't know how else to interpret that.

 

Allies = other G7 countries.  "The fight" = the trade war.  The context being a reply to my point about them working together on trade, prefaced by "as for trade".  Seems to me you have to stand on your head to interpret it as you did, but apparently you feel the same way about me. 

 

We'll have to let RB reply as regards his intended meaning. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...