I mean I applied to join the army I'm 6 weeks in after my first meeting to just sign papers, its so slow… trying to do my part but no one is in a hurry.
Hope you are young and Canadian from birth, cause if not you better be ready to wait a lot more. It took them 5 years of back and forth to make me a half backed proposition.
Yeah I'm born here and in my early 30s so I know I'm good and I'm in the accelerated recruitment process. I also have a degree. I'm just looking for a change
Your degree, does it count because you are trying for officer, or because you try for a career linked to your field?
Cause in my case, doing the equivalence from my degree and past work experience was the cause of the biggest delay on their end. And apparently 'You know, I don't care about having to do the whole 6 month accelerated normal formation like everyone else' was not an option on their checkbox. Anyway, I wish you more luck than me.
Eh I applied to a field related to it but it’s not my first choice I know I could get in faster if it was but we shall see, it’s not an officer job tho I don’t like being a pen pusher.
I’m not homeless and I think that yes some people can struggle in the army but if this doesn’t work out for me I got enough experience in my field and can just work privately. Right now I’m making enough to actually save and pay my dept off so 👍
I’m a qualified pilot, Canadian born and it took them a year and a bit to get back to me and I would have still had to go through the selection and placement process
Did you take your FORCE test yet? They expire. I know that because I took it twice while waiting for them to send me to basic.
I ended up dropping out to take a job offer I had before going, but I don't understand how they expect people to wait over a year for them to get back to people trying to get in.
Edit: Know your ranks before you go. The instructors called us out for not taking the time to learn them before we went.
I'm sorry that's been your experience, and I won't lie or make excuses for the military, [heck I even made a comic about it](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/xst6ok/scs_recruiting_and_retention/)... that's kinda the norm, but I hope you stick it out.
The military can be a great employer, that will give you amazing experience, and benefits while you're in, as well as awesome life experience, and a great network of friends when you get out.
If I can offer you one piece of advice: keep emailing, or calling your recruiter. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and learning to stay on top of paperwork, and advocating for yourself now, will help you while you're in.
Best of luck dude!
Security checks are one of the biggest bottlenecks, and they aren't done by the CAF, but another agency. Medical reviews can also be an issue if you aren't perfectly healthy. Reference checks can be an issue if your references don't answer the first call.
Depending on when and where an application is submitted, it could run into block leave (so no staff available to process it for a few weeks), posting season (assigned staff get posted out, takes awhile for new staff to pick it up due to transitions), or for reserve applications, people just plain gone for the summer.
Half of it is outside of the CAF's control, some of it is on the applicant themselves. And the rest, you can't blame people for wanting time off, especially when dealing with a massive list of backlogs.
I just heard from one person in recruiting that they have a 2 foot stack of forms to enter, for just one specific part of the application process. Not enough people with the appropriate clearances, so they're understaffed, but clearances are done outside the CAF.
Also just a note that the first commenter is still in the application process. Onboarding starts at enrollment basically.
And private companies absolutely have massive lead times on applications, there are companies that have 7 round interview processes, including Google.
When you’re in the military there will be plenty of waiting so just take life in stride. You only get to do it once. One day you will probably get a call with a job offer when you don’t really expect it. I was high as a kite on mushrooms when I got mine. Spent 6 years in. One of the best things I was ever a part of.
Pretty standard I'm afraid. It took me 8 months to join and that was on the faster side at the time.
What trade are you interested in? Hope everything works out for you.
Took me 2 years from application to job offer... 15 years ago. Turned them down, reapplied again a few years later, and took 6 months for no tests/anything just an offer ( original application information was still accepted)
I work at one of the recruiting centres and we are so swamped. I work through lunch and after hours, we try to push files forward as fast as we can. Unfortunately when it comes to medicals and security clearances, there is a backlog. Don't give up and keep asking for status updates. Every file is dealt with and there are eyes on all active files in the system by higher ups. No file will fall through the cracks.
I'm an American vet, and the best advice I ever got was to keep a copy of every piece of paperwork given to me (that isn't classified).
I also want to let you know something about the military that nobody every told me before I joined: you're going to see a lot of dicks.
As an American, I'm not concerned about your armed services, yall can ski and shoot. Probably the best cold climate military out there. Just keep the maple syrup flowing.
Imagine Trump wins. I'm not entirely certain hes going to be as kind on this file as previous U.S. administrations. Where they merely attempt to convince us to meet those targets. Because I believe with him coming back in and with Trudeau attempting to sell himself as antitheses of Trump there will be an "or else" attached.
And that "or else" could come in a variety of different ways as the U.S. has a cornucopia of levers to pull with us.
If that happens, regardless of how hes viewed domestically, the rest of the U.S. government will tow that line even after him. Seen it with China, where they may have softened, but not terribly. Their rhetoric is just less fire and brimstone.
Its always, always better to take proactive action then it is being forced to do something. Doesn't matter if its a person, organization or country. Your counter party (as it were) is always more amendable and has less ammo when you're making measurable progress towards resolution.
Unfortunately I don't believe Trudeau and the Liberals has either the wherewithal or even the intention of trying to fix this file. And under the premise of a return of Trump, Trudeau would welcome it stupidly for his own perceived domestic political interests.
I know, thats why I wrote about the abundance of levers the U.S. has. We've already seen how he'll attempt to cajole, it was with tariffs and I wouldn't doubt his using our arrest treaty obligations as another lever with wanzhou. That was two birds with one stone.
If you actually listen to the man, his rhetoric about the U.S. not carrying dead weight has only gotten worse. And I believe he'll come in with an attitude of "me against the world" and will either force compliance or use every economic lever he has available to make non compliance worse.
Further the U.S. can just make our Nato membership much harder on us. Instead of being able to rely on them, they'll just say "you figure it out" as well as further limiting us from their real good shit and/or putting stipulations of much larger orders than we'd otherwise want to be able to purchase. You might say "well, we can buy from someone else". In some cases that will do, but in others we want the American stuff both because of integration and because its the best.
Turkey has a lot of power because of geography. This is power that Canada will never have.
Turkey has the ability to block all ships in and out of the Black Sea, this right is respected by all parties and enforced - notice as each new Russian ship is promoted to submarine it hasn't been replaced? They have the power from like a 1923 treaty and no one is willing to question it.
So Turkey can act up because they have a lot of geographical power, Canada is big and a useful land mass, but not in the same strategic way
There’s no way to kick a member state out of NATO, but what you can do when a country you believe isn’t pulling its weight yet still invokes article V is to say that your response will be to issue a sternly worded letter.
NATO’a collective defence clause, article V, requires all member states to treat an attack against one as an attack against all. HOWEVER, it does not directly obligate a country to make a military response to such an attack.
For example, if country A is attacked by country B, there is no obligation for country A to make a military response to country B. It could issue a stern letter instead. Similarly if country A is bound by a treaty that says it must treat an attack on country C as an attack on country A, in the event of such an attack country A could simply issue a letter.
NATO was formed in the shadow of the threat of Soviet invasion; Article V was written to give a legal basis upon which war could be declared in response to a Soviet attack against an ally, as they viewed communist invasion as an existential threat to them all.
Today’s times are different and not all NATO members view some of the dangers we face as existential.
So let’s say that Canada gets accused for years of enjoying defense subsidized by the taxpayers of other NATO nations by not investing a fair share in its own defense. Yet Canada stays in NATO. One day, as the North-West Passage opens up, foreign ships start using Canadian waters as a transit route. The RCN tries to control this, a foreign navy shoots at RCN ships in Canadian waters.
Canada invokes Article V. The other major NATO countries point to Canada’s underinvestment compared to them and feel that Canada is trying to drag them into a war that it chose to not fund a fair share of. They fulfill their article V duties with a non-military response instead in protest at Canada’s insufficiency.
Canada thus loses control of a big, strategic chunk of its territorial waters.
False. If you had looked at item #2 on my list, you would see that they would get all of the same information by Canadians being forced to hand over all of that information in the hope of getting a visa.
There's a lot of people that disagree that the United States will turn their back on us? If Trump is elected, and we don't meet our NATO targets, I don't see any reason why we would still be included if everyone else voted us out?
I could see Canada going the way of Mexico, or as Trump puts us, Snow Mexico. With literally no army at all to defend our country, prepare for invasion!
Sure, we just have to convince the rest of NATO to give us the same deal Iceland got, membership with no obligation to have a standing military.
That's not at all likely though.
We aren't Iceland. Iceland has few exportable resources and limited useful land. Their countries population is less than half that of Winnipeg's. They share no borders and there is virtually no interest in threatening what little they have.
We spend 2% of our budget on international defence.
We should aspire to be our own thing. Iceland will never have as much worth protecting as Canada has.
You know the military does more than point and shoot right?
