Oleg Bach Posted November 21, 2008 Report Posted November 21, 2008 Evidently building cars is not cheap either. It would be smart to spend the money even if it is a possible finacial over extention at this point. With a fine military displaying Canada's forces as peace keepers who also are involved in international disaster relief..this would again enhance our almost lost good reputation and would also promote better trade. People like to trade with those that they respect. Our military was on it's way at one time to being a prototype force that was capable of rising above barbarism. It sure would be nice to see Canada in that position - but on a more grander scale. After all "the leaf will be for the healing of the nations" - we used to have a noble purpose till be kissed the oil merchants ass...Cheney harmed our rep. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 21, 2008 Report Posted November 21, 2008 Building weapons in Canada makes a great deal of sense, but it is not cheap. If we are serious about this rebuilding of our forces then I side with those who would see those funds spent in Canada.Let's build what we need in Canada. Aircraft...massive underwriting of Canadiar so they could retool, retrain and develope the skills needed to compete with established firms. Armoured Vehicles..develope an artillery industry from scratch. Massive investment into GM for the frames... then add everything else, fire control tech, communications...raders...etc etc The cost of creating from scratch compared to buying off the shelf would probably be 100 to 1 Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Oleg Bach Posted November 21, 2008 Report Posted November 21, 2008 Cannons are offensive and aggressive - we need defensive weaponry...weapons should not be made strickly for profit. Abuse of weaponry is a results when their manufacture enriches traitorous opportunists. Quote
wulf42 Posted November 21, 2008 Author Report Posted November 21, 2008 (edited) Having a wpn that you have no intention of using is well a waste of time and money and offers no deterent at all. A nation with nuk wpns must show, or prove that it has the will, the means, and the support of it's people to use such wpns.... Canada has none of those...if we can not convince them to buy a few tanks how would you convince them to purchase serveral nuks....Eyeball for someone who looks for an easy way out i don't think you've thought this one through. Nobody really has any intention of using a Nuclear weapon unless as an absolute last resort, we all know what would happen in a Nuclear exchange and nobody would win but the reality of it is that having this type of weapon protects Canada from direct invasion by other countries, we don't ever want to use it but we would if forced to. If we do not want to invest in getting new weapon systems for our soldiers then we should get cheaper but effective systems and arm with a small amount of Nuclear ICBM'S at least then we would have an effective deterrent for invasion and have some clout in the international community while still supporting our Forces for peace keeping missions, we already have Nuclear reactors up and running it certainly wouldn't take much to produce weapons grade Nuclear material. Edited November 21, 2008 by wulf42 Quote
Oleg Bach Posted November 21, 2008 Report Posted November 21, 2008 Nuclear weapons were never supposed to be used as a last resort. There purpose eventually evolved in to a no resort. Nuclear weapons are threatening props that will never be used. Those that suggest that pre-emtive strikes or weapons of last resort are viable - should not be let near the button. Quote
wulf42 Posted November 21, 2008 Author Report Posted November 21, 2008 Nuclear weapons were never supposed to be used as a last resort. There purpose eventually evolved in to a no resort. Nuclear weapons are threatening props that will never be used. Those that suggest that pre-emtive strikes or weapons of last resort are viable - should not be let near the button. If Russia were to launch a surprise attack on the USA or western Europe and conventional weapons weren't enough to stop them...what do you think the next step would be? Quote
guyser Posted November 21, 2008 Report Posted November 21, 2008 If Russia were to launch a surprise attack on the USA or western Europe and conventional weapons weren't enough to stop them...what do you think the next step would be? Hypothetically? Send them some Hershey Kisses and a Hallmark card. What would the next step be if monkeys learned english and Planet of the Apes was true? Quote
