An excellent analysis and on the nose. On the post-NATO, or NATO 2.0 (without the US), a few additional comments.
First, NATO has always been primarily a political alliance, and less a military one, even though the shop window was (to varying degrees) a glitzy display of deterrent and, if needed, warfighting might. Article V leaves lots of wiggle room for the nature of an ally's response in a crisis, which was by design; the ongoing habits of consultation and multi-level engagement (from IFF procedures amongst Allied warplanes to personal relationships among senior diplomats) are simply vital, and constitute the relationship matrix that allows an otherwise cumbersome conglomeration to work. So, the 'allies' could disagree monumentally over major issues (Suez in 56, De Gaulle, Indochina, Israel, Gulf War II) and yet still remain a highly functional dysfunctional collective. But it runs on trust. And mutual respect. Trump, everywhere and in every conceivable sense, has shattered both. In the short- to medium-term, this is irreparable; failure to realize this, by any leader, would come close to suicidal incompetence. Whether the US has ten soldiers in the Baltics or 10,000 is less important than whether everyone else's troops could rely on American support - and lots of it - if Russia threatened them.
Second, NATO's structure, originally and ever since, incorporated and accounted for, however imperfectly, the many territorial and security idiosyncrasies of its constituent members. It sought to isolate the alliance from imperial (e.g., Belgian, British, French) interests outside "the NATO area"; sought not to accept members with major outstanding territorial issues (e.g., Ukraine, Georgia); sought to limit European engagements beyond Europe (e.g., the Canada-US Planning Group for North America); and took little or no hand in members' non-NATO external quarrels (e.g., Falklands, Grenada) or internal ones (e.g., Cyprus). Like the flexible integration of the alliance's structure, this prudence was sorely tested in places like the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya, but survived, with a bit of 'all for one' and a bit of 'not my problem', each infuriating some of the people some of the time. But what NATO 2.0, especially absent US might, could never condone is an ally of limited means and maximum vulnerability who could contribute little to a collective effort and yet entail massive risk to others. Baltic expansion was made possible by combined NATO strength, which Sweden and Finland added to very considerably. But Canada would bring little to a NATO 2.0 save aggravation, risk, and vulnerability. We'd likely be dropped like a bad habit, and rightfully so.
Finally, NATO's ultimate backstop was retaliatory nuclear strength, despite the many steps on the quantitative and qualitative ladder of escalation. The US nuclear triad was the heart of this. American force reductions in Europe, fast-diminishing rhetorical commitments, and vicious critiques of all allies render NATO's deterrent posture at the moment essentially useless. Or, if not useless, a very slender reed on which to rest medium-term European security. The logical (or rather, 'a' logical) consequence of this is essentially what France pursued decades ago: European-based, owned, and manned nuclear forces to re-forge the deterrent backbone of Western security against, mainly, Russia. But this umbrella could never, would never, cover Canada against, territorially, what is now our major threat: the massively powerful United States. Or against our second-largest threat, a US-supported Russia becoming ever-more active in the Arctic.
In sum: Trump has destroyed NATO 1.0; NATO 2.0 (or whatever a new EU architecture is called) is likely to exclude us; and we no longer have deterrent protection against either American or Russian depredations of any kind. And yet, our leaders talk carbon tax and canola tariffs, municipal subsidies and Laurentian rail lines. This is sheer, utter madness.
Canada can hope for economic membership in the EU but not probably physical security. In the final analysis, Canada could only appeal to the Mother Countries, the United Kingdom and French Republic to put themselves on the line. It would be an awful lot to ask, especially if we did not do all we should to build up our defense at home.
Your response makes it plain that the only way we could rely upon UK and France to defend us from America is if we immediately start spending tens of billions of dollars per year, in Europe, for “exercises” with them on their land and in their waters. They, too, are pay-to-play, even if is genteel bribery: spend $100B protecting us, or we will withdraw that nuclear umbrella. I don’t imagine you think anything short of nukes could really deter American might?
I haven't really thought hard about going nuclear (boom, not lights) so I'll just add two points for consideration.
One, every nuclear warhead is an accident waiting to happen. Literally. The probability of any warhead detonating some way other than intentional use may be incredibly tiny. But even tiny probabilities add up. And it doesn't take long before they get large enough to be worrisome, particularly given the scale of the consequences in this case. All else being equal, fewer nukes is better.
Two, deterrence only works if the threatened action is credible. Can we credibly say that, in the event of war, we may nuke Chicago? Or at least nuke the 82nd Airborne? I don't know the answer to that, though I suspect it's "no." Weapons neither you nor the enemy believes you are prepared to use are a waste of money.
Why would we be reluctant to nuke the 82nd airborne, if they were on our soil shooting Canadians who started shooting them the moment they passed the border?
But, there would be no land invasion until after our infrastructure was wiped out. Electrical generation is their favourite target:
The moment we are in the same mental box as Iraq was - that's a minute after an American dies at Canadian hands - they'll kill 170,000 kids with germ-warfare-by-proxy, just to soften up the civilians. The 35-year-old article is very specific that the Pentagon didn't bomb Iraq's power plants to affect the military, but to "create postwar leverage" on the civilians. That's standard, pre-Trump, American war-fighting.
So, yeah, I'd nuke the airbases sending the airplanes to wipe out all our power plants and water/sewer treatment, before I'd stand by and watch the cholera come to "soften us up" for American "post-war assistance".
I'd also nuke Ft. Bragg if it were the source of an attack; it's 200 square miles, and you wouldn't hit a civilian. Or one of their fleets, out at sea, undoubtedly launching planes against us to kill our kids. Hitting civilians is insane.
Dan, you're asking us to think outside the box, but you won't leave the box of "endless conventional weapons purchases", instead of getting serious.
I'm here talking with you about this, so by definition I'm out of the box.
Notice you left out nuking Chicago. Implicitly, you've conceded that there are limits, even in an existential fight. As to the 82nd Airborne, first, note that militaries don't do the 18th century thing and form up as squares in open fields. Hence, nuking the 82nd Airborne means nuking everything and everyone around the 82nd Airborne. That matters. And most importantly, nukes simply aren't bigger, badder bombs; they're so massively stigmatized that literally any use -- even open-air testing! -- would garner opprobrium, at a minimum, or even immediate pariah status. And that's good! Ever read the history of how nukes were expected to change warfare in the 1945-1960 era, before the stigma had fully formed? It's terrifying. Hooray, stigma.
None of this is to say, no, never. Nor is it to say we shouldn't think about it. It is simply to say that nuclear weapons are in a class of their own and are a unique challenge.
I don’t think the danger is from that direction. The US 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum is only about half a hours drive south of the border, but I have no concerns of them ever obeying an illegal and immoral order to attack Canada. Their history and character precludes that. Their families and friends are on both sides of the border….it could never happen. On the other hand,
If Trump were to federalize the US National Guard and move units from southern states to the old Plattsburgh B52 base. They might be able to at least threaten.
The attack I worry about would be limited to seizing or surrounding Ottawa using one or more of the three crossings between Cornwall and Kingston. The Prescott- Oldenburg crossing is only 54 miles from the Ottawa airport. If a force secured the airport for resupply, they would be very difficult to dislodge. We should put defenses in place to make such an adventure clearly very very difficult.
Our danger won’t come from proud, skilled and professional units but from a lower minded lot.
Yoicks. What a crazed post. Ya got me going. Never-happen stuff.
But, of course, the value of nuclear weapons is not that they think you'll use them. The value is that they *have to assume* a "1% chance" you'll use them, and even that is too high. And don't forget Americans would project their attitudes on to us. They're very very paranoid people, as their domestic and military gun purchases show.
The Churchill proposal is about intimidating *Moscow* from coming to our Arctic, because I doubt NATO will. The Americans will need, realistically, only monetary reasons to give up a notion of conquest that hasn't made a penny since the 19th century. Trump is very driven by those, too, as are all American pols.
Canada is really one of very few countries that never need worry about nuclear weapons. Our major population centers are so close to the US, any threat from Russia would be a de facto threat against the US, just a matter of a seconds of flight time away and fully in the fallout zone.