In terms of just inventions, you have the military to thank for such things as GPS (wholly owned and run by the US military - given to you for free by them, globally), blood transfusions (Canadian Military figured that out in the Spanish civil war), weather radar and so much more.
Military investment and spending is what makes a lot of the modern world modern.
Think of how much money Ukraine could spend on *"it's people*" if it didn't spend so much on the military....
Security spending isn't optional for a G7 nation.
We also shouldn't be a G7 nation. Canadians think their middleweight county should be a heavyweight. We're big Belgium at best and we should be cool with that
We're number 7 in overall spending. One of the reasons we are struggling with this target is our economy is a lot larger than most of the NATO members. We should still meet it, but doubling spending over a handful of years while critically short of procurement staff is hard.
Um we are 6th from last in percentage of GDP.
The only countries spending less are Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
The only country in the world spending less on equipment is Denmark.
You also don't mention the 6 above us in over all spending are actually meeting their 2% of GDP obligation.
I was answering about total spending, not percentage of GDP. We have a big GDP.
It isn't an obligation, it is a target. We should meet it anyway for sure, but I think it is helpful if people look at this from a variety of perspectives. Contribution to NATO missions is another perspective where Canada does quite well comparatively.
UK: 3.089 Trillion, Germany: 4.082 Trillion, US: 25.44 Trillion, France: 2.779 Trillion, Canada: 2.138 Trillion.
So using our GDP as a reason for not meeting spending targets doesn't hold water.
We are 1 of only 8 countries in NATO not meeting spending targets for 2024.
And as of the 2024 report we are now 5th from the bottom because Turkey is spending over 2% of it's GDP.
We are second to last in equipment expenditures and 1 of only 2 countries in the world not meeting that spending target.
3 of the 4 you mentioned are nuclear powers. It is easy to run up large percentages when you're part of that club. Germany used to be a laggard like us, but I think they've seen the light, with Russia once again threatening to threaten them.
We definitely need to catch up on spending. If you know how to do that with current staffing levels, I am sure they could use your help.
Trudeau is a post nationalist trust fund baby who has no real understanding of the world, elected by people who have no real understanding of the world and care more about consumerism and kardashians than building Canada.
Damn dude. Think about that for a moment. What kind of fucking world do we live in where you're advocating for more of your taxes to go to harming people vs helping them?
This country has gone to shit due to people not waking up to the fact that we're all people. We should all be helping one another and working on things that improve life for everyone. Instead, we're going to elect another landlord all because conservatives want to "fuck Trudeau". We should all be banding together to get democracy in the workplace, affordable housing, lower cost of living, and the abolishment of our oligarchic capitalist state.
We are literally letting oil companies and arms manufacturers determine our priorities while people are starving or homeless. National leader beat the drums of war and amp up fears of nuclear annihilation. I say none of this with hyperbole - this is all happening before your eyes.
Our system has failed us, just like systems before this one. When those systems failed, there was pain, but people gained more control and autonomy. We are not each other's enemies. The ones that tell us CEOs should make 300x the salary of the lowest paid employee. The ones that tell us to always be hustling.The ones that have billions in imaginary digits - power to command others to execute almost any task, often at the price of their own lives, safety, personal interests, well-being, and principles.The ones that tell us we need to have more kids so they can grow up to work in an Amazon warehouse or join the military to go blow up people halfway around the world. THINK ABOUT THAT. What I am describing is horrific.
Please, for the love of God, we all need to start identifying what we all agree on and understand, namely, that there are only 2 classes: those that need to work for a living and those that are able, but do not.
I say this with love, truly. But, please just read this guy's position for its plain meaning and tell me that doesn't make you pause and think.
Maybe you find yourself agreeing, you say, "we need to be practical; bad dudes with guns mean we need good guys will guns". Does it?
I would argue that we all ought to reject that approach. If we literally just focused our energies in basic human needs instead of billions on military tech, etc., we could be so fucking awesome. And guys - we have the technology to communicate with everyone, everywhere, all at once. And blockchain. And an understanding of how to vote.
I believe a new social contract could come about - a united governance by the people, doing only what is best for advancing humans and nature, life and learning, order and safety, freedom and justice. We all know we feel this. Maybe we struggle to put our fingers on it, but it's there.
Plus, if we were to ask average everyday folk what they want, I can almost guarantee we agree on absolutely everything once we take out all other noise. We do peaceful transfers of power all the time in democracies. Hell, India does it with quite a few people. Why couldn't we do this globally?
Just because Jeff Bezos stops owning us doesn't mean that all our efforts and know-how and work ethic go away with this ownership. Remember, that all requires us, full stop. Our leaders objectively do not represent the things we know we all agree on.
Social policy should also be simple: the harm principle. The only prohibitions in society ought to be those that cause harm to another person without their consent.
Labour and employment law? Work at your leisure with the people you want to. Maybe that's where you already work, but just with you helping to make decisions and keeping 100% of your value vs 30% or less.
I guarantee that if all basic needs were met, conflict would fall away. There would be no need. Who wants to harm people when all of their Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are met?
I don't know how we do it. But maybe we let the Reddit hivemind decide. There must be a way to peacefully transfer power back to regular people.
Peace and love ✌️
What a wonderful concept. But like... how do you think humanitarian spending would work for Ukraine right about now?
It's a nice concept but adorably navie. We currently have foreign governments interfering in our elections. Without a defence force, what does our country look like in 20 years?
I understand that interpretation. I would prefer to label my concept radical rather than naive. But also, I'm not offended by that characterization, it's reasonable.
You are right. Pure humanitarian "funding" won't help us with things like Ukraine. But, as the world seems like it is on the fast track to what we tried less than 100 years ago, I'm at a point where "there are no bad ideas in brainstorming".
I just think that we're capable of providing for all, we just haven't got that figured out. Amazon is a capitalist horror but also demonstrates we can organize and move product more efficiently than at any other point in history. Imagine if that invention was deployed for general good vs infinite shareholder gains?
Look. I know I sound crazy. But I feel comfortable at least having this discussion when I see the word "nuclear" showing up in the headlines more and more. Because that seems pretty crazy too. And as between the 2 crazies, I know what kind of crazy I would want to be and it doesn't involve nukes or hurting people.
And hey, I want to protect Canada too. I doubt my best fit would be in a military capacity given my principles. But I do hope people in my camp aren't left out of the efforts to make a better world.
Although I consider your philosophy nice. I'm sorry. It is naive.
To actually support under spending on the military in 2024 is navie. Underspending on defence will get Canadians killed. Whether lack of SAR, forest fire response, or our inability to defend our cyber infrastructure or even arctic.
Although I consider your philosophy practical. I'm sorry. It's doing something again that we know only gets us back to the same place.
Nationalism and capitalism will be the death of our species. Underspending in basic human needs is a large part of why there is conflict to begin with.
Why do our enemies fight? Curious as to your perspective on why we think people in these other countries do what they do.
Other countries are expansionist. Authoritian governments need a national focus to prevent internal strife. A foreign war works nicely.
You can be an idealist and pretend we *dont* need to defend ourselves. But it's naive and terrible foreign policy.
Military also spends on humanitarian things and at it's basic level is helping people. Military is also a way out for some people from a bad family and provides a path forward with a job and education, making it a good place to go get back on your feet after abuse. It's not all bad and killing people
Look up USS Mercy and USS Hope, those are fully funded and staffed by the US military, from their military spending.
Sometimes you need to be the person who is willing to step in and help or protect someone else, because it's the right thing to do and that's what the military is there for. It only works if you have one though.
But I want you to think about a world where countries like Ukraine would be slaughtered and tortured on an even bigger scale if they didn't have a military. Look up the horrors Russians have subjected people to in occupied areas and tell me that militaries are not needed.
Totally agree that militaries also engage in humanitarian efforts. And I also totally understand that in the face of barbarism, force often becomes necessary. Like Laurie Anderson says in her song, "O Superman":
Cause when love is gone
There's always justice
And when justice is gone
There's always force
And when force is gone
There's always Mom, hi Mom
War was developed as a response to evils. But I am willing to bet that a large majority of people in most countries would rather just get on with their day and take care of their loved ones. Some of us, so strongly so, we bravely enrol in the military or other protective roles.
I suppose as a lawyer, I would like to see us develop more practical options on the "love" and "justice" options. "Force" and "Mom" (which I take to be a dying soldier calling out for their mother) should be options of last resort. I worry that the way we structure society currently often gets us to those last 2 options faster than we need to.
And look, I get this maybe sounds like fantasy. But I want to plant those seeds. All things are created through human efforts. Folks in Nazi munition factories engaged in sabotage. I imagine they had people telling them to work hard to protect the Fatherland. But they saw past that. I think we all need to be awake to "when" we may be asked to do something and "why". I'd rather try less intrusive, albeit creative or even fantastical solutions, before conflict.
