Sure, so we should just let Trump come right in, I guess. This is definitely the place to cut emissions first. /s
The whole world under capitalism is mostly corrupt, and has been for a while now, because capitalism doesn’t work. This is not a risk it’s human nature.
I really think we should rethink what “defense spending” means. You know, buying these strategic weapons like fancy-ass planes and submarines strike me as an enormous waste of money except insofar as they let us assist/participate in foreign wars (generally wars of aggression by our imperialist neighbor). Any foreign power that would or could meaningfully endanger Canada would utterly overrun anything we could field in terms of “conventional warfare.” If we care about defense, we could be spending instead on light infantry and drones. Hell, just with some back-of-the-napkin math, I suspect we could cut our military budget in half, buy everyone a rifle, and still have a quarter of our military budget left to do things like run trainings for would-be defensive volunteer forces. And I don’t just mean shooting. Like…the military could run first aid classes, outdoor survival courses, computer programming, etc. We could pay people to attend and recieve certification…like for-pay boy scout merit badges or something! We could make ourselves the most unappealing target for invasion without spending very much money at all, and skill-up our people at the same time. We could use “defense spending” to make life better here at home at the same time. Instead we’ll buy honkin big guns we can’t do anything with except tag along with the USA.
Those are the two big items the media focuses on, but there’s the better part of a hundred bidding processes going on IIRC, and more that are awaiting delivery. For example, relevant to the asymmetric scenario, there’s a bunch of MANPADS coming from Sweden.
If you didn’t know, there is a civilian defence force coming online. Also, the land army is splitting into three parts. One for homeland defence, one for foreign defence like our base in Latvia, and one that does support tasks.
(And obviously attack submarines are more about defending our waters)
That’s interesting! I’m sure you know a lot more about it than me. And look, no pressure to respond, I’m saying a lot of shit here, but I really don’t get it.
I’m not invovled, I know very little about it…but am I wrong in thinking that every dollar that’s spent on anything other than asymmetric warfare is not actually defensive in any meaningful sense? Why isn’t the part of the army focused on homeland defense the only part? Or nearly the only part, I know we gotta participate in collective self-defense…but we shouldn’t be spending very much of our defense budget on assets that are only for that purpose…I assume we’re spending a lot more than half on that? If the other parts are paid for with Canadian taxpayer money, it’s fair to ask how those other parts make life for Canadians better. And maybe there’s a really good clear explanation for it, but I haven’t seen it. It might just be “the US expects it of us and we have to do what they want,” but if so, we should be constantly thinking about why and whether we can afford to roll it back. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t be in Latvia or whatever. Us being there deters Russian aggression and that’s a good thing. But I think if we’re gonna increase our military budgets, it doesn’t have to be on military hardware that’s primarily useful in us fighting other people’s wars.
Just going off your example with the submarines…what does “defending our waters” mean in this context? Defending against what from whom? If we had no military whatsoever, and the only challenge was getting enough boots on canadian soil, how many world powers could actually field an invasion of Canada? Russia, China, the USA, maybe India…anyone else? Would any of them have any trouble dealing with whatever “conventional warfare” defenses we can muster? Maybe that’s what I misunderstand, are these weapons that significant?
Maybe I’m wrong and these submarines or MANPADS or planes could actually make a difference in a conflict, idk. But dollar for dollar, i can’t imagine it does better than a larger number of armed and trained light infantry among the populace. Especially given all we’re learning about cheap drones from Ukraine and Iran.
Again, what do I know…I’m just saying from a lay person’s perspective, talking about this kind of spending looks like we’re focused on participating in conflict elsewhere. I’d be happy to hear otherwise. But I don’t like to see my town’s library closing on weekends for budgetary reasons while we spend 75 billion on fighter planes that we’re just going to use to help the US kill people who are not able or interested in attacking us. We shouldn’t have been in afghanistan or the gulf war.
I’m not involved, I know very little about it…but am I wrong in thinking that every dollar that’s spent on anything other than asymmetric warfare is not actually defensive in any meaningful sense?
Just going off your example with the submarines…what does “defending our waters” mean in this context?
