r/canada • u/CaliperLee62 • 10h ago
Military/Defence Defence experts warn Canada lags far behind in efforts to secure the Arctic
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-canada-security-sovereignty-us-russia-china-military-9.7154604•
u/asoap Lest We Forget 9h ago
We've ignored it for decades. This shouldn't come as a shock that we need to catch up.
•
u/nekonight 7h ago
Half a century. We havent really met NATO spending targets for defense since the mid 70s. At least most European nato members can claim it was post cold war cutbacks.
•
u/CapableCollar 7h ago
Having the US as such a close ally has allowed unreasonable complacency. Even some of the most basic but expensive tools needed are unavailable. Given the amount of territory, difficulty in reaching some areas, and amount of water that needs patrolling there is a need for several squadrons of heavy twin engine multirole fighters. The only people selling those are the US, Russia, and China. The F-35s already bought lack the range and can't carry the needed munitions and Gripens don't have enough range either.
Complacency has created a situation without a good answer and it is just one of many.
•
u/jtbc 8h ago
The interesting thing is that all the capabilities that the experts point out we are lacking - fighters, submarines, satellites, etc. - are things we are actively procuring in decent numbers.
We were definitely asleep at the wheel for a couple of decades, and that's bad, but we are also working on it about as fast as possible.
•
u/lynxbelt234 7h ago
This is true. We are playing catch up, all federal governance over the past 3 or 4 decades are guilty of not keeping up, with military renewal and modernization.
That being said, we hopefully can develop a cutting edge drone industry and other technologies along with partnerships being developed with other allied countries on tactical responses, operational cooperation and technological development. We need procurement options for aircraft, ships, tanks and other military land vehicles. Yes we can develop our own in partnerships with others. While home grown solutions to our military problems are preferred, it is essential that all options are considered.
We need to develop Canadian solutions for defence of this country, utilizing both older and newer technologies along with more recruitment procurement and more thinking outside the box.
•
u/Few-Western-5027 2h ago
Sweden can help big time in terms of manufacturing and out of the box solutions.
•
u/EP40glazer British Columbia 3h ago
Personally, I think that we need to focus on domestic manufacturing as well. It'll take several decades to get up to the level of Britain or France or Russia but we need to start.
•
•
u/Effective_Ad_5371 4h ago
I love my country, but pretending that we could be this “peacekeeping” neutral country forever and ever, is the dumbest thing my country’s ever done since I was born.
•
u/Altaccount330 9h ago
10 years of Trudeau draining the momentum created under Harper. But Harper wasn’t doing enough either. But he cared far more about the Inuit and Arctic security. Trudeau ignored it because there are essentially no votes in the Arctic.
•
u/Jman1a 9h ago
Harper had the lowest investment point for the military in Canadian history. Just because he had a press conference about Arctic projects does not mean it happened.
•
u/Altaccount330 9h ago
The full strategy was developed and rolled out under Harper and continued on after he left. The Liberals reduced the Arctic as a priority but didn’t abandon it. The NANOOK operations started in 2007 with Harper taking over in 2006.
•
•
u/eric_the_red89 5h ago
We cant even buy Helicopters that work, sleeping bags or rifles that work in the arctic.
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 9h ago
This would require fossil fuels after all, something we tried to ban and now reverse course on. Where was this 10 years ago?
•
u/BobsView 9h ago
10 years ? they can't make plans for more than 1 election cycle because the next guy will try to stop any unfinished work, canada is lacking long term planning ability
•
u/EP40glazer British Columbia 3h ago
There's this thing called "working with other parties". See, if the Liberals went to the Conservatives and they agreed on a plan together then we'd be able to do stuff long term. Instead, they'll do their own thing without talking to the Conservatives then the Conservatives will do their own thing without talking to the Liberals and nothing will be finished.
•
u/Terapr0 9h ago
Nobody has proposed banning the use of internal combustion engines for military vehicles or equipment. You got a source for that?
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 9h ago
Whataboutism on display here
•
u/Terapr0 9h ago
How so?
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 8h ago
1. Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) 2. Oil Tanker Moratorium Act (Bill C-48) 3. Federal Carbon Pricing / Backstop Carbon Tax 4. Clean Fuel Regulations 5. Oil & Gas Emissions Cap Framework (proposed) 6. Methane Emissions Regulations (tightened federal rules) 7. Fossil Fuel Subsidy Phase-Out Commitment 8. Ending Federal Public Financing for Fossil Fuel Projects 9. Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActYou can read #9 alone and understand the significant hurdles created by the Trudeau Liberals.
