Time For A Nuclear Canada?

[bush_cheney2004]

....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.

Fat chance....no more cross border shopping or decent TV. And who would buy more of Canada's cash crop of uranium ?

[GostHacked]

Fat chance....no more cross border shopping or decent TV. And who would buy more of Canada's cash crop of uranium ?

Iran.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

That sounds like suicidal logic……..Perhaps you should define parameters for pulling the pin on yourself …Would you end all human life on the planet if a non-state actor gassed a subway or flew a couple of airlines into some buildings?

[On Guard for Thee]

Iran.

Pakistan, India...

[-1=e^ipi]

I have no moral objection to Canada having nuclear weapons, but what is the point? It would just be a waste of money.

Is there any expectation that there will be a major world-wide conflict that would justify the use of nuclear weapons? No. Then why obtain them?

Also, obtaining nuclear weapons has huge ramifications on how other nations view us and reduces our 'moral authority' to take future military actions. Since we were the second nation to obtain nuclear power, but do not actually have any, it gives us a sort of 'moral high ground' over other nations.

Too many people overlook the importance of moral authority, but in a world where most nations are democracies (and the nations that are not democracies still have to worry about having public support to prevent riots) being able to morally justify your nation's military actions to people in other nations improves the ability of Canada to use it's military capabilities and implement it's political will since people in other countries will take a more favorable view of us. Unfortunately, many western nations like USA, Britain, France and Canada (under Harper) are ignoring this and are supporting very morally dubious actions (supporting terrorists in Syria, supporting protesters in Western Ukraine but not protesters in Eastern Ukraine, etc.) and have a very hypocritical foreign policy (ex. Kosovo is allowed to separate from Serbia, but Crimea isn't allowed to separate from Ukraine).

By that logic why do we need a military of any kind at all?

No, no we do not. Canada is one of the few nations that doesn't need a military. No one is going to invade us.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a military. But Canada's military role should not be 'self defence' or 'peace-keeping'. Instead, the role should be considered 'charity' to our allies and to other nations. Our primarily goals right now should be being able to help South Korea, Japan or Taiwan in the unlikely chance that there is an East Asian conflict, and trying to prevent the spread of islamism throughout the world.

Our main contribution these days as I see it, is to put a moral shine on our allies morally questionable adventures and interventions

Yes, thanks Harper! Funding terrorists in Syria, supporting the democratic overthrow of the government in Kiev, and denying the right of the Crimeans to self-determination has turned out so well!

what then would prevent the Russians (or perhaps the Chinese even) from laying claim to our North?

China has zero claim to anywhere remotely close to our north. Sort of has to do with geography.

As for Russia, if you look at the geography of the arctic ocean, there isn't really that much overlap between the possible claims of Russia and the possible claims of Canada, especially since both countries are reasonable countries that have agreed to solve this dispute via the UNCLOS. Most of Russia's territorial dispute will come with Denmark most likely, especially if Russia tries to claim the north pole for political reasons (which is Danish territory). Since Canada and Greenland share the same continental shelf, we have a strong incentive to work together vs any Russian territorial claims. And since Denmark is part of the EU, we should have the EU on our side.

Edited June 19, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

 

I have no moral objection to Canada having nuclear weapons, but what is the point? It would just be a waste of money.

Is there any expectation that there will be a major world-wide conflict that would justify the use of nuclear weapons? No. Then why obtain them?

Also, obtaining nuclear weapons has huge ramifications on how other nations view us and reduces our 'moral authority' to take future military actions. Since we were the second nation to obtain nuclear power, but do not actually have any, it gives us a sort of 'moral high ground' over other nations.

Too many people overlook the importance of moral authority, but in a world where most nations are democracies (and the nations that are not democracies still have to worry about having public support to prevent riots) being able to morally justify your nation's military actions to people in other nations improves the ability of Canada to use it's military capabilities and implement it's political will since people in other countries will take a more favorable view of us. Unfortunately, many western nations like USA, Britain, France and Canada (under Harper) are ignoring this and are supporting very morally dubious actions (supporting terrorists in Syria, supporting protesters in Western Ukraine but not protesters in Eastern Ukraine, etc.) and have a very hypocritical foreign policy (ex. Kosovo is allowed to separate from Serbia, but Crimea isn't allowed to separate from Ukraine).

