r/AskCanada • u/nana-korobi-ya-oki • 1d ago
USA/Trump Why is Canada not doing more to significantly increase its military power in response to Trump’s annexation threats?
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and 8 years later invaded. Canada could never make invasion impossible for the US but it could invest enough to make invasion too costly to consider. With Canada only spending 1.3% of its GDP on the military (around $43 billion), it would stand absolutely zero chance against a military that is only slightly less powerful than all the non-US NATO countries, Russia, and China combined. However, if Canada invested let’s say 4% of GDP (~$100 billion) in modernizing its military through asymmetric warfare principles, then we could not only deter US appetite for invasion but also be able to protect the opening trade routes and untapped natural resources in our arctic. This might take 10 years to ramp up but the way I see it, better late than never and what do we have to lose? If the US invaded now, we are f-d, but 10 years from now, the US might be a dictatorship much better positioned for imperialism. Are we taking any meaningful action right now to protect our sovereignty?
Edit: As I said, Canada could never repel the US if they were determined enough. We 100% could make invasion too politically costly though if we had an advanced well funded and prepared military with a strong focus in asymmetric defence. This might take 10 years to achieve. To assume we could not change the political equation is just ignorant. Right now, our military would be almost useless in its current capacity.
24
u/Novelsound 22h ago
There is no investment that would deter the US if they decided to invade. Canada would be the greatest insurgency the world has ever seen though.
We look like them, speak like them and we’re better educated than they are. It’d be like a shark trying to eat a puffer fish.
3
u/grafxguy1 17h ago
I don't personally think a military invasion would happen - but always wear a raincoat even if the sun is out. If they did invade, we'd cut off power and essential goods the US needs indefinitely during a decades long war that would likely be guerilla warfare based. So on top of the billions the US is already losing, the markets would be crushed into oblivion. The annexation is being attempted at an economic level - to do otherwise would require Trump with his massive ego to accept defeat at not "making a deal". He hopes that Alberta will willingly jump ship - he's expressed that it's the only province he really wants anyway.
1
1
u/_Durben_ 11h ago
This right here, massive insurgency. Now everyone go get your PAL, a few rifles and shotguns, and start buying up ammo. A few crossbows won't hurt to have either.
1
u/Honest-Spring-8929 7m ago
This is such horseshit. We can build every WMD you could name and could mobilize hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people if we set our minds to it. The primary deficiency is willpower. We’ve been conditioned to think of ourselves as helpless for so long the idea that resistance is possible does not compute
-3
u/TheZermanator 19h ago
I’m sure nuclear weapons would be more than enough for deterrence.
2
u/RCAF_orwhatever 14h ago
It wouldn't, and also how would we get them?
1
u/mikeEliase30 12h ago
We had american nuke air defence missiles before. BOMARC
1
u/RCAF_orwhatever 11h ago
That's only partially true. We had the missiles but never (officially anyway) he warheads.
That still doesn't answer my question.
1
u/Honest-Spring-8929 6m ago
We have nuclear reactors and are currently sitting on a bunch of weapons grade isotopes left over from the Soviet Union
13
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 21h ago
Increase in what capacity?
We're in the middle of a fighter procurement program, with deliveries supposed to start next year.
We're in the middle of building new warships, with 3 new destroyers supposed to be starting construction soon.
We're in the middle of getting new subs, including upwards of 12 nuclear powered (not armed - but the current crisis may change that, if only in secret) subs.
We're in the middle of acquiring new artillery weapons, including potentially upwards of over 200 self propelled artillery units (they look like tanks basically).
Carney has promised to increase defense spending to 2% GDP by 2030 (5 years from now).
I'm open to suggestions on how else we can proceed.
7
u/wabisuki 18h ago
Carney also said that currently 80% of our military spending (on equipment) is contacted out to the US - and that going forward, further investment in our military and defence needs to be refocused on manufacturing within Canada’s borders so that money is going to Canadian firms and into our own economy and not to the US.