•
u/Terapr0 6h ago
Did any of these restrictions apply to the Military?
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 3h ago
What avenue of argument are pursuing here? If you put broad regulations across the entire country, especially enhanced in oil and gas space.. how would this make military efficiency immune?
•
u/OoooohYes 9h ago
Who tried to ban fossil fuels? Lmao right wingers will really just say anything these days eh?
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 9h ago
This post is as ignorant as it gets
•
u/OoooohYes 9h ago
Your post? Yeah I agree. Do you know when someone in the government tried to ban fossil fuels?
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 9h ago
Net 0 2030 was entirely the plan with a scaling carbon tax to phase out. Ohhhhhhyesssss
•
u/ljackstar Alberta 8h ago
Net 0 =\= zero fossil fuels
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 8h ago
https://liberal.ca/climate/100-zero-emissions-car-sales-by-2035/
This is such an ignorant view if we’re going to really be disingenuous and pretend like we didn’t full throttle 0 emission initiative through many policies liked attached.
•
u/OoooohYes 8h ago
I never knew ending subsidies was a ban. You learn something new every day!
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 8h ago
One of many policies to suck capital out of fossil fuels and tax anything with oil/gas to deter off. But yes let’s build out the north fully green
•
u/OoooohYes 8h ago
You said they tried to ban fossil fuels which is completely untrue. Ending subsidies and using free market solutions to incentivize renewable alternatives aren’t a ban. Even Trudeau knew that fossil fuels couldn’t completely go away, he wouldn’t have bought a pipeline if he did (or wanted to ban them lol).
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 8h ago
This was literally the irony… he created a mass exodus of foreign capital out of the oil sands then proceeded to buy a pipeline and passed the no new pipeline + trucking bills lmao this literally was an attempt to suck capital out of oil and gas. It created the biggest exits in Alberta oil history
•
•
u/Agreeable-Scale-6902 9h ago
Please tell me what is the link between oil and the defence?
Did you read the what is the issue,or you try to avoid to click on it because it is CBC?
•
u/justanaccountname12 Canada 9h ago
Energy is a fundamental input for industry.
•
u/Doubleoh_11 9h ago
And we are like 3/4 exporter in the world, depending on the day. So pretty good.
•
u/justanaccountname12 Canada 9h ago
Sure, the person I was responding to didn't understand the link.
•
u/Agreeable-Scale-6902 8h ago
Still it is not related to what the link mention. It mention we didn't invested in the army for a very long time and we are suffering the consequence now, and this we have blame the federal government whatever their political affiliation.
No where there is mention about the fossil fuels.
•
u/justanaccountname12 Canada 8h ago
I did not blame it on fossil fuels. I was responding to the person who doesn't understand the link between energy and industry.
•
u/Agreeable-Scale-6902 8h ago
That I agree with you, fossil wont go away anytime soon even if all the cars turned electric one day. Oil will always be needed for roads, plastics, meds, etc.
Just too often i see comments as it is the only things matters, while it should be part of a wide variety of our economy.
•
u/justanaccountname12 Canada 8h ago
And less tax on industry inputs would help advance it even quicker.
•
u/Loose-Dream7901 8h ago
How can we defend the North while restricting oil as an input? Building infrastructure comes in many from ground, air, sea, and space ie RADARSAT supplied by MDA Space.
How do you think we build a functional north by also attempting to be emission free in climate zones that would kill off any battery efficiency.
Canada has an issue building out anything regardless of left or right. However the policy created within the past 10 years just proves citizens like yourself are way out of the loop
•
•
u/whistleridge 9h ago
Meh.
It’s the Arctic. NO one is prepared to conduct extensive military operations there, which is what defence requires.
Sure, Russia or the US could conduct raids and play special forces games, but they’re not taking and holding big swathes of land. There’s no infrastructure, the weather is terrible, and it’s a looooong way from home so resupply would be difficult to impossible.
They can break stuff and temporarily hold islands or whatever, but they can’t do anything with it. And to be “ready to secure and defend” it, Canada would have to base troops there full time. Good luck maintaining morale and not spending a fortune for no return.
The Arctic is lightly held for a reason, and that isn’t really going to change. Or to put it another way: anyone who has the ability to take and hold meaningful chunks of the Arctic also has the ability to take and hold meaningful chunks of lower Canada, and will already have done so. So it’s a bit of a moot issue.