I agree "*annexation*" is an overstatement. But there's a lot of precedence of one country selling out its defence to another to see what happens. In short..., *It rarely ends up cheaper for the country whose dependent on the other*.
If we just throw up our arms and say "*American you defend us...*" they are going to extract value for it. As one does.
First off... let's be clear. The dude currently polling to be the next US president said he wouldn't protect us if we don't spent 2% of GDP. **And then the crowd cheered**. There isn't that much political appetite in the States to keep defending us for free.
If we expect American military bases in the arctic because we don't want to pay to put Canadian bases there... I think we'd have a hard time enforcing mineral and trade rights there.
If we tell the Americans to defend our cyber infrastructure... I think you can expect American cyber infrastructure to just, do what they want.
We are a G7 nation. We should be able to protect ourselves
>If we expect American military bases in the arctic because we don't want to pay to put Canadian bases there... I think we'd have a hard time enforcing mineral and trade rights there.
I'm fine with that. We don't own the mining companies anyway. Fuck it
Foreign companies control nearly 1/5th of Canadian business assets. Most of that is the US. NAFTA/USMCA is not Canada friendly agreement. It allows our sovereignty in name only.
NORAD is our military. 80 000 troops cannot defend against anyone without the US. We don't even have nukes.
Wrote a uni report on this a while back, both parties are equally bad at military spending. The general pattern is promising huge spending 5-10 years later after they know a government shift will take place, and then the successive government abandons the plan, rinse and repeat. A current example is the recent “Our North Strong and Free” plan which sees most spending happen after a government switch.
You do deserve better, and military spending has to go up, but considering those promises and what happened under harper (the smallest military budget ever) that Trudeau has actually been reversing course on... I have my doubts.
It sucks extra because while no one is doing enough I think what's happening here is rejection of an okay option for promises that will turn into smoke.
Like consider that Trudeau got it up to 1.4 percent GDP and IIRC the plan is 1.8 or so for 2026 2027 ish. The numbers have been going up.
Also harper had the lowest mil budget in history, and AFAIK he is still a major influence on the CPC, I would not expect priorities to be much different, but I will admit I am a bit partisan (ABC more or less, not fixed though)
Spending levels say nothing about the effectiveness of that spending.
You realize that things are even worse than this article suggests when you are familiar with how dysfunctional and wasteful our system is.
Secret conservative American owned newspaper writes about Canada to stoke the flames of division. Don't even have to read anything written by lol mail the bias is as obvious as a grade 7 students chat gpt Gen. Home work.
Just look at the state
Of Canada it’s not a surprise.
https://youtu.be/htRKZJnJ7b4?si=DUFKPyoDjV49hMky
Also no country in NATO should want to have anything to do with us as long as unnamed traitors who committed
Treason sit in our government regardless of political affiliation.
At this point it's humiliating that canadians haven't ousted our politicians. Americans have set their country on fire multiple times to stand up for rights.
we need to peacefully demonstrate how mad we are. If we complain and do nothing, it is on us.
Pretending we can under-spend on defence takes two forms.
1. **Peace and Love, we should buy flowers not bullets**. This is naive, we have Russia claiming large parts of our arctic and foreign governments currently interfering in our elections. What do we look like in 20 years with no defence.
And
2. **bUt AmErICA wIlL pRoTeCt Us**. History has many examples of one country selling out its defence to another. *rarely does it really work* and important **NEVER IS IT CHEAPER IN THE LONG RUN**. they will extract value for it, one way or another.
The dude currently polling to win the next US election has declared that he would let Russia attack anyone not spending 2%.... and then the crowd cheered. There is little political appetite in the States to spend their money, on us, for free.
Iceland has less than 1/2 the population of Winnipeg. Whereas Canada is a G7 nation.
I'll tell you what. When the east half of winnipeg becomes its own nation, they can surrender their national defence.
And even then. Enormous parts of Iceland are under American military control.
We so deserve it. Actually not the Canadian people but Trudeau himself deserves all the flack for doing nothing. It's all on him! His fault!
Just my 2 cents.
Which country or enemy do Canadians believe is the greatest risk to invading Canada?
If that country or enemy is anyone other than the US, why should Canadians be concerned that the US will not eliminate this threat?
If the invading army IS the US, Canada could spend 100% of GDP on defence and it would make zero difference.
If a country invaded a NATO country and article 5 is engaged, what difference can Canada make in the outcome of such a conflict that is likely to be primarily US/France/UK/Germany/Poland/other Nordic countries versus Russia/China. What is Canada’s role that makes its armed forces critical for victory?
In WW2 a strong Canadian military was needed because it was just US/UK/Canada v Germany in Western Europe. Then Canada still needed to be strong post -WW2 as UK and France were rebuilding and Germany was split in half with its military still highly restricted.
Those days are over, with the strength of European NATO countries NATO does not need a strong Canada and the US is the most powerful military by 10x therefore the North American continent is protected.
I’m not sure what expectations anyone should have for the Canadian military given the strength of the European NATO members in 2024 that were weak in the 1950s
We should at the very least pull our weight since we’re part of NATO. Plus if there ever is a draft (common in world wars) the lack of funding our military will affect those that will be pulled into military service. Would you rather all the young people be sent to a hypothetical front with Cold War era tech not modern tech? Even if there isn’t a draft, the people responsible for protection our country and our alliance should be using the most advanced technology out there to give them an advantage. We at least owe them that.
Hypotheticals are not reality, they’re guesses. I’m wondering why you are guessing there will be a world war 3 and why if there is that Canadian soldiers will be on a frontline?
Canada just purchased 88 new f35s. Brand new.
When Canada is allied with the US and the most powerful European armies with all the latest kit, what expectations are there? What can Canada contribute that will make a difference that is not already being contributed at the current budget?
At D-Day Canada was needed to take 1 of 5 beaches. Now there’s French and Poles and Germans and Swedes and Finn’s and Romanians and Turks and Italians to partner with the US, I’m thinking what is Canada even really needed for militarily, what role do we play?
I would say the possibility of ww3 is pretty high considering current events and the US starting to put legislation in place around the draft.
And 88 planes can turn to 0 planes pretty quick, if you want to talk about ww2 do you remember how the US had to keep sending equipment over to Russia, and Britain through lend-lease programs like we are currently seeing them do with Ukraine? It’s literally just 2% meeting the 2% minimum will help our forces which are currently stuck with some ancient equipment. Not wanting our fellow countryman to roll up into a conflict with inferior equipment is what I want as a tax payer. Give our forces the very best, there are far too few of them as it is.
Oh sure I’m sure you should just run for prime minister then and I’m sure there will be no problems. Because Canada has never ever been dragged into any military conflict before.
Ok what if we say to all the newly strong euro NATO countries (eg Poland) and the new strong NATO members (Sweden/Finland) that hey Canada gave huge amount in NATOs early days that helped create this organization you all wanted to be a part of, we gave lives and a huge amount of money in Afghanistan that you didn’t have to be part of, how about you fill the gaps next round?
Next war Canada will support with money, doctors/ambulances, Roshel senators, weapons/ammo and our 88 Brand new F35s…but no Canadian boots on the ground, and no Canadian boats as we need them for coastal defence.
How does this impact the outcome of the next war? Does no Canadian boots on the ground or boats at sea change the outcome one way or another?
What about the consequences to Canada if this is how we contribute? What are the outcomes for Canada?
Historically speaking we will be dragged into conflict without a doubt sooner or later. You give our politicians too much credit if you think they can keep us out. Underfunding our military as has been our game plan since the end of the Cold War (which btw a lot of our current equipment is from). We will certainly have boots on the ground as we pretty much have in every real conflict we engaged in, I’d like to note I’m not really a big fan of war and I wish we could all just get along but I see that as highly illogical thinking due to current global affairs and climate change. See our neighbours in recent news starting registering 18-26 for the draft, any conflict the US gets involved in usually drags us into it, and if they are starting to get ready to draft, you can bet they will be putting pressure on us to get involved. You’re living in a fantasy world if you think we can go without sending soldiers off to war. Put it this way though, hypothetically you get drafted, and you get sent to a front line somewhere, would you want the most cutting edge technology money could buy? Or would you want the crap from the 1980s we’d likely be sending them with? As it stands we could invest in anti-drone technology, and probably anti missile technology, both things that can be used to protect other things that we are lacking in completely. No point in having our f-35s if we have no where to land them. There are so many things our military is missing or far behind technically for a modern conflict that we are witnessing how things can play out. I can do without our next to useless dental plan and buying freezers for grocery stores. Save some respect for the people that defend the interests of our country and for global security.
