More weapons, fewer public services: Carney’s military spending bonanza
Posted by BurstYourBubbles@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 73 comments
Posted by BurstYourBubbles@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 73 comments
TraditionalGap1@reddit
My problem with peace activists is they never explain how we are supposed to deal with all the folks who choose to go the other way.
It takes two to dance but it also takes two to sit down and hash something out
lurking_physicist@reddit
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
_Kiith_Naabal_@reddit
Ah, the cheaper, slimiest, shallowest saying of all. I have a better one "Qui bellum parat, bellum habebit. Qui pacem parat, pacem habebit".
TraditionalGap1@reddit
If only the world ran on hopes and prayers
_Kiith_Naabal_@reddit
No, a rational one. One that we are trying to build and you aren't part of
amendment64@reddit
"He who prepares war, will have war. He who prepares peace, will have peace." -Translated for the lazy.
In a world of Machiavellis, this is utter naivete.
_Kiith_Naabal_@reddit
I hope you are young and that you live what you preach.
amendment64@reddit
I'm not that young, and I've seen the peaceful types murdered the world over in my time. I won't say there is no part for them to play, but it is clear that this world has no justice, and only the brutal and conniving rule.
_Kiith_Naabal_@reddit
Because of people like you, not me
amendment64@reddit
Sure pal, you're better than everyone else
_Kiith_Naabal_@reddit
Everyone? No. Most? Yes. One the reasons is that I know I won't die fighting in a war. Nor me, nor my kids.
I'm sure you will thi
Gackey@reddit
Use your words? Negotiate? Canada and its allies are usually the ones choosing to go the other way.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
Yeah, how's that negotiation going for Ukraine?
Gackey@reddit
I think the war in Ukraine is a point in my favor actually. Had Ukraine negotiated from the start and accepted something along the lines of the Istanbul deal they would be in a much better position than now: losing only Crimea and separatist Donbass, vs almost certainly being forced to accept the loss of all the Donbass as well as occupied Zaprizhzhia and Kherson.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
So the key is to give all the non-peaceniks whatever they ask for? That's the grand scheme?
What stops them from asking for more?
Gackey@reddit
No, the grand scheme is to negotiate and find compromise and cooperate. As we can clearly see in Ukraine, fighting does nothing to stop them from asking for more.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
No, but what we also see is that fighting stops them from getting everything. If they hadn't fought, Russia would have taken over the country. They were in Kyiv.
And, okay, technically that would be 'peace', but if we (specifically, you) should have learned anything from history is that people who aren't peacable rarely stay appeased.
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
They start wars so they have an excuse to spend money on weapons so they can start more wars so they have more excuses to spend money on weapons
And so on. It’s the same as it’s always been just dumber now because we’ve never had more ways to independently educate ourselves
Winjin@reddit
I think it's sort of hoping that it will be next elected official's issue, and current populism works on their short-term goals.
I've got the same question for many others too. Sometimes there has to be some sort of a plan for something that is never addressed in decades. Like the status of Artsakh. It was never recognized by anyone... including Armenia. It was just a weird breakaway region of Azerbaijan that they couldn't control, but were never officially challenged for it. What was the plan? Who knows, it's now back fully under their control, because Russia didn't want to go to war with Azerbaijan over their own lands.
Or like how activists on Reddit often claim that ALL police forces are bad, there should be completely NO police, and criminals would just... go away too. They just hate the police and see them as oppressors and want them gone and what comes next may surprise you (C)
In the case here they just probably expected USA to foot the military bill indefinitely as long as they jump along and now it turns out that the world is still turning the same way it did forever and they have to spend some insane amount, like what, 5% of the budget, on defense, rather than 0. If they never bailed it wouldn't have gone that bad.
Though arguably: I've seen a take multiple times that on the one hand they were told to contribute more, on the other USA was doing a lot of work to make sure that EU was very dependant on US army. So we can't say "they did all of that without any weird influences"
TraditionalGap1@reddit
Can you expand on this? Because looking at it from a Canadian context this doesn't make much sense.