Maybe I’m wrong and these submarines or MANPADS or planes could actually make a difference in a conflict
There’s a spectrum of what weapons can do. MANPADS (so that’s shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles, basically) are almost a pure guerilla weapon. Easy to hide and transport, last literally decades like we found out with the Taliban, and very dangerous for someone taking off in, for example, an expensive F-35. A diesel attack sub will need maintenance eventually, but it’s hard to find and can operate independently for weeks, maybe longer if you have some kind of covert resupply.
The German ones in particular are almost undetectable. It’s designed to wait on the seafloor where a major enemy target like an aircraft carrier might come through, and then sink it in an ambush. Will that stop them in their tracks? No, but the Americans are very afraid of losing an entire supercarrier, and it’s happened in wargames. Hanwha’s offering is less superlative at that, but can also operate for longer and deliver ballistic missiles, which is interesting if we wanted to do a sneaky strike at something on land.
The Gripen is an attempt to make a fighter than can function out of the backcountry maintained by conscripts, so it’s middle-of-the-road or unconventional-leaning as well. The F-35 needs an actual airbase to operate out of, so it’s pretty purely conventional, but it’s just absolutely cheat-tier in the wargames. The air force really wants them, because it’s like having an invisible player in the rink. If we end up fighting Russia instead they’ll be invaluable.
But dollar for dollar, i can’t imagine it does better than a larger number of armed and trained light infantry among the populace.
Without any air defence, for example, the Americans can basically be overhead at all times, monitoring us and taking pot shots when they feel like it. They love operating that way, especially when it’s an unpopular war and every dead American soldier is a major media event. They’re doing it in Iran right now, for example. If we can shoot aircraft down some of the time, they have to be careful how they operate them, and the playing field gets a lot more even.
It has to be emphasised that the financial end isn’t about cost per unit so much as cost exchange. A million dollar single shot is completely worth it if it brings down something worth a billion. Similarly, a relatively cheap $10,000 interceptor still can’t be used on a $1000 drone. And, usually a mix of tools has a synergy and works better (“combined arms”), which is why we have one.
There’s also the objectives and limitations of each party to the conflict. The Americans can afford to lose a carrier group, but they also don’t care about Canada that much. If we were invadeable by fishing boat like Greenland they’d be a lot more tempted; if they’re facing a major if single-sided war right on their border they can probably still be deterred.
And I’m not saying we shouldn’t be in Latvia or whatever. Us being there deters Russian aggression and that’s a good thing.
Why isn’t the part of the army focused on homeland defense the only part?
That NATO and the US alliance is dead isn’t something all politicians are resigned to yet, and even if it is (c’mon it absolutely is), we still have allies. And that support goes both ways; if they were to actually come to our aid against the US in full force, a conventional victory would be on the table. Failing that, being a guerilla is a lot easier with foreign support.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary! I misunderstood what MANPADs were, that makes sense. For some reason I thought that was an armored vehicle; shoulda at least googled it (how embarassing).
The submarine point makes total sense, I guess I hadn’t connected them with how serious of a threat they are to a carrier, and how reliant on carriers the US is (or more neutrally…how important carriers are to force projection generally). Not to mention anyone else has to get here by boat (or over the arctic, but I don’t think there’s going to be a way to do anything massive or fast that way in the foreseeable future).
I totally agree that the cost exchange is what ought to count (and life too, of course). It sounds like maybe air-defense is less about “defending” any particular asset (e.g. keeping Canadian tanks safe from enemy bombs - which might be a battle we simply cannot win) than making air-superiority very expensive? 'cause that’s what I envision, when we buy military hardware…like…the US (or Russia, or China) could just blast all our expensive toys to bits before we get to use them.
I had no idea the Gripens are meant to be functional without a full airbase, I thought they were just the “iPhone SE” fighter jet option lol. Good bang-for-the buck…maybe still a bit overpriced, but not nuts, and genuinely pretty good. But you’re saying they actually serve a different role strategically, that’s very interesting. I mean…supplying them with fuel and ammunition in an asymmetric conflict would still be almost impossible, right? I guess that just means you’d have to be very selective about how you deployed them…doesn’t make them useless.
I’m with you on NATO, it seems that Trump has put two bullets in it. I wouldn’t be shocked if it can be resuscitated over the coming decades. And yeah I agree we gotta help our allies, I just think that if we choose, doctrinally, to focus on whatever tools make sense for us, we can go help with that. I think that’s generally what we do and how it works, right?