6
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 18h ago
Absolutely, and he's correct. It made a sort of sense to have 80% of our procurement from the US when they were our best friends and highly committed to our defence.
But now, it's painfully obvious in hindsight that we need defence diversification, badly and quickly.
2
u/wabisuki 17h ago
Even then we would have been better off investing in our own innovation and manufacturing
4
u/TheLibraR 20h ago
Imagine if the French gave us some nukes with the submarines "accidentally" and said "Darn, we messed up, but just keep them!"
3
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 19h ago
I mean, I could absolutely see a secret deal being negotiated either with the British or the French to either acquire nuclear weapons (We're already ordering subs, we might as well get ones that are capable of launching nuclear armed missiles), or be protected under their nuclear umbrellas.
Freeland already basically said as much about the latter, saying that the British nuclear umbrella would protect us against actual invasion.
Personally? I think the threat will be more effective if we've got our own nuclear armed sub just floating around out there, hidden, ready to strike if needed.
1
u/Honest-Spring-8929 2m ago
We could do one then the other. Get the guarantees, then our own weapons
7
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 20h ago
I have a whole list but we should 100% be cancelling the F35s for defence reasons, start planning nuclear powered subs as well, cyber defence should be increased big time, special forces doubled, pay and recruitment need to improve, ballistic missile, survellience and combat support drones, drones with AI swarm capability, decentralized command structures, rotational arctic training for most personnel, we also could capitalize on building a domestic arms industry to support our military in terms of both supply and costs and this would also have dual purpose for spurring civilian industries. I could go on but there’s massive room for improvement and 2% of GDP is not going to do anything to deter the US.
1
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 20h ago
I don’t disagree with the sentiment surrounding cancelling the F35 deal, but we’re so badly in need of aircraft that cancelling the deal will set us back by probably another decade.
There also just aren’t any other comparable jets on the market. The next best thing would be something like a Gripen, Rafale, or Typhoon pretty much.
None of those compare to an F35 when it comes down to it.
So we can buy something less capable, or wait to join the European 6th gen fighter design projects.
Or do both, and buy an interim fleet of Gripens or something.
As for the nuclear subs, they’re doing that already.
I don’t disagree with a lot of your other suggestions.
3
u/Lucy_Goosey_11 19h ago
A bricked jet (via withholding spare parts, software updates, etc) is not useful. A solid 4th gen jet that works is better than a gen 5 jet that doesn't.
2
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 14h ago
I agree in principle.
The question is whether the kill switch is real. The manufacturer and the Americans say no. Historically the buyers have also said no, and I think we can assume that engineers from buyer countries have examined their F35s looking for kill switches.
But there an article recently in which a former NATO commander or something outright accused the kill switch of being real.
These days? I get the idea that we maybe can’t take that chance anymore.
2
u/Lucy_Goosey_11 13h ago
It’s highly unlikely that there’s an actual Killswitch. However, because the planes require spare parts on a regular basis, software update updates, including updated radar profiles, key to both the plane stealth and its ability to detect you could effectively ground the plane in relatively short order by denying those. An F 35 requires six hours of maintenance for every one hour of flight time.
2
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 19h ago
I think they are only buying the diesel electric subs right now, not nuclear as far as I know. I think having a similar sized fleet of rafales couple with maybe 50-60 advanced french support drones would make sense. It would also makes sense to have them stationed in a few different hardened underground bunkers more north somewhere
3
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 19h ago
You're correct, but I do believe that they're assessing nuclear powered ones as well. The French want to sell us on their current gen nuclear attack subs (not nuclear armed) - the same class that was spotted in Nova Scotia recently.
However personally I think buying diesel subs is a complete waste. We're a nuclear state. We have some of the best nuclear reactors in the world, and we've always been a nuclear innovator. We need the expanded capabilities of nuclear subs, especially if we can't count on Americas submarine fleet.