Any threat from the US would be a transparent ruse given prevailing wind patterns.
Thanks for commenting. It is grim, but not quite so grim as a nuclear-armed Canada! A nuclear-armed Europe, to deter Russia? Yes, absolutely. In North America? Assuming even the barest minimum of common sense here and the narrowest sliver of eventual good intentions to our south, the existential economic and sovereignty threats remain, and the US-led NATO of our recent past is likely dead de facto if not de jure. What to do? Some or all of the following would be critical: massive economic realignment east-west instead of north-south; full-throttle investments in our defence industry, industrial innovation, and competitiveness; securing vital infrastructure against foreign meddling; vastly tighter control of our own borders and permeability to foreign influence; and very substantial military spending for sovereignty and defence purposes here (including in collaboration with the Americans) and in Europe, where - as in 1914, 1939, and the Cold War - our very substantial interest in democracy's victory still resides. The Arctic (which we've also grossly ignored) is a place where we will continue to have allies (e.g., the Nordics) and where Great Power ambitions will likely collide, making coalitions of the willing - and the terrified - more imminent and achievable. The national objectives should be clear, shared, and vigorously pursued: to protect by all means necessary our own people, spaces, and options; to present no obvious strategic or economic vulnerabilities to the US; and to contribute robustly to the defence of allies and their democracies whenever and (within reason) wherever they are threatened. This is going to hurt, but the threat is real, imminent, and all-encompassing, and if don't start thinking big, acting decisively, and ponying up resources, I fear we will have activated our detractors' most odious charge: that Canada isn't a real country.
Yikes. I'm puzzled by the "grimness of a nuclear-armed Canada". There are quite a number of nuclear-armed countries in the world that do not seem to be living grim lives. Can we at least announce we're "a screwdriver turn away" nuclear-latent state? Like Japan does? Nobody beats up Japan.
On the other hand, spending another $50B/year (say, that's just over double the $40B now), would cost hundreds, likely thousands, of lives per year. You know the Eisenhower "military industrial complex" speech, how clearly Ike knew that military spending costs civilians their very lives from poor medical or infrastructure spending.
So that 100:1 cost ratio between nuclear defence and conventional defence is highly attractive to me, as a civilian about to hire a new government.
Echoing Dan's comments above. Nukes arguably deter some things but not others, and I doubt they'd deter entire categories of US meddling in Canadian affairs at all. If, on the other hand, we woke up tomorrow and Canada had 4-5% of GDP invested in defence, made (mostly) its own weapons systems, was not dependent on crude and car sales to the US (or not almost entirely), and had a mostly-free trade environment amongst its own provinces and territories plus a firm handle on drug money laundering etc. inside its own borders, how many risks and bilateral irritants would that remove? More than none, less than all, but - I'm an optimist - a lot. Moreover, credible, valuable commitments to others' security make it vastly more likely that others will have a heightened interest in our own. It isn't just an exercise in sociopath proofing the country, though this would be a happy consequence; it is the longer-term viability of our independence and way of life in a suddenly exposed position between powerful authoritarian malcontents.
Nukes are not a panacea, and I'd rather see fewer everywhere, not more. The logic of Trump's policies just happens to make proliferation very likely, with - as Dan points out - the possibilities for accident, theft, misjudgment, or irrationality that much more more likely too. (Dr. Sean Maloney, a very knowledgeable Canadian expert, has been writing on Trump-inspired nuclear issues of late, so please consult him as someone who - unlike me - actually knows the terrain, and expresses different points of view.)
Iran is unlikely to invade a nuclear-armed Israel to erase it as a society (which it wants), but very likely to engage in proxy war via terrorist groups. Would a nuclear Iran behave differently? On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Ukraine in 2014 might have been a very different kettle of fish for Mr. Putin, and HE might have behaved very differently. But, by international agreement, Ukraine denuclearized, Putin ignored international law, and we have what we have.
But if nukes are your jam, figure out what party will split your proverbial atom and go for it. I'd settle for far less, even if it costs far more. A few dusty payloads sitting in a Cold Lake missile silo won't help our Baltic friends if the Russians come calling, or our counterarguments with Uncle Sam about patrolling our own borders, oceans, or skies. But an extra mechanized brigade, a few Grippen squadrons, and an extra dozen or two subs and frigates certainly might. Thanks for your reply. Very thoughtful indeed.
I wouldn’t expect any American president to sit idly by if we were to look to acquire nukes (Cuba North, anyone?). Although they could grow even older watching us try to get our act together to do it.
Thank you! I just wanted the idea moved into the box for discussion.
Honestly, I think that if the very words we've just posted were a debate in the House, the "respect" Carney wants would already be coming. Predators mostly just need to know it won't be candy from a baby.
But - on the topic of "even the discussion is deterring" - I really think we should begin a whisper campaign that we've hidden nukes 10m under the 8th-level skyscraper parking, all through America, since those 170,000 kids died in Baghdad. (So many Canadian construction companies, sometimes making strangely low bids...)
Our tormentor is supported by conspiracy theorists. Get them scared of the Canadian Nuclear Conspiracy, and we'll be protected a little more every time we deny the rumour!
Exactly, because Canada can do it. We have the resources and the knowledge. Let’s not forget this. We can push our government to do other things, but do not ever forget our capabilities. So, the essay is, yet again, doomsayer. Not, let’s push our government to do what’s best, but, “oh woe is me, our government is useless”, (wring my hands). Stop it! Start pushing your MP I do not care which party they are and tell them it is 2025 and start thinking for Canada sovereignty and defence.
For anyone reading this wondering what THEY can do, join your local reserve unit. Encourage your kids to join a cadet organization. Get some training. Go get your first aid certificate if you don’t already have it. Volunteer with St.Johns Ambulance. Get vocal with your local MPs. Demand military funding and serious, effective procurement. No more bullshit studies for three years debating the same points and equipment the previous government did.
We are all going to be called upon to act as our forebears did. Only this time, the war might be in our country, not Europe.
The lack of preparedness at Pearl Harbor in 1941 is a reminder of the consequences of a total lack of situational awareness. The prevailing attitude in America was - “can’t happen here” and “Japan wouldn’t dare.”
In Canada - it seems we have yet to clue in to the seriousness of our predicament. Friends were over the other day and said they were buying a place in Arizona for their winter-get-away. I was tempted to say, “Why not Haiti?”
We could spend 5% or 10% of our budget on the military and no foreign attitudes would change. The Brits wanted to be shed of us in 1867 for precisely the same reasons as Dan spells out so eloquenty here. There's nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by fighting in Canada. Same with the French in 1763 and 1801 (when Napoleon balked at the trap the Brits set when they offered Canada back during the Treaty of Amiens negotiations. France, like Britain, did not think the northern part of North America was worth the price of a northwest Atlantic naval squadron. France went broke twice fighting in North America. Even when they won (1783), they got nothing.) We need a naval presence in the Arctic, a real one capable of deterring the Russians and Chinese. But if the Russuans do seriously challenge us for our Arctic territory, the Americans will do a sphere-of-influence analysis and our government will be pushed aside. Our military, um, problem with our southern neighbour will have to be dealt with politically, and the message must come only from Ottawa. No more freelancing by Doug Ford after the electicity cock-up. No more Vichy talk from Smith.
Assume Dan is right and NATO falls apart leading to the creation of new Europe-based alliance. I agree that there is no amount of Canadian defence spending which would lead Europe to want to be obligated to defend us. We certainly felt the opposite in the post-WWII period about defending Europe, but that was also linked to our joint defence posture in NA with the US. There might, however, be most European interest in linking with us on other aspects of the international rules-based order.
Also, we need to very explicit in our own planning as to what this spending would be used for. We seem obsessed with the idea of targets related to shares of GDP since that has been the prevailing discussion for about 20 years. Ultimately, the important thing is not the amount you spend but what you want to be able to do. If we think the US might bombard Canadian cities with missiles should we aim to spend billions on our own Iron Dome system? Or with climate change opening up the Arctic we should try to have 20 ice breakers and other ships to be able to control this new commercial shipping route? I don’t know what the answer is but whatever we do has to be done for a reason. The reasons Europeans are looking to increase defence spending just seem much clearer to me.