I really appreciate your insights. I still think hospitals and libraries should come first, and that there’s more room for military spending to directly benefit more people (how many people are paying to do “boot camp” on their yoga mats in vancouver? The government could be giving everyone a leg up on physical fitness … or first aid or radio operation or whatever other skills that could be for defense but also be useful in the peaceful reality we’re all hoping for).
But I really appreciate you filing off my misimpression that we’re spending all this on stuff that’ll only be useful in a situation like when we helped the US invade Afghanistan. Because to a lay person like me…that’s just what tanks and planes and submarines sound like they’re for!
It sounds like maybe air-defense is less about “defending” any particular asset (e.g. keeping Canadian tanks safe from enemy bombs - which might be a battle we simply cannot win) than making air-superiority very expensive?
Expensive, risky and maybe not totally complete. For example, they might no longer have the option of flying a helicopter over an urban area on a clear day.
Completely stopping the Americans from flying at all seems impossible without a WWIII kind of response from allies, yes. IIRC they have both the largest and second largest air forces (because of the navy).
'cause that’s what I envision, when we buy military hardware…like…the US (or Russia, or China) could just blast all our expensive toys to bits before we get to use them.
Survivability is all down to how well the expensive things are hidden, which is itself partly down to moving them around a lot (like with a fast jet). In another era of warfare making them indestructible would have been an option, but not so much now.
At the other end of the cost curve, there’s at least minimal efforts to get our own drone capabilities going.
But you’re saying [Gripens] actually serve a different role strategically
Extremely different. Honestly that they both get called “fighters” is down to history. Like sure, they both turn fast, and have a similar-ish shape to accomplish that, but it means little from a strategic perspective. (At an individual-ish aka tactical level, that’s still good for dodging certain kinds of threats)
It’s made out of basic, off-the-shelf kinds of parts, and it literally does just need the pilot, a dirt runway and six mostly-untrained conscripts that can follow orders and carry heavy things in order to operate. The downside is that it has no stealth whatsoever. To be survivable, it would have to take off, do whatever of mission, land, and be towed away before the enemy can respond. Maybe that’s doable, maybe not. It’s untested.
We’ll see what the government decides. Getting the F-35’s we’ve already bought and nothing else would be one option, and then the money could go elsewhere.
I really appreciate your insights.
You’re welcome!
Since you’re interested, there’s CanadaBuys for an unskewed view of what tenders are out there, and you can filter for the DND. There’s also Perun on YouTube, which comes recommended for (global) military news and analysis in granular detail.
Maybe I’m wrong and these submarines or MANPADS or planes could actually make a difference in a conflict, idk. But dollar for dollar, i can’t imagine it does better than a larger number of armed and trained light infantry among the populace. Especially given all we’re learning about cheap drones from Ukraine and Iran.
You are very wrong about this.
Okay, well if you care to say more, I’m interested. I’ve never heard of a country getting invaded by a vastly larger and better armed military and doing well except by asymmetric means, but like I said, I don’t claim to be an expert. Like, I don’t think a handful of tanks or planes in the hands of the Finnish or Vietnamese would have mattered, but maybe there’s a better analogue!
A US attack was war gamed by CAF back in January and the conclusion was that Canada’s defense would have to be asymmetric because we wouldn’t have a chance at anything else.
Makes sense; maybe I’m wrong but I suspect that’d be true of any adversary with the ability to get significant boots on the ground here, not just the USA (although maybe in reality it is just the USA? I don’t know).
I didn’t say don’t fight asymmetrically I am saying don’t be convinced drones make traditional military power obsolete, you still need ships, artillery, armored vehicles etc…
Oh I totally don’t think traditional military power is obsolete, I think it’s still a goddamn nightmare for anyone who doesn’t have it…i just think we don’t have it and could never get enough of it to matter! And if that’s the case, we’re presumably intending to use those weapons elsewhere. Which, look, maybe is fine, but I don’t think that should come at the expense of what I’d consider way more important stuff at home.
That said, CanadaPlus set me straight on some of that. He or she pointed out a lot of interesting points about how these tools do fit more into an asymmetric defense than I understood. I’d be interested if you have any thoughts about that thread!
Yeah I guess my point is what Canada needs isn’t necessarily an entire nation of militarized decentralized militias, what “asymmetric” means here is relative. Submarines, long range truck mounted anti-ship missiles, HIMARS type weapons that kind of thing.