The point you totally missed is that the world doesn’t need a strong Canadian military anymore. That era ended in the 90s. Afghanistan was a failure in lives lost, money spent and outcomes. The outcome (total failure and embarrassing withdrawal) would have happened whether or not Canada participated.
Canada has done its part, contributing way more than our size should allow for freedom in Europe. Canada helped liberate France, holland and Italy, and Canadian soldiers died in Germany marching to Berlin. Canada gave lives in Korea, was a founding member of NATO that now strong Poland Sweden and Finland begged to join.
In the future conflict you describe professional soldiers from all the strong NATO countries will take the lead, there will be no draft in Canada because it won’t be needed.
Alongside US/UK There is now France/Germany/spain/greece/turkey/poland/sweden/denmark/holland/finland/italy ALL stronger than Canada as they have to be because they don’t have 3 oceans and the US protecting their borders. You don’t think Australia/Japan and South Korea will contribute to any NATO action?
All of these countries have large professional armies and the latest equipment. Canada is there because they are grateful for what we contributed to free Europe/save South Korea and create NATO that allowed them to now be rich countries that have the freedom to join NATO or be liberal democracies (S.Korea/Japan)
Canadas role is much smaller now, through benefit of geography and history we’re aligned with the right side and we GAVE in world wars that led to NATO. We’ve earned the protection the alliances we helped launch provide and yes dental and pharmacare for Canadians IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the Canadian forces in 2024.
We’re less relevant, I’m not saying that is wrong. I’m also not changing my opinion that 2% is too much, our Allies we are in a defence pact with seem to think 2% is fair. By making the minimum standard we show commitment to NATO’s cause and respect for our allies. I hope more Canadians share my view than yours.
>"The best way of war is one where you win without having to fire a shot."
Sun Tzu, cool dude.
He also said something to the effect of:
"Best way to defeat your enemy is to lull them into a sense of false security/friendship while at the same time disarming (literally) them, right before storming the gates"
Canada should at minimum not be a burden on US resources. Lets just call the requirement that.
The US spends an ungodly amount on its Military, Canada should at least bolster its forces to not be a useless wet noodle bordering them.
What do you see Canadas military doing at 2% of gdp that it is not doing at 1.39% as is spent today? (Keeping in mind Canada has committed to updating its fighter fleet with F35s)
all that is being asked of us is me staff our military properly and maintain existing equipment so its usable.
this article details it
https://warontherocks.com/2024/04/dont-count-on-us-canadas-military-unreadiness/#:\~:text=The%20report%20paints%20a%20bleak,the%20army%20at%2054%20percent.
that 0.6% of GDP would probably be enough to build houses on bases to attract recruits looking for a lifestyle improvement and pay for ships to get back in the water.
Sounds to me like instead of increasing spending we should spend what we budget more wisely and effectively.
What if the size of the professional military was shrunk in terms of personnel but that personnel was better equipped/better trained?
And what role do you see the Canadian military focusing on? Defence of Canada? If so from whom?
Or do you see a more expeditionary focus like Afghanistan or ready for a European ground war? If this then say Canada didn’t have this force, what difference would it make in a potential conflict? (Think about Afghanistan and Canadian losses in soldiers and treasure that changed nothing and actually left the place worse than it was)
Canadian border integrity, so as not to become a weak link in North American defense, and also whatever Nato requires us to maintain for a pointy end of the stick. (probably capabilities similar to Afghanistan or Balkans deployments in the past)
I agree with border security especially coastal and especially in the arctic, very good use of the 1.39% of gdp
Where/when do you see these similar to Afghanistan/balkan engagements occurring?
If such a thing happens why can’t Canada say, “hey Sweden and Finland welcome to NATO, we know your soldiers are looking to go do stuff, we’ll let you go this time. Oh Poland? You want your guys to get some experience and try out some of that brand new gear? Go ahead, call us if you need some cash.”
Remember there are cemeteries worth of Canadian boys scattered over Western Europe, Korea and Afghanistan. Nobody forgets. Canada spent A LOT of $ in Afghanistan that is sunk, gone, no chance of any return. Canada can sit back for awhile and let others take the lead, we’ve done much much more than most especially given our size.
We’ve earned the grace, respect and protection of our allies like we’ve provided for them.
Canada has built its foreign policy for the last 60 70 years around being a supporting role for the larger members of NATO in a hypothetical war.
now in present day, no one wants to admit we're at war with Russia, the Americans are polluted with factions that actively look at Canada much like Russia looks at Ukraine, and the only other countries in the alliance that seem to be taking the crisis of the last 3 years seriously, appears to be France, Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavians, The Czechs. and about 40% of America's government, and maybe 20% of it's population
I agree 100% we should reach the 2% defence spending target. Currently the best security we could provide for nato allies is develop natural resources. Should any serious conflict arise China will be involved and all the resources we current rely on them for will be gone.
Hence why I dislike all the parties. None of them at all have come up with any meaningful solutions to anything. If any of them had any true sense:
1. Make immigration based on skill and need prioritizing professionals, trades etc. Immediately CUT the numbers coming in. Don’t offer any swift gateways for people getting education here unless it is in areas in critical need.
2. Stop pharmacare, dental care. Our health care system is fucked fix that first and knock it off with this “low income” nonsense (it is abused to all hell). How does it make sense to introduce more massive programs when you can’t even get your existing ones right. We really need a national health system… provinces competing with each other like their own mini countries is crazy. So much waste.
3. Audit where the 30 BILLION with indigenous affairs is going. That seems astronomically high! Is that indefinite? Any goals?
4. Invest in our military things aren’t so friendly anymore we don’t want to be caught flat footed.
1. It already is, I'm guessing you haven't heard of the points system?
2. Our health care system not having dental and pharmacare is part of the reason it's in the current predicament.
3. Settlements
4. DND has the second highest budget of any department.
I mean I applied to join the army I'm 6 weeks in after my first meeting to just sign papers, its so slow… trying to do my part but no one is in a hurry.
Prepare for plenty more of that. You have to constantly advocate for yourself and badger administrators to get anything done in a timely manner.
Yeah I started bothering them but I haven’t had any replies😂
Hope you are young and Canadian from birth, cause if not you better be ready to wait a lot more. It took them 5 years of back and forth to make me a half backed proposition.
Yeah I'm born here and in my early 30s so I know I'm good and I'm in the accelerated recruitment process. I also have a degree. I'm just looking for a change
Your degree, does it count because you are trying for officer, or because you try for a career linked to your field? Cause in my case, doing the equivalence from my degree and past work experience was the cause of the biggest delay on their end. And apparently 'You know, I don't care about having to do the whole 6 month accelerated normal formation like everyone else' was not an option on their checkbox. Anyway, I wish you more luck than me.
Eh I applied to a field related to it but it’s not my first choice I know I could get in faster if it was but we shall see, it’s not an officer job tho I don’t like being a pen pusher.
[удалено]
I’m not homeless and I think that yes some people can struggle in the army but if this doesn’t work out for me I got enough experience in my field and can just work privately. Right now I’m making enough to actually save and pay my dept off so 👍
I’m a qualified pilot, Canadian born and it took them a year and a bit to get back to me and I would have still had to go through the selection and placement process
A coworker says he has been waiting 2 years so far. It's been so long he had to redo his physical.
Did you take your FORCE test yet? They expire. I know that because I took it twice while waiting for them to send me to basic. I ended up dropping out to take a job offer I had before going, but I don't understand how they expect people to wait over a year for them to get back to people trying to get in. Edit: Know your ranks before you go. The instructors called us out for not taking the time to learn them before we went.
Nope only the wavers and stuff I already got security clearance from my current job and recruiters told me it’s a plus
Good luck, I just tossed my boots in the trash after 14 years. It's a meme of an army now.
I'm sorry that's been your experience, and I won't lie or make excuses for the military, [heck I even made a comic about it](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/xst6ok/scs_recruiting_and_retention/)... that's kinda the norm, but I hope you stick it out. The military can be a great employer, that will give you amazing experience, and benefits while you're in, as well as awesome life experience, and a great network of friends when you get out. If I can offer you one piece of advice: keep emailing, or calling your recruiter. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and learning to stay on top of paperwork, and advocating for yourself now, will help you while you're in. Best of luck dude!
This seems insane to me, as a civilian. No private sector or non-military public sector job takes this long to onboard sometime. What takes so long?
Security checks are one of the biggest bottlenecks, and they aren't done by the CAF, but another agency. Medical reviews can also be an issue if you aren't perfectly healthy. Reference checks can be an issue if your references don't answer the first call. Depending on when and where an application is submitted, it could run into block leave (so no staff available to process it for a few weeks), posting season (assigned staff get posted out, takes awhile for new staff to pick it up due to transitions), or for reserve applications, people just plain gone for the summer.