Also, political parties need to get elected and thus respond most directly to what they believe the electorate is focussed on. We seem to have left aside to some degree the thought that our political leaders will inspire us with a vision to take us to places we need to go but did not recognize. At the moment, I suspect that few Canadians are directly afraid that the Americans will be sending troops across the border and want their governments to spend money on countering unjust tariffs and supporting those who will suffer economically. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold the parties accountable to explain what we should do about defence spending, but it seems hardly surprising to me that it is not at the top of the priorities list.
I agree, of course, that we need greater strategic clarity and for that clarity to inform the development of the CAF. Artillery doesn't fire GDP units. But we have spent decades trying to dismiss concerns about our underspending with the excuse that, well, we do more per dollar spent. (Ignoring that it's the men and women of the CAF who do more with less, but never mind.) We have to drop that habit like a hot rock. Spending per GDP is a rough measure but a decent one of a country's willingness to spend and contribute. Any potential partner will take it into account under any conceivable future circumstances.
The other thing we need to do is stop pretending we can know the future -- singular -- and prepare for it. That's how we got to a horribly underfunded CAF in the first place.
A well-funded CAF will be absolutely essential across a wide array of futures, and at least valuable in almost all possible futures. That makes it a damned good investment. And if we had followed that simple insight for the past 40 years, we may have fewer programs and higher taxes than we do now, but we would be in a much stronger position.
If we can agree to these ground rules, we can then start developing that strategic vision: Who are our potential partners? What is required for us to form those partnerships? Etc. Well down that path of analysis we would get to, alright, what specific military capabilities should we emphasize?
Not that anyone's asking my opinion. So thanks for writing, Rene, as always!
Just having a real conversation on this, knowing something would actually be done, would be a good start. I would prefer our money to be spent on ships and aircraft rather than ground forces, since the Arctic is the only threatened region where we might effectively excercize power. We could consider using some ofthe soon-to-be-idle central Canadian manufacturing infrastructure to make military equipment, and direct some of the tariff income to defence.
You forget that We are a neighbour of a European country also under threat. European and Canadian naval and air forces could patrol our eastern Arctic. We don’t even have a deterrent today and without a deterrent the threat increases.
Very good synopsis. I am appalled that no politician has done anything more than pay lip service to the requirement. I intend to send a copy to my MP with full credit to you. The politicians will not change unless we demand that they change.
1. It's a no brainer we need to curtail procurement from US companies. In addition to being a pressure tactic in the trade war, that stuff will not work if the US invades, or if the US decides to split the Arctic with Russia and cut us out.
2. If we want to buy European military equipment, how soon could we realistically get it? The Ukrainians need it, I think the Eastern Europeans deserve next priority etc. My impression is that at present manufacturing capacity is strongly limiting, no matter what % of GDP we plan to spend on defense. Maybe in a year or two European armaments companies would adjust and make more stuff. I'd be curious what experts on this know.
3. The kind of weaponry we'd need to discourage American invasion would be somewhat different from what we'd need to help in an alliance against Russia. The Americans could destroy all the airplanes and tanks rapidly. Canada would presumably fight something more like a guerrilla/infiltration war. Explosives, drones, anti-tank weapons. My big worry is that retraining/rearming on these lines could itself be an American pretext for attack and would make war more palatable to the American public.
The only thing I can think that would square this circle would be for Canada to begin or license manufacture of cheaper anti-tank weapons and other stuff that would help in the event of American invasion, but which could also plausibly be usable to support Europe against Russia. Making nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Russia (but really the US, except we don't say that) could also let us defend ourselves without appearing overtly hostile to the U.S. On the latter point, we have to decide how much we care about breaking relevant treaties.
I'm at the point where breaking treaties is sadly the least of my worries. If we let that inhibit us, we lose to those who don't. It's a whole new ballgame now where the old rules don't count.
I hate this reality. I hate having to read about anyone -- let alone Canada! -- fearing my country in this way. I wish I could say my country won't harm yours, but we already are. I wish I could say Americans are unified against this, but we're not. If there's any hope of getting the US back to something we used to recognize, it's going to take something awful to shake us out of it. (Apparently 1M COVID deaths and J6 aren't sufficiently awful. I shudder to imagine what will be.)
Millions of Americans don't believe what's happening is happening, but they'll probably be onboard anyway once they find out. Millions more are explicitly onboard already. Millions are apathetic and cynical, while still millions more are horrified, but disoriented and politically ineffectual. It's all going to get worse before it gets better.
Please take it seriously. America is already unrecognizable to me. If you wait too long, you may find Canada unrecognizable to you in the not-so-distant future, at which point, you may no longer have a say.
Hi Walternate -and all the great Canadians on this post.
Please know that we - the people in so much of America love you and hate what is going on. More of America is with you - and will continue to stand with Canada and rejoice in our common values and goodwill in the days and years ahead.
People here are regaining the sense and ownership of our collective power - and the growing public courage is turning out to be contagious. This past weekend 5 million came out...another gathering is being planned for the 19th and we hope more will come each time until the streets are filled with hope.
The courts are fighting back.. and I know it's going to take so much more but people of all types are rising and are going to fight to bring back the beautiful dream that was and still is America. I also know that my friends in Canada would welcome me with open arms - I'm getting my Irish passport because I can and I will travel on that if it comes to retreating north to stay safe for a while. We are going to find a way back - and I know that trust will take a long time to be rebuilt.
Dono's hubris will be his undoing along with the inane incompetence of the "tools and fools" cabinet and his fixer Musko. I pray we find a way to stop the madness and have a deep reckoning and show our commitment to be a decent, honest and caring citizen to all people. At least for now, I know I will do my best to carry a shining light within my soul and vow to live the values that the constitution has inspired in my own life and the lives of millions of good people. I feel better right now, and stronger in my commitment to speak up and help lead right now -because I know that Canada is right there beside me... and literally just a short day's drive to the north.
I know that Washington, Oregon, and California would be honored to stand with Canada and be the leaders the world needs for our future. It would be a positive and good alliance of the coast and the north - Just saying! Shannon aka Magic Girl
The nuke-and-gun nut responses are our own MAGA-light crew. Pay no attention.
However, Trump has permanently changed the US-Can relationship. Canada can no longer trust and agreement signed by the US. We will have to do the hard lifting of adjusting to a smaller economy & government for some years. We owe that to our children & grandchildren.
As a former cold warrior inside a very capable Canadian Brigade in Germany, I continue to be amazed by the total lack of urgency and seriousness by the ultimate decision makers.
I was a teenager in the 60s on a base in France when Canada had planes and tanks in Europe to increase credibility that Russian aggression would be resisted. De Gaulle sent us home from France, but maybe we could put more of our imminently vastly expanded forces at risk in Europe, Japan and Korea. (Not just a dozen trainers in Latvia.) The overwhelming theme of the 89 comments so far is rational resignation to reluctantly increase spending even though it probably won't work. In fact, the Game Theory response is to appear as crazy as the Israelis (and the Ukrainians). "Give me liberty or death" would be understood. If Trump sees 20% Vichy-Quislings and 60% rational cheapskates, doing as little as they can, the tanks can roll. He must be convinced that the fight would not be worth it. Maybe those Bomb fans could deploy them on the Alaska Highway, the potash mines, the power corridors, the heavy oil sands, the Seaway infrastructure, the Columbia River dams etc. Crazy, right? I mean, that could also deter the Russians and Chinese.
Short term? Double military salaries. That solves recruitment and retention. Gets us to to 2% right away. Re-establish all those bases in the middle of nowhere. Go ahead with Fort CreepyPP. Military housing. All of that is spent and taxed at home. Keeps the economy warm as tariffs bight into jobs. As suggested, buy non-US hardware. Lots. Off the shelf. Doesn't matter what. Give the French, Swedes and Koreans a really good customer. No more multi-decade multi-billion never-never procurement. Use all the extra soldiers and gear to march up and down the border. And/or rebuild Jasper and future disasters. Patrol vital infrastructure and symbols. Just appear crazy, keen to get back to the 60s when the military was important. Get close to Greenland as it moves to independence. Get non-US development partners for Arctic resources who would be pissed off if the US threatens their stake.
