Russia Approaching Canadian Airspace!

[Machjo]

Where did i say we should start a nuclear war.......??? stop putting words out there that were not said!!

and where did i say LARGER military???? i said SMALL modern effective military

i said we should have a small nuclear DETERRENT!! not start a nuclear war!!

those Russians pilots are likely laughing all the way back to Russia thinking we are pushovers and they would be right!

and i said IF they enter our airspace military action would be warranted.....learn to read before you speak!

First off, for all we know there may very well be a policy to shoot Russian trespassers out of the sky; it's just that it has not been needed yet since they'd not yet trespassed.

Secondly, of what use is a nuclear deterrent if there is no intention of using it? So, are you suggesting a pointless money-wasting nuclear deterrent we'd never intend to use, or one we would use if certain conditions were met? And what would be those conditions? And considering the costs involved in maintaining such weapons, where do you propose we get the money from? More big government?

[chuck]

Thanks smallc that is good to know. The more we are there the better.

Thanks for getting me up to speed on what is going on up there. I am a 9 to 5 worker in the city and I don't get to have conversations with anyone about this topic. Our Canadian sovereignty is very important to me. It sounds like things are progressing up there. Time is of the essence, as many other countries have set there eyes on the north. This is very serious, and we all should pay attention. Thanks.

[Mr.Canada]

First off, for all we know there may very well be a policy to shoot Russian trespassers out of the sky; it's just that it has not been needed yet since they'd not yet trespassed.

Secondly, of what use is a nuclear deterrent if there is no intention of using it? So, are you suggesting a pointless money-wasting nuclear deterrent we'd never intend to use, or one we would use if certain conditions were met? And what would be those conditions? And considering the costs involved in maintaining such weapons, where do you propose we get the money from? More big government?

That is exactly what US policy is and has been since the Cold War. Where have you been?

[Bonam]

Secondly, of what use is a nuclear deterrent if there is no intention of using it? So, are you suggesting a pointless money-wasting nuclear deterrent we'd never intend to use, or one we would use if certain conditions were met? And what would be those conditions? And considering the costs involved in maintaining such weapons, where do you propose we get the money from? More big government?

Umm do you have any clue about the point of nuclear deterrent? That's the whole point of deterrent, if it works right, you never have to use it.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Secondly, of what use is a nuclear deterrent if there is no intention of using it? So, are you suggesting a pointless money-wasting nuclear deterrent we'd never intend to use, or one we would use if certain conditions were met? And what would be those conditions? And considering the costs involved in maintaining such weapons, where do you propose we get the money from? More big government?

The cornerstone of MAD doctrine though is that the other side can never be completely sure if youll use it or not. So your willingness to use it doesnt matter... you just need to talk like you will. Or even better you claim that the response will be automated.

[bush_cheney2004]

The cornerstone of MAD doctrine though is that the other side can never be completely sure if youll use it or not....

No....the cornerstone of MAD is a credible, survivable, and reliable retaliatory response that will inflict unaccepatble damage or loss of capability ....each side must be absolutley sure of this to maintain the strategic nuclear peace.

[DogOnPorch]

The cornerstone of MAD doctrine though is that the other side can never be completely sure if youll use it or not. So your willingness to use it doesnt matter... you just need to talk like you will. Or even better you claim that the response will be automated.

Wrong.

[dre]

Wrong.

No sorry, Cory and Trevor but both of you are wrong. Neither side is EVER going to be absolutely sure what the other sides response would be to any act of aggression. All thats required is a reasonable suspicion that response might come in the form of a nuclear strike to make MAD work.

each side must be absolutley sure of this to maintain the strategic nuclear peace.

Nope thats not true at all. Its impossible to ever be "absolutely sure" what the other side will do. Just the presense of nuclear weapons themselves is enough to set up a MAD dynamic between two countries, regardless of their stated policies or intentions.

[DogOnPorch]

No sorry, Cory and Trevor but both of you are wrong. Neither side is EVER going to be absolutely sure what the other sides response would be to any act of aggression. All thats required is a reasonable suspicion that response might come in the form of a nuclear strike to make MAD work.

Nope thats not true at all. Its impossible to ever be "absolutely sure" what the other side will do. Just the presense of nuclear weapons themselves is enough to set up a MAD dynamic between two countries, regardless of their stated policies or intentions.

You'd best listen to BC-2004 on this subject. Seriously. You don't know who you're talking to.

[dre]

You'd best listen to BC-2004 on this subject. Seriously. You don't know who you're talking to.

I know exactly who Im talking to...

