Should Canada acquire nuclear weapons?

[stopstaaron]

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

Britain will be on our side

[eyeball]

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

Only if we succumb to the illusion that the only solution to the issues swirling around the Arctic is a military one.

Canada could just as easily be the one who wins the most by simply developing what they already have in the Arctic. As has been pointed out we can either use it or lose it and to me the military approach is a particularly defeatist ass backwards one that comes at who knows how much more cost.

[Guest American Woman]

Britain will be on our side

'Fraid not.

The official U.S. position (supported by Britain and others) maintains that the waters are a "strait for

international navigation." link

[stopstaaron]

Only if we succumb to the illusion that the only solution to the issues swirling around the Arctic is a military one.

Canada could just as easily be the one who wins the most by simply developing what they already have in the Arctic. As has been pointed out we can either use it or lose it and to me the military approach is a particularly defeatist ass backwards one that comes at who knows how much more cost.

Russia is years a head of us in developing the Arctic .. so are the Scandanavian countries

The liberal governments did not give a crap about the Arctic.. nor would the NDP

[stopstaaron]

'Fraid not.

The official U.S. position (supported by Britain and others) maintains that the waters are a "strait for

international navigation." link

that just proves we need our own nukes

they aren't going to stick up for Canada or give us nukes

[eyeball]

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

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……..

They were trained to maintain a grip, but ultimately they were trained to follow the orders of our representatives. The issue is how much of a grip on things do our leaders have and how much of a grip do we have on our leaders. Less all the time I think.

[Signals.Cpl]

It sure could happen, but the political will to stop is, perhaps perversely, more difficult than the will to continue.

I suppose the current nuke-holders (a number far larger, and less stable than during most of the Cold War) might argue, not without justification, about "rogue states" acquiring them while everyone else is dismantling. A rational concern, no doubt.

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.

[eyeball]

Russia is years a head of us in developing the Arctic .. so are the Scandanavian countries

The liberal governments did not give a crap about the Arctic.. nor would the NDP

Well here's a big chance for the Conservatives to do something different for a change.

...something different...for a change...

Oh, right... What the hell was I thinking?

[Guest Derek L]

They were trained to maintain a grip, but ultimately they were trained to follow the orders of our representatives. The issue is how much of a grip on things do our leaders have and how much of a grip do we have on our leaders. Less all the time I think.

No, they were trained to turn a key, touch a button, crew a submarine and fly a bomber all designed to kill millions…….Clearly the threat of MAD, for both sides, ultimately was successful in demonstrating that a nuclear exchange wouldn’t garner a victor…….

[Signals.Cpl]

It'll never happen. There will never be that kind of trust in all of mankind, nor should there be.

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.

[Wilber]

Dumb idea if you are thinking of the US or Russia. Using a nuke on either one of them would be suicide.

[Signals.Cpl]

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

I agree 100%, a nuke will not fill sandbags in Winnipeg, nor would it supply people in isolated communities when a storm their only way in.

[-TSS-]

Doesn't the non-prolifiration treaty forbid any new countries from getting nuclear weapons?

[eyeball]

No, they were trained to turn a key, touch a button, crew a submarine and fly a bomber all designed to kill millions…….Clearly the threat of MAD, for both sides, ultimately was successful in demonstrating that a nuclear exchange wouldn’t garner a victor…….

Hence the wisdom behind the notion we develop our own nukes.

[Guest Derek L]

I agree 100%, a nuke will not fill sandbags in Winnipeg, nor would it supply people in isolated communities when a storm their only way in.

That’s not really a case for a military though, but a large construction contractor………And that line of thinking hurts the cause ultimately, as does the conjured feel good image of Canadian soldiers wearing blue berets inoculating and giving candy out to third world children……

Let’s not mince words, an Armed Forces is ultimately the arm of a state that kills others……Sure DND can help sick kids and shovel snow, but if that’s all we require of them, there are certainly other cheaper options.

[eyeball]

Doesn't the non-prolifiration treaty forbid any new countries from getting nuclear weapons?

