North American Relations

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's NORAD?

No need to post anymore concerning this - I rest my case.

NORAD is a joint effort between America and Canada which has been in place for 50 years. If you have seen the movie War Games then you know about NORAD - it's located in the Cheyenne Mountains. America of course bears the brunt of the spending on NORAD just like we pay for 70% of NATO. Everyone else just gets a free ride on US tax payers money.

[jerseydevil]

first post at top of page problem

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Actually - one problem - supposedly you're government said that it doesn't want us doing anything without their permission if a war head is coming toward you. So basically good bye Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal.

As for not foreseeing this in the near future - it's not for the NEAR future - it's to be prepapred - just like NORAD was for preperation.

Okay, the future then. I don't forsee this in the near, middle, or long-term future.

What's NORAD?

If our government did say that, maybe they have some other plan. Perhaps we have our own early detection system or something. However, I still don't think anyone will launch a nuke at us anyway.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You do tell us how and where and what we do wrong with our military al the time. So yes you do armchair quaterback.

As I said, disagreeing about Iraq wasn't armchair quarterbacking. Maybe we don't agree on the definition. This is how I see it...

(Guy shouting at TV while watching football)
Guy: Pass! Come on make a pass! Aw, no, not that play, do Red 22, it worked in the game against the Steelers!

(and its application to this situation)
Gen. Rick Hillier: Hello General.
Gen. John Abizaid: What are you doing in Iraq?
Hillier: Well, I noticed how you deployed your troops in the last skirmish, and I thought I'd come give you some advice. (He takes out a map.)
Abizaid: Well, we did take some losses, but we kept them to a minimum. Further, given the cities layout... hey, where's your security clearance?

See, we don't do that. That's my point. I don't see how else the term "armchair quarterbacking" would apply, really.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The reason you don't need a large military is because we provide your defense - that is the sole reason. There was something on CNN yesterday about how the free ride should be over and I agree.

I still think it's more how I said - that we don't, and are not, the subject of invasion or attack, either now or in the future. (I apologize for the syntax butchery there, but I couldn't think of another way to phrase that.)

Or was there an invading army you recently repelled and didn't tell us about?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It's difficult to put a price on the protection the uS gives you - because you just take it for granted. The US isn't going to let a nuclear warhead hit one of your cities - because the radioactive fallout would have drastic concequences in the US.

This is a good point. Sometimes in operation for your own interests (avoiding the nuclear fallout on say, Seattle) benefits us as well. If you want to shoot down a nuke heading towards Vancouver with an anti-missile system you built (if our government says okay, if they said that) then that's your affair. In the meantime I suppose we'll operate like every other country not in possession of an advanced anti-nuke system. I'm sure that applies to a lot of people.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, JD, you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose and you can pick the free ride! Remember, it was the inability of the British Empire remnants to fund and develop nuclear warheads in WWII that led to the transfer of TUBE ALLOYS to US development. So, it's not the first nor will it be the last free ride Canada takes!

I cross posted with you and Inked. I'll just unbury Inked's post for the moment. I am so very confused.


As for NORAD et al. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you join.

EDIT: How do you get NORAD out of "North American Aerospace Defense Command"?

And just because I didn't know about doesn't mean our government or other Canadians didn't. I represent Canada well, but not 100%.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If our government did say that, maybe they have some other plan. Perhaps we have our own early detection system or something. However, I still don't think anyone will launch a nuke at us anyway.

See that's the problem - no one in the world thinks it will happen, they just expect the US to be there for them when it does. Did anyone think that 9/11 was going to happen? Did you foresee two planes hitting the twin towers and them being wiped from the face of the earth within two hours?

As I said, disagreeing about Iraq wasn't armchair quarterbacking. Maybe we don't agree on the definition. This is how I see it...

(Guy shouting at TV while watching football)
Guy: Pass! Come on make a pass! Aw, no, not that play, do Red 22, it worked in the game against the Steelers!

(and its application to this situation)
Gen. Rick Hillier: Hello General.
Gen. : What are you doing in Iraq?
Hillier: Well, I noticed how you deployed your troops in the last skirmish, and I thought I'd come give you some advice. (He takes out a map.)
Gen. : Well, we did take some losses, but we kept them to a minimum. Further, given the cities layout... hey wait, how did you get security clearance?

