Defense Spending

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

This may help you come to terms with your disappointment.

https://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139

 

Although the 2 percent pledge is not a legally binding commitment by NATO’s member states, its inclusion in the declaration was widely perceived as a meaningful, even historic step. The goal had been present in the debate over NATO’s future and burden sharing at least since the alliance’s summit in Riga in 2006. A month before that summit, Victoria Nuland, then the U.S. ambassador to NATO, called the 2 percent metric the “unofficial floor” on defense spending in NATO.² But never had all governments of NATO’s 28 nations officially embraced it at the highest possible political level—a summit declaration. In light of the heightened attention to security since the start of the Ukraine crisis, the 2 percent issue has assumed increased political relevance.

But is the 2 percent metric useful? And can it be fulfilled? What is its real meaning? The answers to those questions are of great significance for the debate on the future of the transatlantic alliance.

2015. I read it. Do better.

[gowlerk 1,910]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

2015. I read it. Do better.

The available analysis has not caught up with current events. This is centred around the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Crimea. It still holds considerable relevance and it largely supports your position. It also points out some of the political barriers standing in the way of increase defense spending. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The available analysis has not caught up with current events. This is centred around the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Crimea. It still holds considerable relevance and it largely supports your position. It also points out some of the political barriers standing in the way of increase defense spending. 

This is more current: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

You danced away form it earlier but I'd appreciate a real answer to the question:

"Now the tricky bit, if the United States and the rest of NATO were equaling but not exceeding Canada's contribution to Ukraines defense, and that includes the level of sophistication of homeland developed war material, would Ukraine be in the position it is today 5 weeks post invasion?"
 

And I'll add a second question: would you be good with that?

 

[gowlerk 1,910]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

and that includes the level of sophistication of homeland developed war material,

I am not grasping the meaning of this part. Are you asking about Canadian invented weapons?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Just now, gowlerk said:

I am not grasping the meaning of this part. Are you asking about Canadian invented weapons?

Yes. You know, the kind of weapons that cost big money when they are self developed. 

 

[gowlerk 1,910]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Yes. You know, the kind of weapons that cost big money when they are self developed. 

 

Canada does not have homeland developed weapons that I am aware of. We probably have companies and especially subsidiaries of larger companies that make weapons. What is your point?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Canada does not have homeland developed weapons that I am aware of. We probably have companies and especially subsidiaries of larger companies that make weapons. What is your point?

Answer the questions first, please.

[gowlerk 1,910]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Answer the questions first, please.

The most important and useful weapons NATO nations have supplied to Ukraine have been anti-tank and anti-aircraft missile type weapons. Canada has supplied some of these from stock I believe, but we do not develop and or manufacture either as far as I know. So no would be the answer to what I believe you are asking. Am I good with that? I don't see that as a relevant question because it describes a situation that couldn't exist. Canada buys its weapons from mostly the US. 

[gowlerk 1,910]

22 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

This is more current: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

It may be more current, but it is also a page created by NATO rather that an outside organization.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

18 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Am I good with that? I don't see that as a relevant question because it describes a situation that couldn't exist. Canada buys its weapons from mostly the US. 

Nope. That is the question with primary relevance. What Canada gives in limited supply comes only from the initial expense from other nations taxpayers. If we followed Canada's example Ukraine would be toast. So maybe our house isn't in complete disorder. 

[gowlerk 1,910]

58 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Nope. That is the question with primary relevance. What Canada gives in limited supply comes only from the initial expense from other nations taxpayers. If we followed Canada's example Ukraine would be toast. So maybe our house isn't in complete disorder. 

You may be misunderstanding how the defence industry works. When they sell weapons to other nations they make a profit. And that is how more weapon development is paid for.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

You may be misunderstanding how the defence industry works. When they sell weapons to other nations they make a profit. And that is how more weapon development is paid for.

Knock off the puerile explanations and flippant condescension, Ken, it's getting tedious. If you had anything real you would say it. But you don't.

[billvon 2,396]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Knock off the puerile explanations and flippant condescension, Ken, it's getting tedious. If you had anything real you would say it. But you don't.

Both of you - enough already.  This no longer has anything to do with the topic.

[gowlerk 1,910]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Knock off the puerile explanations and flippant condescension, Ken, it's getting tedious. If you had anything real you would say it. But you don't.