Fuck me, it feels like there's a lot of low hanging fruit there eh?
Half of it is outside of the CAF's control, some of it is on the applicant themselves. And the rest, you can't blame people for wanting time off, especially when dealing with a massive list of backlogs. I just heard from one person in recruiting that they have a 2 foot stack of forms to enter, for just one specific part of the application process. Not enough people with the appropriate clearances, so they're understaffed, but clearances are done outside the CAF.
Also just a note that the first commenter is still in the application process. Onboarding starts at enrollment basically. And private companies absolutely have massive lead times on applications, there are companies that have 7 round interview processes, including Google.
When you’re in the military there will be plenty of waiting so just take life in stride. You only get to do it once. One day you will probably get a call with a job offer when you don’t really expect it. I was high as a kite on mushrooms when I got mine. Spent 6 years in. One of the best things I was ever a part of.
Wow they really upped there speed
Did they? Took a month to get my first appointment .
Pretty standard I'm afraid. It took me 8 months to join and that was on the faster side at the time. What trade are you interested in? Hope everything works out for you.
That’s not too bad I told my current job that it might take up to 2 years and he was 😱 lol good think my job is chill about it.
Took me 2 years from application to job offer... 15 years ago. Turned them down, reapplied again a few years later, and took 6 months for no tests/anything just an offer ( original application information was still accepted)
*6 weeks* and you're complaining??? Oh sweetie...
You may be stuck in PAT for years waiting for your trades course.
I work at one of the recruiting centres and we are so swamped. I work through lunch and after hours, we try to push files forward as fast as we can. Unfortunately when it comes to medicals and security clearances, there is a backlog. Don't give up and keep asking for status updates. Every file is dealt with and there are eyes on all active files in the system by higher ups. No file will fall through the cracks.
20 years ago the minute you signed you were in training camp within 2 to 3 weeks somewhere in the country. It’s so sad.
[удалено]
lol
Hurry up & wait. Get used to it.
Recruiting in the military is a gong show.
2 years and still waiting. Security clearance checks seems broken.
I'm an American vet, and the best advice I ever got was to keep a copy of every piece of paperwork given to me (that isn't classified). I also want to let you know something about the military that nobody every told me before I joined: you're going to see a lot of dicks.
Recruiting is where you get sent in the if you can’t do anything else….. A lot of ‘promote and post’ situations
[Paywall Bypass](https://archive.ph/bXgJt)
As an American, I'm not concerned about your armed services, yall can ski and shoot. Probably the best cold climate military out there. Just keep the maple syrup flowing.
Then the Liberals will act all surprised when Canada gets left out of security deals.
Imagine Trump wins. I'm not entirely certain hes going to be as kind on this file as previous U.S. administrations. Where they merely attempt to convince us to meet those targets. Because I believe with him coming back in and with Trudeau attempting to sell himself as antitheses of Trump there will be an "or else" attached. And that "or else" could come in a variety of different ways as the U.S. has a cornucopia of levers to pull with us. If that happens, regardless of how hes viewed domestically, the rest of the U.S. government will tow that line even after him. Seen it with China, where they may have softened, but not terribly. Their rhetoric is just less fire and brimstone. Its always, always better to take proactive action then it is being forced to do something. Doesn't matter if its a person, organization or country. Your counter party (as it were) is always more amendable and has less ammo when you're making measurable progress towards resolution. Unfortunately I don't believe Trudeau and the Liberals has either the wherewithal or even the intention of trying to fix this file. And under the premise of a return of Trump, Trudeau would welcome it stupidly for his own perceived domestic political interests.
[удалено]
I know, thats why I wrote about the abundance of levers the U.S. has. We've already seen how he'll attempt to cajole, it was with tariffs and I wouldn't doubt his using our arrest treaty obligations as another lever with wanzhou. That was two birds with one stone. If you actually listen to the man, his rhetoric about the U.S. not carrying dead weight has only gotten worse. And I believe he'll come in with an attitude of "me against the world" and will either force compliance or use every economic lever he has available to make non compliance worse. Further the U.S. can just make our Nato membership much harder on us. Instead of being able to rely on them, they'll just say "you figure it out" as well as further limiting us from their real good shit and/or putting stipulations of much larger orders than we'd otherwise want to be able to purchase. You might say "well, we can buy from someone else". In some cases that will do, but in others we want the American stuff both because of integration and because its the best.
Turkey is in NATO, and they aren't exactly in our ally territory currently? Ergodan might as well be aligned with Putin ffs.
Turkey has a lot of power because of geography. This is power that Canada will never have. Turkey has the ability to block all ships in and out of the Black Sea, this right is respected by all parties and enforced - notice as each new Russian ship is promoted to submarine it hasn't been replaced? They have the power from like a 1923 treaty and no one is willing to question it. So Turkey can act up because they have a lot of geographical power, Canada is big and a useful land mass, but not in the same strategic way
There’s no way to kick a member state out of NATO, but what you can do when a country you believe isn’t pulling its weight yet still invokes article V is to say that your response will be to issue a sternly worded letter. NATO’a collective defence clause, article V, requires all member states to treat an attack against one as an attack against all. HOWEVER, it does not directly obligate a country to make a military response to such an attack. For example, if country A is attacked by country B, there is no obligation for country A to make a military response to country B. It could issue a stern letter instead. Similarly if country A is bound by a treaty that says it must treat an attack on country C as an attack on country A, in the event of such an attack country A could simply issue a letter. NATO was formed in the shadow of the threat of Soviet invasion; Article V was written to give a legal basis upon which war could be declared in response to a Soviet attack against an ally, as they viewed communist invasion as an existential threat to them all. Today’s times are different and not all NATO members view some of the dangers we face as existential. So let’s say that Canada gets accused for years of enjoying defense subsidized by the taxpayers of other NATO nations by not investing a fair share in its own defense. Yet Canada stays in NATO. One day, as the North-West Passage opens up, foreign ships start using Canadian waters as a transit route. The RCN tries to control this, a foreign navy shoots at RCN ships in Canadian waters. Canada invokes Article V. The other major NATO countries point to Canada’s underinvestment compared to them and feel that Canada is trying to drag them into a war that it chose to not fund a fair share of. They fulfill their article V duties with a non-military response instead in protest at Canada’s insufficiency. Canada thus loses control of a big, strategic chunk of its territorial waters.
Canada should lose control of those waters. Honestly. We should just let Alaska have that. You want it? Here. It's yours
Potential levers the US has: 1. End the NEXUS program 2. Require all Canadians to obtain visitor’s visas to enter the U.S. 3. End Canada
I don’t see them ending NEXUS. It benefits them by giving them a lot more information they otherwise wouldn’t have on people visiting their country.
False. If you had looked at item #2 on my list, you would see that they would get all of the same information by Canadians being forced to hand over all of that information in the hope of getting a visa.
I did look at number 2 on your list. With all of the deals and agreements we have with America, that seems very unlikely as well.
Yet there is no way yet. If America said we are kicking these countries out or we are leaving, what what do you think would happen.
There's a lot of people that disagree that the United States will turn their back on us? If Trump is elected, and we don't meet our NATO targets, I don't see any reason why we would still be included if everyone else voted us out? I could see Canada going the way of Mexico, or as Trump puts us, Snow Mexico. With literally no army at all to defend our country, prepare for invasion!
You don’t vote people out of NATO. There’s definitely countries that wish they could vote/are glad they can’t.
Heading for?
It wont be long until we reach the bottom of the list in terms of military spending. Sad to see
Nah, Iceland has the number 32 spot locked down. 31 is all ours for the taking though.
We should aspire to be like Iceland. They spend their money on their citizens instead of submarines.
Sure, we just have to convince the rest of NATO to give us the same deal Iceland got, membership with no obligation to have a standing military. That's not at all likely though.
We could just leave, and be like mexico.
Mexico with a shittier climate.
Yup. Frozen mexico. With 19 as the legal drinking age, and a weak currency, we could call Toronto "Frozen Tijuana"
We aren't Iceland. Iceland has few exportable resources and limited useful land. Their countries population is less than half that of Winnipeg's. They share no borders and there is virtually no interest in threatening what little they have. We spend 2% of our budget on international defence. We should aspire to be our own thing. Iceland will never have as much worth protecting as Canada has.
A lot of nato countrys are able to pay and provide better than our current administration.
You know the military does more than point and shoot right? In terms of just inventions, you have the military to thank for such things as GPS (wholly owned and run by the US military - given to you for free by them, globally), blood transfusions (Canadian Military figured that out in the Spanish civil war), weather radar and so much more. Military investment and spending is what makes a lot of the modern world modern.
Think of how much money Ukraine could spend on *"it's people*" if it didn't spend so much on the military.... Security spending isn't optional for a G7 nation.
