Should Canada acquire nuclear weapons?

[Signals.Cpl]

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

How many countries besides Russia, America and China have that capability?

[stopstaaron]

How many countries besides Russia, America and China have that capability?

Those are the 3 countries we should worry about lol

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

I understand your point, but what I mean is when there is no one else the military steps in. If an earthquake hits BC we can't wait for other agencies to organize themselves the CF will go, if Winnipeg is about to be flooded you call the CF to protect the City. I don't mean using the CF as a cheap source of labour, my view is that if there is no one else use the military. No point in have 100,000 Reg Force, Reserves and Rangers if Canadians are dying while waiting for a civilian agency to assist.

[Guest Derek L]

How many countries besides Russia, America and China have that capability?

The French, United Kingdom and possibly the Indians, Pakistanis and North Koreans prior to the end of the decade…….point still stands with regards to the nuclear genie.

[Guest Derek L]

I understand your point, but what I mean is when there is no one else the military steps in. If an earthquake hits BC we can't wait for other agencies to organize themselves the CF will go, if Winnipeg is about to be flooded you call the CF to protect the City. I don't mean using the CF as a cheap source of labour, my view is that if there is no one else use the military. No point in have 100,000 Reg Force, Reserves and Rangers if Canadians are dying while waiting for a civilian agency to assist.

And I understand your point…….but said roles could be performed by an agency, at a fraction of the cost of DND’s budget……..

[Tilter]

We sure as heck would not need 65 jets!

No-- one jet to deliver the one nuke. after that we would all need lead umbrellas & lots of caskets for the 20 million casualties.

Canada getting nuclear weapons is the stupidest idea I've ever heard

and

Developing one would be far more expensive than any number of F35s we could operate.

and

You'd better start exercising so you would be able to get----- your whole head up your ass.

[stopstaaron]

No-- one jet to deliver the one nuke. after that we would all need lead umbrellas & lots of caskets for the 20 million casualties.

Canada getting nuclear weapons is the stupidest idea I've ever heard

and

Developing one would be far more expensive than any number of F35s we could operate.

and

You'd better start exercising so you would be able to get----- your whole head up your ass.

Y u mad

[Signals.Cpl]

Y u mad

Why you kick my dog?

[stopstaaron]

Why you kick my dog?

LOL.. love those memes

[waldo]

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

no - that is incorrect. Russia views the Northwest passage as Canadian internal waters... in much the same way that it views the Northeast passage as Russian internal waters. Rather, in both cases, in regards both the Northwest and Northeast passages, it is the U.S. that claims both passages are "international straits".

[The_Squid]

A nuke would certainly be more of a deterrent than some fancy jets whose merits are dubious at best. I wonder why the "we need a deterrent" right-wing crowd wouldn't be all for this?

The F35's are no deterrent to a country with a larger military than our's. Canada's deterrent is south of the border.

[Guest Derek L]

A nuke would certainly be more of a deterrent than some fancy jets whose merits are dubious at best. I wonder why the "we need a deterrent" right-wing crowd wouldn't be all for this?

The F35's are no deterrent to a country with a larger military than our's. Canada's deterrent is south of the border.

How would you deliver said nuclear deterrent?

[eyeball]

A nuke would certainly be more of a deterrent than some fancy jets whose merits are dubious at best. I wonder why the "we need a deterrent" right-wing crowd wouldn't be all for this?

Because they're actually a 'we need to be seen strutting the world's cock walk' crowd.

[eyeball]

How would you deliver said nuclear deterrent?

Backpack.

People pack tons and tons of stuff into the US every year this way.

[dre]

If Canada wants to keep the artic they should spend the money to colonize and develope it. Thats how you secure territory... if we built mines, cities, and ports there then we would have a pretty strong claim. If we dont, theres a good chance we we lose it, or at the very least have to share some it, no matter what we spend on our military.

[stopstaaron]

A nuke would certainly be more of a deterrent than some fancy jets whose merits are dubious at best. I wonder why the "we need a deterrent" right-wing crowd wouldn't be all for this?

The F35's are no deterrent to a country with a larger military than our's. Canada's deterrent is south of the border.

I'm a left winger and I am all for it.. I doubt I am the only one!

That is true that for now we are protected by the US influence however US seems to be at odds

with Canada on a few claims so they will not back us up unless we give them some land and or resources in exchange

I say no! We get our own nukes and tell them if they really want what is ours

to come and get it but be prepared to get nuked.. they will back down

[Guest American Woman]

no - that is incorrect. Russia views the Northwest passage as Canadian internal waters... in much the same way that it views the Northeast passage as Russian internal waters. Rather, in both cases, in regards both the Northwest and Northeast passages, it is the U.S. that claims both passages are "international straits".