Winjin@reddit
My opinion - and I'm an average Redditor, opinionated and not an expert in the slightest - is that this worked really well for years as a populism strategy. "World is nice and we're safe, we don't have to spend more!" and people, enjoying somewhat secure cities and no war in decades, were more than happy to cut the military spending.
It was always populism, though, as somewhat functioning military is required for any country worth its salt, but it worked fine.
And if that wasn't true, and it will bite the country in the ass, it would happen years later, after that elected official has already been in the office for some time, and they can shift the blame to someone else.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
Okay, but I still don't understand what the 'this' is that worked really well. It's not clear what you're getting at. Low defence spending jumps to mind but that's not really related to my point
Winjin@reddit
Ah, the "this" here is the populism itself for the politicians that want the "peaceful" crowd that'd much rather spend the potential military money on some "positive" changes that sound sooo good when you talk about them. And if they end up bad, well, it's no longer your problem and there's someone else to blame - be it foreign interference, bad actors, anti-somethings etc.
MelbaToast604@reddit
We weren't contributing the NATO minimum national spend before
Our military is laughably underwhelming and outdated
Multiple major conflicts are going on, with multiple more ready to ignite.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
And who is going to invade Canada ? Technically only the US and in that case Canada is doomed regardless of their military.
TroAhWei@reddit
This such an insanely childlike take in 2025. It isn't the 19th century anymore, and Canada is a globally connected country whose citizens' standard of living relies totally on maintaining those connections (trade, communications, travel, you name it). Those things can be, and are being, threatened today, right now, as we speak. Invasion is not what we need to worry about, but rest assured our national interests are under the gravest threat they have faced since the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wish I was exaggerating but I'm just not.
Part of that is precisely because of people just like you, who think national security is some kind of joke or afterthought, and thought you could get away without paying your bills like an adult country. If you value anything about this country at all, make it strong because this is your last chance to do so.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Who threatens them and how Canadian military is going to prevent that ?
ohhaider@reddit
It's not about who will invade us, but what conflicts will arise that threaten the global working order. Canada doesn't exist alone, and our willingness to stand up for the current working order is what will maintain it, since, as you know the old saying goes, "ci vis pacem para ballem"
Professional-Way1216@reddit
By the "current working order" you mean the Western power hegemony ?
ohhaider@reddit
No, I mean the rules-based global order that brought on the greatest improvements in human life expectancy and fewest major conflicts in millennia.
gs87@reddit
No, that “rules-based order” wasn’t some benevolent referee. It was a U.S led empire: coups, proxy wars, IMF debt traps with Canada as part of the coalition . Life expectancy rose because of medicine, sanitation, and people fighting for socialism and independence .. gains often won against that order, not thanks to it.
TroAhWei@reddit
That US-led empire is why you are typing on a computer today. It's also why that computer can talk to my computer. And it's also why you are typing your post in English.
Fit_Rice_3485@reddit
If the US didn’t made it some Soviet scientist or a Chinese one or some other brilliant min’s would have come up with it
TroAhWei@reddit
But they didn't, did they?
Fit_Rice_3485@reddit
And it doesn’t matter one bit
TroAhWei@reddit
riiiiiight.
gs87@reddit
That’s a pretty convenient myth. You’re giving the US empire credit for things it didn’t invent. Computers came out of publicly funded research, often tied to war but pushed forward by scientists and universities across the globe. Networking protocols like TCP/IP were built on top of work done by international communities, not some benevolent empire. And English? That’s colonial legacy, not some gift. You don’t get to launder imperialism as “thanks for the internet, you’re welcome.” The empire piggybacked on human progress , it didn’t create human progress
TroAhWei@reddit
Safety first - don't hurt your back with these mental gymnastics. All of those things may exist because of the efforts of many people worldwide, but they are all possible on a global scale because of the world's most powerful country.
Please don't assume that makes me some US fanboi because I am utterly disgusted by what that country has morphed into - but that doesn't automatically mean we need to delude ourselves with unicorn farts and nonsense like this either.
duncandun@reddit
And who is trying to disrupt that
ohhaider@reddit
Well Putin for one, by invading Ukraine
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Nukes brought the fewest major conflicts in millennia, and nobody is going to change that.
