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

[ironstone]

18 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Britain and France are now enemies of the US? Britain and France are both NATO members.

Didn't you read her comments?

" 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."

Her comments are nutty but then again she isn't going to be the Prime Minister. It's up to Carney as to what role, if any, she will be given.

[Aristides]

27 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

NATO Article V stipulates an "armed attack"

Canada could not invoke NATO Article V in the face of economic leverage.

Of course we can't. 

20 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Didn't you read her comments?

" 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."

Her comments are nutty but then again she isn't going to be the Prime Minister. It's up to Carney as to what role, if any, she will be given.

No I didn't because none were posted and no link provided.

[herbie]

3 hours ago, suds said:

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.

That would be a fair concession. Instead of asking no concessions from Russia and banning NATO membership before talks even start. You're a way better negotiator than the Orange Oaf

[Aristides]

How do we become part of a nuclear alliance if we don't have any. Maybe Fat Kim got that part right.

[Nationalist]

😃 Euros and NATO. 😃

All this latent fear of The Russians. I wonder how long it would take for Russia to dominate the European markets, should trade be opened?

The power in Europe isn't really afraid of war with Russia, their afraid of being bought by Russia.

figuratively speaking.

[Aristides]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

😃 Euros and NATO. 😃

All this latent fear of The Russians. I wonder how long it would take for Russia to dominate the European markets, should trade be opened?

The power in Europe isn't really afraid of war with Russia, their afraid of being bought by Russia.

figuratively speaking.

What does Russia have to trade except resources? We could do that while relying less on the US.

[taxme]

8 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.

WEF globalist member Freeland has been starting fires all over Canada and they have been burning and destroying Canada for over a decade now. Only losers and freaks would vote for that useless bunch of liberal twits. And the rest of them are no better. They will also continue to try and burn all of Canada completely to the ground. Especially WEF globalist member Carney. 🤮

Edited March 8 by taxme

[suds]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

once the Canadian CF-18's have been activated to NATO in Europe by the Government of Canada

they would be delivering the B-61 under NATO command therein,

you choose what assets you want to commit to NATO,

after which you have surrendered them to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe at Mons Belgium then,

 

 

I'm wondering though if that would apply to Nato's nuclear policies which  fall under political control. All key principles of Nato's nuclear policies are established by all Nato heads of state and government. The 'nuclear planning group' (NPG) is the senior body on nuclear matters and is responsible for the implementation of these principles and policies. The NPG is chaired by Nato's Secretary General and generally meet at the level of defense ministers. This is done so that Nato allies retain political control of all aspects of nuclear decision making.

The independent role of the nuclear forces of the U.K., France, and U.S., have deterrent roles of their own. Should an adversary attack they would have to deal with the independent decision making of the U.K., France, U.S., and Nato, which complicates the decision making of those potential adversaries. The U.S. for example, has absolute control over custody of all their nuclear weapons forward deployed in Europe.

So, who has the last say on the use of nuclear weapons or the arming of a CF-18 with a nuclear bomb? The 'Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers (Europe), or these other committees which specifically set nuclear policy?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm

[suds]

43 minutes ago, herbie said:

That would be a fair concession. Instead of asking no concessions from Russia and banning NATO membership before talks even start. You're a way better negotiator than the Orange Oaf

It seems to be the general consensus in Europe and the U.S.   As for Trump, who knows what he's got planned. I believe it's a war that right about now both sides would like to get out of.

Edited March 8 by suds

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

How do we become part of a nuclear alliance if we don't have any. Maybe Fat Kim got that part right.

As I said before we already are.
It's only these dimwits that don't understand what one is or what one is for.
France and the UK have nukes and are committed to using them to defend themselves and Europe. NATO is aligned and if the Putin's bumboy wants the USA to stick it's head up it's butt mouth at every opportunity how untrustworthy he is, they've volunteered to step up. You don't need 10,000 nukes, it will only take one to bring down the whole world.

Yet, here's the dimmest of the dim thinking we want to join to protect us from US attack. As if that's even a thing! Only the pinhead President is stupid enough no to no it's cheaper and much easier to keep the status quo than his 51st State idiocy. He's merely seeking glory in his megalomaniac dementia by spouting endless lies, lies so f*cking stupid the entire world is laughing at him, no more so that Putin.
Trudeau using the trade war ro hang onto power, months after he resigned, only days tbefore his successor is picked. What ****** would ever let such bullshit spew from his mouth let alone to the Press.
250% duty on lumber just when California need it to rebuild.
Has to be called by Ford, GM and Stellantis to explain how he'd f*ck up the whole auto industry.
Constantly lying about fentanyl spewing over the Cdn border days after we announce over 800 Kg seized coming our way, and the US has announced ZERO since the so called problem was even mentioned by the fatass fool.

