Should Canada acquire nuclear weapons?

[PIK]

I am a believer in a strong military ,but no nukes.

[Moonlight Graham]

We don't need a military deterrent because there are no military threats to respond to.

Just like there is no imaginary crime wave.

Agreed. Better to spend money on real problems than imaginary threats. If Canada were threatened it wouldn't take long to buy a nuke and slap it on a missile. Until then...

[Moonlight Graham]

I have hope that it will happen.

It might happen when somebody invents an even more powerful weapon, like a Death Star or a black-hole machine!

[Guest American Woman]

I am a believer in a strong military ,but no nukes.

If the enemy is the only side with nukes, a strong military won't get you anywhere should they decide to employ them.

[eyeball]

Of note, the estimated cost of replacing the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent (around 150-200 warheads) is close to 20 billion pounds, or more then the cost of both our National Shipbuilding plan and the F-35 combined……..And they have had the corporate knowledge for decades, and still relied heavily on the Americans.

Yes but these dimwits are being duped into doing things the same way over and over again.

We simply don't need 20 billion dollars to make a nuclear threat real anymore. The certain knowledge that you posses the means to build a bomb and deliver it, via Purolator for example, is all that would be be needed to deter any of the nations that are even remotely capable of invading us.

[Guest American Woman]

Agreed. Better to spend money on real problems than imaginary threats. If Canada were threatened it wouldn't take long to buy a nuke and slap it on a missile. Until then...

So you believe other countries - specifically Canada's allies - should have nukes, so Canada can purchase one if needed.

Edited April 9, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Lets face it, the chances of us getting attacked by the Russians or Americans for our natural resources would go drastically down

if we attained our own nuclear weapons .. and we would not need all of these jets

should we nuke up?

I say yes we should

You want Stephen Harper to have access to nukes?

[eyeball]

You want Stephen Harper to have access to nukes?

No, authorizing their use should be restricted to the sort of people that politicians fear, like auditor generals. Sycophants like military generals wouldn't do.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes but these dimwits are being duped into doing things the same way over and over again.

We simply don't need 20 billion dollars to make a nuclear threat real anymore. The certain knowledge that you posses the means to build a bomb and deliver it, via Purolator for example, is all that would be be needed to deter any of the nations that are even remotely capable of invading us.

That’s not the case though, as the OP suggested, we build a deterrent capable of an engagement of the Russians or Americans arsenals……..Being able to possibly flatten a few square blocks of a number of given cities (via a suitcase nuke), with months of lead time, is clearly different then possessing the ability to end an entire civilization in under 30 minutes from the word go.

[PIK]

If the enemy is the only side with nukes, a strong military won't get you anywhere should they decide to employ them.

Is america coming for our water?

[eyeball]

That’s not the case though, as the OP suggested, we build a deterrent capable of an engagement of the Russians or Americans arsenals……..

It just suggested a deterrent not a specific capability.

Being able to possibly flatten a few square blocks of a number of given cities (via a suitcase nuke), with months of lead time, is clearly different then possessing the ability to end an entire civilization in under 30 minutes from the word go.

You seriously imagine anyone who loves their children would actually do that?

Please get a grip.

[Guest American Woman]

Is america coming for our water?

Russia's coming to dispute Canada's claim to the Northwest passage.

[eyeball]

Russia's coming to dispute Canada's claim to the Northwest passage.

No they're not because they know your country will say otherwise.

[stopstaaron]

We don't need a military deterrent because there are no military threats to respond to

I hear this so often - how Canada has nothing to worry about, it will never be attacked - and I can't help but think of the old saying "ignorance is bliss." Unfortunately, bliss does not provide a very effective defense; however, if Canada were attacked, the U.S. and NATO would be on board.

Not if US is the country that wants to attack Canada

[stopstaaron]

I can see a few defensive nukes to placate the unreasoning blind fear that being completely pacifist seems to cause in certain people.

Seriously though the only real purpose our military serves anymore is to put a moral shine on the extremely questionable military adventures of our allies. I mean if the Hobbits are on your side how can you be in the wrong?

I'd rather we project our moral force by with-holding our natural resources and stopping trade with nations who'd just as likely use those resources to build armies that intrude on and interfere in the affairs of other countries militarily. We're ultimately cutting our own throats by dealing with such rogue nations.

You are proposing we cut off our natural resources to the US

[TheNewTeddy]

We should not have nukes unless we intend to use them.

I also say that we should use them.

However whenever I talk about how I'd use nukes on a forum I invariably get banned.

[stopstaaron]

You want Stephen Harper to have access to nukes?

The Governor General should make the ultimate decision I believe

[stopstaaron]

No they're not because they know your country will say otherwise.

the US and Russia are against a few of Canadas claims

The UN is not going to decide this.. theres just too much at stake to go oh okay we lost

[stopstaaron]

Russia's coming to dispute Canada's claim to the Northwest passage.

The US also vehemently denies Canadas claim to the NW Passage

[stopstaaron]

Of all the countries in this oil/natural resources dispute in the Arctic, Canada has the most to lose

a nuclear deterrent I believe would come in handy...

we can't rely on the US cause they also are in this dispute and will take what they want from us

[Guest Derek L]

It just suggested a deterrent not a specific capability.

If that’s the case, I’d assume the OP would desire an effective deterrent....

You seriously imagine anyone who loves their children would actually do that?

Please get a grip.

There have been thousands of men and women, whom all love their children, that for the last ~60 years, were trained to do exactly that……..

[Guest American Woman]

The US also vehemently denies Canadas claim to the NW Passage

As do many other nations. Canada stands alone in thinking it has the right to claim it.

[Guest American Woman]

We should not have nukes unless we intend to use them.

I also say that we should use them.

However whenever I talk about how I'd use nukes on a forum I invariably get banned.

Where do you think you should use them?

[stopstaaron]

As do many other nations. Canada stands alone in thinking it has the right to claim it.

Those nations have no right to dispute that.. most of the NW Passage is clearly between Canadian territory

[Guest American Woman]

Those nations have no right to dispute that.. most of the NW Passage is clearly between Canadian territory

They have every right to dispute it, and they are. Best get those nukes ready - Canada will stand alone on that issue.