WarMeasuresAct1914@reddit
Which is honestly why I think major Western economies like Canada and Germany should develop their own nukes in a post-US world.
European NATO allies can shake off the US protection shackles, and Canada will also have a bigger stick to wave when it comes to defending our sovereign interests (be it against Russia, China, or the US).
If NATO excluding US can fully realize MAD without US backing, the none of us have to go along fighting America's enemies. Let Americans bleed for their own wars.
This level of confidence is not going to be gained by a dozen diesel submarines patrolling the Arctic.
ohhaider@reddit
Nukes didn't promote global trade...
Disastrous-Hearing72@reddit
We don't need a country to invade Canada for it to affect us. If one of our allies gets invaded it disrupts trade, which disrupts our economy, making hardship for Canadians. It's important we meet NATO spending obligation and ensure our allies in the front lines are supported if Article 5 is invoked.
Also, the world is not the Mercator perfection shown on maps. Russia is neighboring Canada to the north and with the melting of arctic sea ice the arctic will be Canada's battlefront with Russia.
amendment64@reddit
Canada has to have a credible military to deter US invasion. I know it seems like Canada would get rolled by the US, but the amount of damage they could cause to the US needs to be crippling enough that the US keeps its sights on easier prey. They would also likely be supported by Europe, so having a military strong enough that it could turn back extreme aerial bombardment for at least a period of time while other players join the game is essential. Honestly, Canada needs nukes(if they're not secretly aquiring them now, they're crazy), but barring that, they need as many other high payload long range missile delivery systems as they can get their hands on.
WorkingMastodon6147@reddit
I truly feel like you guys have some sort of fantasy of America and Canada going to war. Lol...it's not going to happen.
amendment64@reddit
The current sitting president and his entire party are behind the idea; while it may seem farfetched now, as they consolidate power over the coming decade, they will have the same insatiable territorial ambitions as the Russians. Just ask the Native Americans what their goodwill and kindness bought them. Manifest density never ended.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Absolutely no chance Europe is sending military across the ocean, especially with Russia still being there.
And absolutely no chance USA would allow Canada to make nukes.
amendment64@reddit
That's why I said in secret. They already have nuclear energy. Would be a pretty small leap to a nuclear weapon. The US extortion racket will only get worse from here on out as it descends into facism. France might send nukes as a deterrent, but it would need to happen before conflict erupts.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
I don't think nuclear weapons program can be hidden, especially not right at the US doorsteps. US intelligence is the best in the world.
French shipping nukes is an unrealistic fantasy. First, no country will give own nukes away, and second, US would never allow French nukes in Canada. US would simply block/sink all French ships carrying nukes.
Canada will never have nukes and will be always dependent on the US.
amendment64@reddit
The same US intelligence that said there were WMDs in Iraq? The same intelligence that took 10 years to find bin laden? The same intelligence that couldn't get stop religious nutjobs in the mountains? The same intelligence that funneled weapons to Mexico to try to find where they're going and lost them immediately?
The US has a lot of satellites, and it spies on everyone through its tech, but it's certainly not some omnipotent presence. Stop believing their propaganda. They're decent at what they do, but don't put them on a pedestal. This isnt some spy movie, they're still just human beings.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
WMDs - CIA knew there weren't any, they just made it up and used it as a reason to invade.
Finding single person on the other side of the world in the rough undeveloped country is quite different to finding out about the nuclear weapons program right at your doorstep.
danielisverycool@reddit
Yes, Canada is one of the few countries where military spending is purely a waste.
IntrepidAd2478@reddit
Not if they intend to honor their obligations. They also trade by sea, so freedom of the seas missions should matter to Canada
danielisverycool@reddit
Who should we be defending ourselves against? Why shouldn’t Canada just leave NATO? You should be thankful we remain in the US sphere of influence when the only danger to our sovereignty is America.
