Should Canada acquire nuclear weapons?

[stopstaaron]

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

Edited April 9, 2012 by stopstaaron

[Shady]

I think we should produce at least one nuclear missile.

[DogOnPorch]

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

Great idea. We'll need some F-35s for weapon deployment.

:lol:

Edited April 9, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[stopstaaron]

We sure as heck would not need 65 jets!

[DogOnPorch]

We sure as heck would not need 65 jets!

Of course not...just one and you can be the pilot!

[stopstaaron]

Of course not...just one and you can be the pilot!

if i were the pilot I think the plane would accidently go down over Alberta lol

[Signals.Cpl]

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

During the cold war, I believe there was a lot of protests over Americans stationing nuclear missiles on Canadian soil, Can you imagine the actual public outcry if it was suggested? Try convincing people we need a nuclear power submarine before nuclear weapons.

[eyeball]

I think we should produce at least one nuclear missile.

We just need a few suitcase nukes.

Great idea. We'll need some F-35s for weapon deployment.

:lol:

Purolator would probably be a lot cheaper.

Why would you need an F-35 to deliver a suitcase?

[stopstaaron]

During the cold war, I believe there was a lot of protests over Americans stationing nuclear missiles on Canadian soil, Can you imagine the actual public outcry if it was suggested? Try convincing people we need a nuclear power submarine before nuclear weapons.

I would not want American nukes here either.. people would feel better about it if it were Canadian made nukes

[DogOnPorch]

During the cold war, I believe there was a lot of protests over Americans stationing nuclear missiles on Canadian soil, Can you imagine the actual public outcry if it was suggested? Try convincing people we need a nuclear power submarine before nuclear weapons.

The beloved Arrow...armed with nukes????? Say it ain't so. Most Canadians under a certain age are purely unaware of Canada's romance with the Bomarc and the Genie.

Edited April 9, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[stopstaaron]

Getting nuked by Canada .. that would be humiliating to any country

that's the best detterent we'd have

[Shady]

We just need a few suitcase nukes.

Suitcase nukes are not nearly as effective, and don't provide a military deterrent. Those would be fine if we wanted to keep our capabilities a secret. But I'd want to make sure everyone knows that we have nuclear missile capability.

[Signals.Cpl]

Getting nuked by Canada .. that would be humiliating to any country

that's the best detterent we'd have

Try selling that to the Canadian Public.

[stopstaaron]

Try selling that to the Canadian Public.

we should at least have a national debate

[DogOnPorch]

We just need a few suitcase nukes.

Purolator would probably be a lot cheaper.

Why would you need an F-35 to deliver a suitcase?

Suitcase nuke...lol. Whatcha planning? Blowing-up the back sand lot? Deterent equal thermonuclear weapon...not puny l'il fission pop tarts. We'll need a few smart Jews.

[Signals.Cpl]

we should at least have a national debate

My personal opinion is that Canada does not need nuke's. If it ever came to using them there is more then enough between Russia and US and our contribution will not add much to our death. Realistically a well balanced military serves as a deterrent, can be used in an offensive war, or peacekeeping. And aside from the traditional duties related to war, there is disaster response and such duties.

[eyeball]

Suitcase nukes are not nearly as effective, and don't provide a military deterrent.

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

Just like there is no imaginary crime wave.

Those would be fine if we wanted to keep our capabilities a secret. But I'd want to make sure everyone knows that we have nuclear missile capability.

Why? Our capabilities are already well known. In fact the most powerful country on Earth just asked that we stop producing enriched uranium.

[bleeding heart]

I'm with Signals.Cpl on this one. We have no need for nukes. "Our contribution will not add much to our death," lol, just so!

I'd go further, and suggest that everyone should stop producing nukes, period, though I understand that's a pipe dream.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

[Signals.Cpl]

I'm with Signals.Cpl on this one. We have no need for nukes. "Our contribution will not add much to our death," lol, just so!

I'd go further, and suggest that everyone should stop producing nukes, period, though I understand that's a pipe dream.

I have hope that it will happen.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

[eyeball]

My personal opinion is that Canada does not need nuke's. If it ever came to using them there is more then enough between Russia and US and our contribution will not add much to our death. Realistically a well balanced military serves as a deterrent, can be used in an offensive war, or peacekeeping. And aside from the traditional duties related to war, there is disaster response and such duties.

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.

Edited April 9, 2012 by eyeball

[bleeding heart]

I have hope that it will happen.

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.

[Guest American Woman]

I have hope that it will happen.

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

[eyeball]

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.

Yes well, did you read what I posted about herons and eagles in other related threads? I doubt the herons live in bliss either but note they still get by just fine too.