Actually, it is correct.

The Canadian government says the jurisdiction is clear — they're Canadian waters. But the U.S. and some other countries, especially now Russia, don't agree. They see the Northwest Passage as an international strait that any ship should be free to transit.

link

[stopstaaron]

If Canada wants to keep the artic they should spend the money to colonize and develope it. Thats how you secure territory... if we built mines, cities, and ports there then we would have a pretty strong claim. If we dont, theres a good chance we we lose it, or at the very least have to share some it, no matter what we spend on our military.

on the flipside .. we build major communities up there and a pissed off rejected country bombs it

.. we can't just build and expect no push back from dejected countries

[Signals.Cpl]

And I understand your point…….but said roles could be performed by an agency, at a fraction of the cost of DND’s budget……..

I am all for the federal government having an agency to be able to deal with a major disaster. During World War 2 the RAF had civilian staff to repair the damaged airfields, when the Germans bombed them during the Battle of Britain, many of those civilians refused to do the job because it was too dangerous. That is the main difference between the CF and a civvie agency, soldier cannot say too dangerous I'm not doing that civvie can. And the other major point is when the CF send a unit to a disaster are, they send a self sufficient unit, one that does not become a burden on the local economy that in many cases would already be fragile. I am not suggesting using soldiers for long term assistance, my point is CF goes in stabilizes the situation and gets out.

Another example would be Haiti, where the USAF went in to Port-au-Prince airport and in 48h turned increase its capacity from 30 flights a day to 180 flights a day. Within a week most military personnel should have been removed. Stabilize the situation let the civilian authorities wether in country or internally sort it out and hand over the situation within a few days,

[Guest Derek L]

Backpack.

People pack tons and tons of stuff into the US every year this way.

Again, that’s not an effective Strategic Deterrent…….for if that was the case, the other nuclear powers would rely on such a low cost response………The most feasible and effective deterrent is submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles……..As I mentioned the earlier, the miniscule British replacement deterrent, with the aide of the US, will mirror in terms of cost both our F-35 and Shipbuilding strategy, to say nothing of the additional; associated costs in defending said deterrent.

[Guest Derek L]

I am all for the federal government having an agency to be able to deal with a major disaster. During World War 2 the RAF had civilian staff to repair the damaged airfields, when the Germans bombed them during the Battle of Britain, many of those civilians refused to do the job because it was too dangerous. That is the main difference between the CF and a civvie agency, soldier cannot say too dangerous I'm not doing that civvie can. And the other major point is when the CF send a unit to a disaster are, they send a self sufficient unit, one that does not become a burden on the local economy that in many cases would already be fragile. I am not suggesting using soldiers for long term assistance, my point is CF goes in stabilizes the situation and gets out.

Another example would be Haiti, where the USAF went in to Port-au-Prince airport and in 48h turned increase its capacity from 30 flights a day to 180 flights a day. Within a week most military personnel should have been removed. Stabilize the situation let the civilian authorities wether in country or internally sort it out and hand over the situation within a few days,

Uh-huh......But are you suggesting, a civilian organization, like a Halliburton, properly funded, couldn’t shovel snow or fight forest fires within Canada?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The best defense against nuclear weapons is to not live in urban centres

[Guest Derek L]

If Canada wants to keep the artic they should spend the money to colonize and develope it. Thats how you secure territory... if we built mines, cities, and ports there then we would have a pretty strong claim. If we dont, theres a good chance we we lose it, or at the very least have to share some it, no matter what we spend on our military.

I agree with your approach……A much better proposal to developing our North would be auctioning off land and mineral rights at bargain basement prices to private oil & gas and mining companies……..

[stopstaaron]

The best defense against nuclear weapons is to not live in urban centres

Over 70 % of Canadians live in cities...

[Signals.Cpl]

Uh-huh......But are you suggesting, a civilian organization, like a Halliburton, properly funded, couldn’t shovel snow or fight forest fires within Canada?

What I'm saying is that keeping the military as a strategic reserve when nature or manmade disaster strikes is the safest path for Canadians. At least in my mind, defence of Canada includes war, terrorism, Natural and man made disaster. Last year when Winnipeg was in danger, they requested help and I believe 300-400 PPCLI soldiers moved from Shilo to Winnipeg to assist. And with the current state, creating a major national organization to deal with disasters is likely not going to happen