this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
24 points (100.0% liked)

Canadian Armed Forces

1 readers
1 users here now

  1. Post things related to the CAF. You don't need to wait for SCS to post memes.
  2. Be polite to each other. Just because you're a crusty MWO, doesn't mean you need to treat other users like your third ex-wife.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I am aware of all these problems, it’s a shame Canada cannot uphold even the most basic of obligations from our treaties. In truth the only reason we have been able to neglect the armed forces for so long is because of our unique position as America’s hat. In case of any invasion an American occupation to meet the enemy head on is more likely.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

So I want to jump in here to correct what has been a rampant misconception for about 17 years now. That Canada does not have treaty obligations to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending.

This misconception is so old it has its drivers license.

NATO met in 2006 and set a spending target. A non-binding benchmark spending amount, that's it. No obligation, no treaty, no penalty, no enforcement mechanism.

In 2014 they met again and revamped the language, making it a goal to move towards over a ten year period.

In August 2023, they updated the language agreement again, committing to a goal to move towards a 2% minimum 'in the future'.

The language has been very specific and intentionally not a requirement. Both the Harper and Trudeau government have intentionally sought this kind of softer, target oriented language to keep us from having to commit the funds.

Here is a recent article that confirms the goal vs obligation:

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg intended to make NATO's current military spending target of 2% of national GDP a minimum requirement rather than a goal to aim for. https://www.reuters.com/world/nato-allies-agree-spend-at-least-2-their-gdp-defence-diplomats-2023-07-07/

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh so we specifically skirt around the 2% by using weirld language in the treaties. That does not inspire anymore confidence than before.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago

Well no, 31 member nations agreed to precise and specific language to set a goal. It is quite intentional on all parties so as not to obligate anyone to do it.

I am obligated to pay taxes. I have a goal to save for retirement. See the difference precise language makes?

[–] canis_majoris@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

During WW2 they had Battle Plan Crimson, which was designed as an eventuality to be carried out if the Axis powers ever managed to make a beachhead on North American soil, because the most insecure ports were on either end of the Canadian coasts. NS and BC were basically open for the taking and we were very lucky that the war stayed mostly in Europe and Asia.