[Akhenaten]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'm not to sure arming every country in the world with nukes is particularily smart.

Did someone within your quote suggest the notion that every nation in the world should be armed with nukes? No they didnt. If we snapped our fingers right now and made every nuke in the world disappear we'd still have to live under their shadow. The knowledge is there so the weapon will always be there. I'm simply suggesting Canada accepts that.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

100% agree wiht you. Really, it's like shwoing up to a war armed with spears because you have some moral problem with guns. Nucelar technology is sixty or seventy years old now. Pretty soon, everyone is going to have nuclear weapons. Frickin' Pakistan has them. It's embarrassing.

India too. Not only that but they both got them from us. How ironic is that, eh?

[Zipperfish]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Until Canada is ready to get over it's aversion to nuclear weapons we will never be taken seriously. Countries that have don't have to put up with this crap. They are negotiated with rather than dismissed out of hand. Canada is too large to be defended by conventional means imo and there has yet to be a nation in possession of a nuclear arsenal, no matter how modest, that has been invaded. Nuclear weapons are 100% defensive deterrent in nature. Plus it's actually a fair bit cheaper than the kind of (conventional) military we would actually need to competently defend and deter notions of attack.

I can understand Canada’s position in the '50 and '60's about nuclear weapons and it was a noble pursuit at the time but we don't live in those times now and in a post cold war world where the nature of combat and conflict has completely changed it's time to reconsider our anti-nuclear stance.

I would propose 25-50 medium yield warheads shell-gamed (a la 1960's) between 300 missiles. Naturally I would've proposed that 10-15 years ago though.

100% agree wiht you. Really, it's like shwoing up to a war armed with spears because you have some moral problem with guns. Nucelar technology is sixty or seventy years old now. Pretty soon, everyone is going to have nuclear weapons. Frickin' Pakistan has them. It's embarrassing.

I'm not to sure arming every country in the world with nukes is particularily smart. The risk of them being used would just rise dramatically.

At some point though, you have to ask whther our opposition to it is a little quanit. Kind of like Quakers not wearing buttons because theya re too modern. Wait a few years; the Americans or the Russians will develop something that will make a nuke look like a hand grenade.

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

At some point though, you have to ask whther our opposition to it is a little quanit. Kind of like Quakers not wearing buttons because theya re too modern. Wait a few years; the Americans or the Russians will develop something that will make a nuke look like a hand grenade.

Quaint? Sounds so like getting nukes are a romantic B&B getaway.

The russians already have (and have lost lots) of suitcase nukes. I think the world would have been far better off had they not developed them in the first place. I actually think the greatest opposition to us and all the other countries acquiring nukes would come from the US who doesn't want to have to deal with so many nuclear states. In addition, if we all get nukes then so do all those unstable nations as well if they can manage to buy them.

What precedent will we use to object if they do? We already have no leg to stand on when we tell Iran they aren't allowed to have nukes.

To me this is like giving every citizen assault rifles for home defence.

[saturn_656]

DerbyX DerbyX:

We already have no leg to stand on when we tell Iran they aren't allowed to have nukes.

Why does Canada have no leg to stand on Derb?

[2Cdo]

DerbyX DerbyX:

To me this is like giving every citizen assault rifles for home defence.

If they pass the required training and store it correctly I don't see a problem with that!

[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

DerbyX DerbyX:

We already have no leg to stand on when we tell Iran they aren't allowed to have nukes.

Why does Canada have no leg to stand on Derb?

For one we have no right to tell another nation they are not permitted to have nuclear weapons. What makes anybody think we do?

We would certainly have even less of a leg to stand on should we acquire nukes only to turn around and tell others that "uh-uh".

Do you think Canada would simply accept it if another nation told us we weren't allowed to?

[DerbyX]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

DerbyX DerbyX:

To me this is like giving every citizen assault rifles for home defence.

If they pass the required training and store it correctly I don't see a problem with that!

How many people do you see on the roads have legally passed a drivers exam and yet are accidents waiting to happen.

I doubt even the most ardent gun rights advocate wants assault weapons readily available to whomever wants one.

I bet most of these people passed a safety course.

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/3 ... 91991.html

(watch for the female police officer clip).

[Akhenaten]

$1:

To me this is like giving every citizen assault rifles for home defence.

Its nothing like metaphor at all. Nations are not citizens by any stretch because citizens enjoy a common law whereas nations must continually barter and deal. Plus no one is giving anybody anything. One simply acknowledgesthere is no magical spaghetti monster there (like the U.N.) -- no common law stopping any nation state from getting them.
No one has suggested arming every nation in the world be with nukes and it seems strange you are determined to debate the pros and cons on Canada's aquiring them based on that. Canada is already responsible for procreating nuclear proliferation so what's the protest now? We can let India have them but they're too dangerous for us?