No, no we do not. Canada is one of the few nations that doesn't need a military. No one is going to invade us.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a military. But Canada's military role should not be 'self defence' or 'peace-keeping'. Instead, the role should be considered 'charity' to our allies and to other nations. Our primarily goals right now should be being able to help South Korea, Japan or Taiwan in the unlikely chance that there is an East Asian conflict, and trying to prevent the spread of islamism throughout the world.

Yes, thanks Harper! Funding terrorists in Syria, supporting the democratic overthrow of the government in Kiev, and denying the right of the Crimeans to self-determination has turned out so well!

China has zero claim to anywhere remotely close to our north. Sort of has to do with geography.

As for Russia, if you look at the geography of the arctic ocean, there isn't really that much overlap between the possible claims of Russia and the possible claims of Canada, especially since both countries are reasonable countries that have agreed to solve this dispute via the UNCLOS. Most of Russia's territorial dispute will come with Denmark most likely, especially if Russia tries to claim the north pole for political reasons (which is Danish territory). Since Canada and Greenland share the same continental shelf, we have a strong incentive to work together vs any Russian territorial claims. And since Denmark is part of the EU, we should have the EU on our side.

 

Heard anything about Crimea lately?

[Derek 2.0]

China has zero claim to anywhere remotely close to our north. Sort of has to do with geography.

As for Russia, if you look at the geography of the arctic ocean, there isn't really that much overlap between the possible claims of Russia and the possible claims of Canada, especially since both countries are reasonable countries that have agreed to solve this dispute via the UNCLOS. Most of Russia's territorial dispute will come with Denmark most likely, especially if Russia tries to claim the north pole for political reasons (which is Danish territory). Since Canada and Greenland share the same continental shelf, we have a strong incentive to work together vs any Russian territorial claims. And since Denmark is part of the EU, we should have the EU on our side.

Yet the Chinese have and are building polar icebreakers.......And your narrative on the Russians seems at odds with actual events.......None the less, you take my post and point out of context.

[On Guard for Thee]

Somebody here actually thinks the North Pole is Danish territory. The rest of us all know who actually owns it.

[-1=e^ipi]

Somebody here actually thinks the North Pole is Danish territory. The rest of us all know who actually owns it.

Santa Claus?

[eyeball]

That sounds like suicidal logic……..Perhaps you should define parameters for pulling the pin on yourself …Would you end all human life on the planet if a non-state actor gassed a subway or flew a couple of airlines into some buildings?

Nope, non-state actors are police matters.

You pull the pin once the invaders have penetrated Canada to the point that all is lost.

[eyeball]

Too many people overlook the importance of moral authority...

Exactly, and this is why I'm a protectionist and why I think we should be suspending trade and cancelling alliances with the sort of geopolitical vandals that we all too routinely truck with.

[Derek 2.0]

Nope, non-state actors are police matters.

You pull the pin once the invaders have penetrated Canada to the point that all is lost.

But what if it becomes a continuous problem that the police are unable to handle, and said terror group is receiving support directly or indirectly from a nation-state? Is all considered lost at that point?

[eyeball]

We should be suspending trade and sanctioning any nation-state that behaves as your suggesting - Canada should be leading the charge to make this behaviour a crime against humanity.

BTW what do you mean if this becomes a continuous problem, have you looked around the planet recently?

[Derek 2.0]

We should be suspending trade and sanctioning any nation-state that behaves as your suggesting - Canada should be leading the charge to make this behaviour a crime against humanity.

BTW what do you mean if this becomes a continuous problem, have you looked around the planet recently?

What if they then launch counter sanctions? Then start targeting Canadians and their interests around the world, all the while, still committing acts of terrorism on Canadian soil? At what point do you consider all as lost?

[eyeball]

What if they then launch counter sanctions? Then start targeting Canadians and their interests around the world, all the while, still committing acts of terrorism on Canadian soil?

What the hell are we doing allowing Canadian companies to invest in the sorts of countries that would behave this way? We should have had sanctions launched against us long ago.

At what point do you consider all as lost?

When the invaders tanks are rolling into Ottawa.

