1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

Started by viper37, October 03, 2011, 11:54:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

crazy canuck

Quote from: Zoupa on October 04, 2011, 01:55:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.

That's pretty much been the case for the last 60 years.

:rolleyes:

The big cuts happened during the Trudeau governments.  I know you are young but that wasnt 60 years ago.

Grey Fox

Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

Valmy

Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence.

That's it?  Woah.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Barrister

Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2011, 09:19:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence.

That's it?  Woah.

Yup.

If you want the nitty gritty details, here it is right from Treasury Board:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20112012/me-bpd/docs/me-bpd-eng.pdf

Skip to page 243 for DND.

Thats out of a total governmental expenditures of 261 billion.

Remember our economy and population is only one tenth that of the US, and that nobody (and I mean nobody) spends as much per capita on defence as the US does.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Grey Fox

Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2011, 09:19:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence.

That's it?  Woah.

It's 1.5% of the GDP. You guys spend 5%. Getting up to 5% would still just be 70 b$, still no where near what the USA spends.
Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

viper37

Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2011, 02:20:19 AM
Assuming that some proper warming of the Arctic will go down during the next couple of decades, isn't this a pretty stupid move? Canada could get insane profits from new resources and the NW Passage opening, but Russia will be all over them if they don't have a decent army.
the proposed cuts are for bureaucrats and reservists.  Instead of a full time reserve force, they plan on slacking most of those (4500 people) or offering them a full time job as a member of the Canadian Army.
For civilians, well, since Afghanistan, the number of civilians has increased by 20 000 in the Department of National Defence.  Logically, we don't need that many people once the war is over (for us, anyway).
Aside that, the proposal is to reduce the reliance on private contractors, slash the budget by 10% for these.

This way, we'd have a lean, mean machine :)

It's similar to any government cuts fiscal conservatives, such as the Conservative party, in theory.
The proposed cuts for the national television are in the same order, yet, I can't imagine the Conservative party not defending their cuts...
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

viper37

Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
And Viper - no it won't be the Royal Canadian Army.  That was never its name.  However we will continue to have the Royal 22e Regiment...
And Princess Patricia, too.  I don't mind the name of a regiment.  I do mind the name for the entire army corps.

But about the cuts: yea or nay?
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Barrister

Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2011, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
And Viper - no it won't be the Royal Canadian Army.  That was never its name.  However we will continue to have the Royal 22e Regiment...
And Princess Patricia, too.  I don't mind the name of a regiment.  I do mind the name for the entire army corps.

But about the cuts: yea or nay?

What the hell is the difference between "Royal" being in a unit name, and being in the name of the Army/Navy?

As for the cuts... well cuts need to be made.  We're in better shape than most, but we're still running a very large defficit.  I'm sure there's some room to trim in the armed forces.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

viper37

Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 10:01:09 AM
What the hell is the difference between "Royal" being in a unit name, and being in the name of the Army/Navy?
Because most people don't see the Royal 22e RĂ©giment, they see the Canadian army.  Be it Canadians or foreigners.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Viking

Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2011, 01:30:25 AM
Canada joins New Zealand and Belgium and defends itself by relying on a big friendly well armed neighbor.

:rolleyes:

Canada spends a little over $21 billion dollars per year on defence.  With our heavy Afghanistan commitments, this has gone up quite a bit over the last several years.  A cut of one billion dollars is hardly going to destroy the Canadian Forces.

And Viper - no it won't be the Royal Canadian Army.  That was never its name.  However we will continue to have the Royal 22e Regiment...

There will never be a Royal Canadian Army, not traditionalist would ever suggest such a travesty for the simple reason that the Army did this



to a King and has never really been forgiven for that.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Neil

I can assure you that the Canadian Army has never killed a monarch.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Viking

Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2011, 04:54:34 PM
I can assure you that the Canadian Army has never killed a monarch.

Here's a diagram for you.



                           Oliver's Army
                                |
                                |
         -------------------------------------------------------
         |                                                     |
     Brit Army                                            Canuck Army       


First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.


Sahib

Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2011, 09:07:38 AM
Euros and crypto-Euros: free riders.

It's perfectly logical. It's not as you guys will suddenly stop feeding the military-industrial complex with gazillions of dollars.
Suckers. 
Stonewall=Worst Mod ever

Viking

First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.