Signals.Cpl

It doesn't have to be trust, it could be fear. If one of those goes off in someone's backyard people might rethink their position when the world is on the brink of Nuclear war. And besides if US, Russia and China cut their Nukes all three countries would still have either technologically or numerically enough firepower to keep people away.

The problem with that argument is that should say Iran get a hold of those weapons, they can nuke Israel or give it to terrorists to nuke America, but the US military still has tremendous conventional firepower and they can if they had the desire make Iran the worlds largest parking lot even without nukes.

I have hope that it will happen.

My personal opinion is that Canada does not need nuke's. If it ever came to using them there is more then enough between Russia and US and our contribution will not add much to our death. Realistically a well balanced military serves as a deterrent, can be used in an offensive war, or peacekeeping. And aside from the traditional duties related to war, there is disaster response and such duties.

Try selling that to the Canadian Public.

They better be, we can't even borrow subs from West Edmonton mall anymore.

During the cold war, I believe there was a lot of protests over Americans stationing nuclear missiles on Canadian soil, Can you imagine the actual public outcry if it was suggested? Try convincing people we need a nuclear power submarine before nuclear weapons.

I think 3 out of the 4 subs are in dry dock the other one is doing trials... I hope they become operational. Saving money at its best.

Or you can move the border 150km north

Our subs dont dive...

And I bet I can find someone to disagree with you. If you want to prove something, make sure its black and white. Until its clearly written you are assuming.

He has no argument so he is pulling on straws.

You know what they say about assuming.

He went to wikipedia, and grabed their evidence without reading it. He cannot tell you which page it is on or wether it is even on there.

You infer that it includes salaries and operating cost, but it does not state so.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/F-35Dec11FINALSAR-senttoCongress3-29-2012.pdf page 61 Thank You for bringing it to our attention

Where exactly in your evidence does it state include salary and operational cost?

What page is it on?Using wikipedia as a source and just copying their numbers is a little sketchy, then you go and post a source you did not even read.

source?

C is Carrier based. B is VOTL and Im pretty sure Canada will not buy those. Cost per aircraft is roughly 80million +/- 5million. Weapons (initial buy) 270million for 25billion budget 300million for 14billion budget. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html Are you saying the AG is lying about the cost? And one thing, You do realise I can go and change your evidence? I can easily make the price 10 dollars on wikipedia and there goes your argument. I realise you posted the source from wikipedia but I highly doubt you actualy read it.

Care to elaborate?

4.7 billion for DND personnel over the next 20 years, keep in mind the pilots make up a small % of the actual manpower needed to operate this aircraft. 4.8 billion for operating costs over the next 20 years 860 million for contingency, which is already accounted for under "Additional capital acquisition costs" This makes up the extra roughly 10.43 billion dollars and then there is a 30million dollar difference in the budget for initial weapons. So the crew make up 45% of the extra costs Operating cost is roughly 46% Contingency makes roughly 8% of the difference There is 1% rounding error in my calculation as I rounded down to the nears percent. http://www.oag-bvg.g...02_e_36466.html

You avoid providing evidence like its the plague.

When you have no way to prove your point it becomes flawed logic?

Show me a cost breakdown of how the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy or Spain purchase military equipment. You made that statement, you have to provide evidence.