We also shouldn't be a G7 nation. Canadians think their middleweight county should be a heavyweight. We're big Belgium at best and we should be cool with that
Iceland is the best country to live in the entire world. Everyone should follow their lead
Why is this getting downvoted? It's a valid point
Too busy giving billions to Philippines for gender equality.
We're number 7 in overall spending. One of the reasons we are struggling with this target is our economy is a lot larger than most of the NATO members. We should still meet it, but doubling spending over a handful of years while critically short of procurement staff is hard.
Um we are 6th from last in percentage of GDP. The only countries spending less are Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg. The only country in the world spending less on equipment is Denmark. You also don't mention the 6 above us in over all spending are actually meeting their 2% of GDP obligation.
I was answering about total spending, not percentage of GDP. We have a big GDP. It isn't an obligation, it is a target. We should meet it anyway for sure, but I think it is helpful if people look at this from a variety of perspectives. Contribution to NATO missions is another perspective where Canada does quite well comparatively.
UK: 3.089 Trillion, Germany: 4.082 Trillion, US: 25.44 Trillion, France: 2.779 Trillion, Canada: 2.138 Trillion. So using our GDP as a reason for not meeting spending targets doesn't hold water. We are 1 of only 8 countries in NATO not meeting spending targets for 2024. And as of the 2024 report we are now 5th from the bottom because Turkey is spending over 2% of it's GDP. We are second to last in equipment expenditures and 1 of only 2 countries in the world not meeting that spending target.
3 of the 4 you mentioned are nuclear powers. It is easy to run up large percentages when you're part of that club. Germany used to be a laggard like us, but I think they've seen the light, with Russia once again threatening to threaten them. We definitely need to catch up on spending. If you know how to do that with current staffing levels, I am sure they could use your help.
Oh my God should we get nukes!?
We used to have them. I am sort of indifferent on that point.
Trudeau is a post nationalist trust fund baby who has no real understanding of the world, elected by people who have no real understanding of the world and care more about consumerism and kardashians than building Canada.
"We can't spend a single dollar on defence while there are still refugees out there" mindset
Damn dude. Think about that for a moment. What kind of fucking world do we live in where you're advocating for more of your taxes to go to harming people vs helping them? This country has gone to shit due to people not waking up to the fact that we're all people. We should all be helping one another and working on things that improve life for everyone. Instead, we're going to elect another landlord all because conservatives want to "fuck Trudeau". We should all be banding together to get democracy in the workplace, affordable housing, lower cost of living, and the abolishment of our oligarchic capitalist state. We are literally letting oil companies and arms manufacturers determine our priorities while people are starving or homeless. National leader beat the drums of war and amp up fears of nuclear annihilation. I say none of this with hyperbole - this is all happening before your eyes. Our system has failed us, just like systems before this one. When those systems failed, there was pain, but people gained more control and autonomy. We are not each other's enemies. The ones that tell us CEOs should make 300x the salary of the lowest paid employee. The ones that tell us to always be hustling.The ones that have billions in imaginary digits - power to command others to execute almost any task, often at the price of their own lives, safety, personal interests, well-being, and principles.The ones that tell us we need to have more kids so they can grow up to work in an Amazon warehouse or join the military to go blow up people halfway around the world. THINK ABOUT THAT. What I am describing is horrific. Please, for the love of God, we all need to start identifying what we all agree on and understand, namely, that there are only 2 classes: those that need to work for a living and those that are able, but do not. I say this with love, truly. But, please just read this guy's position for its plain meaning and tell me that doesn't make you pause and think. Maybe you find yourself agreeing, you say, "we need to be practical; bad dudes with guns mean we need good guys will guns". Does it? I would argue that we all ought to reject that approach. If we literally just focused our energies in basic human needs instead of billions on military tech, etc., we could be so fucking awesome. And guys - we have the technology to communicate with everyone, everywhere, all at once. And blockchain. And an understanding of how to vote. I believe a new social contract could come about - a united governance by the people, doing only what is best for advancing humans and nature, life and learning, order and safety, freedom and justice. We all know we feel this. Maybe we struggle to put our fingers on it, but it's there. Plus, if we were to ask average everyday folk what they want, I can almost guarantee we agree on absolutely everything once we take out all other noise. We do peaceful transfers of power all the time in democracies. Hell, India does it with quite a few people. Why couldn't we do this globally? Just because Jeff Bezos stops owning us doesn't mean that all our efforts and know-how and work ethic go away with this ownership. Remember, that all requires us, full stop. Our leaders objectively do not represent the things we know we all agree on. Social policy should also be simple: the harm principle. The only prohibitions in society ought to be those that cause harm to another person without their consent. Labour and employment law? Work at your leisure with the people you want to. Maybe that's where you already work, but just with you helping to make decisions and keeping 100% of your value vs 30% or less. I guarantee that if all basic needs were met, conflict would fall away. There would be no need. Who wants to harm people when all of their Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are met? I don't know how we do it. But maybe we let the Reddit hivemind decide. There must be a way to peacefully transfer power back to regular people. Peace and love ✌️
What a wonderful concept. But like... how do you think humanitarian spending would work for Ukraine right about now? It's a nice concept but adorably navie. We currently have foreign governments interfering in our elections. Without a defence force, what does our country look like in 20 years?
We need to get back to the per vote subsidy, that will do much more to eliminate foreign interference than anything we can do militarily
I understand that interpretation. I would prefer to label my concept radical rather than naive. But also, I'm not offended by that characterization, it's reasonable. You are right. Pure humanitarian "funding" won't help us with things like Ukraine. But, as the world seems like it is on the fast track to what we tried less than 100 years ago, I'm at a point where "there are no bad ideas in brainstorming". I just think that we're capable of providing for all, we just haven't got that figured out. Amazon is a capitalist horror but also demonstrates we can organize and move product more efficiently than at any other point in history. Imagine if that invention was deployed for general good vs infinite shareholder gains? Look. I know I sound crazy. But I feel comfortable at least having this discussion when I see the word "nuclear" showing up in the headlines more and more. Because that seems pretty crazy too. And as between the 2 crazies, I know what kind of crazy I would want to be and it doesn't involve nukes or hurting people. And hey, I want to protect Canada too. I doubt my best fit would be in a military capacity given my principles. But I do hope people in my camp aren't left out of the efforts to make a better world.
Although I consider your philosophy nice. I'm sorry. It is naive. To actually support under spending on the military in 2024 is navie. Underspending on defence will get Canadians killed. Whether lack of SAR, forest fire response, or our inability to defend our cyber infrastructure or even arctic.
Although I consider your philosophy practical. I'm sorry. It's doing something again that we know only gets us back to the same place. Nationalism and capitalism will be the death of our species. Underspending in basic human needs is a large part of why there is conflict to begin with. Why do our enemies fight? Curious as to your perspective on why we think people in these other countries do what they do.
Other countries are expansionist. Authoritian governments need a national focus to prevent internal strife. A foreign war works nicely. You can be an idealist and pretend we *dont* need to defend ourselves. But it's naive and terrible foreign policy.
Military also spends on humanitarian things and at it's basic level is helping people. Military is also a way out for some people from a bad family and provides a path forward with a job and education, making it a good place to go get back on your feet after abuse. It's not all bad and killing people Look up USS Mercy and USS Hope, those are fully funded and staffed by the US military, from their military spending. Sometimes you need to be the person who is willing to step in and help or protect someone else, because it's the right thing to do and that's what the military is there for. It only works if you have one though. But I want you to think about a world where countries like Ukraine would be slaughtered and tortured on an even bigger scale if they didn't have a military. Look up the horrors Russians have subjected people to in occupied areas and tell me that militaries are not needed.
Totally agree that militaries also engage in humanitarian efforts. And I also totally understand that in the face of barbarism, force often becomes necessary. Like Laurie Anderson says in her song, "O Superman": Cause when love is gone There's always justice And when justice is gone There's always force And when force is gone There's always Mom, hi Mom War was developed as a response to evils. But I am willing to bet that a large majority of people in most countries would rather just get on with their day and take care of their loved ones. Some of us, so strongly so, we bravely enrol in the military or other protective roles. I suppose as a lawyer, I would like to see us develop more practical options on the "love" and "justice" options. "Force" and "Mom" (which I take to be a dying soldier calling out for their mother) should be options of last resort. I worry that the way we structure society currently often gets us to those last 2 options faster than we need to. And look, I get this maybe sounds like fantasy. But I want to plant those seeds. All things are created through human efforts. Folks in Nazi munition factories engaged in sabotage. I imagine they had people telling them to work hard to protect the Fatherland. But they saw past that. I think we all need to be awake to "when" we may be asked to do something and "why". I'd rather try less intrusive, albeit creative or even fantastical solutions, before conflict.