See, we don't do that. That's my point. I don't see how else the term "armchair quarterbacking" would apply, really.

Where did I ever mention Iraq here? You keep mentioning Iraq and I never said Iraq.

I still think it's more how I said - that we don't, and are not, the subject of invasion or attack, either now or in the future. (I apologize for the syntax butchery there, but I couldn't think of another way to phrase that.)

Or was there an invading army you recently repelled and didn't tell us about?

Well then I guess there is no need for us to defend you then.

This is a good point. Sometimes in operation for your own interests (avoiding the nuclear fallout on say, Seattle) benefits us as well. If you want to shoot down a nuke heading towards Vancouver with an anti-missile system you built (if our government says okay, if they said that) then that's your affair. In the meantime I suppose we'll operate like every other country not in possession of an advanced anti-nuke system. I'm sure that applies to a lot of people.

You wouldn't take that fliggant attitude if we were able to shoot down a North Korean nuke that was off course heading for Vancouver though. YOu know how many near accidents there were with Russia? Now you have all these other less "reliable" countries - basically terrorist countries, who wnat think twice about using their nukes. How save do you think Canada would really be in that scenario. It's a problem with the rest of the world - they don't want to look at anything until the problem is so large that it's almost impossible to deal with.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I cross posted with you and Inked. I'll just unbury Inked's post for the moment. I am so very confused.

As for NORAD et al. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you join.

What do you mean "made us join"? Did you bother reading what NORAD - because by your statement - you don't know what it is at all. It's not some club you join like NATO.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

EDIT: How do you get NORAD out of "North American Aerospace Defense Command"?

Easy - NORth American Defense

As for not knowing it - it's just the largest defense system in the world basically.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

See that's the problem - no one in the world thinks it will happen, they just expect the US to be there for them when it does. Did anyone think that 9/11 was going to happen? Did you foresee two planes hitting the twin towers and them being wiped from the face of the earth within two hours?

I don't think we're going to be attacked, but I don't expect you to necessarily do anything if we are.

Of course we didn't forsee 9/11, but technically Canada wasn't attacked either. (We were horrified at 9/11 though. )

(I apologize for the apparent calousness of the above paragraph. )

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Where did I ever mention Iraq here? You keep mentioning Iraq and I never said Iraq.

You didn't say Iraq, I was just using it as an example.

Can provide an example of Canadian armchair quarterbacking?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well then I guess there is no need for us to defend you then.

That's my opinion anyway.

This isn't to say I don't want us to be friends and allies, I'm just saying you're not responsible for our security.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You wouldn't take that fliggant attitude if we were able to shoot down a North Korean nuke that was off course heading for Vancouver though. YOu know how many near accidents there were with Russia? Now you have all these other less "reliable" countries - basically terrorist countries, who wnat think twice about using their nukes. How save do you think Canada would really be in that scenario. It's a problem with the rest of the world - they don't want to look at anything until the problem is so large that it's almost impossible to deal with.

No, I wouldn't have that attitude. Though I hardly think it's flippant (that's the word you were looking for there I think ). After giving careful thought to the state of the world, I rationally decided that the chance of someone launching a nuke at us, either on purpose or by mistake, is very small. Too small to warrant the expense of Star Wars.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

What do you mean "made us join"? Did you bother reading what NORAD - because by your statement - you don't know what it is at all. It's not some club you join like NATO.

I meant we didn't make you be in the program, described here (from the website):
"The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a binational military organization formally established in 1958 by Canada and the United States to monitor and defend North American airspace."
You can "join" a binational military organization. Sorry about the confusing wordage.

Speaking of confusing, I have cross-posted with you again. I'll let you finish the response to my previous post you are most likely typing right now before I go on.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think we're going to be attacked, but I don't expect you to necessarily do anything if we are.