eyeball Posted November 21, 2008 Report Posted November 21, 2008 Having a wpn that you have no intention of using is well a waste of time and money and offers no deterent at all. A nation with nuk wpns must show, or prove that it has the will, the means, and the support of it's people to use such wpns.... Canada has none of those...if we can not convince them to buy a few tanks how would you convince them to purchase serveral nuks....Eyeball for someone who looks for an easy way out i don't think you've thought this one through. If anyone invaded a country that was not armed conventionally but had nukes instead they'd be nuts to invade them. The point is to leave everyone with the realization that by choosing to invade us you give us no choice but to retaliate with what we have. I think the Non-proliferation Treaty should relax the rules for those countries that forgo conventional forces and choose to defend themsleves with nukes instead. The savings will allow us to build a far Shinier Beacon that other countries will hopefully look at and rush to emulate or join. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
wulf42 Posted November 21, 2008 Author Report Posted November 21, 2008 (edited) If anyone invaded a country that was not armed conventionally but had nukes instead they'd be nuts to invade them. The point is to leave everyone with the realization that by choosing to invade us you give us no choice but to retaliate with what we have.I think the Non-proliferation Treaty should relax the rules for those countries that forgo conventional forces and choose to defend themsleves with nukes instead. Eyeball i never thought i would agree with you on anything but i do agree with you on this! A nuclear arsenal may be the way to go...it doesn't have to be big but it will certainly protect Canada from any sort of attack...Israel is a good example of this, no Arab country would seriously launch a major attack on the tiny country..... they may be small but with 400 plus nukes they keep the wolves at bay! Edited November 21, 2008 by wulf42 Quote
wulf42 Posted November 21, 2008 Author Report Posted November 21, 2008 (edited) Hypothetically?Send them some Hershey Kisses and a Hallmark card. lol...cute but actually NATO would light up Russia like a glow worm! Edited November 21, 2008 by wulf42 Quote
guyser Posted November 21, 2008 Report Posted November 21, 2008 lol...cute but actually NATO would light up Russia like a glow worm! No they wouldnt, since neither is plausible. Quote
eyeball Posted November 21, 2008 Report Posted November 21, 2008 Eyeball i never thought i would agree with you on anything but i do agree with you on this! A nuclear arsenal may be the way to go...it doesn't have to be big but it will certainly protect Canada from any sort of attack... So you agree we wouldn't need a conventional military? Somehow I doubt that. Israel is a good example of this, no Arab country would seriously launch a major attack on the tiny country..... they may be small but with 400 plus nukes they keep the wolves at bay! Israel is a sad example actually, probably because they also have one of the largest conventional armed forces in the region. In any case its 'over there' and their problems have nothing to do with us. The best way to keep it that way is to scrap our conventional military. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
wulf42 Posted November 21, 2008 Author Report Posted November 21, 2008 So you agree we wouldn't need a conventional military? Somehow I doubt that. We will always need a conventional Armed Forces but it could be alot more streamlined , we would need only to make so it has Peace Keeping capabilties and not poor billions in updating it for defense we already have decent ships and some good aircraft such as the CF-18, CP-140 for patrols and the new C-17(CC-177) for Transport but we do of course have to replace the Sea King, Our Nuclear Arsenal would take on the role of defense....we would likely have to cut back in Afghanistan and let other Nato countries pull their weight for awhile........i for one would fully support that! We don't need thousands of Nuclear warheads or missiles like the Yanks have, just enough so any potential aggressor would think it unwise to attack us. Quote
eyeball Posted November 22, 2008 Report Posted November 22, 2008 We don't need thousands of Nuclear warheads or missiles like the Yanks have, just enough so any potential aggressor would think it unwise to attack us. That's all I'm suggesting. So much for defence. Now, as for going around the world in an attempt to try and save it from itself I would like to see several extensive public hearings across the country followed up with clear straight language referendums on whatever policy we develop out of these deliberations. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Oleg Bach Posted November 22, 2008 Report Posted November 22, 2008 That's all I'm suggesting. So much for defence.Now, as for going around the world in an attempt to try and save it from itself I would like to see several extensive public hearings across the country followed up with clear straight language referendums on whatever policy we develop out of these deliberations. Even with an upgraded military, there would be no point in deploying them - where would we send this new force? You have to have a reason better than Afghanistan where we protect sodomist twits banging boys...oh I forgot - "so a little girl can go to school". Quote