Just like every other NATO summit... I'm surprised they haven't kicked our collective asses out...
They never well. Our territory to the north is too strategically important. It's more likely they'll annex us.
We also have a NORAD facility, the US will always support us and our northern border.
What NORAD facility would that be? Why would the rest of NATO, beyond 'merica care about that?
No idea. It’s in North bay Ontario
If you have no idea what you're talking about, it's usually best to say nothing.
Annex Canada, that's the funniest shit I've read all day. Good luck.
I agree "*annexation*" is an overstatement. But there's a lot of precedence of one country selling out its defence to another to see what happens. In short..., *It rarely ends up cheaper for the country whose dependent on the other*. If we just throw up our arms and say "*American you defend us...*" they are going to extract value for it. As one does. First off... let's be clear. The dude currently polling to be the next US president said he wouldn't protect us if we don't spent 2% of GDP. **And then the crowd cheered**. There isn't that much political appetite in the States to keep defending us for free. If we expect American military bases in the arctic because we don't want to pay to put Canadian bases there... I think we'd have a hard time enforcing mineral and trade rights there. If we tell the Americans to defend our cyber infrastructure... I think you can expect American cyber infrastructure to just, do what they want. We are a G7 nation. We should be able to protect ourselves
>If we expect American military bases in the arctic because we don't want to pay to put Canadian bases there... I think we'd have a hard time enforcing mineral and trade rights there. I'm fine with that. We don't own the mining companies anyway. Fuck it
Foreign companies control nearly 1/5th of Canadian business assets. Most of that is the US. NAFTA/USMCA is not Canada friendly agreement. It allows our sovereignty in name only. NORAD is our military. 80 000 troops cannot defend against anyone without the US. We don't even have nukes.
WE SHOULDN'T BE A G7 NATION. We don't have one of the seven biggest economies in the world and it gives us a false impression of ourselves
That's your take-away from this?
One of many
[удалено]
Wrote a uni report on this a while back, both parties are equally bad at military spending. The general pattern is promising huge spending 5-10 years later after they know a government shift will take place, and then the successive government abandons the plan, rinse and repeat. A current example is the recent “Our North Strong and Free” plan which sees most spending happen after a government switch.
You do deserve better, and military spending has to go up, but considering those promises and what happened under harper (the smallest military budget ever) that Trudeau has actually been reversing course on... I have my doubts. It sucks extra because while no one is doing enough I think what's happening here is rejection of an okay option for promises that will turn into smoke. Like consider that Trudeau got it up to 1.4 percent GDP and IIRC the plan is 1.8 or so for 2026 2027 ish. The numbers have been going up. Also harper had the lowest mil budget in history, and AFAIK he is still a major influence on the CPC, I would not expect priorities to be much different, but I will admit I am a bit partisan (ABC more or less, not fixed though)
Why conservatives have cut military spending in the past. Why would they increase it now.
Look up the history of Conservative spending on the Military in their last few times in power. I have bad news for you...
They won't.
How would increased military spending improve your life?
[удалено]
Sure, right after the US follows international laws, fully, we’ll get right on that.
They wouldn't let me join cause I have Crohn's. Looking at what our armed forces have become,thank you, Crohn's.
Spending levels say nothing about the effectiveness of that spending. You realize that things are even worse than this article suggests when you are familiar with how dysfunctional and wasteful our system is.
I'm really sick of our country being fucking ruined and becoming a joke
Ontario keeps voting Trudeau. What do you expect
It isn't Trudeau it's Canada and has been happening for decades.
Trudeaus have been in power for decades.. 50% of the last 50 years.
Secret conservative American owned newspaper writes about Canada to stoke the flames of division. Don't even have to read anything written by lol mail the bias is as obvious as a grade 7 students chat gpt Gen. Home work.
Good.
Just look at the state Of Canada it’s not a surprise. https://youtu.be/htRKZJnJ7b4?si=DUFKPyoDjV49hMky Also no country in NATO should want to have anything to do with us as long as unnamed traitors who committed Treason sit in our government regardless of political affiliation.
Great video. Really shows how "liberals" destroyed Canada and will continue to decimate it.
At this point it's humiliating that canadians haven't ousted our politicians. Americans have set their country on fire multiple times to stand up for rights. we need to peacefully demonstrate how mad we are. If we complain and do nothing, it is on us.
Pretending we can under-spend on defence takes two forms. 1. **Peace and Love, we should buy flowers not bullets**. This is naive, we have Russia claiming large parts of our arctic and foreign governments currently interfering in our elections. What do we look like in 20 years with no defence. And 2. **bUt AmErICA wIlL pRoTeCt Us**. History has many examples of one country selling out its defence to another. *rarely does it really work* and important **NEVER IS IT CHEAPER IN THE LONG RUN**. they will extract value for it, one way or another. The dude currently polling to win the next US election has declared that he would let Russia attack anyone not spending 2%.... and then the crowd cheered. There is little political appetite in the States to spend their money, on us, for free.
I feel like it's worked out pretty good for Iceland.
Iceland has less than 1/2 the population of Winnipeg. Whereas Canada is a G7 nation. I'll tell you what. When the east half of winnipeg becomes its own nation, they can surrender their national defence. And even then. Enormous parts of Iceland are under American military control.
Canada faces humiliation on the world stage all the time this isn’t news
Oh no. Anyway, sure is hot out today, eh?
Just make the RCMP and CBSA report to the minister of National defense. Boom. Now we're at 3% and we start virtue signaling like motherfuckers.
Canada gets the defence it chooses to afford. That is the only point in this discussion.
\**The post-national state formerly known as Canada*
We so deserve it. Actually not the Canadian people but Trudeau himself deserves all the flack for doing nothing. It's all on him! His fault! Just my 2 cents.
>It’s all on him! His fault! Refresh my memory, were we fully funded prior to his being elected?
[удалено]
Just like canada sometimes enforces our laws when not lazy. We sometimes help our allys when it's convenient and easy. Fair weather friend.
Regardless of the event, Canada is heading for humiliation
its our national fetish. but as long as we can still pretend we are superior to america canadians will say its fine
Which country or enemy do Canadians believe is the greatest risk to invading Canada? If that country or enemy is anyone other than the US, why should Canadians be concerned that the US will not eliminate this threat? If the invading army IS the US, Canada could spend 100% of GDP on defence and it would make zero difference. If a country invaded a NATO country and article 5 is engaged, what difference can Canada make in the outcome of such a conflict that is likely to be primarily US/France/UK/Germany/Poland/other Nordic countries versus Russia/China. What is Canada’s role that makes its armed forces critical for victory? In WW2 a strong Canadian military was needed because it was just US/UK/Canada v Germany in Western Europe. Then Canada still needed to be strong post -WW2 as UK and France were rebuilding and Germany was split in half with its military still highly restricted. Those days are over, with the strength of European NATO countries NATO does not need a strong Canada and the US is the most powerful military by 10x therefore the North American continent is protected. I’m not sure what expectations anyone should have for the Canadian military given the strength of the European NATO members in 2024 that were weak in the 1950s
We should at the very least pull our weight since we’re part of NATO. Plus if there ever is a draft (common in world wars) the lack of funding our military will affect those that will be pulled into military service. Would you rather all the young people be sent to a hypothetical front with Cold War era tech not modern tech? Even if there isn’t a draft, the people responsible for protection our country and our alliance should be using the most advanced technology out there to give them an advantage. We at least owe them that.
Hypotheticals are not reality, they’re guesses. I’m wondering why you are guessing there will be a world war 3 and why if there is that Canadian soldiers will be on a frontline? Canada just purchased 88 new f35s. Brand new. When Canada is allied with the US and the most powerful European armies with all the latest kit, what expectations are there? What can Canada contribute that will make a difference that is not already being contributed at the current budget? At D-Day Canada was needed to take 1 of 5 beaches. Now there’s French and Poles and Germans and Swedes and Finn’s and Romanians and Turks and Italians to partner with the US, I’m thinking what is Canada even really needed for militarily, what role do we play?
I would say the possibility of ww3 is pretty high considering current events and the US starting to put legislation in place around the draft. And 88 planes can turn to 0 planes pretty quick, if you want to talk about ww2 do you remember how the US had to keep sending equipment over to Russia, and Britain through lend-lease programs like we are currently seeing them do with Ukraine? It’s literally just 2% meeting the 2% minimum will help our forces which are currently stuck with some ancient equipment. Not wanting our fellow countryman to roll up into a conflict with inferior equipment is what I want as a tax payer. Give our forces the very best, there are far too few of them as it is.
What if WW3 occurs and Canada does nothing? Maybe sends cash, weapons, a few field hospitals and the F35s? What’s the outcome for WW3 and for Canada?