[Derek 2.0]

What the hell are we doing allowing Canadian companies to invest in the sorts of countries that would behave this way? We should have had sanctions launched against us long ago.

The doesn’t address this scenario though…….for instance, say said terror group infiltrated high levels of Government, and said government was powerless to stop said attacks……….Is ending all life on the planet a valid response?

When the invaders tanks are rolling into Ottawa.

What if no tanks, but said terror group acquired several low-yield nuclear devices and detonated them in the ports in Montreal and Vancouver? Do we then end all life on earth or allow said behaviour to continue?

[eyeball]

You do realize you keep describing a world in which all is probably already long since lost don't you?

I'm reminded of the account of an old friend's marine certification exam where the examiner kept increasing the wind and sea state and my friend kept adding ballast to stabilize the vessel. The examiner finally asked "where's all your ballast coming from?" to which my friend replied "the same place your wind is".

Edited June 19, 2014 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

You do realize you keep describing a world in which all is probably long since lost don't you?

The entire World is lost because a tiny percent are radicalized around an incongruent, violent ideology and attack others?

I think that meme should disqualify a person from any involvement with nuclear weapons….. Like I said, suicidal logic.

I'm reminded of the account of an old friend's marine certification exam where the examiner kept increasing the wind and sea state and my friend kept adding ballast to stabilize the vessel. The examiner finally asked "where's all your ballast coming from?" to which my friend replied "the same place your wind is".

Neat story, but I fail to see what that has to do with nuclear warfare and the ending of all human life on the planet.

[eyeball]

The entire World is lost because a tiny percent are radicalized around an incongruent, violent ideology and attack others?

No, we're losing it to a tiny percent who insist on getting as filthily rich and powerful as they can. Whoever has the most in the end wins I guess.

Neat story, but I fail to see what that has to do with nuclear warfare and the ending of all human life on the planet.

It had to do with your bottomless well of what-ifs.

I fail to see what what getting as filthy rich and powerful as you can has to do with sustaining all human life on the planet.

[Big Guy]

We are already in an agreement (NORAD) where the USA can shoot down missiles (nuclear or other) over Canada with Canada having no say in the matter.

A couple of days ago, a Canadian Senate Committee urged the Canadian government to join the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senate-panel-urges-ottawa-to-join-us-missile-shield/article19192634/

Would this not mean that we would suffer all of the consequences of being a nuclear nation without the clout or independence of actually having nuclear weapons?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Would this not mean that we would suffer all of the consequences of being a nuclear nation without the clout or independence of actually having nuclear weapons?

No.....Canada wouldn't have much more clout anyway even with "nuclear weapons". Means are not enough...there must also be the will to use such weapons. The decision to reject missile defense was a political one while the realities of potential and real threats remain unchanged, which is what the Senate committee recognizes. Canada will be a slave to "collective defense" for a very long time.

[Moonbox]

We are already in an agreement (NORAD) where the USA can shoot down missiles (nuclear or other) over Canada with Canada having no say in the matter.

What, are you implying that Canada might actually WANT missiles flying through its airspace?

[Big Guy]

What, are you implying that Canada might actually WANT missiles flying through its airspace?

I do try to take the time to make my posts as succinct as possible and to not "imply" anything.

Canada is already in an agreement where we could be the battleground in a nuclear war without the capability of being a participant. Therefore, we would suffer all the consequences of being an active participant without the capability of being one.

Why do you feel that anybody would desire other nations missiles flying in its airspace?

Please explain.

[Derek 2.0]

No, we're losing it to a tiny percent who insist on getting as filthily rich and powerful as they can. Whoever has the most in the end wins I guess.

It had to do with your bottomless well of what-ifs.

I fail to see what what getting as filthy rich and powerful as you can has to do with sustaining all human life on the planet.

Safe assumption, OBL was worth more financially then everyone that posts on this forum combined…..clearly his views were not motivated by money......

[Derek 2.0]

Canada is already in an agreement where we could be the battleground in a nuclear war without the capability of being a participant. Therefore, we would suffer all the consequences of being an active participant without the capability of being one.

Why do you feel that anybody would desire other nations missiles flying in its airspace?

Please explain.

Desire has nothing to do with it…..ability and inability to address said action are key.