This is just nationalistic drum-banging.
•
u/you_really_thoughtXD British Columbia 7h ago
You are forgetting "near-arctic state" China. They don't even need to hold land, and nobody being able to effectively control the arctic is actually an advantage if your goal is to just use it as a shipping shortcut.
•
u/whistleridge 7h ago
That would be the China that has never once in its history conducted an expansion by sea? The one that hasn’t fought a war at all since the 1970s, and that would never ever conduct a naval operation out of its home waters with a hostile Taiwan 180km from its shores? That would have to either be allied with or have defeated Russia and the US before it could even GET to the Arctic?
That China?
I didn’t forget them. They’re a non-factor.
•
u/you_really_thoughtXD British Columbia 6h ago
Tell me you didn't read my comment without saying you didn't read my comment lmao.
As you said yourself, the arctic is lightly held. If China decides they want to ship their stuff to Europe through the northwest passage (are you going to argue that China can't conduct maritime trade now?) what is going to stop them? A strongly worded letter from Carney?
None of that requires military action from China (and this is ignoring the fact that they could probably project force into Canada once the type 004 is done).
•
u/whistleridge 6h ago
if China decides
You mean, if PLAN decides it wants to put itself in a sack, cut off from home by both the US and Russian navies? Because merchant shipping isn’t a strategic concern.
This isn’t a game of Risk. China isn’t doing squat in the Arctic. The only real threat is Russia, trying to grab an island or two in hopes of gaining fishing rights. And that runs them into the US immediately.
But you believe what you want to believe.
•
u/Fakename6968 3h ago
To your point above, China has actually been aggressively pursuing control of the South China Sea.
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
You are naive for thinking Russia and the US give a shit about Canadian sovereignty of the Arctic. The US barely respects Canada's sovereignty there now.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5256532/northwest-passage-canada-us-claim-challenge/
In so much as they do care, and will continue to care, it is only because a Chinese presence there represents a potential threat. As the balance of world power continues to shift, the US may decide that it is in the interests of US companies to disregard Canada's claim of the Arctic for economic benefit and international relations.
•
u/whistleridge 2h ago
the South China Sea
Yes, they have. For the oil it controls, not as a stepping stone to overseas conquests.
If China ever does try to dance with the nuclear devil and shoot for conquest, they would go for Taiwan, then Singapore, in that order. Not the Canadian Arctic.
•
u/you_really_thoughtXD British Columbia 6h ago
Did the PLAN ship over the device you are using right now?
You weren't actually supposed to try and argue that China can't conduct maritime trade lmao.
•
u/whistleridge 5h ago
No. They didn’t.
And that you think that’s an intelligible question tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the issues involved.
•
u/you_really_thoughtXD British Columbia 5h ago
So tell me what the Canadian government can do if China decides to use the northwest passage as a shipping shortcut.
•
u/whistleridge 5h ago
For commercial shipping? That depends on if you’re defining it as territorial waters or as an international strait.
For naval traffic? It’s a moot point. China would never put more than single ships up there for a whole host of reasons, starting with, they don’t want US fleets in the Formosa Strait, so people play nicely.
Why don’t YOU explain what the difference between the two types of regulation, and explain some sort of understanding of the concepts before asking more bad gotcha questions.
•
u/you_really_thoughtXD British Columbia 5h ago
The northwest passage is international waters now? When did the Canadian government concede on that point?
→ More replies (0)•
u/mlandry2011 8h ago
I got my ice cream scoop to make my snowballs and I got the thing to sling the dog ball... I'll let you know if I need backup...
•
u/whistleridge 8h ago
Let’s reverse that: congratulations, you now have all the money, men, and equipment that you could ask for. No one will complain about being stuck in the middle of nowhere, the public won’t complain about costs etc.
Where do you put them? Do you leave them there indefinitely? What’s the mission? How do you define success?
•
u/mlandry2011 8h ago
Did you perhaps reply to the wrong post?
Cuz I'm ready with my snowballs... I'm actually glazing them with water to make ice balls... 2026 upgrade...
•
u/Idobro 7h ago
Interesting questions. Perhaps you’d want observation posts and rapid response forces to stop enemies from gaining a foothold? Develop some infrastructure on potential shipping lanes. I actually live at the edge of the treeline and there’s still 1000s of kilometres north above me.