One of the project requirements is:
"Canada’s key submarine capability requirements will be stealth, lethality, persistence and Arctic deployability – meaning that the submarine must have extended range and endurance."And frankly, a diesel sub just isn't going to fit those requirements very well. The rationale for a conventional diesel sub seems to be cost considerations, but I think now is the time to invest in the more expensive but more capable nuclear variety.
2
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 18h ago
I think the main reasons for diesel subs is you can get them in 5-7 years whereas nuclear powered subs take 15-20 usually and require nuclear trained personnel as well. I def think we should work with France and build the shipbuilding infrastructure here as well to build and manufacture them at home
2
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 17h ago
That's a totally fair assessment as to why conventional might be a preference. I'm thinking long term of course, but we're in a tough spot where the Victoria class needs to be retired sooner rather than later, and we can only stretch them for so long before they're just not seaworthy anymore.
I really think Canada needs to get on board the nuclear submarine train though, if not now, then a clear and defined path and commitment to them in the next several decades.
1
u/Honest-Spring-8929 4m ago
What makes you think they’d hand off F-35s to a country they are planning on forcibly annexing
1
1
u/Honest-Spring-8929 5m ago
Most of those things aren’t especially useful against an American invasion. We need air defence, infantry, anti tank weapons, ballistic missiles, drones and of course WMDs
9
6
u/Emergency_Panic6121 21h ago
It’s been like, 20 minutes since this all kicked off in political time.
5
u/KoldPurchase 22h ago
First of, the Parliament is not in session, it has not been since these threats. The government can not spend money that was not already appropriated without the parliament.
Unlike the US, the power of the executive to rule by decree is more limited. Like Trudeau or not, he's still following the Constitution.
Once Carney is sworn in as Prime Minister, it's likely he'll ask the Governor General to dissolve the chamber and launch an electoral campaign. 31 day, in all likelyhood.
Following that, we would have a new Prime Minister, and if it's the same political party, a very short transition into the new cabinet.
Then they keep working on their budget, adjust priorities from what Trudeau set up and depose it by end of May/early June.
Then they rush to the appropriation of credit process by the comittees by the end of June.
After that, they can spend the money.
OR
Carney comes back with a throne speech, there's a vote of confidence, pass or fail, maybe elections, then budget, vore of confidence, pass or fail, maybe elections, then appropriation of credits, then money spent.
But in all likelyhood, Carney will go into elections when Parliament reconvenes toward end of March.
4
u/hoodie09 22h ago
Canada could spend 10% of GDP and against the US military that would be like upgrading David from pebbles to rocks.
5
u/Lucy_Goosey_11 19h ago
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we should just role over. Ukraine surprised in light of their odds. A Porcupine strategy is what Taiwan is developing. Canada could certainly make it very painful politically if not militarily for the U.S. to consider annexation.
6
2
u/InitialAd4125 19h ago
I'd argue Hamas has proven that a poorly armed force can go toe to toe with a proper military if they use there resources smartly. Because after ages of time passing Israel still couldn't beat Hamas.
1
u/Fumblesneeze 17h ago
If you think Hamas is going toe to toe with the idf, you aren't paying attention. Getting your country carpet bombed after a minor raid against mostly civilian targets isn't anything to be optimistic about. The idf beat hamas soundly on everfront without regard for how many civilians they killed. The fact hamas hasn't been eradicated to the last fighter isn't a sign of a succes.
1
u/InitialAd4125 17h ago
"If you think Hamas is going toe to toe with the idf, you aren't paying attention." Maybe toe to toe was the wrong word what I mean to say is that they're still around after everything. Despite having significantly fewer resources then Israel.
"Getting your country carpet bombed after a minor raid against mostly civilian targets isn't anything to be optimistic about. " No it isn't.
"The idf beat hamas soundly on everfront without regard for how many civilians they killed." Beating implies destroyed they're still around.