IntrepidAd2478@reddit
Again, do you want to be able to import and export safely? If so, you need the capacity to ensure that, not simply rely on the USN.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
Canada doesn’t rely on the US Navy to export or import, most Canadian exports are over land, and the majority of the remainder go directly overseas to safe locations.
IntrepidAd2478@reddit
And how do the things that go or come from overseas get there?
ParagonRenegade@reddit
By boat
Over sea lanes that are devoid of piracy and privateers. The moors are not banging down the gate, don't fool yourself. Most US missions have nothing whatsoever to do with piracy.
danielisverycool@reddit
My point is that there is no one outside of the US that would ever pose such a threat. Please point to a country on Earth that would choose to use their navy to stop Canadian trade. Trump has demonstrated more clearly than anyone that everything is transactional, if Canada doesn't get anything, then we shouldn't pay.
K31KT3@reddit
They want 51st state rights without 51st state responsibilities
Tried6TimesYT@reddit
Absolute delusion lmao
SilverDiscount6751@reddit
The Earth is a globe. Go north of canada and keep going that direction just past the north pole. What country do you see?
ParagonRenegade@reddit
A country that would have to deploy thousands of soldiers through an unbelievably hostile environment to occupy a land with literally nothing on it.
Hamiltonblewit@reddit
I would say Canada, Russia, and the U.S have enormous interests in the Arctic, expanding their operations and logistics in that region would be of great interest. But otherwise, the threat of a direct invasion is non existent even with Trump as president.
quietflyr@reddit
Don't forget China. They're definitely eyeing Arctic resources.
seecat46@reddit
The US.
Disastrous-Floor8554@reddit
I think this podcast needs a summarization. The host, Steven Staples (military policy analyst and long time peace activist), basically said that the security threats to Canada from the US (or Russia or anywhere for that part) are largely fabricated and that there is a lobby initiative using this as an opportunity to both protect our preferred trading status with the US and this time in history to increase our economic output in industry and technology.
The ramifications of all this is our public sector and services funding are going to suffer with this new policy. As many have chanted, the peace dividend is over.
He advocates specifically that we do "not want defense policy" tied to "broader economic policy" and history has shown that this policy will likely waste billions because you cannot efficiently spend this vast amount of money in such short periods of time. It will be like watching "Brewster's Millions", so my take is to invest in the Canadian military stocks. ;-)
I'm not sure what to add here except that Canadians have voted for this increase in defense spending regardless of the underlying reasons. And regardless if the flash point is disingenuous, the real benefits to Canada and Canadians as a whole might be worth the cost, providing money is efficiently spent toward spurring a certain percentage of productivity and innovation in the Canadian economy. I only hope that our military can resolve our procurement inefficiencies.
Mango2149@reddit
Canada's public sector is incredibly bloated anyway.
ConfusionBusy8398@reddit
There's a huge disconect between where the public sector "bloat" is according to most people (ie the number of civil servent, bureaucracy, maybe some subsidies to private corporations and/or civil society) and where the federal government actually spend the vast majority of its money (ie social security, pensions, unemployement benefits and healthcare insurance/transfer to the provinces).
Getting to 5% of GDP in defense by attacking the first category is a pipe dream, the only way to do it is with massive cut the actual spending. So rolling back dental care, slashing healthcare transfer to the provinces, reforming the unemployement system, raising the minimum retirement age, etc...
Mango2149@reddit
Everyone agreed to 2% for NATO and that was never met, they’re not going the full 5. They’re putting on a show for Trump not to blow up NATO.
Also doesn’t the federal workforce take up 15% of the budget, the public sector is enormous in Canada? You can get the cuts there for a 1-2% defence boost.
Kaymish_@reddit
Nobody agreed on 2% for NATO. It was always just a guideline to try and overmatch the USSR and later the Warsaw Pact. It's just become a stick for militarists to try and beat more money out of governments to waste on the MIC.
Mango2149@reddit
The 5% is basically a guideline as well, they said they'll try to hit it by 2035 but they'll reserve the right to reassess if global threats change. You know Canada is not hitting it.