Pile on. Not all of the above is bullet-proof but Trump does move on when he fails (golf courses, condos, casinos, Trump university). He is the ultimate dine-and dash grifter. He believes he has instant solutions (e.g., The Gaza resort). He has "better" things to do than grind out the resistance of people who seem as crazy as he is.
Agree on the threat. Disagree on the response. Mostly.
We have to do a bunch of military spending to impress our NATO friends and make sure they stick with us. It's basically a kind of bribe, as was our American military purchases that we STILL aren't talking about giving up. (I can't believe the article doesn't mention cancelling the F-35, but maybe just to stick to one topic.)
Look, Robert Oppenheimer "blew up the world" of riches via military conquest, because the very worst thing about nuclear weapons is that they are CHEAP. You can wipe out the world for the cost of one aircraft carrier. Threatening mass death only costs millions, not billions.
Example: MY PLAN FOR THE DEFENCE OF CANADA FROM RUSSIA AND AMERICA.
1) Shame India for that time they built their first nukes by agreeing to only use a CANDU for peaceful purposes, and saying later it was "peaceful plutonium Bomb".
2) Pay them $6M each for several Agni-V missile defense systems, another $2M each for the 12 multiple-entry warheads, so $30M for the weapon. Four systems for the price of one F-35.
3) Ship them from the logistics port at Sardar Patel to the port at Churchill, MB. Run them up the Churchill river, along with about 40 more barges containing fake Agni-V missiles, mixing them around at night in the 86% wintertime cloud cover at Churchill. (Some work there, we are up to the cost of two F-35s).
4) Announce their existence, noting that the Agni-V has a 7000km range, and Churchill is 6580 km from Moscow. Send Moscow a free copy of:
5) Do not point out we could hit Mar-a-Lago. Or Caracas. No need. And impolite.
If you read the Dyer article above, ask yourself what conventional opposition we could possibly buy that would intimidate Donald Trump, who can order multiple aircraft carriers and nuclear subs up the St. Lawrence, overfly Ottawa with a literal thousand-plane raid. There's no way. Only nukes.
I have so many other comments on this subject, but I'll just take a breath. After proposing nukes, one is needed. Dan Gardner has a touching faith in the nuclear protection of UK and France, but I look at them buying the stupid lies that sold Brexit, Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany, and the torrent of Russian disinformation, and I do not trust that protection with my very life. No. I want those Agnis at my back.
It's !@#$#ing insane. I'm horrified and disgusted by it. I've been a staunch anti-nuclear advocate for fifty years, very proud Canada didn't have them. This is killing me. Partly, it's simple game theory, "The Cold Equations". Nothing less is deterrence for a Trump or Putin, who don't care about their own casualties. Trump would watch an American carrier sinking and think, 'Great TV. And now I can do anything I want'. So conventional won't work.
Partly, it's my own "See? I'm proposing things I formerly hated" moment, for credibility. A big part of my own skepticism of those proposing vast conventional purchasing is that they've ALWAYS said that. And when your response to crisis is to double down on what you've always wanted (like my own F-35 hating) it's suspicious. The hilarious guys are the ones proposing pipelines as a response to threats. The threats are HERE, and pipelines take ten years.
Whereas my Churchill proposal would take only a month or two. Good thing we started last January, and the firing keys go active tomorrow.
I'm with you, I think everything should be on the table to defend Canada, including starting a nuclear weapons program. A first step could be to acquire the KSS3 submarine from South Korea. These thing can launch balistic missiles with conventionnal warhead, but maybe, if need be, you could develop nuclear warheads for those with SK. And/or, cancel F35s for the Dassault Rafale, which can carry ASMP nuclear cruise missiles....
Holy crap, I thought I was going over the top. Well, to repeat, I think we should be having these discussions, because "nuclear weapons" are like 'Voldemort" - frightening to even discuss. I want Americans just saying "F@!#, they are really serious". I don't believe they are, yet.
And you can acquire them strictly for MAD. "We'd never use them, even when attacked. We'd just destroy one major target of the attacker, just after the conventional forces surrendered, since we're all dead anyway".
I've evolved since my peace-nik, anti-nuclear ways. New technology has made clean nuclear power for our energy needs so obvious, I would say it's a no-brainer. Canada has expertise here, and we should exploit it. It's pathetic, but we have to play the hand we've been dealt.
We have an important election coming, and there's only one candidate who stands a reasonable chance of shaking things up. And I don't mean a career pol like PP.
I hope Carney is, right now, talking to the NDP and BQ about the future. We need them onboard for "re-sovereignty" - we have to be smart about our spending, because as this article implies, the free-ride is over, and we are all Gaullists. (Yes, CPC might be expected to cooperate on at least some measures, but remember: the PCs have been gone for a long time, and getting any progressivity out of CPC will be challenging.)
The Toronto Star had a dismal report of Carney's EU and UK visit, wherein they note in spite of hugs and goodwill, there was nothing in writing about future commitments, and a definite reluctance to get involved in trump's annexation rhetoric. I don't want to believe it, but Dan's right. We're a bit of a liability to Europe now. Carney's no foo, and I'm expecting some sober messages soon.
As a country we need to step up and invest in our military & our defence. The US is no longer a friendly country and we cannot count on them. And Russia wants control of the Arctic with all the mineral wealth. We have to force the politicians to address this substantively. And we must be prepared to sacrifice.
I fear we are doomed. We will be forced to bend the knee and then we will become a sovereign territory of US. No representation in Washington. There are just too many Canadians willing to say,”it won’t be that bad”. I’ve already heard that sentiment from folks I work with. We allow a powerful propaganda outlet (Fox “News”) to broadcast directly into the homes of our citizens. I’m not sure there has ever been a nation that has allowed such a thing.
I so wish for someone to stand up and call these people- Danielle Smith, Mr. Wonderful, etc , what they are- Traitors.
But there will be those of us that will not fold. We will resist with every ounce of our being because the alternative is to forget the sacrifices made by our ancestors for this country. The alternative is to allow these Christian Nationalists to impose their barbaric beliefs. The alternative is guns, soooo many guns. The alternative is turning our back on science. And so we will endeavour to fight back against this tyranny. We will probably lose. But of course the only causes worth fighting for are the lost ones.
As above, Starmer and the Labour Party who, even if they had the balls for it, aren't about to take Britain to war against America when almost all British planes, tanks, submarines, missile systems and nuclear weapons are either American made or designed or controlled. Some of them are even still owned by America and 'on loan'!
Add that the British economy is SO tied into the American economy, in both directions, and just how many British companies are owned by American investors, and there is no way that Britain is going to take any action against America.
I looked into the Commonwealth a couple of months ago because I had the same question. My impression is it's more about trade than anything else. Good for becoming mutually independent from the US, but I'm not sure about military support 🤞🙏
An excellent analysis and on the nose. On the post-NATO, or NATO 2.0 (without the US), a few additional comments.
First, NATO has always been primarily a political alliance, and less a military one, even though the shop window was (to varying degrees) a glitzy display of deterrent and, if needed, warfighting might. Article V leaves lots of wiggle room for the nature of an ally's response in a crisis, which was by design; the ongoing habits of consultation and multi-level engagement (from IFF procedures amongst Allied warplanes to personal relationships among senior diplomats) are simply vital, and constitute the relationship matrix that allows an otherwise cumbersome conglomeration to work. So, the 'allies' could disagree monumentally over major issues (Suez in 56, De Gaulle, Indochina, Israel, Gulf War II) and yet still remain a highly functional dysfunctional collective. But it runs on trust. And mutual respect. Trump, everywhere and in every conceivable sense, has shattered both. In the short- to medium-term, this is irreparable; failure to realize this, by any leader, would come close to suicidal incompetence. Whether the US has ten soldiers in the Baltics or 10,000 is less important than whether everyone else's troops could rely on American support - and lots of it - if Russia threatened them.
