It has been marked by an extraordinary incident this week – a truce following an air assault of unprecedented scale in the Middle East’s history. Prime Minister Mark Carney declared on Wednesday that the nation is on the brink of witnessing the greatest elevation in defence funding in modern memory: up to 5% of the economic output by 2035. Such figures haven’t been observed since the harsh times of World War II. However, the key question that remains is – where and how should this spending surge be implemented?
The recent halt to the war between Israel and Iran contains insightful points. This cessation of battle came on the heels of one of the most expansive air campaigns known in Middle Eastern narrative. Iran mounted an astounding assault, deploying about 1,000 drones and over 550 ballistic missiles against Israel in as few as 10 days – Tehran’s most significant direct strike to date.
In retaliation, Israel orchestrated a comprehensive counterattack. Remarkably, it incapacitated almost 950 drones before they even took off, targeted more than 120 missile launch mechanisms, and, as per reports, thwarted nearly 90% of inbound missiles. Although this clash didn’t ignite a larger conflict across the region, it held the capacity to do so. Its enormous intensity stood cloaked behind its brief period.
The exchange reveals the existence of two discrete and ever-increasingly divergent forms of combat in the modern world. The initial is an escalation of swift and plentiful proportions. Echoing a ‘flash war’, the encounter between Israel and Iran was ephemeral yet demanded an extensive defence. Israel’s comprehensive defence systems, including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling systems, and its Arrow-3 anti-ballistic missiles, demonstrated their effectiveness remarkably. Nevertheless, a large stockpile and industrial robustness were also integral components.
This rapid interchange prompts some queries that break one’s comfort zone: Would Israel be able to maintain such defence strategies if these attacks were to continue for another week, or perhaps a month?
Presently, we consider the second style of warfare that Iran has been utilizing for years, characterized by its duration, attrition, and reliance on proxies. Undertakings like Houthi drone attacks originating from Yemen targeting Red Sea shipping, missile attacks by Hezbollah from Lebanon, and years-long activities by militias in Syria and Iraq exemplify this slow-igniting form of conflict. Rather than seeking instant escalation, it imposes a steady strain – stretching logistic capacities, degrading political unity, and mandating expensive deployments that span years instead of days. Contemporary military bodies must now be equipped to handle both kinds of warfare.
This Wednesday saw Canada collaborate with 31 additional North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries in pledging to a novel objective: defence spending at 3.5% of GDP coupled with 1.5% of GDP for defence-related infrastructure. As Mr. Carney plans to refurbish Canada’s Armed Forces, the dual quality of modern warfare recently displayed in the Middle East offers valuable lessons.
Notions that were first proposed by the conflict in Ukraine – that attritable systems like loitering munitions, quadcopters, and consumer-grade electronic-warfare equipment are not secondary, but rather fundamental – have been solidified by the Iran-Israel conflict. This realization holds serious implications for nations with advanced technological capabilities. They are not just limited by the production and replenishment rates of their addressing systems; they are constrained by them.
As a consequence, procurement and production strategies must be remodeled. Complex systems such as the F-35 or submarines demand extensive time, enormous capital, and vertically integrated supply chains. Conversely, attritable systems need velocity, iterative designs, and flexibility in commercial adoption. These two production frameworks cannot be swapped and have distinct requirements in terms of industrial base, culture, and capital structure.
Therefore, a transformation in Canada’s defence strategy is essential to accommodate both these paradigms. A military force that can dissuade state-level threats and tackle proxy engagements is needed – one capable of utilizing the $5 million jet and the affordable $5,000 drone in a manner that they complement each other.
This would entail empowering small-scale manufacturers as much as traditional large defence contractors, supporting quick five-week engineering and design sprints along with longer five-year acquisition programs. Additionally, it would require adjusting military doctrine and strategy to consider both escalation and attrition.
If our strategies fail to evolve with the times, we risk getting stuck in a problematic middle ground – too slow to roll out scalable solutions, yet too stretched to modernize costly equipment and capabilities. However, should we succeed, we can strategically blend speed with precision and resilience with sophistication.
Ultimately, we can assemble a force that not only tackles a single type of war but is equipped to combat both. In conclusion, the modern world and the unpredictable nature of conflicts demand a versatile strategy that can swiftly adapt to handle a ‘flash war’ as comfortably as a long-burning conflict.
The post Greatest Elevation in Defence Funding Announced amid Middle East Truce appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