Of course we didn't forsee 9/11, but technically Canada wasn't attacked either. (We were horrified at 9/11 though. )

(I apologize for the apparent calousness of the above paragraph. )

So what if you weren't attacked. Are you really saying that you are not aware of Toronto being on the radar screen of an attack? You have got to be joking here.

lert's make a announcement to the world now - no one has to worry about anything happening to them because they were not attacked on 9/11 - thereofre they have nothing whatsoever to worry about. Rogue nukes - who the hell cares - doesn't affect any other country but the US. Now I see why the rest of the world is so far behind the US. You have made it perfectly clear. So good to know we're in this together.

You didn't say Iraq, I was just using it as an example.

Can provide an example of Canadian armchair quarterbacking?

Whenever we use our military we don't anything right. If we bomb the wrong building or if their is a friendly fire accident there is all this quarterbacking. Well I don't see you providing or any country providing 90% of the worlds defense like the US does. So of course there will be more accidents from American troops than from other nations.

That's my opinion anyway.

This isn't to say I don't want us to be friends and allies, I'm just saying you're not responsible for our security.

My point exactly - we shouldn't be responsible for your defense. So now can you stop relying on us like you do? That is the problem and that is Europes problem. YOu have these so called great social programs for your citizens - because you can just sit back and rely on the good ole US of A to protect you.

No, I wouldn't have that attitude. Though I hardly think it's flippant (that's the word you were looking for there I think ). After giving careful thought to the state of the world, I rationally decided that the chance of someone launching a nuke at us, either on purpose or by mistake, is very small. Too small to warrant the expense of Star Wars.

Too bad we're not even talking about "Star Wars" here. You have just shown that you have very little knowledge of the whole thing because Star Wars is only one part of it and right now is a very minor FUTURE component.

Also - I suppose since you "rationally decided" that means that all others who support a missile defense system are being irrational - is that it?
Based on your statements though - you haven't seriously educated yourseklf on it - because you wouldn't have made such erroneous statements as to what the missile defense system entails.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I meant we didn't make you be in the program, described here (from the website):
"The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a binational military organization formally established in 1958 by Canada and the United States to monitor and defend North American airspace."
You can "join" a binational military organization. Sorry about the confusing wordage.

It wasn't a issue of joining - it was an issue of building. Canada at one time saw possible threats. Now it seems like as with the rest of the world - they want to put their head in the ground and hope nothing happens. or they just expect the US to be there to bail themout of anything.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Easy - NORth American Defense

As for not knowing it - it's just the largest defense system in the world basically.

Oh. I was thinking N.A.A.D.C. 5-letter acronym, five words... heh

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It wasn't a issue of joining - it was an issue of building. Canada at one time saw possible threats. Now it seems like as with the rest of the world - they want to put their head in the ground and hope nothing happens. or they just expect the US to be there to bail themout of anything.

Join in... building... aaa the wordage. Anyway, a little more browsing of the site and I'm sure we'll be on the same page.

(Well maybe not quite, I don't really know anything about the military. Want to talk about trees? )

I feel like I missed one of your posts...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Join in... building... aaa the wordage. Anyway, a little more browsing of the site and I'm sure we'll be on the same page.

There is a difference between joining something and building something. one is just a bunch of paper pushers throwing more Carbon Dioxide into the air and never doing anything (sort of like the UN) and the other is actually building a physical entity. NORAD is a common defense system for the US and Canada - which is used an early warning system in case there is nuclear bomb launced at us - or there is enemy aircraft. The missile defense system could actually be considered the next phase of NORADs because right now - who the hell cares that NORAD can detect a nuclear missile coming in from North Korea. There isn't much we can do once that happens - except launch our missiles back at them. We of course have a lot more than they most likely ever will - so we can just completely destroy their entire country. The missile defense system would hopefully enable us from not having to do that - if we can just shoot down their missiles before they hit us. Then we can take a more conventional response. So which would you rather have? Us being able to knock the missiles out of the sky before they land and us responding with conventional weapons or them hitting us and America launcing a full scale nuclear attack against North Korea or Iran or however else had the nerve to attack one of our cities?