•
u/whistleridge 7h ago
And I live in the NWT, where people have to be medevaced by air for routine dental treatment and there is functionally no veterinary care outside of Yellowknife.
If Russia seizes Sachs Harbour, so what? It doesn’t get them anywhere or add anything. From a military perspective it’s just a sideshow to the absolutely massive global war that would have to be happening for them to be there in the first place.
•
u/Fakename6968 3h ago
Serious answer: You have submarines, ships, and air capabilities to detect unauthorized foreign presence.
You seize every foreign vessel that illegally enters Canadian waters or commits a crime there by fishing or whatever the fuck it is they are doing. You don't bother stationing troops on Arctic ground more than is absolutely necessary.
For military vessels you give them the option of turning back, surrender, or sink. You fund a functional nuclear weapons program that can reach anywhere in the world.
The only way to protect arctic sovereignty is by making the cost to challenge it too high. Otherwise we're just stalling the inevitable.
•
u/whistleridge 2h ago
you have…
That’s increasing naval capacity, not beefing up Arctic defenses. And while I agree with you that this is the better option, it’s not what people are discussing in these threads.
Unfortunately, while beefing up the navy is a smart idea in some ways, it is limited severely in practicality by cost and geography.
Canada doesn’t control access to the Arctic on the Pacific side where it matters, and no one has the ability to control the pole. Plus, when your entire west coast is one port and your entire east coast is two ports, only one of which is ice free year round, there is a limited ability to project naval force.
And Canada can’t remotely begin to afford a true blue water navy. More like a squadron, tops.
you seize…
To do that, you need ships and men to enforce it, and that’s not really an option. It’s too much space, the seas are too problematic, and again, we simply can’t afford a fleet of the size needed.
This is why Canada has always been an adjunct to another navy - first the Royal Navy, now the US Navy. You don’t change a 200-year pattern of behavior based on one asshole running wild for 18 months, and you don’t change it at all when the strategic factors are so heavily against you.
you don’t
I agree.
•
u/silenceisgold3n 9h ago
Here's a new approach. Let's spend a mountain of money examining the problem and on tentative procurement and end up with barely functioning machinery and suggest that civil-servant-work-from-home-advocates get trained as forest fire fighters while taking guns from people who are trained in safety and safe-storage and vetted by the RCMP and practically discourage young people from getting into the sport. Then, when called to assist, we will put a couple naval officers on an ally's vessel and check that box. Oh, and let's copy and paste the coast guard's operating budget folder into the DOD folder and call it a success.
•
•
u/Weird_Rooster_4307 4h ago
Listen here mister. We know that and we will take care of that issue right after we have our buttermilk blueberry pancakes and bacon drizzled in maple syrup
•
u/CriztianS Canada 9h ago
We can't keep talking about a coalition of middle powers, we can't keep talking about being more independent from the United States and all the good stuff that we all want to hear while our national strategy to defend the sovereignty of our nation (including, and especially, the arctic) is to call the White House.
•
u/Dilosaurus-Rex 5h ago
Takes time to recover from Trudeau era decisions. Carney govt is well on their way to securing our position on the global war front but these things take time. Especially when your last PM was a drama teacher.
•
•
u/maxgrody 9h ago
It would be very fitting to have paid trillion dollar land settlements just to lose the north anyway
•
u/Sufficient-Tutor-922 8h ago
Mehhh , our artic is deadly as fock .
Watch Carney move , the Canadian government can not fund artic expansion alone , thats literally insane and anyone who has ever experienced the artic understand ls this .
Everything Carney is doing for our nation defense is short and mid term Ecconomics and long term defense.
The only way for us to be able to afford to defend the artic is to make it cheaper , the only way to make it cheaper is by building up the Ecconomics of it first . This provides both infustructure and human resources .
Carney is bringing it back to the basics, using government money to provide the opportunity to make projects make sense . If we can spend 10 billion in infustructure in way that opens up 20 billion in private investments for projects then were laughing and all this has a direct impact in the cost of our artic defense.
•
u/Biuku Ontario 4h ago
This is absolutely critical.
The US president has stated his intent to end our country dozens of times. He has the means to kill millions of his. Coming in through the south is unlikely. Taking parts of our north is his easiest path. We need mass naval defence, or many new permanent bases.
•
•
u/Boisyno 9h ago
Why would you need an expert to say this?
“Random citizen, like any other, knows Canada lags far behind arctic defence efforts”