We could simply argue our possessing the means to produce enriched uranium grandfathers us in to the club.

[Guest Derek L]

Hence the wisdom behind the notion we develop our own nukes.

I don’t feel there is any wisdom associated with such a notion, both in terms of fiscal & political aspects………We are currently engaged in a debate over 65 aircraft……..Can you imagine the conversation on Canada gaining the ability to help contribute to the ability to end civilization?

[Signals.Cpl]

That’s not really a case for a military though, but a large construction contractor………And that line of thinking hurts the cause ultimately, as does the conjured feel good image of Canadian soldiers wearing blue berets inoculating and giving candy out to third world children……

Let’s not mince words, an Armed Forces is ultimately the arm of a state that kills others……Sure DND can help sick kids and shovel snow, but if that’s all we require of them, there are certainly other cheaper options.

No the military is meant to defend the nation, fight in wars and when needed help in disaster management. The military is the all purpose last resort force, when all else fails you call the military to fix things. Last few years LFCA stood up a number of formations for deployment to assist in disaster management in Canada, few were needed but they were there if needed.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Guest American Woman]

It doesn't have to be trust, it could be fear.

There are always going to be people who are lacking in fear, among other attributes. There are always going to be people in this world desiring power and willing to do anything to get it.

I believe what George Washington said is true: To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.

If other nations know we are prepared to fight back they will be less likely to attack, but if that doesn't deter them, at least we are prepared to fight back. I think we must always be prepared. To let down our guard is to invite trouble.

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.

Enough to counteract a nuke?

Edited April 9, 2012 by American Woman

[eyeball]

I don’t feel there is any wisdom associated with such a notion, both in terms of fiscal & political aspects………We are currently engaged in a debate over 65 aircraft……..Can you imagine the conversation on Canada gaining the ability to help contribute to the ability to end civilization?

Except that building these stupid planes also contributes to that. These planes are not anywhere near as defensive as offensive in nature.

[Signals.Cpl]

There are always going to be people who are lacking in fear, among other attributes. There are always going to be people in this world desiring power and willing to do anything to get it.

I believe what George Washington said is true: To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.

If other nations know we are prepared to fight back they will be less likely to attack, but if that doesn't deter them, we are prepared to fight back. I think we must always be prepared. To let down our guard is to invite trouble.

Enough to counteract a nuke?

Does a nuke counteract a nuke? I dare say that the US navy has as much power as probably most other navies combined. That power comes from the super carriers the US Navy has which give it tremendous power all around the globe.

Can you imagine the budget that will be freed up if the US gave up nukes? They would probably have the ability to easily double the carriers.

And I know I sound naive, I don't think that we will have a nuclear free world unless something really horrible happens that changes the way people see WMD.

[Signals.Cpl]

Except that building these stupid planes also contributes to that. These planes are not anywhere near as defensive as offensive in nature.

Best defence is a good offence.

[Guest Derek L]

No the military is meant to defend the nation, fight in wars and when needed help in disaster management. The military is the all purpose last resort force, when all else fails you call the military to fix things. Last few years LFCA stood up a number of formations for deployment to assist in disaster management in Canada, few were needed but they were there if needed.

I do have an inclination of the envisioned roles of the military…….domestic SAR, filling sandbags, shovelling snow and fighting forest fires could be performed by other agencies.

Your points that I bolded are different.

[Guest Derek L]

Except that building these stupid planes also contributes to that. These planes are not anywhere near as defensive as offensive in nature.

These planes can clearly be used for either task, what they are used for is a political question.

[Guest Derek L]

Does a nuke counteract a nuke? I dare say that the US navy has as much power as probably most other navies combined. That power comes from the super carriers the US Navy has which give it tremendous power all around the globe.

Can you imagine the budget that will be freed up if the US gave up nukes? They would probably have the ability to easily double the carriers.

And I know I sound naive, I don't think that we will have a nuclear free world unless something really horrible happens that changes the way people see WMD.

How useful would the Carriers be if their opponents can wipe out the national command authority in 30 minutes?

Edited April 9, 2012 by Derek L