Second, NATO's structure, originally and ever since, incorporated and accounted for, however imperfectly, the many territorial and security idiosyncrasies of its constituent members. It sought to isolate the alliance from imperial (e.g., Belgian, British, French) interests outside "the NATO area"; sought not to accept members with major outstanding territorial issues (e.g., Ukraine, Georgia); sought to limit European engagements beyond Europe (e.g., the Canada-US Planning Group for North America); and took little or no hand in members' non-NATO external quarrels (e.g., Falklands, Grenada) or internal ones (e.g., Cyprus). Like the flexible integration of the alliance's structure, this prudence was sorely tested in places like the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya, but survived, with a bit of 'all for one' and a bit of 'not my problem', each infuriating some of the people some of the time. But what NATO 2.0, especially absent US might, could never condone is an ally of limited means and maximum vulnerability who could contribute little to a collective effort and yet entail massive risk to others. Baltic expansion was made possible by combined NATO strength, which Sweden and Finland added to very considerably. But Canada would bring little to a NATO 2.0 save aggravation, risk, and vulnerability. We'd likely be dropped like a bad habit, and rightfully so.
Finally, NATO's ultimate backstop was retaliatory nuclear strength, despite the many steps on the quantitative and qualitative ladder of escalation. The US nuclear triad was the heart of this. American force reductions in Europe, fast-diminishing rhetorical commitments, and vicious critiques of all allies render NATO's deterrent posture at the moment essentially useless. Or, if not useless, a very slender reed on which to rest medium-term European security. The logical (or rather, 'a' logical) consequence of this is essentially what France pursued decades ago: European-based, owned, and manned nuclear forces to re-forge the deterrent backbone of Western security against, mainly, Russia. But this umbrella could never, would never, cover Canada against, territorially, what is now our major threat: the massively powerful United States. Or against our second-largest threat, a US-supported Russia becoming ever-more active in the Arctic.
In sum: Trump has destroyed NATO 1.0; NATO 2.0 (or whatever a new EU architecture is called) is likely to exclude us; and we no longer have deterrent protection against either American or Russian depredations of any kind. And yet, our leaders talk carbon tax and canola tariffs, municipal subsidies and Laurentian rail lines. This is sheer, utter madness.
What a great addition to the discussion. Thanks, Dean!
Keep writing, my friend. Keep charging.
Canada can hope for economic membership in the EU but not probably physical security. In the final analysis, Canada could only appeal to the Mother Countries, the United Kingdom and French Republic to put themselves on the line. It would be an awful lot to ask, especially if we did not do all we should to build up our defense at home.
Thank you, also.
Your response makes it plain that the only way we could rely upon UK and France to defend us from America is if we immediately start spending tens of billions of dollars per year, in Europe, for “exercises” with them on their land and in their waters. They, too, are pay-to-play, even if is genteel bribery: spend $100B protecting us, or we will withdraw that nuclear umbrella. I don’t imagine you think anything short of nukes could really deter American might?
I haven't really thought hard about going nuclear (boom, not lights) so I'll just add two points for consideration.
One, every nuclear warhead is an accident waiting to happen. Literally. The probability of any warhead detonating some way other than intentional use may be incredibly tiny. But even tiny probabilities add up. And it doesn't take long before they get large enough to be worrisome, particularly given the scale of the consequences in this case. All else being equal, fewer nukes is better.
Two, deterrence only works if the threatened action is credible. Can we credibly say that, in the event of war, we may nuke Chicago? Or at least nuke the 82nd Airborne? I don't know the answer to that, though I suspect it's "no." Weapons neither you nor the enemy believes you are prepared to use are a waste of money.
Why would we be reluctant to nuke the 82nd airborne, if they were on our soil shooting Canadians who started shooting them the moment they passed the border?
But, there would be no land invasion until after our infrastructure was wiped out. Electrical generation is their favourite target:
https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/0623strategy.htm
The moment we are in the same mental box as Iraq was - that's a minute after an American dies at Canadian hands - they'll kill 170,000 kids with germ-warfare-by-proxy, just to soften up the civilians. The 35-year-old article is very specific that the Pentagon didn't bomb Iraq's power plants to affect the military, but to "create postwar leverage" on the civilians. That's standard, pre-Trump, American war-fighting.
So, yeah, I'd nuke the airbases sending the airplanes to wipe out all our power plants and water/sewer treatment, before I'd stand by and watch the cholera come to "soften us up" for American "post-war assistance".
I'd also nuke Ft. Bragg if it were the source of an attack; it's 200 square miles, and you wouldn't hit a civilian. Or one of their fleets, out at sea, undoubtedly launching planes against us to kill our kids. Hitting civilians is insane.
Dan, you're asking us to think outside the box, but you won't leave the box of "endless conventional weapons purchases", instead of getting serious.
I'm here talking with you about this, so by definition I'm out of the box.
Notice you left out nuking Chicago. Implicitly, you've conceded that there are limits, even in an existential fight. As to the 82nd Airborne, first, note that militaries don't do the 18th century thing and form up as squares in open fields. Hence, nuking the 82nd Airborne means nuking everything and everyone around the 82nd Airborne. That matters. And most importantly, nukes simply aren't bigger, badder bombs; they're so massively stigmatized that literally any use -- even open-air testing! -- would garner opprobrium, at a minimum, or even immediate pariah status. And that's good! Ever read the history of how nukes were expected to change warfare in the 1945-1960 era, before the stigma had fully formed? It's terrifying. Hooray, stigma.
None of this is to say, no, never. Nor is it to say we shouldn't think about it. It is simply to say that nuclear weapons are in a class of their own and are a unique challenge.
I don’t think the danger is from that direction. The US 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum is only about half a hours drive south of the border, but I have no concerns of them ever obeying an illegal and immoral order to attack Canada. Their history and character precludes that. Their families and friends are on both sides of the border….it could never happen. On the other hand,
If Trump were to federalize the US National Guard and move units from southern states to the old Plattsburgh B52 base. They might be able to at least threaten.
The attack I worry about would be limited to seizing or surrounding Ottawa using one or more of the three crossings between Cornwall and Kingston. The Prescott- Oldenburg crossing is only 54 miles from the Ottawa airport. If a force secured the airport for resupply, they would be very difficult to dislodge. We should put defenses in place to make such an adventure clearly very very difficult.
Our danger won’t come from proud, skilled and professional units but from a lower minded lot.
Yoicks. What a crazed post. Ya got me going. Never-happen stuff.
But, of course, the value of nuclear weapons is not that they think you'll use them. The value is that they *have to assume* a "1% chance" you'll use them, and even that is too high. And don't forget Americans would project their attitudes on to us. They're very very paranoid people, as their domestic and military gun purchases show.
The Churchill proposal is about intimidating *Moscow* from coming to our Arctic, because I doubt NATO will. The Americans will need, realistically, only monetary reasons to give up a notion of conquest that hasn't made a penny since the 19th century. Trump is very driven by those, too, as are all American pols.
Canada is really one of very few countries that never need worry about nuclear weapons. Our major population centers are so close to the US, any threat from Russia would be a de facto threat against the US, just a matter of a seconds of flight time away and fully in the fallout zone.
Any threat from the US would be a transparent ruse given prevailing wind patterns.
