Derek 2.0

Its Texas.......those involved will get the needle.

Exactly, and they have for decades......inform the cop once he's pulled you over and follow the officers directions to a tee......for all we know, this young black man didn't tell the cop and the cop saw the gun (bulge), young black man went to grab his ID and got popped......like I said, until there is more evidence, its pure speculation.

Was the first one in Baton Rouge? Didn't hear much about that one. The second guy at the traffic stop, from all that I've seen/heard reported, is that little has been said on why the officer shot him.......again, I won't hang the cop until I see the dashcam or hear more evidence. I never said it gave them any right, I said its understandable.........if the majority of violent crime committed in a given community is by blacks (against other blacks) I can understand why police would react more forcefully then they might to a white or Chinese male in the same situation.

Exactly, I'm not prepared to hang the cop until all the facts are known.......if he screwed up, hoist him by his own petard.

From whats in the media, it sounds like a rather well planned attack (body armor, a ton of ammo, tactical shooting, getaway car etc).......seems a little too quick to be a response to the shooting of the black guy with a broken tail light in Minnesota last night.

I am on topic, if statistically black-on-black crime is a far greater concern then police-on-black violence, its understandable why the police are more likely to use violence against blacks. --------- Has there been any video released before the shooting in Minnesota? I mean, look how Ferguson played out in the end........the police were justified in their shooting.....

I got that, I'm talking about what "group" is the most likely one to commit violence against blacks? Could it be that other blacks kill more blacks then the police (not including a black police showing out for the white cop)?

Do we yet know that these events have anything to do with police shootings/BLM etc? Couldn't it be radical Islam? A tin-hat wearing kook?

And who kills the vast majority of black men?

Right......so whats the Vegas line on radical Islam versus militant blacks in Dallas? Put me down on the ISIS swayback nag.....

There is no crap, but an understanding of the globe, where the Russians base and forward base what and how NORAD has operated since its inception.......like I said, assume my posts are pure conjectured filled crap..........why does historic and present day factual evidence align with what I'm saying and not with what you're saying? Do you really think the RCAF and USAF (via NORAD) overlooked your suggestions on how best to defend North America? I'm mean, during the peak of the Cold War, which also included the period of when the Russians deployed their first supersonic strategic bombers and nuclear tipped cruise missiles, for some reason NORAD no longer saw fit to base assets along the peripheral of North America........and now they've got even faster bombers and missiles, with even longer ranges, and you now think its prudent to base aircraft in the high Arctic? If you want Canadian Arctic sovereignty develop and invest in it for civilian pursuits..........not piss away a fortune on ineffective and unneeded defense measures.

As a passenger? The Russian Bomber force is based here......draw a line to Resolute and Fairbanks over the pole.

Not to the Arctic

My god man, look at a friggen globe of the World!!!!!!

They don't, and withdrew to Eielson and Elmendorf (and closed bases closer to Russia)because they both offer raid warning to fighters based there, and are connected to highways and rail............unlike Resolute.

You're all over the place......remember, you're comparing Eielson to Resolute....get your goal posts sorted out. And again, forget what I'm saying, pretend I know nothing........if your rush of crap to the brain was such a wonderful idea.......why isn't anyone doing it, nor have done it in the past? You know something the collective minds in NORAD have been overlooking since the 50s?

Why, there is no need? If the Russians started building Blackjacks by the hundreds, maybe, but even still, there was no requirement during the later stages of the Cold War when they actually had regiments of bombers............trigonometry and algebra are on NORAD's side.

You brought up, incorrectly, torpedo armed helicopters........clearly if the Russians are intent on sinking a Canadian vessels in the North they can do so at their choosing.

Eielson is at a railhead and in central Alaska, granting an allowance of raid warning........and this is why the Americans withdrew and closed Marks AFB in Nome and stopped basing interceptors in Galena........

Not for a Mirage or Skyhawk compared to a Blackjack or Backfire.......during the actual War, the Argentinian air force was at its max range for attacking both the fleet and the landing zones........If Buenos Aires obtained nukes you had better believe the British would target their capital and largest cities with their nuclear deterrent.. The Russians won't currently attack Resolute because there is nothing there........you put basing for fighters, tankers, troops, air defenses etc (as you suggested) they would turn it into a parking lot if they were attacking North America. Answer this simple question..........if what you proposed had so much merit........what aren't the Americans doing it? Or the Russians?

Sure they could (not likely) but they would be launching far outside the Falklands air defense zone and the typhoons would already be on their intercepts.......when the Argies get Blackjacks and nuclear tipped missiles, I'm certain the British would reevaluate....... You're missing the point, you're not showing strength by basing your air defenses that close to the Russians.......you're showing stupidity.......and is why nobody does it.

Not much torpedo wielding done in the Arctic.........what with the ice and the effect it has on sonar and all The Russians have supersonic bombers with supersonic anti-ship missiles.......comparing them to the AOPS is like bringing toe-nail clippers to a gunfight.

More things if things get "tense"? If things got tense with the Russians, and you needed to protect your Arctic base, your force better be wearing 12000000 spf sunscreen............This isn't a new scenario, both the Americans and Russians bomber forces have had extensive plans and the munitions to go with them to attack each others air defense networks since the late 1950s/early 1960s.....the B-52s were carrying Hound Dog (nukes) missiles that were designed to go after Russian air defense radars and Mig ground controllers since the 1960s......the Russians developed their own missiles The idea, to include it in any NORAD/ air defense of Canada strategy beggars belief...........and hasn't been done by the Americans, Russians and Canadians because its so utterly stupid. Complete apples to oranges.......the Falklands are at the max range of the Argies air force.......Mt. Pleasant's alert aircraft have plenty of air raid warning.......and of course, they're not facing a prospect of a nuclear armed bomber force. If the Russians "walk in and take it" they have committed an act of war against NATO........hasn't happened yet, something must be working. They can, they just proved that they can conduct a strategic bombing campaign with their bomber force against Syria.....their sub force is still very real and can operate in the Arctic......the same of course is true with the Americans. A lone Canadian base, aside from the waste of resources and money, would do nothing to deter the Russians if they intended to attack North America, likewise as outlined above, would prove itself of little value in the first few minutes of said Russian attack. You want to exert our ownership of the Arctic? Wrestle mineral rights away from the Inuit and let business develop it with private money.......good luck with that.

No, my response was to smallc's suggestion of additional aircraft to protect Winnipeg............NORAD did away with specific sector defense over central North America decades ago, moving to the division of North America into five regions, East and West United States and Canada and Alaska. The defense of our Arctic is very much so reenacting the Cold War (NORAD never stopped, but expanded to include missile defense and now maritime approaches)..........basing permanent fighters within the Arctic circle is unrealistic, the Americans base them as far north as Fairbanks.....the terminus of the Alaskan railroad........for a reason: Logistics and money.... Not to mention, basing interceptors so close to Russian airspace ( further North then our search radars, unless you want to move those too) would allow the Russians to launch standoff missiles at our airbases from within their own territory....forget air launched, they could pop off a couple battlefield IRBMs like a warmed over Scud or Frog, with only a few minutes reaction time, and that would be all she wrote.....the same reason the RAF didn't base their fighters along the Channel coast, or NATO (and the Warsaw Pact) didn't base theirs along the East-West German border.

There is no "and yet", NORAD doesn't need (Canada) to have a permanent presence in the middle of the continent.