Smallc Posted November 22, 2008 Report Posted November 22, 2008 we do of course have to replace the Sea King, For the hundredth time, the replacement is bought and paid for. Quote
Argus Posted November 22, 2008 Report Posted November 22, 2008 Cannons are offensive and aggressive - we need defensive weaponry...weapons should not be made strickly for profit. Abuse of weaponry is a results when their manufacture enriches traitorous opportunists. Cannon's are offensive? What is a "defensive" weapon? You want to fund research into massive stun guns that can stop tanks but not hurt anyone inside? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
M.Dancer Posted November 23, 2008 Report Posted November 23, 2008 I love Eyebals flights of Lunacy. On Defense: STOP OR WE WILL NUKE OURSELVES!!! Yeah...that will work. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Mr.Canada Posted November 23, 2008 Report Posted November 23, 2008 For the hundredth time, the replacement is bought and paid for. Yes we did that twice as Chretien decided to tear up the contract to the tune of $500 million of taxpayers money so he could pick his own supplier. We would have replaced the fleet by now if he didn't do that. Great fiscal management. Partisanship is expensive. We payed for it. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Army Guy Posted November 24, 2008 Report Posted November 24, 2008 Nobody really has any intention of using a Nuclear weapon unless as an absolute last resort, we all know what would happen in a Nuclear exchange and nobody would win but the reality of it is that having this type of weapon protects Canada from direct invasion by other countries, we don't ever want to use it but we would if forced to. If we do not want to invest in getting new weapon systems for our soldiers then we should get cheaper but effective systems and arm with a small amount of Nuclear ICBM'S at least then we would have an effective deterrent for invasion and have some clout in the international community while still supporting our Forces for peace keeping missions, we already have Nuclear reactors up and running it certainly wouldn't take much to produce weapons grade Nuclear material. Really, you should read up on Soviet military doctrine, the use of WMD are included right down to the tactical level, Sub units as small as divisions size have Tac nuks, and right down to brigade size for chemical shells and rockets...you don't distribute them that far down the food chain unless you plan to use them in the opening volleys.....Not much has changed in Russia today.... Russia not only believes in thier use but also they can win in a WMD enviroment, one of the few nations that trains regularly in a live WMD enviroment...which means they train with live chemical agents regularly, such as nerve, mustard, blood agents...there training losses are incrediable...you don't go through all that effort unless, you meant business... I think we all forget the destructive power of todays nuc wpns. an avg Russia city killer has the power to destroy almost everything within a 300 km radius, a wpn dropped in toronto would have devasting effects on Ottawa, every out to the 150 km raduis would be killed out right or within 3 to 7 days due to radiation poisoning....anything out to 200 to 300 km would or could live more than 14 to 21 days.... you start combining hits from major cities such as toronto , ottawa, detroit, and you have over lapping effects, which would kill faster, and effect more of the populations....My figures may be off by some, but you get the drift, nuc are the ulitmate destructive wpn known to man.... We live in a country that can not even buy helos' without some sort of scandal or major debate....how are we going to start a nuc wpns program.... Top this off is they are not an opition in a lot of cases, lets say droping on or near europe, or some Arab state would effect the entire region, readiating the country side for 1000's of km's in all directions.....pissing off more than just one attacking nation....but increasing the conflict by a thousand fold... Having them is one thing but for them to be a deterent the nation must show a will to use them....we don't have that...Someone mention Israel, who has had nucs for quit awhile now, and they have still been involved in serveral major conflicts....not much of a deterent there.... Nuc wpns program is much more expensive than purchasing a ground force, Just ask Iran or Syria.