Thanks for commenting. It is grim, but not quite so grim as a nuclear-armed Canada! A nuclear-armed Europe, to deter Russia? Yes, absolutely. In North America? Assuming even the barest minimum of common sense here and the narrowest sliver of eventual good intentions to our south, the existential economic and sovereignty threats remain, and the US-led NATO of our recent past is likely dead de facto if not de jure. What to do? Some or all of the following would be critical: massive economic realignment east-west instead of north-south; full-throttle investments in our defence industry, industrial innovation, and competitiveness; securing vital infrastructure against foreign meddling; vastly tighter control of our own borders and permeability to foreign influence; and very substantial military spending for sovereignty and defence purposes here (including in collaboration with the Americans) and in Europe, where - as in 1914, 1939, and the Cold War - our very substantial interest in democracy's victory still resides. The Arctic (which we've also grossly ignored) is a place where we will continue to have allies (e.g., the Nordics) and where Great Power ambitions will likely collide, making coalitions of the willing - and the terrified - more imminent and achievable. The national objectives should be clear, shared, and vigorously pursued: to protect by all means necessary our own people, spaces, and options; to present no obvious strategic or economic vulnerabilities to the US; and to contribute robustly to the defence of allies and their democracies whenever and (within reason) wherever they are threatened. This is going to hurt, but the threat is real, imminent, and all-encompassing, and if don't start thinking big, acting decisively, and ponying up resources, I fear we will have activated our detractors' most odious charge: that Canada isn't a real country.
Yikes. I'm puzzled by the "grimness of a nuclear-armed Canada". There are quite a number of nuclear-armed countries in the world that do not seem to be living grim lives. Can we at least announce we're "a screwdriver turn away" nuclear-latent state? Like Japan does? Nobody beats up Japan.
On the other hand, spending another $50B/year (say, that's just over double the $40B now), would cost hundreds, likely thousands, of lives per year. You know the Eisenhower "military industrial complex" speech, how clearly Ike knew that military spending costs civilians their very lives from poor medical or infrastructure spending.
So that 100:1 cost ratio between nuclear defence and conventional defence is highly attractive to me, as a civilian about to hire a new government.
Echoing Dan's comments above. Nukes arguably deter some things but not others, and I doubt they'd deter entire categories of US meddling in Canadian affairs at all. If, on the other hand, we woke up tomorrow and Canada had 4-5% of GDP invested in defence, made (mostly) its own weapons systems, was not dependent on crude and car sales to the US (or not almost entirely), and had a mostly-free trade environment amongst its own provinces and territories plus a firm handle on drug money laundering etc. inside its own borders, how many risks and bilateral irritants would that remove? More than none, less than all, but - I'm an optimist - a lot. Moreover, credible, valuable commitments to others' security make it vastly more likely that others will have a heightened interest in our own. It isn't just an exercise in sociopath proofing the country, though this would be a happy consequence; it is the longer-term viability of our independence and way of life in a suddenly exposed position between powerful authoritarian malcontents.
Nukes are not a panacea, and I'd rather see fewer everywhere, not more. The logic of Trump's policies just happens to make proliferation very likely, with - as Dan points out - the possibilities for accident, theft, misjudgment, or irrationality that much more more likely too. (Dr. Sean Maloney, a very knowledgeable Canadian expert, has been writing on Trump-inspired nuclear issues of late, so please consult him as someone who - unlike me - actually knows the terrain, and expresses different points of view.)
Iran is unlikely to invade a nuclear-armed Israel to erase it as a society (which it wants), but very likely to engage in proxy war via terrorist groups. Would a nuclear Iran behave differently? On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Ukraine in 2014 might have been a very different kettle of fish for Mr. Putin, and HE might have behaved very differently. But, by international agreement, Ukraine denuclearized, Putin ignored international law, and we have what we have.
But if nukes are your jam, figure out what party will split your proverbial atom and go for it. I'd settle for far less, even if it costs far more. A few dusty payloads sitting in a Cold Lake missile silo won't help our Baltic friends if the Russians come calling, or our counterarguments with Uncle Sam about patrolling our own borders, oceans, or skies. But an extra mechanized brigade, a few Grippen squadrons, and an extra dozen or two subs and frigates certainly might. Thanks for your reply. Very thoughtful indeed.
I wouldn’t expect any American president to sit idly by if we were to look to acquire nukes (Cuba North, anyone?). Although they could grow even older watching us try to get our act together to do it.
Thank you! I just wanted the idea moved into the box for discussion.
Honestly, I think that if the very words we've just posted were a debate in the House, the "respect" Carney wants would already be coming. Predators mostly just need to know it won't be candy from a baby.
But - on the topic of "even the discussion is deterring" - I really think we should begin a whisper campaign that we've hidden nukes 10m under the 8th-level skyscraper parking, all through America, since those 170,000 kids died in Baghdad. (So many Canadian construction companies, sometimes making strangely low bids...)
Our tormentor is supported by conspiracy theorists. Get them scared of the Canadian Nuclear Conspiracy, and we'll be protected a little more every time we deny the rumour!
Exactly, because Canada can do it. We have the resources and the knowledge. Let’s not forget this. We can push our government to do other things, but do not ever forget our capabilities. So, the essay is, yet again, doomsayer. Not, let’s push our government to do what’s best, but, “oh woe is me, our government is useless”, (wring my hands). Stop it! Start pushing your MP I do not care which party they are and tell them it is 2025 and start thinking for Canada sovereignty and defence.
Spot on. Ok to forward this to the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDAI)?
Dan's platform; Dan's rules. But no problem from my end. Cheers, D.
For anyone reading this wondering what THEY can do, join your local reserve unit. Encourage your kids to join a cadet organization. Get some training. Go get your first aid certificate if you don’t already have it. Volunteer with St.Johns Ambulance. Get vocal with your local MPs. Demand military funding and serious, effective procurement. No more bullshit studies for three years debating the same points and equipment the previous government did.
We are all going to be called upon to act as our forebears did. Only this time, the war might be in our country, not Europe.
Was in the reserves when I was 18, but now in my 40s with a disability that’s a no go. However, I can fly a drone and I suggest everyone learn!
The lack of preparedness at Pearl Harbor in 1941 is a reminder of the consequences of a total lack of situational awareness. The prevailing attitude in America was - “can’t happen here” and “Japan wouldn’t dare.”
In Canada - it seems we have yet to clue in to the seriousness of our predicament. Friends were over the other day and said they were buying a place in Arizona for their winter-get-away. I was tempted to say, “Why not Haiti?”
We could spend 5% or 10% of our budget on the military and no foreign attitudes would change. The Brits wanted to be shed of us in 1867 for precisely the same reasons as Dan spells out so eloquenty here. There's nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by fighting in Canada. Same with the French in 1763 and 1801 (when Napoleon balked at the trap the Brits set when they offered Canada back during the Treaty of Amiens negotiations. France, like Britain, did not think the northern part of North America was worth the price of a northwest Atlantic naval squadron. France went broke twice fighting in North America. Even when they won (1783), they got nothing.) We need a naval presence in the Arctic, a real one capable of deterring the Russians and Chinese. But if the Russuans do seriously challenge us for our Arctic territory, the Americans will do a sphere-of-influence analysis and our government will be pushed aside. Our military, um, problem with our southern neighbour will have to be dealt with politically, and the message must come only from Ottawa. No more freelancing by Doug Ford after the electicity cock-up. No more Vichy talk from Smith.
Assume Dan is right and NATO falls apart leading to the creation of new Europe-based alliance. I agree that there is no amount of Canadian defence spending which would lead Europe to want to be obligated to defend us. We certainly felt the opposite in the post-WWII period about defending Europe, but that was also linked to our joint defence posture in NA with the US. There might, however, be most European interest in linking with us on other aspects of the international rules-based order.
Also, we need to very explicit in our own planning as to what this spending would be used for. We seem obsessed with the idea of targets related to shares of GDP since that has been the prevailing discussion for about 20 years. Ultimately, the important thing is not the amount you spend but what you want to be able to do. If we think the US might bombard Canadian cities with missiles should we aim to spend billions on our own Iron Dome system? Or with climate change opening up the Arctic we should try to have 20 ice breakers and other ships to be able to control this new commercial shipping route? I don’t know what the answer is but whatever we do has to be done for a reason. The reasons Europeans are looking to increase defence spending just seem much clearer to me.
Also, political parties need to get elected and thus respond most directly to what they believe the electorate is focussed on. We seem to have left aside to some degree the thought that our political leaders will inspire us with a vision to take us to places we need to go but did not recognize. At the moment, I suspect that few Canadians are directly afraid that the Americans will be sending troops across the border and want their governments to spend money on countering unjust tariffs and supporting those who will suffer economically. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold the parties accountable to explain what we should do about defence spending, but it seems hardly surprising to me that it is not at the top of the priorities list.