(Well maybe not quite, I don't really know anything about the military. Want to talk about trees? )

Well the trees won't be around in certain parts of the world if a Nuclear attack is launched on the US. I would say it's in Canada's best interest for us to build this too - but it seems like they're a little near sighted like the rest of the world. Let's not do anything until the snarling rabid pack of dogs is at our throat - right?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well the trees won't be around in certain parts of the world if a Nuclear attack is launched on the US. I would say it's in Canada's best interest for us to build this too - but it seems like they're a little near sighted like the rest of the world. Let's not do anything until the snarling rabid pack of dogs is at our throat - right?

We don't have our heads in the sand, we just have a different view than the USA.
(EDIT: You didn't actually say "heads in the sand" here, but that's the tone I got from your post. We know there is a rabid dog, and on the off chance it turns up it turns up in our neighbourhood, we'll either climb a tree or pay you $500 million US to shoot it for us. )

The United States devotes a great deal of resources to its military. I don't blame you for wanting to do that, it's your country and your budget. However, it is also our country and our budget. We don't want to take part in this arms race. Of course we take the risk of having a nuke sent our direction, but we feel the risk is small, and the cost of joining outweighs this risk.

If I owned my own house, I would put deadbolt locks on the doors. But a burglar could still smash a window and break in. However, I'm still not going to put bars on the windows.

That's not completely analogous, but my point is you can't protect yourself 100%. At some point you just have to accept the risk.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The United States devotes a great deal of resources to its military. I don't blame you for wanting to do that, it's your country and your budget. However, it is also our country and our budget. We don't want to take part in this arms race. Of course we take the risk of having a nuke sent our direction, but we feel the risk is small, and the cost of joining outweighs this risk.

If I owned my own house, I would put deadbolt locks on the doors. But a burglar could still smash a window and break in. However, I'm still not going to put bars on the winows.

YOu mean you pay no taxes for police protection? I'd hate to live where you are with no police protection and just being able to rely on a deadbolt. And what arms race are you talking about here? See that's how the media in your country is portraying it - I'd like to know what arms race though.

That's not completely analogous, but my point is you can't protect yourself 100%. At some point you just have to accept the risk.

Of course you can't protect yourself 100% - and anyway - you don't protect yourself at all. You rely on us to do it for you. That's what's starting to piss off many Americans. Europe relies on us, you rely on us. And actually - you are the worst offender in relying on us to hold your hand and protect you from things. Do you SERIOUSLY think that you have a strong enough military to protect canada if something happened? I don't and evidence shows that you don't.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

YOu mean you pay no taxes for police protection? I'd hate to live where you are with no police protection and just being able to rely on a deadbolt. And what arms race are you talking about here? See that's how the media in your country is portraying it - I'd like to know what arms race though.

There are also police. I don't think the missile defence program is comparable to police though. As I said it's not completely analagous.

Well I haven't seen any Canadian news in ages, and it's not a hot story a CBC.com.

It is like an arms race. The terrorists have nukes, you build a nuclear defence system. They know you build the defence system, so they trade their nukes for a biological weapon. You learn about that and build a defence.....

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Of course you can't protect yourself 100% - and anyway - you don't protect yourself at all. You rely on us to do it for you. That's what's starting to piss off many Americans. Europe relies on us, you rely on us. And actually - you are the worst offender in relying on us to hold your hand and protect you from things. Do you SERIOUSLY think that you have a strong enough military to protect canada if something happened? I don't and evidence shows that you don't.

If it's pissing Americans off that much, why do you still do it? There must be some benefit in it for you as well.

A lot of countries have small armies. If England, you guys, or another big country invaded us, we'd be in serious trouble. (Are you still taking $500 mill. US cheques to bail us out? ) But why would they invade us?

Do you currently protect us in the sense that if someone invaded, you'd help us repel them?

If you weren't doing that, maybe we would build up our army. But I doubt that we would elevate our military spending to the same proportion of the GNP as the USA. I was trying to figure out exactly what it was but I couldn't find a good source. I'm sure at the moment ours is proportionally lower though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

There are also police. I don't think the missile defence program is comparable to police though. As I said it's not completely analagous.

Well I haven't seen any Canadian news in ages, and it's not a hot story a CBC.com.

