Canadian Troops In The North

[Mandeville]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to restore the Armed Forces of Canada after years of Liberal budget cuts. It appears he intends to stick to that promise considering what we have heard in the news:

Defence Department supporters say that more money needs to be spent on the military if Canada is going to play a significant role on the world stage and deal in the future with other failed states similar to Afghanistan. Military officers are pushing for an increase in the annual defence budget to $36 billion by 2025. The Senate committee on national security and defence has called for an increase between $25 billion and $35 billion by 2012.

Canada 6th in military spending: NATO numbers show only time we've spent more is during Second World War: study

Military readies jets in Labrador over Russian exercises

Remote controlled aircraft will patrol Arctic: military

Military Procurement

Arctic Sovereignity: Drawing a line in the water

Wiki Canadian Forces

The Canadian Armed Forces

Do you think Canada really needs to be spending money on a military, primarily in the Northern reaches of the country considering no one else is willing to recognize some claims of Canada to the Arctic? Or will the ability to exercise our influence over the region demand that other nations recognize our claim? See Northwest Passage.

 

[Babbler]

Yes. It's far more important than the Afghanistan mission.

 

[Photi]

sounds like a fairly wise move. the northwest passage may turn out to be just that sort of economic development the north really needs. plus, if and when it ever becomes possible or necessary to mine the resources of the arctic, canada will be well positioned to do so. however, hasn't there been some dispute on how far out the continental shelf actually extends into the ocean? international norms put the edge of the shelf as the farthest that territorial waters reach. beyond that are international waters.

 

[Japanrocks12]

it's a good move, but I dunno. as soon as ama is back from rhodesia he might head that way

 

[warpus]

This list is from 2002

Has military spending really increased that much since then?

 

[Patroklos]

Eh, if you guys want to fly around in 5th gerneation aircraft (JSF) you really don't have a choice given the price tag. Your navy is getting outdated too, you have alot of coast/fisheries to watch over/protect.

 

[sysyphus]

How about spending the money to combat the global warming that's causing the passge to open?

Typical Harper, thinking all solutions involve the military or tax cuts.

 

[emzie]

How about spending the money to combat the global warming that's causing the passge to open?

Typical Harper, thinking all solutions involve the military or tax cuts.

Well how much can Canada alone do to stop the passage from opening? I say do all you can to prevent it, and be prepared for the worst. There's a lot to desire, and as it is, Canada has a poor claim to a lot of her territory.

Personally, I think the military budget needs to go up. I don't want to buy anymore used British junk.

 

[Taliesin]

If we want the resources up there, which we do, then it makes sense to spend money right now to grab as much of the north as we can. I'm glad to see we're replacing the Sea Kings in 2009, I have to say.

 

[warpus]

So... How are we going to go from spending $7 billion in 2002 to $36 in 2025?

That's a huge increase. How much are we spending right now?

 

[joycem10]

Does Canada have competing claims with the US? I assume thats a possibility around Alaska.

If not, cant Canada rely on US support and intervention in the event of a territorial dispute. I know I would support US intervention to aid Canada.

If I were a Canadian, I would prefer to spend my money on other needs. The US is going to support you in a dispute with another power (except maybe the UK), and you're never going to spend enought to confront the US militarily if a dispute arises with the US.

 

[emzie]

So... How are we going to go from spending $7 billion in 2002 to $36 in 2025?

That's a huge increase. How much are we spending right now?

In 2004, the Department of National Defence received $14.3 billion CAD in funding, or 6.8% of all federal spending. This amount was notably higher than most other program expenses of other federal departments. It was increased to $14.6 billion in the 2005-06 budget and was predicted to reach $16.5 billion over 2007-08

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_Canada

In all honesty, I'd like to see that spending be 7-10% as long as the extra money is used on upgrading. As it is, if Danish troops land on Hans Island, we don't know until their papers print the story. How often do you think Amercian / Russian subs are in our waters?

 

[emzie]

Does Canada have competing claims with the US? I assume thats a possibility around Alaska.

I believe the dispute around the Beaufort Sea was settled. I know Canada and Denmark dispute some stuff around Greenland.

IIf I were a Canadian, I would prefer to spend my money on other needs. The US is going to support you in a dispute with another power (except maybe the UK), and you're never going to spend enought to confront the US militarily if a dispute arises with the US.

It's not about confrontation, but rather establishing a claim. Patrolling, manning, studying on occupied territory goes a long way.

 

[Babbler]

How about spending the money to combat the global warming that's causing the passge to open?

Typical Harper, thinking all solutions involve the military or tax cuts.

While I do Harper is wrong to take no action the climate change file, there is no stopping the opening of the Arctic.

 

[warpus]

If not, cant Canada rely on US support and intervention in the event of a territorial dispute. I know I would support US intervention to aid Canada.

Not really. You have your own interests and we have ours.

 

[emzie]

While I do Harper is wrong to take no action the climate change file, there is no stopping the opening of the Arctic.

Indeed. So why not be in place to take advantage of it?

And such an action isn't reprehensible. The resources in the arctic are going to be used. It's a matter of by whom, and I, for one, don't feel like taking the high road.

 

[Babbler]

Beside sending in troops, we need some council of Arctic nations to settle disputes, like the International Joint Commission. Of course, we need wait for a more favorable US administration, and we'll have give Russia some inducements to get it going.

 

[Che Guava]

Maybe while we're at it we could send some more cash to the territories to develop infrastructure...that way, it might at least look like ours

 

[Disenfrancised]

Does Canada have competing claims with the US? I assume thats a possibility around Alaska.

If not, cant Canada rely on US support and intervention in the event of a territorial dispute. I know I would support US intervention to aid Canada.

If I were a Canadian, I would prefer to spend my money on other needs. The US is going to support you in a dispute with another power (except maybe the UK), and you're never going to spend enought to confront the US militarily if a dispute arises with the US.

Because
1) the US government and other groups will use that 'reliance' as bargining points in trade disputes, advancing american interests at the expense of Canadians (see lumber disputes etc). And this will be doubly true if arctic resource extraction proves profitable.

2) The US has in the past made claims that the NW passage is international waters, the people most likely to be impinging on percieved Canadian sovernity[ will be US businesses and interests.

“We cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada.... Such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.”

So it's hardly like the Canadians can come running to Uncle Sam when its US oil tankers and navy icebreakers messing up their waters.

3) Although I'm sure the US would back Canada if Canada did get into a dispute with one of the other arctic powers, the US's governments international standing and trustworthiness has taken a hit recently and those who used to rely on the US are exploring 'back-up' options.

 

[sysyphus]

True we can't avoid the opening of the waters, just that Harper's repeated sabre rattling is annoying and padering to nationalism to prop up his poll numbers.

On topic: There are five major players involved. Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark, and the USA.

All have interests up there and only Norway is calling for a co-operative effort on the future of the north, the rest favour the dog-eat-dog approach.

Depsite the fact that the US, Canada and Denmark are all NATO allies, there is no plan by any of these countries to co-operate on this front. All three at least agree though that Russia is the main adversary.

I understand though that the UK is providing support to Canada, though their keeping it on the low for obvious reasons. This may be the reason why Harper feels he can take on the US and Russia. No matetr how much money we crammed into our military, we wimply could not support our interests on our own.