RNG Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Say for instance that Canada was the only nation on earth. That the rest of the planet had no human habitation - no one trade with - and we were force to trade only with each other. What would it be like - what would the quality of life be like _ would we have what we needed to be comfortable...or would we be in the stone age? Anyone care to give their view on this idea? I seriously think we would be way closer to the stone age than where we are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 What if it is a netweork of tyranny and a network of terror? Hey....I'm all for blockading Gaza and iran! How about blocking those that live in Canada who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I seriously think we would be way closer to the stone age than where we are now. We would have enough food - we would have manufactured goods...we would have housing...clothing - and what ever we needed. It seems that international trade is all about profits. Buisness strickly for the highest return of our investment that is possible...I believe all international trade is just about keeping people who want to be super rich and live like kings happy..My attitude might be child like but I would not mind if we lived to race for fun and enjoyment - rather than be part of a rat race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 It worked pretty well for JFK during the Cuban missile crisis………As I’ve said above, it worked for centuries for the United Kingdom policing their empire…..With Libya, we’re simply into the big stick portion that follows the soft walking. Misreading your post - for a moment I thought you said we're simply into the big stick portion followed by a SOFT wacking.. Maybe that might be more the truth...we show our muscle and then we pinch them. What ever happened to good old fashion total destruction of an enemy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Mines wouldn't stop air cargo..but air cargo is a drop in the bucket compared to what exits montreal, halifax and vancouver. Subs can carry subsurface/submarine to air missiles these days. A bit like the submarine launched ballistic missile systems, but more specifically geared for air defence operations rather than payload delivery to land based targets. Also mines could be fitted with those SLAM type missile systems to act for air defence or for naval defense, not difficult to do, but the size of the things could be effected. The cost is nother factor. Sea based mines arn't effective these days though to an advanced naval force. They ought to be easily detected and just shot out of the water. Detection technologies are far more advanced these days, and simple mine sweepers exist to clear mines or adapted frigates, or even helicopters, or scuba teams or sea robots. Mines really are only effective against "old navies" not modern militaries. Edited July 7, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 We should be withholding natural resources from the war-making nations and in particular, for selling or providing military aid and financial support to dictatorships. That should be a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned. A network of tyranny is a far more evil thing than any network of terror. I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt but consider the sacrifices our grandparents made to fight tyranny. I bet they gave up considerably more than 10 - 15% of their economy. Of course before we go shooting our mouths off about other countries sins we'ed need to shut down our own export-oriented military-industrial complex. I guess we'd have to add whatever percentage it is of our's to the economic cost of imposing trade sanctions against others. Putting virtue ahead of economics is tough and expensive just ask our grandparents. I'm pretty sure they'll say the sacrifice is worth the effort though. Easier said then done………the rationing until the 50s in the United Kingdom lead many of our parents and grandparents to migrate here……..All putting a ban on defence exports will do is put many people out of work and close the doors of many businesses………..And allow another countries arms makers to fill the void……… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Easier said then done………the rationing until the 50s in the United Kingdom lead many of our parents and grandparents to migrate here……..All putting a ban on defence exports will do is put many people out of work and close the doors of many businesses………..And allow another countries arms makers to fill the void……… You guys just don't get it. If Canada stopped exporting it's oil and gas, the country would collapse. Totally. What a joke. Go all you protectionists. (sp) Edited July 7, 2011 by RNG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Easier said then done………the rationing until the 50s in the United Kingdom lead many of our parents and grandparents to migrate here……..All putting a ban on defence exports will do is put many people out of work and close the doors of many businesses………..And allow another countries arms makers to fill the void……… Hopefully it would be that much harder to fill the void without the natural resources we withhold from export. Definitely easier said I agree but sooner or later it or something like it will have to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Subs can carry subsurface/submarine to air missiles these days. A bit like the submarine launched ballistic missile systems, but more specifically geared for air defence operations rather than payload delivery to land based targets. There is sub launched SAMS, but their use is near suicidal for the sub…….gives any Helicopters/MPA/Surface assets within x number of kms a direct bearing on said sub…..A subs best weapon is it’s stealth……. Also mines could be fitted with those SLAM type missile systems to act for air defence or for naval defense, not difficult to do, but the size of the things could be effected. The cost is nother factor I’ve not a clue what you’re talking about…….How would a stationary mine identify, target, track and guide a SAM, from bellow the surface of the ocean………is this something to do with sharks with lasers? Sea based mines arn't effective these days though to an advanced naval force. They ought to be easily detected and just shot out of the water. Detection technologies are far more advanced these days, and simple mine sweepers exist to clear mines or adapted frigates, or even helicopters, or scuba teams or sea robots. Mines really are only effective against "old navies" not modern militaries. You've not a clue.......Go tell that to any crew members of the USS Samuel B Roberts, USS Princeton & USS Tripoli….the Tripoli was the command ship for the coalitions MCM ships & helicopters to boot…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 You guys just don't get it. If Canada stopped exporting it's oil and gas, the country would collapse. Totally. What a joke. Go all you protectionists. (sp) Yeah, I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Hopefully it would be that much harder to fill the void without the natural resources we withhold from export. Definitely easier said I agree but sooner or later it or something like it will have to be done. Sounds like a great idea if your goal is to destroy Canada's economy. Until then, economics still trumps virtue, especially your brand of virtue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Sounds like a great idea if your goal is to destroy Canada's economy. Until then, economics still trumps virtue, especially your brand of virtue. I prefer the Randian argument: economics is virtue. There need not be any conflict between morality telling you one thing and practicality telling you another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 No, but it would stop the Oil tankers, ore, pulp & lumber carriers….isolating 10-15% of our exports overseas would have a devastating effect on our economy. Providing that the current trade schemes must remain the same. But I am certain that should some nation come to threaten 10-15% of our overseas exports, other schemes would be adjusted to compensate. I doubt there would be much of a devastating affect. Needless to say that the countries that rely on our exports would have something to say about it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Providing that the current trade schemes must remain the same. But I am certain that should some nation come to threaten 10-15% of our overseas exports, other schemes would be adjusted to compensate. I doubt there would be much of a devastating affect. Needless to say that the countries that rely on our exports would have something to say about it as well. So if “adjusting” our economy is that easy, why not put these “other schemes” in place now? Couldn’t that potentially increase our exports ~10-15%? Does a storeowner rely on the goodwill of his customers to protect his store? And is not the inverse true? Would we have something to say if a country was threatened that provides us with what we deem a vital import? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 So if “adjusting” our economy is that easy, why not put these “other schemes” in place now? Couldn’t that potentially increase our exports ~10-15%? I didn't say it would be "easy" nor did I say that making economic adjustments in the face of peril would equate to positive gains in peaceful time. Does a storeowner rely on the goodwill of his customers to protect his store? And is not the inverse true? Yes, most customers and store owners obey the law. Would we have something to say if a country was threatened that provides us with what we deem a vital import? Absolutely and we frequently do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Okay - you can have your new weapons but don't get sucked in and pay to much...and once you have them - be like a kid and listen to daddy OLEG and practice safe gun handling and storage on a big scale - King Oleg the good has spoken - now go and buy your swords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I didn't say it would be "easy" nor did I say that making economic adjustments in the face of peril would equate to positive gains in peaceful time. So you advocate allowing another country to dictate how and with whom we trade? Yes, most customers and store owners obey the law. Sure they do, but for example, a jewellery store owner still locks up at night……..it would be nice to live in a world where one didn’t need to lock-up, but that not reality……..such as the case with national defence. I will grant you that a symmetrical attack on Canada isn’t that likely, but one on our interests abroad is more so….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Okay - you can have your new weapons but don't get sucked in and pay to much...and once you have them - be like a kid and listen to daddy OLEG and practice safe gun handling and storage on a big scale - King Oleg the good has spoken - now go and buy your swords. Your post made me laugh, just bought a S&W 686 on the weekend and waiting for the registration & the ATT to go through reminded me of being a kid a week before Christmas....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 So you advocate allowing another country to dictate how and with whom we trade? No, I am advocating that "...to inflict serious harm to our country……just mine our harbours and form a submarine blockade..." is somewhat absurd on many levels. Sure they do, but for example, a jewellery store owner still locks up at night……..it would be nice to live in a world where one didn’t need to lock-up, but that not reality……..such as the case with national defence. Good grief Derek, if you are going to introduce flimsy red herrings, could you at least be consistent? Does a storeowner rely on the goodwill of his customers to protect his store? Are you now saying that that jewellery store owner locks the store up at night because of "his customers?" I will grant you that a symmetrical attack on Canada isn’t that likely, but one on our interests abroad is more so….. So "unlikey" that it borders alternative history status and just as useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 No, I am advocating that "...to inflict serious harm to our country……just mine our harbours and form a submarine blockade..." is somewhat absurd on many levels. Was it deemed likely that a handful of religious nutbars where going to fly airliners into the World Trade Center in, say, Septemeber of 1997? Also, are you saying that a nationstate couldn’t mine our harbours or restrict merchant shipping within our waters? Good grief Derek, if you are going to introduce flimsy red herrings, could you at least be consistent? Why does he lock-up then? I thought you stated most of his customers obey the law? Let’s say that they do, why can’t the merchant rely on their goodwill to protect his store from thieves? Are you now saying that that jewellery store owner locks the store up at night because of "his customers?" Nope, nor would I be concerned with our major trading partners mining our harbours or using unrestricted submarine warfare on merchant vessels within our waters. So "unlikey" that it borders alternative history status and just as useful. Alternative history? Tell that to RCN & merchant marine Veterans..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.