How much weapon development do you expect to take place in Canada? A nation with a smaller population than Ukraine. We are a development partner with Boeing and other aerospace companies. But we need to specialize.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

How much weapon development do you expect to take place in Canada? A nation with a smaller population than Ukraine. We are a development partner with Boeing and other aerospace companies. But we need to specialize.

Let's just disagree and move on, yes?

[gowlerk 1,910]

14 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Let's just disagree and move on, yes?

Yes

 

[jakee 1,254]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Arrogance, much? I was simply explaining a possible reason why I considered an agreement made between the entire suite of NATO Defence Ministers to be binding. Telling me, or America, (you're all over the map with who does what to whom) to get it's house in order as if Canada is superior in every way is presumptuous in the extreme. 

Yes, you are being incredibly arrogant. 
 

You said that your own house is not in order but your solution is to tell Canada to start messing with theirs. That’s not the solution. The solution is for you to get your house in order.

Edited March 31, 2022 by jakee

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Yes. You know, the kind of weapons that cost big money when they are self developed. 

The military supplies given to Ukraine so far are mostly body armour and man portable missiles. Not cheap, but big money? We’re probably still talking about approximately 0% of the US defence budget. So what’s the justification for the other 100%?

[Phil1111 910]

7 hours ago, jakee said:

The military supplies given to Ukraine so far are mostly body armour and man portable missiles. Not cheap, but big money? We’re probably still talking about approximately 0% of the US defence budget. So what’s the justification for the other 100%?

Since 2004 the US has supplied Ukraine with a total of $19.5 billion in direct and military aid. Proportionally more than any other country including EU supports.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Phil1111

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Since 2004 the US has supplied Ukraine with a total of $19.5 billion in direct and military aid. Proportionally more than any other country including EU supports.

Right. As I said, 0% of the budget.

So it’s nothing but rank dishonesty from Joe to link wider NATO aid (or lack of it) to Ukraine with the US’s “need” to spend insane amounts of money on defence, when 100% of the US defence budget has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine.

[Phil1111 910]

27 minutes ago, jakee said:

Right. As I said, 0% of the budget.

So it’s nothing but rank dishonesty from Joe to link wider NATO aid (or lack of it) to Ukraine with the US’s “need” to spend insane amounts of money on defence, when 100% of the US defence budget has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine.

I don't think disagreeing about facts or opinions is dishonesty. IMO the US has done more for Ukraine than any other country.

As an aside I'm 1/2 Ukrainian on my mothers side. She and my sister went on a holiday to Ukraine about 25 years ago. It was a bus tour through the country. My mom spoke Ukrainian but my sister didn't. So their most memorable memories was that when the bus had to stop for "pee" breaks. Evidently it didn't have a bathroom onboard. They would stop in the middle of nowhere near some bushes. They away you go.

Then they would stop at fruit stands. Most of the fresh farm fruit would have worms or small scabs on it. My sisters take on it was that "it was sure nice to have fresh fruit and know it wasn't laced with pesticides like home".

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

I don't think disagreeing about facts or opinions is dishonesty. IMO the US has done more for Ukraine than any other country.

It’s dishonest to say that it’s a reason the US defence budget is so high. It’s not. It has nothing to do with the US defends budget. NATO has nothing to do with the US defence budget. 
 

Joe is not stupid, Joe knows this is true, Joe is being dishonest. Maybe his wife is having an affair with a Canadian, I don’t know - but for some reason he really wants to argue with them, and genuine concern over defence spending is not that reason.

[wmw999 2,121]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

but for some reason he really wants to argue

Golly, whoever here at SC likes to argue?

Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,254]

12 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Golly, whoever here at SC likes to argue?

Wendy P. 

I didn’t say it was a bad thing. I just said there’s nothing wrong with pointing out when someone is pursuing an argument they know is total bullshit. For some reason Joe wants to troll Canada, that’s fine. But we both know he doesn’t believe a word of his ridiculous claims about why the US defence budget is Canada’s fault.
 

 

[winsor 186]

On 3/31/2022 at 2:43 PM, wmw999 said:

Golly, whoever here at SC likes to argue?

Wendy P. 

“An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition... A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

Monty Python