Time For A Nuclear Canada?

[Moonbox]

I agree with your assessment largely, but with the safety associated with the American nuclear umbrella and mutual defence through NATO, there is an expectation that we’ll offer a worthwhile contribution…….what often befuddles Canadians is the definition of worthwhile.

I'm not sure why you added 'but' in your sentence. It seems as though we're 100% in agreement. I don't think you're suggesting that Canadian nukes would qualify as a useful contribution to NORAD or NATO.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not sure why you added 'but' in your sentence. It seems as though we're 100% in agreement. I don't think you're suggesting that Canadian nukes would qualify as a useful contribution to NORAD or NATO.

A simple conjunction for those opposed to our mutual agreement.

[WWWTT]

Does Canada have foreign interests beyond our borders and coastlines?

Beyond trade?

No it does not.

The US does, and we're a puppet nation of the US.

Any desire in this country to acquire weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION is to only further deepen and riddle Canada's role as a puppet nation of the US.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

And to expand on that, if we’re content with other nations (the United States namely) representing and defending our interests on the world stage, which is a de facto surrendering of our sovereignty, why bother remaining an independent nation?

I see no benefit to Canada in becoming another terrorist nation drone striking other less capable nations into submission.

Not to long ago we saw an jet airliner just vanish, and Canada was completely incapable of providing any assistance.

Search and rescue is the way to go!

Can't see how a nuclear bomb really helps finding a lost plane, but maybe you do?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Ya basically. We have higher defence priorities than getting nukes to fight nuclear armed enemies we don't have.

But hey, why not create them?

After all, that's what a couple posters in this thread are all for.

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

Does Canada have foreign interests beyond our borders and coastlines?

Yes. But how have our foreign interests changed for the better through our foreign military intervention the last 50 years or so? Not definitively saying it hasn't, I'm just asking you how it has.

Our intervention means we gain leverage in decision-making with missions like with NATO etc., but is the cost of maintaining and using a military internationally been worth that leverage, especially given that the outcomes of any foreign missions we have been involved in over the last 50 years very likely wouldn't have changed in any significant way.if we weren't involved?

[Moonlight Graham]

And to expand on that, if we’re content with other nations (the United States namely) representing and defending our interests on the world stage, which is a de facto surrendering of our sovereignty, why bother remaining an independent nation?

How do our foreign interests differ from that of the US, Britain, France, and other NATO countries?

[Moonbox]

Yes. But how have our foreign interests changed for the better through our foreign military intervention the last 50 years or so? Not definitively saying it hasn't, I'm just asking you how it has.

Ask Kosovo or Albania.

[GostHacked]

Ask Kosovo or Albania.

What did we solve there?

[eyeball]

I agree with your assessment largely, but with the safety associated with the American nuclear umbrella and mutual defence through NATO, there is an expectation that we’ll offer a worthwhile contribution…….what often befuddles Canadians is the definition of worthwhile.

What pisses off many is this expectation that we support our patron no matter what it does or commits.

I'm not sure why you added 'but' in your sentence. It seems as though we're 100% in agreement. I don't think you're suggesting that Canadian nukes would qualify as a useful contribution to NORAD or NATO.

It seems that whenever talk of taking a neutral stance comes up there's all this concern about having to support our allies/patrons. Our main contribution these days as I see it, is to put a moral shine on our allies morally questionable adventures and interventions - we're like Hobbits and who could object when the Hobbits are with you? I think possessing a few nukes would be more for domestic political reasons in that it might quench this need for hawkish Canadians to feel hawkish while bolstering the strong desire for a credibly defensible nuclear-armed neutrality.

[Moonbox]

What pisses off many is this expectation that we support our patron no matter what it does or commits.

There is no expectation. Sometimes the USA asks for our participation, and sometimes we say no, with the worst consequence being they're briefly disappointed in us until they realize we said no because they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

It seems that whenever talk of taking a neutral stance comes up there's all this concern about having to support our allies/patrons. Our main contribution these days as I see it, is to put a moral shine on our allies morally questionable adventures and interventions

Multilateral intervention may, as you say, imply more legitimacy for intervention, but you over-simplify it. Having noticeable allied combat formations on the ground, such as the Canadian participation in the ulcer that is Afghanistan, meaningful lightened the overall burden for our allies.

You may not think so, but there are worthwhile examples of military intervention by NATO and the UN, and by shirking our responsibilities there and watching countries like Poland step up and do what we were too whiney/wimpy to do ourselves, we bring our own values into question along with our commitment to our allies

Edited June 17, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Yes. But how have our foreign interests changed for the better through our foreign military intervention the last 50 years or so? Not definitively saying it hasn't, I'm just asking you how it has.

Our intervention means we gain leverage in decision-making with missions like with NATO etc., but is the cost of maintaining and using a military internationally been worth that leverage, especially given that the outcomes of any foreign missions we have been involved in over the last 50 years very likely wouldn't have changed in any significant way.if we weren't involved?

To use several examples of the good, the bad and the possible……..In the past, our foreign intervention during the Suez crisis very likely prevented the third world war……In Rwanda, the indifference of the larger Western nations and our inability to independently increase our commitment led to wholesale genocide, clearly something not in Canadians interests…And in the realm of possibility, most of our own allies don’t support our claims in the Arctic, but suppose we turned inward and shun our current defence treaties, what then would prevent the Russians (or perhaps the Chinese even) from laying claim to our North?

[Derek 2.0]

It seems that whenever talk of taking a neutral stance comes up there's all this concern about having to support our allies/patrons. Our main contribution these days as I see it, is to put a moral shine on our allies morally questionable adventures and interventions - we're like Hobbits and who could object when the Hobbits are with you? I think possessing a few nukes would be more for domestic political reasons in that it might quench this need for hawkish Canadians to feel hawkish while bolstering the strong desire for a credibly defensible nuclear-armed neutrality.