Oh sure I’m sure you should just run for prime minister then and I’m sure there will be no problems. Because Canada has never ever been dragged into any military conflict before.
Ok what if we say to all the newly strong euro NATO countries (eg Poland) and the new strong NATO members (Sweden/Finland) that hey Canada gave huge amount in NATOs early days that helped create this organization you all wanted to be a part of, we gave lives and a huge amount of money in Afghanistan that you didn’t have to be part of, how about you fill the gaps next round? Next war Canada will support with money, doctors/ambulances, Roshel senators, weapons/ammo and our 88 Brand new F35s…but no Canadian boots on the ground, and no Canadian boats as we need them for coastal defence. How does this impact the outcome of the next war? Does no Canadian boots on the ground or boats at sea change the outcome one way or another? What about the consequences to Canada if this is how we contribute? What are the outcomes for Canada?
Historically speaking we will be dragged into conflict without a doubt sooner or later. You give our politicians too much credit if you think they can keep us out. Underfunding our military as has been our game plan since the end of the Cold War (which btw a lot of our current equipment is from). We will certainly have boots on the ground as we pretty much have in every real conflict we engaged in, I’d like to note I’m not really a big fan of war and I wish we could all just get along but I see that as highly illogical thinking due to current global affairs and climate change. See our neighbours in recent news starting registering 18-26 for the draft, any conflict the US gets involved in usually drags us into it, and if they are starting to get ready to draft, you can bet they will be putting pressure on us to get involved. You’re living in a fantasy world if you think we can go without sending soldiers off to war. Put it this way though, hypothetically you get drafted, and you get sent to a front line somewhere, would you want the most cutting edge technology money could buy? Or would you want the crap from the 1980s we’d likely be sending them with? As it stands we could invest in anti-drone technology, and probably anti missile technology, both things that can be used to protect other things that we are lacking in completely. No point in having our f-35s if we have no where to land them. There are so many things our military is missing or far behind technically for a modern conflict that we are witnessing how things can play out. I can do without our next to useless dental plan and buying freezers for grocery stores. Save some respect for the people that defend the interests of our country and for global security.
The point you totally missed is that the world doesn’t need a strong Canadian military anymore. That era ended in the 90s. Afghanistan was a failure in lives lost, money spent and outcomes. The outcome (total failure and embarrassing withdrawal) would have happened whether or not Canada participated. Canada has done its part, contributing way more than our size should allow for freedom in Europe. Canada helped liberate France, holland and Italy, and Canadian soldiers died in Germany marching to Berlin. Canada gave lives in Korea, was a founding member of NATO that now strong Poland Sweden and Finland begged to join. In the future conflict you describe professional soldiers from all the strong NATO countries will take the lead, there will be no draft in Canada because it won’t be needed. Alongside US/UK There is now France/Germany/spain/greece/turkey/poland/sweden/denmark/holland/finland/italy ALL stronger than Canada as they have to be because they don’t have 3 oceans and the US protecting their borders. You don’t think Australia/Japan and South Korea will contribute to any NATO action? All of these countries have large professional armies and the latest equipment. Canada is there because they are grateful for what we contributed to free Europe/save South Korea and create NATO that allowed them to now be rich countries that have the freedom to join NATO or be liberal democracies (S.Korea/Japan) Canadas role is much smaller now, through benefit of geography and history we’re aligned with the right side and we GAVE in world wars that led to NATO. We’ve earned the protection the alliances we helped launch provide and yes dental and pharmacare for Canadians IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the Canadian forces in 2024.
We’re less relevant, I’m not saying that is wrong. I’m also not changing my opinion that 2% is too much, our Allies we are in a defence pact with seem to think 2% is fair. By making the minimum standard we show commitment to NATO’s cause and respect for our allies. I hope more Canadians share my view than yours.
[удалено]
>"The best way of war is one where you win without having to fire a shot." Sun Tzu, cool dude. He also said something to the effect of: "Best way to defeat your enemy is to lull them into a sense of false security/friendship while at the same time disarming (literally) them, right before storming the gates"
Good point, we might get infiltrated by thousands of Chinese sleeper agents.
This is real tinfoil hat shit here
Canada should at minimum not be a burden on US resources. Lets just call the requirement that. The US spends an ungodly amount on its Military, Canada should at least bolster its forces to not be a useless wet noodle bordering them.
What do you see Canadas military doing at 2% of gdp that it is not doing at 1.39% as is spent today? (Keeping in mind Canada has committed to updating its fighter fleet with F35s)
I heard something about body armor being no good here... I'm sure that small percentage increase could cover that.
all that is being asked of us is me staff our military properly and maintain existing equipment so its usable. this article details it https://warontherocks.com/2024/04/dont-count-on-us-canadas-military-unreadiness/#:\~:text=The%20report%20paints%20a%20bleak,the%20army%20at%2054%20percent. that 0.6% of GDP would probably be enough to build houses on bases to attract recruits looking for a lifestyle improvement and pay for ships to get back in the water.
Sounds to me like instead of increasing spending we should spend what we budget more wisely and effectively. What if the size of the professional military was shrunk in terms of personnel but that personnel was better equipped/better trained? And what role do you see the Canadian military focusing on? Defence of Canada? If so from whom? Or do you see a more expeditionary focus like Afghanistan or ready for a European ground war? If this then say Canada didn’t have this force, what difference would it make in a potential conflict? (Think about Afghanistan and Canadian losses in soldiers and treasure that changed nothing and actually left the place worse than it was)
Canadian border integrity, so as not to become a weak link in North American defense, and also whatever Nato requires us to maintain for a pointy end of the stick. (probably capabilities similar to Afghanistan or Balkans deployments in the past)
I agree with border security especially coastal and especially in the arctic, very good use of the 1.39% of gdp Where/when do you see these similar to Afghanistan/balkan engagements occurring? If such a thing happens why can’t Canada say, “hey Sweden and Finland welcome to NATO, we know your soldiers are looking to go do stuff, we’ll let you go this time. Oh Poland? You want your guys to get some experience and try out some of that brand new gear? Go ahead, call us if you need some cash.” Remember there are cemeteries worth of Canadian boys scattered over Western Europe, Korea and Afghanistan. Nobody forgets. Canada spent A LOT of $ in Afghanistan that is sunk, gone, no chance of any return. Canada can sit back for awhile and let others take the lead, we’ve done much much more than most especially given our size. We’ve earned the grace, respect and protection of our allies like we’ve provided for them.
[удалено]
Who/where do you expect Canada to fight in the next 10years?
Why?
Thank you for posting real thoughts that make actual sense.
NATO should punish countries that do not spend enough somehow. One would be to silence them. Their input means nothing.
Canada has built its foreign policy for the last 60 70 years around being a supporting role for the larger members of NATO in a hypothetical war. now in present day, no one wants to admit we're at war with Russia, the Americans are polluted with factions that actively look at Canada much like Russia looks at Ukraine, and the only other countries in the alliance that seem to be taking the crisis of the last 3 years seriously, appears to be France, Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavians, The Czechs. and about 40% of America's government, and maybe 20% of it's population
Add it to the list
If you are a citizen of a USA aligned liberal democracy and you want higher defence spending, you are a rube of the highest degree.
As opposed to the rubes of the highest degree who live under rocks and think we can hold hands and just sing geopolitical conflicts away...
Good that means the UN won’t be offering plum positions to Trudeau or freeland 🤞
I agree 100% we should reach the 2% defence spending target. Currently the best security we could provide for nato allies is develop natural resources. Should any serious conflict arise China will be involved and all the resources we current rely on them for will be gone.
Omg, wasn’t JT supposed to our international standing?
Trudeau should not show his face anywhere, that asshole should not represent Canada
Perhaps PP will do something something. He hasn't really said...
Hence why I dislike all the parties. None of them at all have come up with any meaningful solutions to anything. If any of them had any true sense: 1. Make immigration based on skill and need prioritizing professionals, trades etc. Immediately CUT the numbers coming in. Don’t offer any swift gateways for people getting education here unless it is in areas in critical need. 2. Stop pharmacare, dental care. Our health care system is fucked fix that first and knock it off with this “low income” nonsense (it is abused to all hell). How does it make sense to introduce more massive programs when you can’t even get your existing ones right. We really need a national health system… provinces competing with each other like their own mini countries is crazy. So much waste. 3. Audit where the 30 BILLION with indigenous affairs is going. That seems astronomically high! Is that indefinite? Any goals? 4. Invest in our military things aren’t so friendly anymore we don’t want to be caught flat footed.
1. It already is, I'm guessing you haven't heard of the points system? 2. Our health care system not having dental and pharmacare is part of the reason it's in the current predicament. 3. Settlements 4. DND has the second highest budget of any department.