It is like an arms race. The terrorists have nukes, you build a nuclear defence system. They know you build the defence system, so they trade their nukes for a biological weapon. You learn about that and build a defence.....

That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. The terrorists dont' care about a damn arms race - they'll use whatever they can get their hands on. And as for the terrorists being around - where are they going to get the launch pads and rockets?

If it's pissing Americans off that much, why do you still do it? There must be some benefit in it for you as well.

There was some benefit in the past, but mostly it waa because past presidents just let other countries get away with just relying on us all the time - but Bush has basically told Paul Martin the free ride is over. That's why he's increased military spending.

Defence spending frozen as Martin studies foreign policy
CanWest News Service
Friday, December 12, 2003

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin may be planning an ambitious study of Canada's role in the world, but he admitted Friday that does not include boosting defence spending anytime soon - a decision that will undercut his attempts to mend fences with the United States.

"Yes, I do believe eventually there will be increases in spending in defence. But they're only going to be taken when we're absolutely convinced this is the right way to go," Martin said.

Martin has made a priority out of mending relations with the U.S., but his decision to study first, spend later on defence may not resonate well in Washington, where the Bush administration has repeatedly called for Canada to increase military spending.

Martin's new cabinet appointees included a new defence minister, Ottawa MP David Pratt, while he retained Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, one of the few survivors from Jean Chretien's cabinet.

Graham will lead an ambitious study of Canada's foreign policy, including its aid programs, military and trade to recapture "Canadians' sense of international purpose," said Martin.

But the new foreign policy study would not be complete until sometime next fall, presumably after the next federal election.

That article is from Dec 2003, you will notice how it says that the lack of military spending on the Candadian side and the fact that you don't pull your own weight - is one of the rifts between US and Canada.

[jerseydevil]

Here is an article from September 2003...

Canadians support military spending: poll 58% in favour
Michael Friscolanti
National Post
September 6, 2003

A majority of Canadians say it is time to rebuild the country's decaying military, according to a new poll that also shows increasing support for scrapping Canada's multilateral approach to foreign affairs in favour of stronger ties with the United States.

The Navigator Ltd. poll, conducted for the National Post and Global National, also shows nearly 46% of Canadians believe the Chrétien government's refusal to participate in the U.S.-led war in Iraq has threatened Canada's future influence over world affairs.

The poll was co-sponsored by the Dominion Institute and the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

More than half of the people questioned -- 58% -- said the only way to repair our international standing is to completely refurbish the Armed Forces, which have suffered severe cuts over the past decade.

"The assumption is that spending on military matters is deeply unpopular," said Wesley Wark, a professor of international politics at the University of Toronto. "I think that's an ingrained wisdom in Ottawa. This poll suggests that it's a bit of a fiction that they have invented themselves."

Only 22% of respondents said Canada should ignore the state of Canada's military and depend on the United States for protection.

"People can certainly vote for no defence and let the Americans do it," said Douglas Bland, chair of the Defence Management Studies program at Queen's University.

"But they ought to live with the consequences and I sure don't want to hear Maude Barlow or anybody else talk to me about American intrusion on our sovereignty when we don't do anything to protect our sovereignty."

In February's federal budget, Canada's cash-strapped military was promised up to $2.2-billion in new funding over the next two years. When asked where extra defence spending should be allocated, 49.6% of the respondents said international peacekeeping, 21.7% said defending the Canada-U.S. border, and 20.2% said fighting terrorism.

Observers said they were not surprised many Canadians still consider peacekeeping a high priority, largely because so many people have come to consider it the country's defining characteristic.

However, experts said the growing push toward tighter borders and anti-terrorism efforts marks a drastic shift away from Canada's traditionally soft, multilateral stance on foreign affairs.

For example, when asked whether Canada should be a consensus-builder within the United Nations or promote its own interests by standing behind its traditional allies, 47% chose the former and 45% the latter.

"You could say public opinion is divided here and the status quo is continuing, but it is quite the contrary," said Rudyard Griffiths, executive-director of the Dominion Institute. "I think there was a status quo that was much more powerful before Sept. 11 of a foreign policy based on values and not on self-interest. It was considered unfashionable to have those opinions about supporting one's traditional allies and spending more on defence. But the public barometer is swinging. Canadians are a lot more realistic or conservative in their vision of the country and its role in the world than we have traditionally been told we are."