To formant a nuclear armed neutrality, as said many times before, at a minimum our fiscal commitments to our own National Defence would double and very possibly triple in cost.

[Remiel]

I think the question here is: do we have faith in NATO anymore? Are we confident that faced with a Russian invasion of our Arctic territories that our allies would not find excuses to not do anything, alliance be damned?

[Derek 2.0]

I think the question here is: do we have faith in NATO anymore? Are we confident that faced with a Russian invasion of our Arctic territories that our allies would not find excuses to not do anything, alliance be damned?

That’s certainly a fair question, and I wouldn’t doubt some of the Western European members would do exactly that…….with that said, the Americans, mutual defence alliance or not, wouldn’t tolerate Russians intervention in North America…..

[Moonlight Graham]

To use several examples of the good, the bad and the possible……..In the past, our foreign intervention during the Suez crisis very likely prevented the third world war……

Any link(s) to back up this claim?

In Rwanda, the indifference of the larger Western nations and our inability to independently increase our commitment led to wholesale genocide, clearly something not in Canadians interests

I don't understand how Canada having a bigger/stronger military would have prevented the genocide or parts of it. Canadian peacekeepers were part of a UN group (UNAMIR) and restrained in their actions by a UN mandate. Also, peacekeepers can legally only be in a country if invited by the host country and must abide by their conditions.

…And in the realm of possibility, most of our own allies don’t support our claims in the Arctic, but suppose we turned inward and shun our current defence treaties, what then would prevent the Russians (or perhaps the Chinese even) from laying claim to our North?

I agree with this, but this comes under the umbrella of "protecting our borders/coasts" which I already said we need. This isn't foreign military intervention.

[Derek 2.0]

Any link(s) to back up this claim?

You don’t know of the Suez Crisis? You know, when then future Prime Minister Lester B Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize……

I don't understand how Canada having a bigger/stronger military would have prevented the genocide or parts of it. Canadian peacekeepers were part of a UN group (UNAMIR) and restrained in their actions by a UN mandate. Also, peacekeepers can legally only be in a country if invited by the host country and must abide by their conditions.

The UN did relent on their mandate by mid May to include the provision for protecting civilian life. Of course this was after the Belgians had pulled out, the several African reinforcement contingents were under a self-imposed delay over billing and the Americans relented on providing heavily armoured vehicles…….

This of course could have been avoided, if Canada had the physical resources and political will….even at this time, the deployment of the CAR alone could have saved tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of lives….

I agree with this, but this comes under the umbrella of "protecting our borders/coasts" which I already said we need. This isn't foreign military intervention.

Do you think Canada would be capable of defending it’s Northern borders against an aggressive Russia alone?

[eyeball]

To formant a nuclear armed neutrality, as said many times before, at a minimum our fiscal commitments to our own National Defence would double and very possibly triple in cost.

Only if you build a conventional nuclear arsenal, delivery system and army, navy, air-force to defend and deliver said arsenal. I'm thinking more along the lines of an Armageddon-like device to deter anyone from even thinking of invading us. A country of our wealth and nuclear expertise should easily be able to devise and maintain such a thing.

In the event anyone did threaten to invade us we could probably count on the rest of the world's nations to a stop to their ambitions lest we push the button. Is it a completely fearfully mad strategy? Of course it is, name a nuclear strategy that isn't insane. Of course I guess what's really insane to the usual suspects is the thought of neutrality and refusing to have anything to do with allies committed to endless geo-political vandalism and wars that have bugger all to do with us.

[Derek 2.0]

Only if you build a conventional nuclear arsenal, delivery system and army, navy, air-force to defend and deliver said arsenal. I'm thinking more along the lines of an Armageddon-like device to deter anyone from even thinking of invading us. A country of our wealth and nuclear expertise should easily be able to devise and maintain such a thing.

In the event anyone did threaten to invade us we could probably count on the rest of the world's nations to a stop to their ambitions lest we push the button. Is it a completely fearfully mad strategy? Of course it is, name a nuclear strategy that isn't insane. Of course I guess what's really insane to the usual suspects is the thought of neutrality and refusing to have anything to do with allies committed to endless geo-political vandalism and wars that have bugger all to do with us.

It was/is certainly a mad strategy, but one all nuclear nations would partake if required. The issue, is the disallowance of a measured (conventional) response.

[eyeball]

That sounds like some sort of mealy-mouthed crap a military-industrial think-tank or procurement lobbyist dreamed up.

[Derek 2.0]

That sounds like some sort of mealy-mouthed crap a military-industrial think-tank or procurement lobbyist dreamed up.

If the concept was never born, we’d likely not be chatting here so enjoyably....

Edited June 18, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[eyeball]

I'm talking about an unconventional response though.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm talking about an unconventional response though.

I understand that, but you're sacrificing the ability to perform a layered conventional response in favour of Strangelove’s doomsday device...

[eyeball]

We wouldn't need that ability though, other countries would have as much incentive at stopping invaders from invading us as invading them. Who in their right mind would risk Armageddon by doing nothing? That's a trick question by the way.

There are examples in nature where successful defense strategies rely on exploiting the nature of other species survival strategies.

So, while the battle rages on around us, we could thrive and prosper - freed of the ridiculous expense of militarizing and standing as a shining beacon of what can happen when you determinedly set your mind to minding your own business and refusing to be sucked into others's.

[PIK]

I would like to see all nukes destroyed except maybe a few to keep people honest. What ever happened to the sub clean up in Russia that canada was giving money to,that ever get completed?