Chrystia Freeland playing with fire in suggesting Canada be in a nuclear alliance with Britain and France

[blackbird]

Canadian Liberal Party leader candidate Chrystia Freeland suggested during a recent leadership debate with her rivals that Canada could seek nuclear security from Britain and France in the face of growing American threats. 

This raises the question as to whether it is time for her to step down from politics.   That kind of talk puts Canada in danger with our neighbours.  Very unwise provocation that just gives Trump more support.

[myata]

A very sensible idea in the view of the reality. Only a brainless fool would be sleeping peacefully with the doors unlocked having a bizarre volatile neighbour who routinely threatens them with violence.

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

A very sensible idea in the view of the reality. Only a brainless fool would be sleeping peacefully with the doors unlocked having a bizarre volatile neighbour who routinely threatens them with violence.

Also could give someone like Trump an excuse to declare Canada is now the 51st state and send some troops in to enforce it.  What would happen to our Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan, public health care system, etc. etc.?

Edited March 7 by blackbird

[suds]

2 hours ago, myata said:

A very sensible idea in the view of the reality. Only a brainless fool would be sleeping peacefully with the doors unlocked having a bizarre volatile neighbour who routinely threatens them with violence.

And what would Canada's part in this 'nuclear alliance' be?? What about NORAD??

Edited March 7 by suds

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, suds said:

And what would Canada's part in this 'nuclear alliance' be??

A launching pad.

4 minutes ago, suds said:

What about NORAD??

We need a SORAD more than NORAD

[herbie]

The real estate blindered outlook of the Bronze Bozo has forced him once again to say the US will not defend NATO members who don't "pay up". And threatened this sovereignty of 2 members so far, cozied up to Russia and vetoed membership for Ukraine when only that would ensure their sovereignty.
So f*ck the d1ckhead and toss them from NATO.

PS: We already ARE in a nuclear alliance with Britain and France. Both of which are acutely aware that sucking up and appeasing aggressors leads to much worse.

 

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Canadian Liberal Party leader candidate Chrystia Freeland suggested during a recent leadership debate with her rivals that Canada could seek nuclear security from Britain and France in the face of growing American threats. 

This raises the question as to whether it is time for her to step down from politics.   That kind of talk puts Canada in danger with our neighbours.  Very unwise provocation that just gives Trump more support.

Canada should at this juncture come home to the old country,

Canada United Kingdom Security Agreement ( CANUK )

Canada should procure British Astute class SSN attack submarines therein,

never mind buying SSK's from the South Koreans, those are completely useless in this strategic confrontation

Canada should also join the United Kingdom in putting boots on the ground in Ukraine,

God, King, Country, Regiment, Colours, Commander-in-Chief

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

[ironstone]

3 hours ago, myata said:

A very sensible idea in the view of the reality. Only a brainless fool would be sleeping peacefully with the doors unlocked having a bizarre volatile neighbour who routinely threatens them with violence.

Trying to start a nuclear weapons alliance against the world's dominant military power is sensible? We are not living next door to China. Freeland has lost her mind.

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, myata said:

A very sensible idea in the view of the reality.

Chrystia Freeland ;  defender of the British Crown in North America,

now she's talking my language,

let's roll

[Dougie93]

50 minutes ago, herbie said:

The real estate blindered outlook of the Bronze Bozo has forced him once again to say the US will not defend NATO members who don't "pay up". And threatened this sovereignty of 2 members so far, cozied up to Russia and vetoed membership for Ukraine when only that would ensure their sovereignty.
So f*ck the d1ckhead and toss them from NATO.

PS: We already ARE in a nuclear alliance with Britain and France. Both of which are acutely aware that sucking up and appeasing aggressors leads to much worse.

it falls to the British Crown to save the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

if the Liberals go Loyalist & Royalist therein, they get my vote,

they are out conservating the Conservatives right now,

Chrystia Freeland wrapping herself in the Union Jack ; f*ck yeah

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, suds said:

And what would Canada's part in this 'nuclear alliance' be??

dragging the United Kingdom into the fight,

Canada is already on a war footing ; Shock Troops of the Empire

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Trying to start a nuclear weapons alliance against the world's dominant military power is sensible? We are not living next door to China. Freeland has lost her mind.

don't be daft

all she is saying is that if America is not going to provide its nuclear deterrent to NATO in the face of Russia

it falls to the British & French to provide that shield now

[suds]

13 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Trying to start a nuclear weapons alliance against the world's dominant military power is sensible? We are not living next door to China. Freeland has lost her mind.

I know. It is sort of crazy to believe that Britain or France would risk nuclear war with the U.S. over something as crazy as Canada becoming the 51st state. But that's what you get a lot of around here. And if there is a ceasefire or peace deal in the making between Russia and Ukraine, I'd say Nato membership is out of the question and Russia would have to hand back any territories gained since the 2022 invasion. That at least would be a good place to start.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

PS: We already ARE in a nuclear alliance with Britain and France.

not with the French

Canada is signatory to the United Kingdom United States Agreement ( UKUSA )

which includes the Anglo-American joint strategic nuclear deterrent,

France however maintains a completely sovereign nuclear deterrent,

on the basis of France not trusting America to nuke the world for Europe in the first place,

1 minute ago, suds said:

I know. It is sort of crazy to believe that Britain or France would risk nuclear war with the U.S. over something as crazy as Canada becoming the 51st state.

that's not what she said,

she said Canada should join Britain & France in defending NATO against Russia with a nuclear deterrent,

since America can no longer be relied upon to do so. 