[eyeball]

Looks like Ivan is up to his old tricks again, the world economy goes bad the first thing that happens is that countries start looking for resources in places that don t belong to them.

People and countries that don't need too and could thrive all on their own also do this, even when times are good. They get greedy. I'd say greed is way more of a threat and it causes far more dysfunction and insecurity in the world than need, hands down.

I really can't fault anyone with the misfortune to be sitting on a pile of valuable resources for wanting to have a few nukes on hand as a deterrence. I do think this would make a lot more economic sense for Canada than trying to defend ourselves with a conventional military. As was pointed out, the potential enemies we face number in the hundreds of millions if not billions. Their numbers plus the draw down of natural resources around the planet point in one inevitable direction.

There will come a time when need finally overtakes greed. When water-holes get smaller the animals get meaner...and we're completely surrounded. We don't need a defense policy as much as we need an escape route and the only direction is see is up.

I think Canada's defense policy should be to nationalize our natural resources and between the profits from selling what we can afford to sell and using the resources themselves, put everything we've got into building a Space Elevator or Tether or whatever and provide the human race with the means to access and utilize the resources of the Solar System. I think this would be more in keeping with Canada's Voyageur heritage than having to resort to plundering someone else's resources...even if that is what the original Voyageurs were doing.

Edited August 5, 2010 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I think this would be more in keeping with Canada's Voyageur heritage than having to resort to plundering someone else's resources...even if that is what the original Voyageurs were doing.

..and are still doing. Canada is a leader in mining the "resources" of other nations, just in case you didn't know.

[eyeball]

..and are still doing. Canada is a leader in mining the "resources" of other nations, just in case you didn't know.

I know, it's disgusting.

I blame that on things like Chretien's trade junkets and the notion that was peddled that trading with countries with dubious ethics and morals would make them more like us.

Unfortunately that process works both ways.

[Bonam]

I know, it's disgusting.

Why is it disgusting? Our companies invest in other nations, provide jobs there, generate profit for themselves, tax money to fuel Canadian government programs, and produce resources that are needed worldwide.

[nicky10013]

I know, it's disgusting.

I blame that on things like Chretien's trade junkets and the notion that was peddled that trading with countries with dubious ethics and morals would make them more like us.

Unfortunately that process works both ways.

It happens slowly so people don't really understand. However, that is the way it works. As for Canada becoming like China, nothing more than alarmist hogwash.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Unfortunately that process works both ways.

Good...then it is OK for other nations to plunder Canada as well. Why so protective?

[eyeball]

Why is it disgusting? Our companies invest in other nations, provide jobs there, generate profit for themselves, tax money to fuel Canadian government programs, and produce resources that are needed worldwide.

Yes but BC 2004 is clearly making reference to those companies with connections to some pretty nasty regimes for the purpose of overstepping environmental regulations and human rights.

The world doesn't need any more of that.

[eyeball]

Good...then it is OK for other nations to plunder Canada as well. Why so protective?

Because I believe virtue should trump economics.

And no it's not OK for other nations to plunder Canada.

Edited August 5, 2010 by eyeball

[nicky10013]

Because I believe virtue should trump economics.

And no it's not OK for other nations to plunder Canada.

Economics is virtue. Wealth creates democracy and human rights.

[Alta4ever]

Economics is virtue. Wealth creates democracy and human rights.

Thats backwards human rights and democracy create wealth.

[eyeball]

Economics is virtue.

No its not, they're two completely different things.

Wealth creates democracy and human rights.

Wealth is just a thing, it's what people do with it that really counts.

[eyeball]

Thats backwards human rights and democracy create wealth.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[nicky10013]

Thats backwards human rights and democracy create wealth.

It can, however, the fact that no rich authoritarian regimes exist is proof positive that there is no better indicator of democratic development than increased economic well being.

China has performed one of the largest economic miracles in world history and they're certainly not democratic. When Deng Xiaoping came to power, 65% of China's 1.5 billion people lived on a dollar a day. Today, it's 10%. Indeed, China is doing much better than India in terms of the growth of national GDP. Most people argue that it's because China doesn't have to worry about offending the electorate when signing permits for new economic developments such as factories or offices.

[nicky10013]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Probably not, but it's wrong. Name me a rich authoritarian country.

[eyeball]

It happens slowly so people don't really understand. However, that is the way it works. As for Canada becoming like China, nothing more than alarmist hogwash.

Do you recall the junket that included Canadian Internet security experts when China was building it's so-called Great Firewall? I wonder what that was all about? Probably a big national secret I bet.