Should Canada acquire nuclear weapons?

[cybercoma]

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

The United States doesn't recognize Canada's claim. Their stance is that it's international waters.

[eyeball]

Again, that’s not an effective Strategic Deterrent…….

It would be a retaliatory deterrent, screw with us and...

In light of how freakingly destructive a few box cutters were I think any sober assessment of what it would cost if a nuke was detonated in an American city would deter them from ever thinking of invading us.

All we'd need is a PM who convinces the Americans to disabuse themselves of any notions to do so by saying...let me be clear, or something to that effect.

[stopstaaron]

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

Do you mean like The National Guard in the US?

[dre]

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……..

Yup, exactly. Its pretty damn hard to maintain sovereignty over a remote place where you have no citizens and no stuff. Too damn expensive.

[cybercoma]

'Fraid not.

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

international navigation." link

And they would be wrong. It's an archipelago, which makes the NW passage part of Canadian territory, just as the waters between every other archipelago on the planet is considered territorial waters.

[Guest Derek L]

It would be a retaliatory deterrent, screw with us and...

In light of how freakingly destructive a few box cutters were I think any sober assessment of what it would cost if a nuke was detonated in an American city would deter them from ever thinking of invading us.

All we'd need is a PM who convinces the Americans to disabuse themselves of any notions to do so by saying...let me be clear, or something to that effect.

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.

[eyeball]

The United States doesn't recognize Canada's claim. Their stance is that it's international waters.

You know, now that you mention it, why should I care again about the odd boat that's 1000's of kilometres north of me?

Is possessing a bunch of stealth fighters supposed to change our ability to respond to their claim? What's to stop the US from installing a computer virus into the plane's software that makes them tumble out of the sky in case they decide to invade us?

I mean, given the ridiculous things I'm being told I should be fearful of these days, isn't everything probable?

[Guest Derek L]

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

I agree that it would not happen, in that it’s a zero sum funding game………You’d need to seriously pair down DND’s budget to fund such a venture.

I’ve got an idea…….Use prisoners to shovel snow and fight forest fires…….All we’d need is guards on horse back armed with Winchester Model 12s and mirrored sun glasses.

[eyeball]

For reference, your suit case nukes are only a fraction of Little Boy………

Yeah but compared to a box cutter Little Boy would be like Armageddon.

[Signals.Cpl]

Do you mean like The National Guard in the US?

I would say if we ever go ahead to create this it would have to be more along the lines of the State Guard, a non combat unit that is specifically organized for disaster assistance and can be made available to the Federal government for use in another province or territory.

[Signals.Cpl]

I agree that it would not happen, in that it’s a zero sum funding game………You’d need to seriously pair down DND’s budget to fund such a venture.

I’ve got an idea…….Use prisoners to shovel snow and fight forest fires…….All we’d need is guards on horse back armed with Winchester Model 12s and mirrored sun glasses.

I wouldn't mind that idea.

[stopstaaron]

You know, now that you mention it, why should I care again about the odd boat that's 1000's of kilometres north of me?

Is possessing a bunch of stealth fighters supposed to change our ability to respond to their claim? What's to stop the US from installing a computer virus into the plane's software that makes them tumble out of the sky in case they decide to invade us?

I mean, given the ridiculous things I'm being told I should be fearful of these days, isn't everything probable?

i dont think we want all those ships carrying oil and stuff through our waters

[Guest American Woman]

And they would be wrong. It's an archipelago, which makes the NW passage part of Canadian territory, just as the waters between every other archipelago on the planet is considered territorial waters.

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

link

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Canada ratified in 2003, coastal countries have the right to control access to the belt of shoreline along their coasts. Barring some exceptions, that belt is 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometres) wide. But the waterways dividing some of the islands in Canada's north are often nearly 100 kilometres wide. That would seem to leave plenty of room down the middle for foreign ships.

[Guest Derek L]

I wouldn't mind that idea.

I’m glad we no longer appear to have a failure to communicate

[eyeball]

i dont think we want all those ships carrying oil and stuff through our waters

These waters connect to the whole planet's waters so whether you spill stuff here, there or anywhere is pretty much moot.