That 58% of Canadians favour a revamped military comes as little surprise to defence analysts, who say the average citizen has become much more aware of the crucial relationship between armed forces and foreign policy.

"Sometimes people think of international problems as though they were social problems that can be sorted out by getting a bunch of people together and having a chat," said Prof. Bland, a retired lieutenant-colonel. "But they're not. Many of them need the force of arms to change situations."

What did surprise some observers is that many people in Quebec continue to oppose a rebuilt military. Only 41.1% of Quebecers said the state of the Armed Forces should be improved, with 32.4% saying "the Americans will be there to defend Canada so we don't need to spend a lot."

"After the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the war against terrorism, there still seems to be more of a reluctance in Quebec to come to grips with the importance of Canada playing a role in international relations," said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. "There is still this belief that we can't or should not act unless we act in concert with everyone else in the world at one time."

While the results of the poll illustrate Canada's overall desire for a stronger military -- outside of Quebec, 63.8% of people are in favour of military investment -- it also shows Canadians are still split over the federal government's decision to stay out of Iraq.

The debate continued yesterday, when Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said Canada has no plans to aid the U.S.-led coalition by sending troops to help patrol the war-torn country.

Of the 1,016 respondents polled between Aug. 18 and Aug. 26, 17.6% said Canada's decision not to help topple Saddam Hussein has translated into much less influence over international affairs. Another 28.3% said it has resulted in somewhat less influence. However, nearly as many -- 30.2% -- said staying out of Iraq has given Canada somewhat greater influence, with another 11.2% saying it has meant much greater influence over world affairs.

"That sense of division and confusion is absolutely appropriate," Prof. Wark said. "Those figures reflect a reality, which is that Canada has been thrust into a complex and changed world and we're a bit adrift."

Other findings in the poll include:

- Only 31.7% of Canadians have travelled to the United States over the past 12 months, just a tad higher than the number of people -- 31.5% -- who have travelled outside of both Canada and the United States over the past three years.

- 48.7% of respondents said foreign aid is often wasted or misused by foreign governments and Canada is better off using its money to fix its domestic problems.

- 41.7% of Canadians feel Canada should not aid or trade with countries that do not adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights.

The poll is considered accurate to within three percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

THE RESULTS:

49.6% believe with the limited amount of tax money to spend on Canada's military, the emphasis should be on international peacekeeping. 21.7% think the emphasis should be on defence of our borders.

58.1% believe strong and independent countries have effective militaries and that Canada should re-build its Armed Forces.

22.8% believe the Americans will be there to defend Canada so we don't have to spend a lot and we should just keep doing what we are doing.

15.2% believe there are just too many important things to spend money on and we should dramatically scale back the Armed Forces.

17.6% believe Canada's position on the recent war in Iraq has translated into much less influence for Canada in world affairs. 11.2% believe it has translated into much greater influence for Canada in world affairs.

Part one of a five-part series.; The documentary Foreign Fields airs on Global on Wednesday at 10 p.m. EDT.

[jerseydevil]

Here is one about the increase in your funding that FINALLY went through...

Military gets $12.8b boost
Extra cash good, says analyst, but he wishes for more upfront
Thursday, February 24, 2005
The Halifax Herald Limited
By The Canadian Press and AMY SMITH Provincial Reporter

Ottawa promised $12.8 billion in defence spending over five years Wednesday, much of it aimed at badly needed troop helicopters, Arctic aircraft and a new home for Canada's special forces.

But with the military cancelling programs, docking ships and grounding aircraft, this year's one-time increase is only $500 million, with another $600 million coming next year on a base budget of $13.5 billion.

That's far less than the $1.5-billion flat budget increase called for by lobby groups and some senators and members of Parliament.

Alex Morrison, a political science professor at Dalhousie University, said he was pleased to see the federal government has recognized Canada's military has been underfunded for years.

