Should Canada acquire nuclear weapons?

[Moonlight Graham]

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

Yes.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes.

So you support the U.S. having nukes?

[cybercoma]

Maybe but even if you are legally correct she has a point. Some countries refuse to recognize our claim.

I understand they refuse to recognize our claim. Many countries refuse to recognize our claim. We'll just have to sink a few of their ships to get our point across.

[waldo]

Some countries refuse to recognize our claim.

from the earlier link I supplied... specifically with regards to the Northwest Passage:

Contrary to a widespread assumption, no country apart from the US has ever explicitly and specifically objected to Canada’s internal waters claim.

this is actually the same case with respect to the Northeast Passage (Northern Sea Route)... no country, other than the U.S. has challenged Russia's claim that the Northeast Passage is Russia's internal waters.

[Moonlight Graham]

So you support the U.S. having nukes?

Either Canada or the US has to have nukes. One of us needs to have a nuke deterrent on this side of the pond. I'm not sure what is better or worse: having the nukes and having the power to use or not use them and sell them (or not) yet being much more of a target in case of nuclear war, or not having nukes but being less of a target.

The status quo has worked ok so I'll say yes to that.

[waldo]

Sorry, but that's not up to you to determine. There is some dispute due to the distance between some of the islands.

no - the issue is in how Canada has used what are called "straight baselines" in regards the Northwest Passage:

Canada takes the view that the Northwest Passage constitutes internal waters, where the full force of its domestic law applies. Internal waters are not territorial waters, and there is no right – at international law – to access them without the permission of the coastal state. Internal waters arise in bays or along fragmented coastlines through the long-term acquiescence of other countries and/or by the drawing of ‘straight baselines’ between headlands in accordance with a judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case.

.

.

The US insists that the Northwest Passage is an ‘international strait,’ according to criteria set out by the ICJ in the 1949 Corfu Channel Case – namely, that “its geographical situation [connects] two parts of the high seas and the fact [that it is] being used for international navigation.”

The US position has received some support from the European Commission, which in 1985 joined the State Department in protesting against Canada’s drawing of straight baselines around its Arctic islands. However, the focus of the European objection was the unusual length of several of the baselines, rather than the adoption of the lines as such, or the internal waters claim specifically. Contrary to a widespread assumption, no country apart from the US has ever explicitly and specifically objected to Canada’s internal waters claim.

[Battletoads]

Absolutely. After all if your America/China/Russia what going to intimidate you more, the conventional Canadian military or the nuclearly armed Canadian military?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Over 70 % of Canadians live in cities...

Let's look at the big targets.

Any city over 300,000k is a prime target.

The smaller the city, the safer you are!

So move out of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, etc etc...

Edited April 10, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[stopstaaron]

Let's look at the big targets.

Any city over 300,000k is a prime target.

The smaller the city, the safer you are!

So move out of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, etc etc...

that is like 14 million people

[Signals.Cpl]

we should at least have a national debate

Yeah, which party do you foresee bringing that topic up for discussion?

[DogOnPorch]

Perhaps you need to garner the context of varying sizes of nuclear weapons………Here, use this link, gather whole family, and pick a city and a varying size of warhead. Enjoy:

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16

For reference, your suit case nukes are only a fraction of Little Boy………and of course, their deployment is dependent on having one deployed in an enemies cities, back packer hostels.

These are good comparisons, too. It's clear that many think a nuke is a nuke is a nuke here.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x132/slarticlouseau/nukesizes1ke.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Nukecloud.png

MiddleClassCentrist: The smaller the city, the safer you are!

From nuclear terrorism, perhaps. But in a full-on nuclear exchange, there are plenty of non-urban targets that are due to get a heavy dose of thermonuclear weapons (aka H-Bombs) such as dams, airbases, passes through mountains, etc. Central British Columbia was to be on the business end of about 30 H-Bombs (1mt or more) during the so-called Cold War if push came to shove.

[Tilter]

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

And, if I'm not mistaken, you are one of the posters bitching about the cost of the F35s--- just think how much you could bitch when the bill came in to develop, manufacture & store the nukes and then to get something to deliver them--- like a fleet of F35s. I guess that would make Canadians

feel better about it if it were Canadian made nukes

[Signals.Cpl]

during the so-called Cold War if push came to shove.

What would you rather call the cold war?