Which goes to the heart of why the idea of needing to defend ourselves against old style military invasions from Russia is so god damn silly in the first place. The world's just too integrated economically to be worth the trouble to fight old style wars anymore.

As for Americans pushing against our economic exclusion borders, they've been doing that for decades along our southern border that extends out to sea. There is still a small disputed area out here but since Canada pretty much forced all the Canadians who fished there out of business who cares?

Edited April 9, 2012 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

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

link

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Canada ratified in 2003, coastal countries have the right to control access to the belt of shoreline along their coasts. Barring some exceptions, that belt is 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometres) wide. But the waterways dividing some of the islands in Canada's north are often nearly 100 kilometres wide. That would seem to leave plenty of room down the middle for foreign ships.

Go look up those "some exceptions" and find the part about archipelagos and get back to me.

[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".

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

let's be clear... without accepting your claim, effectively, you're suggesting the Russians are taking a similar approach to the Northwest Passage as the U.S. position. In that regard, why did you single out Russia over and above the U.S. position? More pointedly, a significant facet of the Russian strategy hinges upon it's development, its "ownership" claim on the Northeast Passage (Northern Sea Route), as internal Russian waters... your presuming on Russia making a claim that the Northwest Passage is an "international straight", wholly undercuts its own position/strategy with respect to its aspirations for the Northeast Passage.

in any case, I do not accept your linked reference that gives no specific/precise detail(s) to Russia wanting to treat the Northwest Passage as an "international strait"... rather, this linked article is written by Dr. Michael Byers who holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia:

Unlike the Antarctic, a continent surrounded by oceans, the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents. Most of the Arctic Ocean coastline belongs to the world’s two largest countries – Russia and Canada – each of which also owns territory on either side of a series of contested, and increasingly ice-free, Arctic straits.

Canada considers the Northwest Passage to be internal waters. Russia takes the same view of the Northern Sea Route. Both countries recognize that the thinning and melting of the Arctic sea ice pose environmental and security risks at the same time that they create economic opportunities in the form of increased shipping and access to natural resources. Both take the view that their domestic laws provide the best bases for protecting and developing their Northern coastlines. And both face a single, common source of opposition to their claims – namely, the US. All of this should beg the question: why have Russia and Canada not bolstered their respective positions by recognizing each other’s legal positions?

.

.

.

The similarities between the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route extend beyond the common Russian and Canadian positions that argue that their respective Arctic straits constitute internal waters. In 1982, Soviet and Canadian diplomats partnered in the negotiation of Article 234 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which allows coastal states to exercise heightened regulatory powers over shipping in ice-covered areas for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution – including in terms of vessel design, construction and navigational practices – out to 200 nautical miles from shore. Article 234 legitimated the 1970 Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which later provided a model for the Soviet Union’s 1990 regulations on the Northern Sea Route.

In 1985, Canada and the Soviet Union both adopted straight baselines. The Canadian lines connect the outer headlands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The Soviet lines connect the island groups of Novaia Zemlia, Severnaia Zemlia and the New Siberian Islands to the mainland. The ICJ upheld the legality of straight baselines along fragmented coastlines and fringing islands in the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case. And, crucially, on the strength of this case, as well as customary international law and UNCLOS, maritime areas within straight baselines today constitute internal waters of the coastal state.

Also in 1985, the US sent the coastguard icebreaker Polar Sea through the Northwest Passage – prompting Evgeni Pozdnyakov, a press attaché at the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa, to publicly express support for Canada’s claim: “Whether it is the Northwest Passage or the Northeast Passage does not matter. Our position is based on provisions of international law. The waters around islands belonging to a country are the internal waters of that country.”

However, there is no evidence of any prior or subsequent statements of support by the Soviet Union or Russia for Canada’s position, nor indeed evidence of Canadian statements in the reverse – which is curious, given the similarities in legal circumstances. The most logical explanation for this curiosity is political in character: Canada and the Soviet Union were on different sides of the Cold War. The American opposition to Canada’s claim has always been based on wider strategic concerns – namely a felt need for maximum navigation rights worldwide. With Canadian and US security linked through NATO, NORAD and the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, it would already have been difficult enough for Canada to take an independent stance on the Northwest Passage issue. Taking the Soviet Union’s side in the Northern Sea Route dispute was, in the event, simply not an option.