Mr. Morrison said he was particularly happy to see $3 billion for 5,000 more full-time soldiers and 3,000 reservists, as well as the money for equipment.

"People around the world will be pleased the number of Canadian (military personnel) is increased," he said. "Our men and women are very, very good. There just hasn't been enough of them."

He said increased military spending is good for all sectors - army, navy and air force.

Mr. Morrison said he hopes a significant number of the new personnel will be from the Maritimes, particularly Nova Scotia.

"People down here recognize the value of service to country."

The increase in military spending should also provide a boost to a number of local firms who supply goods and services to the Defence Department.

"I can't remember the last time the government increased the defence budget by so much or made such long-reaching, detailed promises," Mr. Morrison said.

"The military is going to have more people, it's going to have better equipment and it's going to be able to fly the Canadian flag in more places, contributing to international peace, security and stability."

He said he wished the spending in Wednesday's budget was more upfront, rather than having the bulk of the spending down the road.

"Who knows what the world would be like in 2012?"

Dave McGrath, spokesman for the Halifax Military Family Resource Centre, said the $12.8 billion in spending is welcome news.

"We're very happy and appreciative that Canadians and the elected officials have recognized that the Canadian Forces require these additional resources," he said.

The government did promise major new expenditures as its long-anticipated defence policy statement kicks in, with total military spending rising to about $20 billion a year by 2009-10 - if Paul Martin's government lasts that long.

"In an increasingly uncertain world, Canadians know that we must play our part and shoulder our share," Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said.

"Our responsibility is to make sure that . . . capabilities match the new demands of a new era. The shape of what that role should be is evolving."

There is no mention of big-ticket items like warships or transport aircraft to replace the aging C-130 Hercules, but there are promises to allocate funds "as needed" to coincide with priorities set by the policy statement.

The military budget had already factored in this year's nine per cent raises for the enlisted corps as well as the costs of new joint supply ships, maritime helicopters and mobile gun systems.

The costs of modernizing Aurora patrol aircraft and CF-18 fighter-bombers were also factored into the base budget.

A lot of countries have small armies. If England, you guys, or another big country invaded us, we'd be in serious trouble. (Are you still taking $500 mill. US cheques to bail us out? ) But why would they invade us?

I actually dont' know why britain or we would invade you. Last time I checked though - we weren't the problem countries. it's funny how you dont' look at the threat of North Korea and others though - not that they would necessarily "invade you" or even us - with boots on the ground - but it's not at all unlikely they would lob a nuclear missile at you or us.

Do you currently protect us in the sense that if someone invaded, you'd help us repel them?

We currently do - but we think you should carry your fair share of the burden. Finally Canada has recognized this and that's why military spending was basically just doubled this year under Martin. With this increase - according to GlobalSecutiry.org this increase will put you just behind Brazil

If you weren't doing that, maybe we would build up our army. But I doubt that we would elevate our military spending to the same proportion of the GNP as the USA. I was trying to figure out exactly what it was but I couldn't find a good source. I'm sure at the moment ours is proportionally lower though.

Then you wouldn't know how much we spend per GNP or what Canada is likely to move it to? We're not asking you to spend the same percentage as us - we're asking you to do your fair share though and stop relying on us to hold your hand. The US military is ours - we can do with it as we wish. Bush is always described as a war monger. Maybe we should just invade canada and be done with it. We probably still have the plans from 100 years ago we can dust off.

[IronParrot]

Jersey, what the statistics aren't telling you is that Canada is a deeply and regionally divided country. Right now, a lot of the grandstanding by the Liberal government is part of a precarious compromise they are striking to stay in power given that they are an unstable minority in Parliament. Military spending issues in Canada - either for or against - are largely the result of power games more than an actual representation of what the people think, because the thing about Canada is that you can't actually put your finger on what the people think, 58% or otherwise.

Now, for my part, I think it's a shame that Canada has completely left its military in the cold since the Second World War under the false pretense that "not having a real military" lends itself to more effective peacekeeping. I don't think this necessitates a full involvement in such initiatives as ballistic missile defence, but for different reasons - mostly pragmatic ones, and not the philosophical hokum about ceding sovereignty to America (which I don't think is really the case).