[herbie]

Have you even read a newspaper this year? France is offering, the US is backing away from commitments.
And France refused any US control over it's own nukes ever since they had any.

Give up with your 1900s era vision of Europe.

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, suds said:

 I'd say Nato membership is out of the question,

that isn't even relevant anymore,

since Britain & France are  preparing to put boots on the ground in Ukraine,

to wit, it is not Ukraine which is joining NATO, rather it is NATO which is joining Ukraine

Geroyim Slava

 

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

And France refused any US control over it's own nukes ever since they had any.

Give up with your 1900s era vision of Europe.

but that French vision is the 1900's era vision,

that America would side with Russia against Europe ; that is a 21st century era vision

[suds]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

don't be daft

all she is saying is that if America is not going to provide its nuclear deterrent to NATO in the face of Russia

it falls to the British & French to provide that shield now

The important thing is not putting any nuclear deterrent into writing. What's important is the the other side knowing you have nuclear capability and might possibly use it. Putting it into writing just escalates the possibilities of nuclear war.

[suds]

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

not with the French

Canada is signatory to the United Kingdom United States Agreement ( UKUSA )

which includes the Anglo-American joint strategic nuclear deterrent,

France however maintains a completely sovereign nuclear deterrent,

on the basis of France not trusting America to nuke the world for Europe in the first place,

that's not what she said,

she said Canada should join Britain & France in defending NATO against Russia with a nuclear deterrent,

since America can no longer be relied upon to do so. 

My post was in response to Ironstone's post which was in response to something Myata had posted. It had nothing to do Freeland. But I suppose it could have.

[Dougie93]

34 minutes ago, suds said:

The important thing is not putting any nuclear deterrent into writing. What's important is the the other side knowing you have nuclear capability and might possibly use it. Putting it into writing just escalates the possibilities of nuclear war.

Canada is already signatory to nuclear deterrents through UKUSA, NATO & NORAD

Canada has its finger on the button at the Cheyenne Mountain Complex in Colorado Springs,

the Deputy Commander NORAD is always a Canadian,

prepared to execute the order to Launch of Warning roughly one third of the time when on duty,

Canada is signatory to the NATO Nuclear Sharing Agreement ;

wherein Canadian CF-18's are prepared to deliver NATO B61 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe,

the other side knows that Canada is fully involved in the nuclear deterrents,

hence why the other side has always targeted Canada as a serious adversary,

it's only Canadians whom are naive as to the terms of the treaties which Canada is signatory to

Edited March 7 by Dougie93

[suds]

24 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

wherein Canadian CF-18's are prepared to deliver NATO B61 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe,

Under what agreement is Canada prepared to do this? From what I understand Canada ending its 'nuclear sharing' in 1984 as a partner in Norad.

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, suds said:

Under what agreement is Canada prepared to do this? From what I understand Canada ending its 'nuclear sharing' in 1984 as a partner in Norad.

no, you are mistaken

NORAD has nothing to do with the NATO Nuclear Sharing Agreement,

NORAD is one nuclear deterrent that Canada is signatory to,

wherein there are Canadians in the chain of command, to include at Cheyenne Mountain,

NATO is another nuclear deterrent which Canada is signatory to top of NORAD,

then Canada is also signatory to UKUSA,

wherein Canada supports the Anglo-American joint nuclear deterrent with Trident at sea

Edited March 7 by Dougie93

[ironstone]

54 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

don't be daft

all she is saying is that if America is not going to provide its nuclear deterrent to NATO in the face of Russia

it falls to the British & French to provide that shield now

This is what she said: 

"Rather than guaranteeing the rules-based world order, the US is turning predator. So what Canada needs to do is work closely with our democratic allies, our military allies. I've been Foreign Minister. I know how to do that. I would start with our Nordic partners, specifically Denmark, which is also being threatened, and our NATO European allies. I would be sure that France and Britain were there who possess nuclear weapons and I will be working urgently with these partners to build a closer security relationship that guarantees our security in a time when United States can be a threat. I would also reach out to our Asian democratic partners, Japan, South Korea, Australia," Freeland said during a debate as Canada looks to pick a new leader.

Yes, the Canadian politician floated creating a nuclear alliance against the USA because the "United States can be a threat."

 

https://www.outkick.com/culture/chrystia-freeland-nuclear-alliance-canada-america

Freeland appears to think that the US is more of a security threat to us than say, China.

[PIK]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

it falls to the British Crown to save the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

if the Liberals go Loyalist & Royalist therein, they get my vote,

they are out conservating the Conservatives right now,

Chrystia Freeland wrapping herself in the Union Jack ; f*ck yeah

That what libs do, steal the cons ideas, win and then revert back to their old ways  Can't trust them.

Edited March 7 by PIK

[suds]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

no, you are mistaken

NORAD has nothing to do with the NATO Nuclear Sharing Agreement,

NORAD is one nuclear deterrent that Canada is signatory to, wherein there are Canadians in the chain of command

NATO is another nuclear deterrent which Canada is signatory to  top of NORAD,

Being part of a 'chain of command' or being part of a decision making process is not quite the same thing as Canadian CF-18's equipped with nuclear weapons for use in Europe.

[Dougie93]

Just now, PIK said:

That what libs do, steal the cons ideas, win and then revert back to their old ways  Can't trust them.

I simply go with whomever is defending the British Crown in North America,

if the Liberals are keen to grab that ball and run down the field with it ; more power to them