[The_Squid]

And, if I'm not mistaken, you are one of the posters bitching about the cost of the F35s--- just think how much you could bitch when the bill came in to develop, manufacture & store the nukes and then to get something to deliver them--- like a fleet of F35s. I guess that would make Canadians

But I thought right-wingers wanted a military deterrent. If we are that worried about Russia, does anyone really think F35's are a deterrent to a nuclear power? Why don't you want nukes. Seems a bit inconsistent.

[Guest Derek L]

These are good comparisons, too. It's clear that many think a nuke is a nuke is a nuke here.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x132/slarticlouseau/nukesizes1ke.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Nukecloud.png

From nuclear terrorism, perhaps. But in a full-on nuclear exchange, there are plenty of non-urban targets that are due to get a heavy dose of thermonuclear weapons (aka H-Bombs) such as dams, airbases, passes through mountains, etc. Central British Columbia was to be on the business end of about 30 H-Bombs (1mt or more) during the so-called Cold War if push came to shove.

Indeed, and putting direct attacks on BC (or Canada) proper aside, the amount of damage inflicted on the Puget Sound basin targets alone (Bremerton, Everett, Ft Lewis, Whidbey Island and most important of all, Bangor) would have ensured the end of all life on Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley.

[eyeball]

Well there ain't no time to wonder why,

Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

[stopstaaron]

And, if I'm not mistaken, you are one of the posters bitching about the cost of the F35s--- just think how much you could bitch when the bill came in to develop, manufacture & store the nukes and then to get something to deliver them--- like a fleet of F35s. I guess that would make Canadians

my main problem with the F35s is that it is a single engine jet... and the Canadian arctic is vast, you know that

single engine jets protecting the arctic is a fail. I don't want to spend that much money on single engine jets

too much can go wrong

[Guest Derek L]

But I thought right-wingers wanted a military deterrent. If we are that worried about Russia, does anyone really think F35's are a deterrent to a nuclear power? Why don't you want nukes. Seems a bit inconsistent.

It’s all about measured response, and this lesson was learned by the nuclear powers in the 50s and 60s, when it was learned that a one size fits all nuclear deterrent is not feasible.

For Canada proper, our current defence treaties (NATO and to a lesser extent NORAD) allow us to fall under the United States and United Kingdom (and a lesser extent the French) nuclear umbrellas. With that, is the expectations that we’ll bring something else to the “party”……..i.e. a capable military that can allow for a useful military contribution…….For this, we have no requirement for a nuclear deterrent.

Now if one wanted a foreign & defence policy that saw a greater independence of other nations, well still seeing Canada as an international actor on the World’s stage, then yes, an independent nuclear deterrent for Canada, well certainly not a prerequisite, it would certainly become a viable option to allow us to assert ourselves with confidence.

[Guest Derek L]

my main problem with the F35s is that it is a single engine jet... and the Canadian arctic is vast, you know that

single engine jets protecting the arctic is a fail. I don't want to spend that much money on single engine jets

too much can go wrong

The Norwegians and Americans have been basing (not only deploying) single engine F-16s within the arctic since the 70s.

[stopstaaron]

For Canada proper, our current defence treaties (NATO and to a lesser extent NORAD) allow us to fall under the United States and United Kingdom (and a lesser extent the French) nuclear umbrellas.

And what if those are the countries we are feuding with?!

What if U.S wants something we have and tries taking it and the British & French back down from helping us cause of their alliance with the US?

[stopstaaron]

The Norwegians and Americans have been basing (not only deploying) single engine F-16s within the arctic since the 70s.

They haven't been in combat yet in the arctic with those jets... there is a possibility Canada will in the next 10 years

[Signals.Cpl]

And what if those are the countries we are feuding with?!

What if U.S wants something we have and tries taking it and the British & French back down from helping us cause of their alliance with the US?

If we are feuding with the US neither Canada(if we had nukes) or the US would consider using nukes on the other. Seeing as the fallout would most definitely affect their own people.

[Guest Derek L]

And what if those are the countries we are feuding with?!

What if U.S wants something we have and tries taking it and the British & French back down from helping us cause of their alliance with the US?

If that is a viable worry or concern for you, be prepared for a minimum quadrupling of our defence budget…..even at that point, the Americans would still have us licked.

[stopstaaron]

I guess there is no point in getting nukes if we are doomed anyway

[Guest Derek L]

They haven't been in combat yet in the arctic with those jets... there is a possibility Canada will in the next 10 years

I fail to see your point…….Both countries trained for a more likely scenario for combat (with your imagined adversary) then the likelihood of us fighting a war on our soil.