Big-ticket military purchases and advanced weapon systems get much of the attention. But once those initial purchases are made, what we need is the ability to churn out massive quantities of weapons at a rapid pace. This requires a mindset shift.
For decades, Canadians have lived with the expectation that our safety as a nation was assured and that any conflict would be a conflict of choice. We could choose to intervene in the Middle East or not. We could choose to take part in peacekeeping operations or not. If things started to get rough, we could always leave. And whatever happened, we could count on the United States defending us in the case of a truly global conflict.
Alongside that sense of confidence was a sense of superiority over potential foes. If we chose to fight at all, we would be fighting with a massive qualitative advantage. A few modern tanks and fighter jets would be enough to defeat any of the impoverished and technologically backward terror groups we could find ourselves going up against.
In turn, this led to the expectation that war could be relatively clean and easy. There was nothing we couldn’t solve with a few big-ticket purchases (not that Canada made those purchases, of course).
No need for mass production?
Over time, this mindset became entrenched. Our military capabilities eroded, our domestic production collapsed, and we became almost wholly dependent on foreign countries for what little equipment we did purchase. We felt there was no need for mass production of military equipment because a brutal attritional war against a peer adversary seemed unthinkable.
Well, it’s long past time to think about it.
Fearsome foes
China is currently undergoing the largest military buildup on Earth since the Second World War. North Korea produces more artillery shells than Canada and Europe combined. Russia is cannibalizing its economy and converting it into a machine for endless war. Mass production of drones means any country with a decent industrial and technological base can churn out weapons that guarantee any opponent will face immense casualties on the frontline.
In this environment, the idea of a quick and clean technological victory for Canada and our allies is frankly absurd. If we are plunged into a conflict, we will need to return to a mass production mindset, the kind of mindset we had during the First and Second World Wars.
Further, we cannot assume the United States will remain a fully reliable ally. They may remain so, but it would be foolish to put all our eggs in that basket.
Reshaping the economy to mass-produce weapons
While Canada has significant economic challenges, our per capita GDP remains quite high. This gives us an advantage over countries like Russia and North Korea, in that a large-scale shift to military production is more affordable. Since there is more overall productivity in Canada than in most nations, we need a smaller share of that productivity to be focused on the military to achieve the same production expansion as a poorer nation.
However, that advantage – while notable – is somewhat mitigated by the aforementioned levelling effects of drone production. But this is where technology comes in. As a technologically advanced nation, Canada can afford mass production of increasingly advanced military equipment if we put our efforts in that direction.
Mindset shift
The key challenge we face, however, is getting our country into the right mindset. Few people want to think about mass-producing weapons and preparing for a potentially drawn-out attritional war across large swathes of the globe. But avoiding the possibility doesn’t make it go away; all it does is raise the probability that we enter such a conflict from a position of unpreparedness and desperation.
Canada’s current military vulnerability isn’t a problem of resources or technology. Ukraine, with a similar population and a much lower per capita GDP, has held off Russia. Israel, with a population of roughly 10 million people, maintains a military advantage over much larger countries. France, with a GDP only about 1/3rd larger than Canada’s, maintains an independent nuclear deterrent, strong expeditionary forces, and domestic production of tanks and fighter jets.
What those countries have that Canada has lacked is the will and commitment to adapt to a more dangerous world. Ukraine is fighting for its survival, so it must adapt as fast as possible. Israel is constantly under threat, and so must always be prepared for war. France refuses to be dependent on the U.S. for security, thereby ensuring robust and independent domestic production and military capabilities.
We can learn lessons from all of those nations. And the first lesson is that if we truly believe Canada is worth protecting, we must retool our economy so that we can mass-produce weapons here at home. We need to be churning out air, naval, and land drones, artillery shells, small arms, armour, ground vehicles, and more. After making a few necessary large-scale purchases (submarines & fighter jets), our focus should be on directing new defence spending towards domestic firms that are committed to scaling up production to wartime levels.
Our responsibility as Canadian citizens
While it’s easy to blame our leaders for letting our military erode and failing to level with Canadians about the increasingly dangerous world we face, the reality is that many Canadians have preferred to hope for the best and prepare for the best, rather than prepare for the worst. There was little public outcry for more military spending, and even now, there are many who will likely oppose the budget deficits necessary to fund a larger Canadian Armed Forces.
And so, we have a responsibility as Canadian citizens to support leaders who take important steps towards rearmament, and to create political pressure for mass production of military equipment here at home. The kind of shift towards a more serious and well-defended Canada that is necessary right now will only happen if a critical mass of Canadians demand it, push for it, and strive to make it a reality.
Spencer Fernando
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.