I agree, of course, that we need greater strategic clarity and for that clarity to inform the development of the CAF. Artillery doesn't fire GDP units. But we have spent decades trying to dismiss concerns about our underspending with the excuse that, well, we do more per dollar spent. (Ignoring that it's the men and women of the CAF who do more with less, but never mind.) We have to drop that habit like a hot rock. Spending per GDP is a rough measure but a decent one of a country's willingness to spend and contribute. Any potential partner will take it into account under any conceivable future circumstances.
The other thing we need to do is stop pretending we can know the future -- singular -- and prepare for it. That's how we got to a horribly underfunded CAF in the first place.
A well-funded CAF will be absolutely essential across a wide array of futures, and at least valuable in almost all possible futures. That makes it a damned good investment. And if we had followed that simple insight for the past 40 years, we may have fewer programs and higher taxes than we do now, but we would be in a much stronger position.
If we can agree to these ground rules, we can then start developing that strategic vision: Who are our potential partners? What is required for us to form those partnerships? Etc. Well down that path of analysis we would get to, alright, what specific military capabilities should we emphasize?
Not that anyone's asking my opinion. So thanks for writing, Rene, as always!
Just having a real conversation on this, knowing something would actually be done, would be a good start. I would prefer our money to be spent on ships and aircraft rather than ground forces, since the Arctic is the only threatened region where we might effectively excercize power. We could consider using some ofthe soon-to-be-idle central Canadian manufacturing infrastructure to make military equipment, and direct some of the tariff income to defence.
You forget that We are a neighbour of a European country also under threat. European and Canadian naval and air forces could patrol our eastern Arctic. We don’t even have a deterrent today and without a deterrent the threat increases.
I knew we'd regret losing so many of our Great Lakes shipyards. Time to bulldoze some condos in Collingwood.
You just want to bulldoze some condos in Collingwood….
Yep.
Though it’s no small irony that the last ship built in Collingwood was a state-of-the-art icebreaker.
Sorry guys, but Europe has its own issues right now, and they are already a bit busy.
You need to solve your own problems.
Thanks for an insightful article, Dan. Shared it with my MP and stated that I am fully prepared to pay taxes to support our military preparedness.
Very good synopsis. I am appalled that no politician has done anything more than pay lip service to the requirement. I intend to send a copy to my MP with full credit to you. The politicians will not change unless we demand that they change.
Some half-educated thoughts:
1. It's a no brainer we need to curtail procurement from US companies. In addition to being a pressure tactic in the trade war, that stuff will not work if the US invades, or if the US decides to split the Arctic with Russia and cut us out.
2. If we want to buy European military equipment, how soon could we realistically get it? The Ukrainians need it, I think the Eastern Europeans deserve next priority etc. My impression is that at present manufacturing capacity is strongly limiting, no matter what % of GDP we plan to spend on defense. Maybe in a year or two European armaments companies would adjust and make more stuff. I'd be curious what experts on this know.
3. The kind of weaponry we'd need to discourage American invasion would be somewhat different from what we'd need to help in an alliance against Russia. The Americans could destroy all the airplanes and tanks rapidly. Canada would presumably fight something more like a guerrilla/infiltration war. Explosives, drones, anti-tank weapons. My big worry is that retraining/rearming on these lines could itself be an American pretext for attack and would make war more palatable to the American public.
The only thing I can think that would square this circle would be for Canada to begin or license manufacture of cheaper anti-tank weapons and other stuff that would help in the event of American invasion, but which could also plausibly be usable to support Europe against Russia. Making nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Russia (but really the US, except we don't say that) could also let us defend ourselves without appearing overtly hostile to the U.S. On the latter point, we have to decide how much we care about breaking relevant treaties.
I'm at the point where breaking treaties is sadly the least of my worries. If we let that inhibit us, we lose to those who don't. It's a whole new ballgame now where the old rules don't count.
I hate this reality. I hate having to read about anyone -- let alone Canada! -- fearing my country in this way. I wish I could say my country won't harm yours, but we already are. I wish I could say Americans are unified against this, but we're not. If there's any hope of getting the US back to something we used to recognize, it's going to take something awful to shake us out of it. (Apparently 1M COVID deaths and J6 aren't sufficiently awful. I shudder to imagine what will be.)
Millions of Americans don't believe what's happening is happening, but they'll probably be onboard anyway once they find out. Millions more are explicitly onboard already. Millions are apathetic and cynical, while still millions more are horrified, but disoriented and politically ineffectual. It's all going to get worse before it gets better.
Please take it seriously. America is already unrecognizable to me. If you wait too long, you may find Canada unrecognizable to you in the not-so-distant future, at which point, you may no longer have a say.
Hi Walternate -and all the great Canadians on this post.
Please know that we - the people in so much of America love you and hate what is going on. More of America is with you - and will continue to stand with Canada and rejoice in our common values and goodwill in the days and years ahead.
People here are regaining the sense and ownership of our collective power - and the growing public courage is turning out to be contagious. This past weekend 5 million came out...another gathering is being planned for the 19th and we hope more will come each time until the streets are filled with hope.
The courts are fighting back.. and I know it's going to take so much more but people of all types are rising and are going to fight to bring back the beautiful dream that was and still is America. I also know that my friends in Canada would welcome me with open arms - I'm getting my Irish passport because I can and I will travel on that if it comes to retreating north to stay safe for a while. We are going to find a way back - and I know that trust will take a long time to be rebuilt.
Dono's hubris will be his undoing along with the inane incompetence of the "tools and fools" cabinet and his fixer Musko. I pray we find a way to stop the madness and have a deep reckoning and show our commitment to be a decent, honest and caring citizen to all people. At least for now, I know I will do my best to carry a shining light within my soul and vow to live the values that the constitution has inspired in my own life and the lives of millions of good people. I feel better right now, and stronger in my commitment to speak up and help lead right now -because I know that Canada is right there beside me... and literally just a short day's drive to the north.
I know that Washington, Oregon, and California would be honored to stand with Canada and be the leaders the world needs for our future. It would be a positive and good alliance of the coast and the north - Just saying! Shannon aka Magic Girl
The nuke-and-gun nut responses are our own MAGA-light crew. Pay no attention.
However, Trump has permanently changed the US-Can relationship. Canada can no longer trust and agreement signed by the US. We will have to do the hard lifting of adjusting to a smaller economy & government for some years. We owe that to our children & grandchildren.
(A Boomer)
Sorry, which responses are those? Are you suggesting that rebuilding the military isn't a key piece of this puzzle?
Regarding your first sentence, I must disagree. People taking this seriously and planning ahead are not "maga-light", they're realists.
As a former cold warrior inside a very capable Canadian Brigade in Germany, I continue to be amazed by the total lack of urgency and seriousness by the ultimate decision makers.
I was a teenager in the 60s on a base in France when Canada had planes and tanks in Europe to increase credibility that Russian aggression would be resisted. De Gaulle sent us home from France, but maybe we could put more of our imminently vastly expanded forces at risk in Europe, Japan and Korea. (Not just a dozen trainers in Latvia.) The overwhelming theme of the 89 comments so far is rational resignation to reluctantly increase spending even though it probably won't work. In fact, the Game Theory response is to appear as crazy as the Israelis (and the Ukrainians). "Give me liberty or death" would be understood. If Trump sees 20% Vichy-Quislings and 60% rational cheapskates, doing as little as they can, the tanks can roll. He must be convinced that the fight would not be worth it. Maybe those Bomb fans could deploy them on the Alaska Highway, the potash mines, the power corridors, the heavy oil sands, the Seaway infrastructure, the Columbia River dams etc. Crazy, right? I mean, that could also deter the Russians and Chinese.