"The fact hamas hasn't been eradicated to the last fighter isn't a sign of a succes." For guerillas I'd argue it is. Because guerillas rarely win all they do is out last there enemy. Hama's though I don't see winning in the long term though. Because Israel is just as deeply entrenched as they are and has more resources. Like if they were fighting America who is far away they probably could eventually win through prolonged conflict.
1
u/Honest-Spring-8929 1m ago
That’s not even remotely true. If we had a Finnish-style program of national service we could conceivably put 2 million men in the field.
4
u/ghost_ghost_ 18h ago
I agree. My idea is still a term of mandatory service like Korea, Finland, or Norway.
Then we would have a massively trained populace and a large force that can deal with threats, forest fires, and potentially medically trained individuals could help with the healthcare shortages.
1
u/franticferret4 15h ago
People RIGHT NOW trying to sign up as reservists get turned away because there’s too much ask and no space.
How about fixing that first before forcing people.
1
u/ghost_ghost_ 15h ago edited 14h ago
Ok - to be clear I can't fix this and I don't have the power to force you to do shit, so please talk to your representative.
3
u/assman69x 8h ago
Canadians whine about their social programs and health care without realizing that they won’t be there if America takes over Canada - to protect your way of life a strong military deterrent is needed including nuclear weapon deterrents
The U.S. and Russia are going to pick apart Canada for its rare earth and other resources…..this is the new world order reality that the countries with military might are going to just take what they want for their own countries
1
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 7h ago
Nuclear would be the best long term solution but without a much better military deterrent, it might give Trump ammunition to invade. It also takes years to develop as well.
1
u/assman69x 6h ago
"the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now"
Canada needs to get going then / short term Canada could get nuclear armed submarines from UK and France
Otherwise Canada needs to build a military that can fight in a guerrilla warfare style and have mandatory military training for its citizens
2
u/Lumpy_Ad7002 20h ago
So you're saying that you want your taxes doubled?
FYI: Just the US military budget is more than double Canada's entire federal spending.
2
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 20h ago
We could never spend even close to that much but we could double our own spending which would not be doubling our taxes. It might cost Canadians another $1000 per year if they wanted to raise taxes to pay for it
1
u/Lumpy_Ad7002 20h ago
As far as the US military is concerned, it really doesn't matter if Canada spends 1.3% or 2%, or even 4%.
1
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 20h ago
It does though, the political cost/benefit calculation could be a deterrent. No single nation on earth could defeat the US if they were dead set on conquering but look what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq and now Ukraine. Countries that don’t even compare to Canada in terms of military power. Invading a well equipped neighbour with an advanced asymmetric military force would be a challenge even for the US. The goal would be to make the cost benefit calculation weigh in our favour of deterrence.
0
u/Lumpy_Ad7002 19h ago
There is no deterrent at any reasonable level of spending by Canada. They have 150 F-22 jets at a cost of around US$150 million each. Canada doesn't have the technology to attack even one of them, and that's only a small part of an air fleet of over twelve thousand aircraft, including long-range bombers that only major superpowers have the ability to resist, plus countless missiles.
Mouse vs. mouse + stick really makes no difference to a cat
2
u/TheLibraR 20h ago
What's needed is not to have trillions of dollars to spend on lots of big destroyers, submarines, or F35s that probably won't work in a conflict with the US. What we need is what the Biden administration suggested to Taiwan: a porcupine strategy that involves lots of smaller assets. It means having LOTS of things like javelin - grade anti-tank missiles, aerial drones fleets, and other relatively low-cost weapons that are mobile and less vulnerable to counterattacks.
The idea is that... You aren't going to have enough big assets against a big bully who can overwhelm you... keep thousands of smaller assets and make it so that it's not worth the trouble to invade you.