Edited March 8 by herbie

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

What does Russia have to trade except resources? We could do that while relying less on the US.

A big population and a shitload of resources...

And their military.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

Yes but the endgame of ''America First'' is isolationism and withdrawing from NATO.

Isolationism seems like an odd way to describe a country that's eyeing up other countries like they were real estate. 

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

A big population and a shitload of resources...

And their military.

We can supply most of those resources. What about their military, it's been fought to a standstill by a country a quarter of its size.

[Dougie93]

11 hours ago, suds said:

I'm wondering though if that would apply to Nato's nuclear policies which  fall under political control. All key principles of Nato's nuclear policies are established by all Nato heads of state and government. The 'nuclear planning group' (NPG) is the senior body on nuclear matters and is responsible for the implementation of these principles and policies. The NPG is chaired by Nato's Secretary General and generally meet at the level of defense ministers. This is done so that Nato allies retain political control of all aspects of nuclear decision making.

The independent role of the nuclear forces of the U.K., France, and U.S., have deterrent roles of their own. Should an adversary attack they would have to deal with the independent decision making of the U.K., France, U.S., and Nato, which complicates the decision making of those potential adversaries. The U.S. for example, has absolute control over custody of all their nuclear weapons forward deployed in Europe.

So, who has the last say on the use of nuclear weapons or the arming of a CF-18 with a nuclear bomb? The 'Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers (Europe), or these other committees which specifically set nuclear policy?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm

well the B61's are American, so they are under the US National Command Authority,

there are one hundred or so set aside in Europe to be used by NATO allies

any American NATO fighter can drop them, F-16, F/A-18,  or F-35

but the Americans would be deciding when & where they would be dropped

the only other NATO tactical nuclear weapons are the French ASMP-A which can only be used by the French

[Dougie93]

14 hours ago, ironstone said:

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.

all she said was that she would be working closely with Britain & France as the only other NATO nuclear powers,

but in theory, all nuclear deterrents are poised against one another, inherently by their nature

no nuclear power can fully trust any other nuclear power,

Britain makes its own warheads but relies on the American Trident II SLBM,

but the French deterrent is fully sovereign with M51 SLBM, which is basically a French copy of the Trident II,

tho I don't read into that statement that she expects NATO to nuke America for Greenland,

 

 

 

[Dougie93]

13 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

Well, you do have to take everything Trump says with a pinch of salt but he has talked about withdrawing from NATO.

withdrawing from NATO does not preclude NATO from carrying on without America,

and who says NATO is even that tough anymore ?

Ukraine is the best equipped most battle hardened military in the world now,

it's actually NATO which needs Ukraine, not the other way round,

Canada should just join the Ukrainians in a bilateral security alliance,

start recruiting the Ukrainians to fight for the British Crown in North America,

never mind Latvia, send what is left of HM Canadian Army to Ukraine right now,

stop letting Washington lead you around by the nose,

start making your own moves and make them faster than America is prepared to react to,

[Dougie93]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Isolationism seems like an odd way to describe a country that's eyeing up other countries like they were real estate. 

indeed, this is rather imperialism at play now,

yet America is biting off way more than she can chew here,

the US military ain't what it used to be, the US military is actually stretched quite thin already,

America is not a land power,

and the American population has made it clear over and over ;

that they are not prepared for prolonged occupation,

the strength of the British Empire was that the British went to live in the lands that we conquered,

while America has always lacked the spirit & will to keep boots on the ground,

other than his hardcore base, Americans are starting to fear what Trump is doing here,

they can see that this is going to blow up in America's face on a catastrophic scale,

I would suggest that they are simply stunned by the audacity of it, in shock actually

Edited March 8 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

 What about their military, it's been fought to a standstill by a country a quarter of its size.

the Russians are learning fast tho,

they are copying all of the Ukrainian tactics and adopting the Ukrainian drone war doctrine,

and the Russians have massive amounts of artillery with plenty of ammunition,

so NATO forces are not actually well prepared to engage the Russians at this juncture,

the problem is the "transparent battlefield" wherein neither side can achieve surprise for a breakthrough,

but that would be NATO's problem as well in the event of engaging the Russians,

the only trump card that NATO has is stealth ; the F-35 can penetrate the Russian air defences,

but NATO doesn't have many F-35's available yet,

and Washington controls the F-35 by way of its software,

so NATO doesn't have the F-35 if Trump switches them off,

[Iceni warrior]

48 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

withdrawing from NATO does not preclude NATO from carrying on without America,

and who says NATO is even that tough anymore ?

