- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
It looks like the new target is 5%
More like 3% and another 2% is for infrastructure. You only need to pretend that that infrastructure is really badly needed for defense, which is rather easy for a lot of it. Like say those are not metro stations, they are bunkers…
Metro stations are defense infrastructure even if they aren’t bunkers. Public transit directly achieves Baseline Resilience Requirements 2 & 7. It indirectly achieves others.
NATO’S 7 baseline resilience requirements: https://www.cimic-coe.org/handbook-entries/welcome-to-the-cimic-handbook/vii-resilience/7-2-seven-baseline-requirements/
A lot of countries have used Subways as bomb shelters I know.
They sure do, I’m just trying to demonstrate that public transit infrastructure still matters. Even if it’s an above ground system.
We need a lot more of it. Interstate/interprovince freight and passenger rail, publicly owned. It would pay for itself.
Infrastructure = logistics = defense. Plenty of roads that need building in the north if we wanna be able to maintain a solid presence.
Northern roads are a tricky thing. Permafrost contains a lot of frost.
They’ll probably have to be gravel and maintained regularly.
The expansion of the port of Churchill and land transport links to it could even be considered part of that millitary logistics pipeline (as well as increasing our export capacity).
At one point we had a rocket launching facility there as well
Some modern subway stations in North America are so ridiculously deep, perhaps we could call them bomb shelters…
Ukraine has been using subway stations as bunkers for the entire war.
Goal achieved from a bit of smoke and mirrors:
“The benchmark was partly achieved by an internal reorganization of the federal government, which has seen some agencies, such as the Canadian Coast Guard, moved under the auspices of the Defence Department and therefore counted toward the NATO target. It was also achieved through a substantial pay raise for members of the military and by pouring money into base infrastructure and overhaul.”
I mean to be fair, other countries, including the US, consider their coast guards to be part of their militaries. This doesn’t seem deceptive to me. As for money spent on bases and pay raises, that seems like it should count.
It was also achieved through a substantial pay raise for members of the military and by pouring money into base infrastructure and overhaul."
None of those are bad things (many are long overdue), and they are also largely spending within the Canadian economy, so that is a benefit as well.
I agree with your statement, but at the same time it also doesn’t increase our military capabilities.
Competitive pay can definately help with retention and recruitment.
It is apparently already having an affect on recruiting and hiring.
My boy’s wicked smaht