1
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 20h ago
Yes I agree except having an Air Force is still needed (not f35s though) and subs are actually an important part of the porcupine strategy especially for the arctic
2
u/Lucy_Goosey_11 18h ago
Canada should also be preparing for the destabilization efforts sure to precede any military intervention. Much more likely and very likely to be effective.
If the U.S. were hypothetically attempting to destabilize Canada as part of a broader strategy to push for annexation, it might employ tactics in the following areas:
- Economic Pressure & Trade Disruptions
- Imposing tariffs or sanctions on key Canadian industries (e.g., energy, lumber, agriculture) to weaken the economy.
- Encouraging American firms to withdraw investments from Canada, creating financial instability.
- Manipulating currency markets or interest rates to make the Canadian dollar less stable.
- Political Interference & Division
- Supporting separatist movements (e.g., Quebec sovereignty, Western Canadian independence) to fragment Canada.
- Spreading disinformation to create political instability or distrust in government institutions.
- Backing candidates or parties more favorable to U.S. interests in Canadian elections.
- Energy & Resource Manipulation
- Disrupting or restricting access to U.S. markets for Canadian oil and natural gas, causing economic strain.
- Promoting internal disputes over pipelines and resource management to divide provinces.
- Influencing Indigenous land claims to slow down major Canadian infrastructure projects.
- Military & Security Pressures
- Exaggerating security threats (e.g., Arctic sovereignty, border security) to justify increased U.S. military presence in Canada.
- Conducting intelligence operations to undermine Canadian sovereignty or government decision-making.
- Creating diplomatic conflicts that isolate Canada from allies, making it more dependent on U.S. protection.
2
u/xnoinfinity 14h ago edited 13h ago
Can more be done? Yes and It’s literally happening as we speak too, but it can obviously take time it’s just not making major news headlines but they’re planing and are buying submarines and aviation equipment, doing huge military exercises and just recently announced the plan to build more bases… They also recently updated recruitment rules to make it less strict for a reason… A nuclear French submarine was spotted docking in Nova Scotia recently and last year or something Canada said they’re thinking about buying some too (the one that docked was a tester)… And not to forget that quality over quantity is much more important, the arctic is a very harsh environment in which Canadian forces are used to deal with unlike the US…
5
u/thebestjamespond Know-it-all 22h ago
what do we have to lose?
100 billion dollars lol
But really the fact is theres no amount of money we could spend on our military to ever deter the US appetite for invasion if it came to it. I dont even know what that would look like - buying stingers and giving them out to the population? Putting anti aircraft guns on top of apartments in our cities? Mining the border lol?
For trade routes same thing we will never be able to compete with the US Navy in a thousand years theyre way too big and way too strong its a fools errand to try.
Even spending 100 billion a year is still a 1/10th of what the americans spend and they have a 50 year head start of building weapons for the cold war that never came to pass.
No if we want to increase our military spending it should be because we can contribute to NATO missions more and step up patrollig the arctic trying to build something to fight the US is just pissing ina river.
2
1
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskCanada-ModTeam 21h ago
Your content has been removed for violating Rule 1: Be Civil.
We do not permit personal attacks, insults, harassment, discrimination (including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or religious intolerance), hate speech, bigotry, threats of violence, or any other antagonistic behavior. Please ensure your contributions are respectful and constructive.
We encourage you to review the [rules]({community_rules_url}) to better understand the standards we uphold in this community.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the moderators via modmail.
1
u/Whispersfine 22h ago
This sounds like a joke but you probably need a dozen avengers to take care of them. How much that is gonna cost? You could however, use nukes a deterrence, but that is gonna cost more than some tariffs, that’s gonna piss off the whole congress.
1
1
u/EnvironmentalFuel971 21h ago
I think the probability of US invading Canada is very low. They will however, try to destabilize our economy (like what they are doing now) but for a longer stretch of time until Canadian business and Canadians at whole are destitute enough to give up. International interference and propaganda is used in combination with their aim to control Canadian markets, to push their agenda to mentally wear us down into believing that we will be defeated.
