It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Canadian Politics: Canada to Boost Military "So the World Notices"

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:35 AM

The man likely to be elected the new Canadian prime minister in a week's time, Conservative leader Stephen Harper, said on Monday he wants to boost defense spending enough for the world to take notice.

"I've made no secret of our desire to rebuild the Canadian military to have the capacities of a sovereign nation," Harper told supporters on a campaign swing through Atlantic Canada. "To make foreign policy decisions that are not only independent but are actually noticed by other powers around the world."

Im all for a boost to the military, but do you think he will go through with it in massive numbers?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:34 AM
I'm all for a boost in our military. We don't need a big army, just a well equiped one. There are third world countries with better air forces then us... that's just sad. Not that our pilots are bad (I hear they're really good), just that our jets are getting really old.

Hard to say if it will happen though. Probably not in massive numbers anyway.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:25 PM
Canada already has the ability to make nuclear weapons at very short notice…
Furthermore you are surrounded by sea on one side and worlds greatest super power on the other. What are you going to do; have your own defence policy? Or go the sad way of my country (U.K) and follow U.S policy word for word, action for action?

You will be wasting your taxpayer’s money; because you don’t have to worry about the threat of invasion and the American government is your government’s friend. Surely it will secure the world’s oil supply as much as yours ever will?

But as you want this higher defence spending are you going to do something different about Iran, Iraq, Korea and Afghanistan? Or are you going to just add a few dollars to the 400 billion spent by the U.S
Or the 30 billion pounds spent by the U.K

If I were Canadian I would be dead against it, instead I’d spend some more money on public infrastructure, police and cutting pollution.
If you need to stop heroin entering Canada from Afghanistan then you best increase the coast guard; the fishermen could use it as an addition to their salary. And as for the border you may need to think about that anyway to control unwanted immigration (as well as the fruits of crime).

You’ll be crazy to go the way of the U.K. What are you going to differently? And why do anything more at all?
Personally if I want to throw my money away I prefer instead to at least put it in public wishing wells.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:24 AM
And the flip side to that is we live next to the worlds greatest superpower and are surrounded by sea on three sides.

With the opening up of the Northern passage, we need to hugely increase numbers and buy lots of pretty boats that float, an icebreaker or two, subs that don't sink or catch on fire and helicopters that actually stay up in the air, instead of crashing to the ground.

Little known fact - the US does not formally recognize our 200 mile limit up north and would prefer to keep it that way. It's a strategic passage, not to mention the fact that a lot of people think there are plenty of mineral resources under all that ice.

Besides, the military is like a public wishing well and gives people jobs and increases the tax base. How do you think the US keeps such a nice, low unemployment rate? They employ somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.5 million people through their military directly and millions more indirectly.

If we want to have a foreign policy separate from that of the US, it behooves us to be aggressive about increasing our military spending.

This is an area where the Conservatives Party's views and mine neatly coincide.

I don't think this will happen overnight. We need to get people interested in the military as a career and make it easier for them to sign up. Then we might see an increase in enrollment.

PS. About that world oil supply? We're the US's largest importer and we have plenty sitting in the ground. That makes some people nervous.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Duzey]

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Duzey]

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:30 AM
Duzey it’s true that the military does employ a lot of people. But there are also other ways of doing it. Firstly there’s public construction projects (which need to be spread out over time so the work supply is more or less constant). Then there are other things like the police (fighting a never ending war against crime).

As for the economy (which the U.S military also benefits) there’s something even better than buying equipment; it’s called temporary tax breaks.
Temporary tax breaks offer struggling areas of businesses time to get their act together (rather than go permanently extinct in one of their blips); better still they can help guarantee that emerging technologies find themselves in your country. Right now the renewable sector would be a prime example; if you made these areas of investment more tax free then obviously the amount going into them goes up. Once the infrastructure is in place you get to claw your tax back; and providing investors are aware this is the end game, the consequences are never too bad.
I'm no believer in subsidies (especially as business can become addicted to them) (particularly if the unions hold the government to ransom) but they too are probably more effective for both employment and the economy than say mining metal, turning it into a tank shell, and firing it into some field or the bottom of the sea. Surely it would at least be better to melt them down again?

Also how big is Canada’s arms industry? Because you have to ask yourselves will the employment created by the new weapons be in your country; or your friends across the border? As the U.S has a military industrial complex which dwarfs that in any country in the world you would have thought that at least 80% of the procurement employment goes to them.

Finally as long as we are fighting stupid wars in Iraq (it would be so much simpler if we restored Saddam the 2nd; after all he kept the place under control, and did what we wanted) and continue to fight never ending ones in Afghanistan I think recruitment will remain low.
The military also has a bad economic effect as far as taking young bright intelligent people out of the economy and into non-economically productive jobs (I mean since when did the military actually make money?)

On The Defensive…
I can see what you mean about the northern passage and the U.S wanting anything that contains oil under the see (bad news for seals I guess?).
So for Canada there is a possible role for a bigger military (or more specifically navy). What you need to be able to do is turn to gesture politics, where you (just happen) to declare any disputed area containing your oil a “Navy Firing Zone” (until the day you wish to extract it).
I remember the last time Argentinean politicians were talking about taking back the Falklands, Britain sent several nuclear submarines into the place. Of course there was no way we were going to nuke Argentina but the diplomatic point was still made.

Even so the gesture point argument is hardly watertight. There are other ways the U.S will try to get its hands on your oil and I'm sure all of them are peaceful. But if you do turn these places into navy firing zones, and if there is a strong political consensus in Canadian politics that these places are yours then I see no reason why the U.S can’t be made to fail.
Anyway the way things are going the longer you leave that oil under the ground the more it will be worth.

That’s another mistake England’s made which (probably by luck) you haven’t. We’ve been extracting oil from the North Sea since the 1970’s and during those times oil has been cheap. The North Sea is now turning dry (just at the moment when the price looks set to permanently remain high).

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:00 AM
I'm just going to address this one point for now, and I'll get back to the rest later.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Also how big is Canada’s arms industry?

You, and a lot of other people, would be surprised. Canada has quite an active arms industry and we were the 8th largest exporter in the world in 2004.

The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) is a not-for-profit national business association that represents the Canadian defence and security industries. Formerly the Canadian Defence Industries Association, CADSI represents 500 member companies selling to the defence and public security markets. The industries employ over 70,000 Canadians and generate $7 billion in annual revenues, roughly 50% of which comes from international sales.

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:08 PM
Liberal, let me put a few points out there:

Public works is all well and fine, but increasing their numbers means more skilled labor needed, and that's something we as a country just don't have. Our construction industry is floundering because we just don't have enough skilled men and women.

Another point most dirty dirty hippies ignore is that for every grunt or seaman we field, we have to have ten clerks, mechanics, and quartermasters trained. Call it twenty for anything that takes skill or is a major piece of equipment like a tank or plane. Armorers, cooks, etc.

I say sink as much as you can into the Canadian military. We need to bring everything up to date, and the more people we hire, the less people on the streets.


top topics


log in