As for the Soviet Union’s near-complete silence on the Northwest Passage, one can postulate that the Soviet government decided not to disrupt the delicate balance that allowed Canada and the US to ‘agree to disagree’ on the issue. (Had Moscow come out publicly in favour of the Canadian position, Washington might have decided that Ottawa’s independent stance was no longer tolerable.) An alternative or additional explanation is that Moscow was not concerned that any foreign country would physically challenge its claim by overtly sailing through the Northern Sea Route. The risk of sparking a nuclear conflict would be too high, and the only US vessels capable of a surface voyage were lightly armed coastguard icebreakers that would be no match for the Northern Fleet.

[stopstaaron]

These waters connect to the whole planet's waters so whether you spill stuff here, there or anywhere is pretty much moot.

Which goes to the heart of why the idea of needing to defend ourselves against old style military invasions from Russia is so god damn silly in the first place. The world's just too integrated economically to be worth the trouble to fight old style wars anymore.

As for Americans pushing against our economic exclusion borders, they've been doing that for decades along our southern border that extends out to sea. There is still a small disputed area out here but since Canada pretty much forced all the Canadians who fished there out of business who cares?

Who cares?! That is your argument?

Why not just divy up the arctic and get it over with then cause why should we care

about it

[The_Squid]

These waters connect to the whole planet's waters so whether you spill stuff here, there or anywhere is pretty much moot.

Which goes to the heart of why the idea of needing to defend ourselves against old style military invasions from Russia is so god damn silly in the first place. The world's just too integrated economically to be worth the trouble to fight old style wars anymore.

As for Americans pushing against our economic exclusion borders, they've been doing that for decades along our southern border that extends out to sea. There is still a small disputed area out here but since Canada pretty much forced all the Canadians who fished there out of business who cares?

There is also still a border dispute in the north coast between BC an AK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon_Entrance

[Guest American Woman]

Go look up those "some exceptions" and find the part about archipelagos and get back to me.

From my link:

Donald McRae, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, says Canada must prove two things to win a sovereignty claim over its Arctic waters. "It must be demonstrated that the waters are the internal waters of Canada and that the waters of the Northwest Passage do not constitute an international strait."

Apparently it's not automatically the exception you appear to think it is. Furthermore, if the rest of the world disagrees with Canada's take on it, and apparently it does, where does that leave Canada?

[eyeball]

Who cares?! That is your argument?

Pretty much. Did you care when Ottawa caved to the US pressure that effectively snuffed our commercial fishing industry on the west coast?

[cybercoma]

Apparently it's not automatically the exception you appear to think it is. Furthermore, if the rest of the world disagrees with Canada's take on it, and apparently it does, where does that leave Canada?

I'll just cut and paste this as many times as it takes if you want: the Northwest Passage is part of the internal waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, ergo not international waters.

[Guest American Woman]

I'll just cut and paste this as many times as it takes if you want: the Northwest Passage is part of the internal waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, ergo not international waters.

What I want is for you to address what I said and at least attempt to answer the question that I raised, but the repeated cut and paste is more what I had expected - so knock yourself out.

Edited April 10, 2012 by American Woman

[dre]

I'll just cut and paste this as many times as it takes if you want: the Northwest Passage is part of the internal waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, ergo not international waters.

Maybe but even if you are legally correct she has a point. Some countries refuse to recognize our claim. That makes our participation in insitutions like the UN and NATO even more questionable. Could it be possible that after Canada has spend billions of dollars and many thousands of lives to fix problems for countries in Europe, Asia, and the middle east, that in the one case where WE might need help from these multilateral institutions, they will refuse?

I somehow doubt the US would entering into close strategic alliances with countries that recognized texas as part of Mexico.

Maybe we oughtta just mine the living hell out of it so that its not cost effective for ANYONE to use it for a while.

[eyeball]

What I want is for you to address what I said and the question that I raised,

You're asking for the impossible.