Derek 2.0

Not in British Columbia, fore those solutions would likely violate animal cruelty laws, well subjugating pixies on a TFW permit to slave like working conditions……The preferred solution is recycled hemp and the laughter of children.

I might be mistaken, but in the past, didn’t numerous members pronounce gleefully that they placed you on ignore? It would stand to reason, if various members took umbrage to your contributions, that they too would simply place you on ignore…..perhaps I’m missing the disconnect here

A big fight? Like Clayoquot Sound? In the end, they’ll give a bigger slice to the First Nations groups, well addressing most of the environmental concerns….I doubt it will bbe a quick process, but ultimately if it leads to additional revenue and jobs for the Province, it will happen.

I don’t think you give credit to the ability of the Province to redress both conveyance and equivalency agreements with the Federal Government…….the Province isn’t of the same legal stature or standing as a bunch of hipsters or First Nations lobby groups…… None the less, I agree, the oil will go through regardless, it just a question of how…..pipeline or rail?

I believe the majority of British Columbians will either support or accept the pipeline if/when the conditions of the Provincial Government are to be met, namely a piece of the action and environmental safeguards…..One must not forget, though not solely the reason, the Provincial NDP campaigned on “No Pipelines” and lost support amongst the BCFED and trade unions……Resource based industries and their coexistent unions have great influence on BC politics.

You don’t know of the Suez Crisis? You know, when then future Prime Minister Lester B Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize…… The UN did relent on their mandate by mid May to include the provision for protecting civilian life. Of course this was after the Belgians had pulled out, the several African reinforcement contingents were under a self-imposed delay over billing and the Americans relented on providing heavily armoured vehicles……. This of course could have been avoided, if Canada had the physical resources and political will….even at this time, the deployment of the CAR alone could have saved tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of lives…. Do you think Canada would be capable of defending it’s Northern borders against an aggressive Russia alone?

That’s certainly a fair question, and I wouldn’t doubt some of the Western European members would do exactly that…….with that said, the Americans, mutual defence alliance or not, wouldn’t tolerate Russians intervention in North America…..

Exactly, intended for industry.......And I agree, the costing numbers mentioned are only indicative of acquisition and direct sustainment costs….

This 100 billion figure appears to be only acquisition costs..

After looking at some of the undertakings in the policy sheet briefly, some programs appear to have popped out of nowhere (Tactical air defence and new minesweepers for the navy), some programs appear to have risen like the Phoenix after being publicly cancelled or shelved ( New rifle for the Rangers and a partial replacement for the TLAV fleet) and some appear to have completely vanished (MLRS, BHS and new sidearm’s)…….truly a bizarre document……. From the naval sphere, it too reads as if the programs there will be pushed back also, so much so (if the projected timelines are taken as gospel), there will certainly be a major capability gap for the navy.

To formant a nuclear armed neutrality, as said many times before, at a minimum our fiscal commitments to our own National Defence would double and very possibly triple in cost.

To use several examples of the good, the bad and the possible……..In the past, our foreign intervention during the Suez crisis very likely prevented the third world war……In Rwanda, the indifference of the larger Western nations and our inability to independently increase our commitment led to wholesale genocide, clearly something not in Canadians interests…And in the realm of possibility, most of our own allies don’t support our claims in the Arctic, but suppose we turned inward and shun our current defence treaties, what then would prevent the Russians (or perhaps the Chinese even) from laying claim to our North?

I notice you didn’t post the caveat at the bottom:

A simple conjunction for those opposed to our mutual agreement.

I agree with your assessment largely, but with the safety associated with the American nuclear umbrella and mutual defence through NATO, there is an expectation that we’ll offer a worthwhile contribution…….what often befuddles Canadians is the definition of worthwhile.

And to expand on that, if we’re content with other nations (the United States namely) representing and defending our interests on the world stage, which is a de facto surrendering of our sovereignty, why bother remaining an independent nation?

Does Canada have foreign interests beyond our borders and coastlines?

I agree that would lesson a great many of the burdens to contend with, and if we were to go down that road, I think the British force would be the one to emulate. With that said, their replacement program for said deterrent is expected to cost as much as our F-35 & Naval replacements combined…..And of course, we’d then also need a similar size SSN force to protect it…..

I agree……on the cheap, to have the ability to implement a counterforce doctrine, we’d be looking at spending and capability levels as to what the French have (which will have a true global reach with their soon to be deployed SLBMs), which would currently force us to more than double our defence spending.

And though the idea of a Canadian nuclear deterrent is next to impossible, I think the idea that Canada could develop it’s own viable deterrent sans help from the Americans, Russians, British or French is impossible. What’s not mentioned, is to have a viable independent deterrent, we’d also have to develop technologies and field assets to support and defend it……from satellites, maritime nuclear propulsion, intelligence, secured communications etc..

Nor do I.........As to fiscal realities, when a country such as Canada has so much difficulty purchasing the basics to equip our military presently, political will aside, financially a viable nuclear deterrent is a non-starter.

That’s generally how it’s done……..from American, British and Soviet strategic bombers in the 1940s, to modern entrants into the club like Pakistan, North Korea and soon to be Iran, all countries that have cross-shared IRBM technology for decades, prior to having nuclear weapons……..

To have a viable nuclear deterrent, that is independent of the United States, as a minimum we would have to increase defence spending to a level similar as that of France or the United Kingdom, more then doubling our current total.....

CUPE, with their recent deal, is guarantied their wages through a teachers strike……their members can go and picket with the teachers, but unlike the teachers, CUPE members are being paid.

What of prior to British colonialism? The Ottomans? When do we start the baseline for this “stable Middle East”?