Ukraine is the best equipped most battle hardened military in the world now,

it's actually NATO which needs Ukraine, not the other way round,

Canada should just join the Ukrainians in a bilateral security alliance,

start recruiting the Ukrainians to fight for the British Crown in North America,

never mind Latvia, send what is left of HM Canadian Army to Ukraine right now,

stop letting Washington lead you around by the nose,

start making your own moves and make them faster than America is prepared to react to,

Yeah, a couple of times in this vid' about drones ''is this the future of warfare?'' is asked of the Ukrainian drone operators and developers. 

''No, this is the present''.

 

[blackbird]

We can see why it is so important for Canada to be part of NATO.  If one member is attacked, all members are attacked.   Nobody ever thinks Canada will be attacked, but perhaps the fact we have NATO is the reason why we are not attacked and still exist.  This is also why we need to put our full share and more military support into NATO, that is, spend over 2% on the military soon.

We should not get too worried about what the U.S. gov't is saying.  Trump is just one man and many politicians know he is a loose canon and often out of his mind.  He changes from one day to the next just like the weather.

Edited March 8 by blackbird

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Yeah, a couple of times in this vid' about drones ''is this the future of warfare?'' is asked of the Ukrainian drone operators and developers. 

''No, this is the present''.

 

exactly,

NATO allies should be putting troops into Western Ukraine right now,

start training and interoperating with them in situ at the bleeding edge,

NATO air power above in a defensive role,

never mind Washington, just ignore Trump,

cry Havoc ! And let slip the dogs of war

then it will be America whom is panicking,

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

We can see why it is so important for Canada to be part of NATO.  If one member is attacked, all members are attacked. 

but the treaty doesn't stipulate what member states must do in response to said attack,

Article V only stipulates that member states do what they "deem necessary"

it does not actually bind the members to go to war for each other therein,

member states could choose to simply provide aid without sending troops,

so Ukraine is already there, Ukraine is a de facto NATO member, even without Article V

[Zeitgeist]

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but the treaty doesn't stipulate what member states must do in response to said attack,

Article V only stipulates that member states do what they "deem necessary"

it does not actually bind the members to go to war for each other therein,

member states could choose to simply provide aid without sending troops,

so Ukraine is already there, Ukraine is a de facto NATO member, even without Article V

This is all the more reason why Canada needs to enhance its military with the ability to control it unilaterally and exclusively if NATO falls apart or the U.S. removes itself from the alliance.  Basically we need to be able to defend our coasts and border with first strike capability to incinerate any attacking country AND engage in NATO missions.

It seems that France figured that out.  At least they have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.  Canada needs to equip itself to act unilaterally and support its geopolitical stances with hard power.  That will require serious air and sea capabilities and bases in the far north.  It’s expensive but essential for true independence. It’s an investment in the future that we will appreciate as our population begins to rival the biggest countries in Europe. We always have to be ready to raise the drawbridge.  You only need to be able to destroy a significant part of the world once to deter aggressors.

Edited March 8 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

This is all the more reason why Canada needs to enhance its military with the ability to control it unilaterally and exclusively if NATO falls apart or the U.S. removes itself from the alliance.  Basically we need to be able to defend our coasts and border with first strike capability to incinerate any attacking country AND engage in NATO missions.

massive incineration of enemies is unrealistic for Canada,

Canada is like Ukraine ; asymmetrical warfare against larger opponents,

on the bright side, HM Canadian Armed Forces don't have much obsolete equipment left in the inventory,

so Canada could simply join the Ukrainians in a bilateral security agreement,

send what is left of HM Canadian Army to Ukraine,

adopt the Ukrainian way of warfare once there,

bring the Ukrainians to Canada, to fill out the ranks as instructors

time to think outside of the box now,

British North America ; what would Winston Churchill do ?

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, Aristides said:

We can supply most of those resources. What about their military, it's been fought to a standstill by a country a quarter of its size.

Ya...you go with that.