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted November 24, 2008 Report Posted November 24, 2008 Building wpns in Canada is a wonderful idea, but lets look at it for a minute....We've already established that the R&D funds to design and build Canadian wpns is not feasable....which leaves only one option, purchasing the rights to build and building them in Canada, much like GM did with the LAV fleet...A swiss designed veh, made in Canada...heres the problem, if we need tanks or Close combat vehs who is going to retool here in Canada, who is going to pay for this retooling, and For the amount Canada needs for defense, how long can we stretch out the manufacturing process to make it viable.... Purchasing off the shelf allows us as a nation to for go most of the R&D costs, it allows us to purchase the best the world has to offer, at the time. We are having a haed time trying to swallow the 450 bil total cost over 20 years it will cost us just to maintain what we have now....As many others have said that cost would balloon 100 times if we went on our own....i'd like to meet the team that could sell that to the Canadian people. Purchasing the best the world has to offer is really the prime objective here, going on the cheap, has cause us problems in the past, Can anyone say Iltis, or LUVW, with it's tactical quite brakes that sound like a high pitch squeel that can be heard for miles....One would think that we could atleast give our fighting troops the edge on the battle field, considering it is only thier lives at stake.... It would be nice to equip our forces for peacekeeping, but most Canadian forget or have no clue what peacekeeping is, or how our Nations military is equiped to carry out that mission....we have been sooooo lucky in the past the Medak pocket rings in loud and clear, when troops armed with nothing more than a few M113's and a few anti tank wpns went face to face with heavy armour and somehow held them off....this could have turned out to be one of Canada's heavist losses in peacekeeping if they had pushed the fight to another level....Peacekeeping works when you have the biggest stick.....anything else and your just observing crimes as they take place.... The Canadian military does not want to become one of the largest military formations in the western world...but it does want to not only contribute to our national diaster plan, security of our nation, and enforcing our foreign policy....But it also wants to do all this and be able to bring back all it's soldiers alive and well....and for that to happen we need modern equipment.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Oleg Bach Posted November 24, 2008 Report Posted November 24, 2008 Why do I feel like a dad about to give a stern lecture on the use of your new Daisy BB gun? Quote
Army Guy Posted November 24, 2008 Report Posted November 24, 2008 I've been on deployments with nothing more than a pick axe handle, so i guess a BB gun would be a step up....maybe next time we can skip the lecture, and i'll skip the need to beg for the tools to do the job, and we'll come to the conclusion that if you want to play with the big boys it's going to cost....and maybe.... just maybe Candian soldiers will not have to die in order for us to get the right equipment.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted November 24, 2008 Report Posted November 24, 2008 The Canadian military does not want to become one of the largest military formations in the western world...but it does want to not only contribute to our national diaster plan, security of our nation, and enforcing our foreign policy....But it also wants to do all this and be able to bring back all it's soldiers alive and well....and for that to happen we need modern equipment.... That's the problem. Until a significant majority of Canadians can determine precisely what role if any, that we want our military to have with regards to our foreign policies, our forces should be brought home in their present shape and kept here. Canadians have proven twice now that they can mobilize one of the world's biggest armies on fairly short notice if and when they recognize a real need. More importantly though we also know when to stand our armies down until the need arises again. If Russia is so nonchalant about using nukes then why haven't they, ever? You know what your problem is, you soldiers are trained to see bogeymen at every turn and so you do. You're trained to be somewhat paranoid in your outlook and as a consequence you don't trust Canadians to recognize when gearing up for war is the right thing to do. That alone should be reason enough for any civilized population to keep its armed forces on a very short leash and a very strict diet. As for deterring an invasion by possessing nukes it seems to be working for everyone else so far I don't see why it shouldn't work for us. When you say Canadians won't actually use them, that's just your fear speaking. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted November 24, 2008 Report Posted November 24, 2008 I've been on deployments with nothing more than a pick axe handle, so i guess a BB gun would be a step up....maybe next time we can skip the lecture, and i'll skip the need to beg for the tools to do the job, and we'll come to the conclusion that if you want to play with the big boys it's going to cost....and maybe.... just maybe Candian soldiers will not have to die in order for us to get the right equipment.... How do you even know Canadians want you to 'play' with the big boys? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.