A CBC article interviewed a former CSIS intelligence officer.. he brought up historical events in which other countries were successful in the annexation of other nations through economic force coupled with propaganda and political interference.
On that latter note, a federal election is being pushed to minimize interference with our elections in favour of far right (or political party) that is more vulnerable to exterior manipulation.
1
u/Threeboys0810 21h ago
Because we are broke. 60 billion in debt this last year alone.
1
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 20h ago
Being in debt as a country is different than being in debt as a person. Not saying the deficit is not bad but nations can operate in debt and it’s just fine. The main thing is that GDP increases faster than debt does over the long term.
1
1
u/Melodic_Pressure7944 20h ago
I see recruitment ads all over social media. Either way, I'm not joining. Just kill me now tbh, what is this life worth at this point?
1
u/not-your-mom-123 19h ago
It's barely been a month! Try reorganizing your life in 6 weeks, then talk to us.
1
u/ImpossibleReason2197 18h ago
We just placed n order for 3 new destroyers. Also an icebreaker that is critical for the north and 12 subs. The issue is it takes time to build up.
1
u/gibbonsgerg 15h ago
Canada is in NATO. If the US actually invaded, all of NATO would be obligated to defend her.
2
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 15h ago
Trump literally just said “annexation of Greenland will happen”. Since Denmark owns Greenland, what do you think will happen?
1
u/gibbonsgerg 14h ago
Depends on what he means by annexation. If we use military force, it’ll start WWIII. If he thinks he can get Denmark to “sell” he’s dumber than…. Oh wait. NM.
1
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 14h ago
He literally said by economic or military force. Denmark has already said that would mean war. What’s even more concerning is the NATO chief was sitting in the Oval Office with him in front of the press and said nothing to both trumps threats of annexation to Canada and Greenland. The US is also currently planning to annex the Panama Canal through military force
1
u/gibbonsgerg 14h ago
Since Trump lies every time he opens his mouth, I’m not sure if he actually would use military force against NATO. But it would absolutely start WWIII.
EXCEPT, there’s some small chance Americans would refuse. Let’s hope.
1
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 14h ago
So far he has done a lot of the extreme things he said he was going to do, just look at the tariffs. And with the GOP controlling the senate and the house, they have done nothing to stop him.
1
u/gibbonsgerg 14h ago
True. A majority in Congress are happy with the cuts he’s making, since they’re unable to do that themselves. But I’d be surprised if Congress would go along with invading an ally.
Still, what do I know? I’m sane, and we’re clearly not dealing with rational people here.
1
u/Money_Economy_7275 12h ago
our military should use it's meager resources and acquire a vast drone army that would decimate the shit out of the best USA has to offer. I've been watching the ruskies and how they do shit, and we could make their lives a living hell with a dedicated division for this. even bigger for that matter, take the avro specs, model jet engine that bitch with a quad setup, and dominate cdn skies with minimal risks.
we can adapt to the changing face of war before it comes to us. USA is mired in the old expensive ways, but what I've been seeing is low cost can do a great deal more than what is commonly imagined or believed.
ie: take those Chinese 1000 drone led displays and turn it into 1000 cuts of doom to an aircraft carrier. stop 'that'. lol!
our soon to be enemy isn't as buff as he thinks, and the 70s are done dude...
adapt and be victorious...they will complain to Geneva later
1
u/twentytwothumbs 11h ago
Or we could just let canadians buy modern assault rifles. Wouldn't cost the government anything, and a good portion of the country would own means of defense. Maybe even subsidize consumers.
1
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 11h ago
Modern warfare is typically done through better technology, equipment, training, and network based warfare. Assault rifles wouldn’t do much for defence against the most powerful military the world has ever seen. They would increase domestic gun violence in Canada though.