Short term? Double military salaries. That solves recruitment and retention. Gets us to to 2% right away. Re-establish all those bases in the middle of nowhere. Go ahead with Fort CreepyPP. Military housing. All of that is spent and taxed at home. Keeps the economy warm as tariffs bight into jobs. As suggested, buy non-US hardware. Lots. Off the shelf. Doesn't matter what. Give the French, Swedes and Koreans a really good customer. No more multi-decade multi-billion never-never procurement. Use all the extra soldiers and gear to march up and down the border. And/or rebuild Jasper and future disasters. Patrol vital infrastructure and symbols. Just appear crazy, keen to get back to the 60s when the military was important. Get close to Greenland as it moves to independence. Get non-US development partners for Arctic resources who would be pissed off if the US threatens their stake.
Pile on. Not all of the above is bullet-proof but Trump does move on when he fails (golf courses, condos, casinos, Trump university). He is the ultimate dine-and dash grifter. He believes he has instant solutions (e.g., The Gaza resort). He has "better" things to do than grind out the resistance of people who seem as crazy as he is.
Agree on the threat. Disagree on the response. Mostly.
We have to do a bunch of military spending to impress our NATO friends and make sure they stick with us. It's basically a kind of bribe, as was our American military purchases that we STILL aren't talking about giving up. (I can't believe the article doesn't mention cancelling the F-35, but maybe just to stick to one topic.)
Look, Robert Oppenheimer "blew up the world" of riches via military conquest, because the very worst thing about nuclear weapons is that they are CHEAP. You can wipe out the world for the cost of one aircraft carrier. Threatening mass death only costs millions, not billions.
Example: MY PLAN FOR THE DEFENCE OF CANADA FROM RUSSIA AND AMERICA.
1) Shame India for that time they built their first nukes by agreeing to only use a CANDU for peaceful purposes, and saying later it was "peaceful plutonium Bomb".
2) Pay them $6M each for several Agni-V missile defense systems, another $2M each for the 12 multiple-entry warheads, so $30M for the weapon. Four systems for the price of one F-35.
3) Ship them from the logistics port at Sardar Patel to the port at Churchill, MB. Run them up the Churchill river, along with about 40 more barges containing fake Agni-V missiles, mixing them around at night in the 86% wintertime cloud cover at Churchill. (Some work there, we are up to the cost of two F-35s).
4) Announce their existence, noting that the Agni-V has a 7000km range, and Churchill is 6580 km from Moscow. Send Moscow a free copy of:
https://gwynnedyer.com/2022/ukraines-nuclear-mistake/
5) Do not point out we could hit Mar-a-Lago. Or Caracas. No need. And impolite.
If you read the Dyer article above, ask yourself what conventional opposition we could possibly buy that would intimidate Donald Trump, who can order multiple aircraft carriers and nuclear subs up the St. Lawrence, overfly Ottawa with a literal thousand-plane raid. There's no way. Only nukes.
I have so many other comments on this subject, but I'll just take a breath. After proposing nukes, one is needed. Dan Gardner has a touching faith in the nuclear protection of UK and France, but I look at them buying the stupid lies that sold Brexit, Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany, and the torrent of Russian disinformation, and I do not trust that protection with my very life. No. I want those Agnis at my back.
Sounds like a plan. Thinking seriously about your proposal, and it sounds pretty sensible. Maybe I need to take a breath too. But, sounds like a plan.
It's !@#$#ing insane. I'm horrified and disgusted by it. I've been a staunch anti-nuclear advocate for fifty years, very proud Canada didn't have them. This is killing me. Partly, it's simple game theory, "The Cold Equations". Nothing less is deterrence for a Trump or Putin, who don't care about their own casualties. Trump would watch an American carrier sinking and think, 'Great TV. And now I can do anything I want'. So conventional won't work.
Partly, it's my own "See? I'm proposing things I formerly hated" moment, for credibility. A big part of my own skepticism of those proposing vast conventional purchasing is that they've ALWAYS said that. And when your response to crisis is to double down on what you've always wanted (like my own F-35 hating) it's suspicious. The hilarious guys are the ones proposing pipelines as a response to threats. The threats are HERE, and pipelines take ten years.
Whereas my Churchill proposal would take only a month or two. Good thing we started last January, and the firing keys go active tomorrow.
I'm with you, I think everything should be on the table to defend Canada, including starting a nuclear weapons program. A first step could be to acquire the KSS3 submarine from South Korea. These thing can launch balistic missiles with conventionnal warhead, but maybe, if need be, you could develop nuclear warheads for those with SK. And/or, cancel F35s for the Dassault Rafale, which can carry ASMP nuclear cruise missiles....
Holy crap, I thought I was going over the top. Well, to repeat, I think we should be having these discussions, because "nuclear weapons" are like 'Voldemort" - frightening to even discuss. I want Americans just saying "F@!#, they are really serious". I don't believe they are, yet.
And you can acquire them strictly for MAD. "We'd never use them, even when attacked. We'd just destroy one major target of the attacker, just after the conventional forces surrendered, since we're all dead anyway".
I've evolved since my peace-nik, anti-nuclear ways. New technology has made clean nuclear power for our energy needs so obvious, I would say it's a no-brainer. Canada has expertise here, and we should exploit it. It's pathetic, but we have to play the hand we've been dealt.
As a Canadian I absolutely agree with all the points you make in this article. If we don't step up big time Canada will be lost forever.
We have an important election coming, and there's only one candidate who stands a reasonable chance of shaking things up. And I don't mean a career pol like PP.
I hope Carney is, right now, talking to the NDP and BQ about the future. We need them onboard for "re-sovereignty" - we have to be smart about our spending, because as this article implies, the free-ride is over, and we are all Gaullists. (Yes, CPC might be expected to cooperate on at least some measures, but remember: the PCs have been gone for a long time, and getting any progressivity out of CPC will be challenging.)
Carney is a replica of Trudeau. He's a career elitist and deserves no role in our government. Pollievre is our only hope.
The Toronto Star had a dismal report of Carney's EU and UK visit, wherein they note in spite of hugs and goodwill, there was nothing in writing about future commitments, and a definite reluctance to get involved in trump's annexation rhetoric. I don't want to believe it, but Dan's right. We're a bit of a liability to Europe now. Carney's no foo, and I'm expecting some sober messages soon.
As a country we need to step up and invest in our military & our defence. The US is no longer a friendly country and we cannot count on them. And Russia wants control of the Arctic with all the mineral wealth. We have to force the politicians to address this substantively. And we must be prepared to sacrifice.
I fear we are doomed. We will be forced to bend the knee and then we will become a sovereign territory of US. No representation in Washington. There are just too many Canadians willing to say,”it won’t be that bad”. I’ve already heard that sentiment from folks I work with. We allow a powerful propaganda outlet (Fox “News”) to broadcast directly into the homes of our citizens. I’m not sure there has ever been a nation that has allowed such a thing.
I so wish for someone to stand up and call these people- Danielle Smith, Mr. Wonderful, etc , what they are- Traitors.
But there will be those of us that will not fold. We will resist with every ounce of our being because the alternative is to forget the sacrifices made by our ancestors for this country. The alternative is to allow these Christian Nationalists to impose their barbaric beliefs. The alternative is guns, soooo many guns. The alternative is turning our back on science. And so we will endeavour to fight back against this tyranny. We will probably lose. But of course the only causes worth fighting for are the lost ones.
Is there any hope that, as part of the Commonwealth, Canada might get support from the UK and other Commonwealth countries?
Yes! I left all that out because it’s long and complicated. But see this response: https://dgardner.substack.com/p/europe-gets-it-does-canada/comment/99880273?utm_source=activity_item
As above, Starmer and the Labour Party who, even if they had the balls for it, aren't about to take Britain to war against America when almost all British planes, tanks, submarines, missile systems and nuclear weapons are either American made or designed or controlled. Some of them are even still owned by America and 'on loan'!
Add that the British economy is SO tied into the American economy, in both directions, and just how many British companies are owned by American investors, and there is no way that Britain is going to take any action against America.
I looked into the Commonwealth a couple of months ago because I had the same question. My impression is it's more about trade than anything else. Good for becoming mutually independent from the US, but I'm not sure about military support 🤞🙏