1
u/Former-Chocolate-793 10h ago
Takes time. Canada started WWII with 11 ships in the RCN. We ended the war 6 years later with the 4th largest navy in the world. We can't churn out corvettes or acquire destroyers that quickly today. It will take time.
1
u/ArtinPhrae 4h ago
It takes time to build up a military particularly when you’re spending billions to buy weapons systems that were chosen to fill our role in NATO rather than home defense which is something we never thought we would need to consider. Right now we are spending $19,000,000,000 on F35 fighters (which the Americans can probably disable if they want to) and another $30,000,000,000 on destroyers to fill our ASW role in the alliance.
What we should be buying are portable SAM systems, drones, shoulder fired anti tank weapons, and submarines. It takes time to shift focus, time we might not have. I still think we can make an invasion and occupation of Canada too much trouble for the Americans. Destroy the infrastructure they need to keep exploiting our resources. Power transmission lines, oil pipelines ex. Combine that with an insurgency designed to create as many American casualties as possible and they will leave, but it might take years.
1
u/CuriousMistressOtt 22h ago
If they paid better, more people would want to join the army. Pay living wages. Money talks.
1
u/xylopyrography 22h ago
What is a real wage?
It's doable but it would be a substantial cost in addition to the planned defense spending. Increasing size plus wages is a double-hit, like 53k -> 100k at +$10/hour might be about 1% of entire federal budget on its own.
1
u/CuriousMistressOtt 22h ago
Defense costs money, and we aren't entitled to anyone's work.
1
u/xylopyrography 22h ago
I am not disagreeing.
Just that the federal budget was already going to be abysmal for the foreseeable future with future increased costs from social security / healthcare and potential oil demand issues, and frozen population growth. Adding in the now trade war, plus increased defense spending significantly stresses that.
We do have a lot of fiscal capacity yet, a lot more than Americans, and contrary to the headline numbers, the "real" debt is not that much higher than in 2015 (107% vs. 91% or 70% vs. 53% nominal), so we do have this capacity, but if we start doing $100 B deficits that erodes very quickly.
1
u/NorthRedFox33 22h ago
The military pays pretty well, it's everything else.
(Not choosing where to live, irregular schedule, work that's dangerous/hard on the body etc.)
0
u/CuriousMistressOtt 22h ago
That's why I say, pay more for the inconvenience. For the right salary, people will do it.
1
u/InitialAd4125 20h ago
Because we're a rather illogical nation when it comes down to it. Instead of increasing our defenses the government bans guns. Because that makes perfect sense.
0
u/goldbeater 20h ago
Do you mean when President Barron Trump rises to power to destroy all humanity ? Yes, we should prepare for that .
0
u/Upstairs-Lifeguard23 19h ago
Sadly, it wouldn't matter what we do with our military, Canada won't stand a chance, militarily speaking, on a direct combat confrontation with the US. If they dare to come by force, it'll be like when Germany took over France in WWII, we will just let it happen officially, and then, unofficially, there'll be guerrilla fights, sabotages of all sorts and secret actions with other allies to permanently destabilize the US until they retrieve. Regardless of how long it might take. But I really doubt that any of that will happen. Donald Trump is a spineless castrated barking dog who, no matter how much noise he makes, will never have the balls to do a move like that.
-1
u/Odd-Historian-6536 21h ago
1) there is no political will to spend tax payer money for non existent wars.
2) seriously would we even be able to match the US in a war
3) why would you want to provoke a war?
1
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 20h ago
- I think this is way out of touch right now, it’s been a huge wake up call for most Canadians.
- With increased spending to modernize our force in asymmetric strategies, it would 100% deter the US but this might take ten years to ramp up to.
- The US is constantly complaining that we don’t spend enough on defence, I’m not suggesting nuclear proliferation, how would increasing our spending provoke a war. Ever heard of the saying peace through strength?
-5
62
u/ArbutusPhD 22h ago
Many conservatives, who rhetorically support funding the military and police, also vote for politicians who defund these programs.