Fact of the matter is and more to the point of arctic sovereignty, ( or our complete sovereignty for that matter), is at the moment we protest Russia's explorations and notions and while naturally our press makes a big deal of it and Russia has a talking head that will have some reply...well when we get all huffy about anyones claim to the arctic their response is, realistically "did someone say something?".

A modern diplomatic nuclear state must be dealt with; Bargained with; Paid credence to. If North Korea 'deserves' to be in that category then why not us?

DerbyX DerbyX:

How many people do you see on the roads have legally passed a drivers exam and yet are accidents waiting to happen.

.....yeah.


.

[saturn_656]

DerbyX DerbyX:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

DerbyX DerbyX:

We already have no leg to stand on when we tell Iran they aren't allowed to have nukes.

Why does Canada have no leg to stand on Derb?

For one we have no right to tell another nation they are not permitted to have nuclear weapons. What makes anybody think we do?

We would certainly have even less of a leg to stand on should we acquire nukes only to turn around and tell others that "uh-uh".

Do you think Canada would simply accept it if another nation told us we weren't allowed to?

Well Canada is a leading first world democracy respected by most globally, as opposed to Iran which is a regressive theocratic backwater looked at by most with suspicion and distrust.

The two countries are not comparable in any shape, way, or form.

Iran can tell everyone to "frack off" and aquire nukes anyway, but they may not like how "certan countries" will react to that.

[DerbyX]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

To me this is like giving every citizen assault rifles for home defence.

Its nothing like metaphor at all. Nations are not citizens by any stretch because citizens enjoy a common law whereas nations must continually barter and deal. Plus no one is giving anybody anything. One simply acknowledgesthere is no magical spaghetti monster there (like the U.N.) -- no common law stopping any nation state from getting them.[/quote]

Actually my metaphor works quite well. Some citizens feel they should be allowed to own assault weapons for home defence. The ideology that Canada needs nukes because sooner or later every other nation will have one is exactly the ideology that will drive all those other nations to get nukes.

Thats like every citizen getting assault weapons because their neighbour has them and they need to be prepared also.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No one has suggested arming every nation in the world be with nukes and it seems strange you are determined to debate the pros and cons on Canada's aquiring them based on that. Canada is already responsible for procreating nuclear proliferation so what's the protest now? We can let India have them but they're too dangerous for us?

Actually thats exactly whats suggested when people think that because everybody else will have them so should we. Its not us arming them. Its everybody arming themselves.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Fact of the matter is and more to the point of arctic sovereignty, ( or our complete sovereignty for that matter), is at the moment we protest Russia's explorations and notions and while naturally our press makes a big deal of it and Russia has a talking head that will have some reply when we get all huffy about anyones claim to the arctic their response is "did someone say something?". A modern diplomatic nuclear state must be dealt with; Bargained with; Paid credence to. If North Korea 'deserves' to be in that category then why not us?

Canada had nukes and willingly gave them up. Its not a question of deserve.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

DerbyX DerbyX:

How many people do you see on the roads have legally passed a drivers exam and yet are accidents waiting to happen.

.....yeah.

You know. I'm not going to spend another debate will you insulting me and accusing me of things I didn't say and twisting my words around. I've had enough of that for awhile.

You posted at me so unless you actually put forth a relevant argument rather then this crap don't expect a reply.

[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Well Canada is a leading first world democracy respected by most globally, as opposed to Iran which is a regressive theocratic backwater looked at by most with suspicion and distrust.

The two countries are not comparable in any shape, way, or form.

Iran can tell everyone to "frack off" and aquire nukes anyway, but they may not like how "certan countries" will react to that.

1) Us Canadians sure love to tell other people how awesome we are.

2) I'm not comparing us to Iran. I'm stating the fact we have no right to tell Iran what they can and cannot do anymore then we like "enlightened" Europeans telling us we can't hunt seals. I believe most of the forum said as much in that ho we govern our own affairs is just that.

Same as Iran.

3) Sure they can tell us all to get stuffed and acquire them anyway. Thats why we need leading democratic countries who are well respected to be able to tell them that they don't need nukes just to be respected and we can point to our selves as an example. With nukes our words would have as much affect as parents telling their kids not to smoke while a cigarette dangles from their fingertips.

4) Any country attacking Iran simply for acquiring nukes deserves to be attacked by viciously by every other democratic country in the world and that of course means the US and/or Israel should be attacked if they do.

Neither country has any right to Iran what they can and cannot do. They can certainly make every diplomatic effort to convince Iran that they don't need nukes for self-defence.

Not threatening them with invasion is probably a good start.

[2Cdo]

DerbyX DerbyX:

How many people do you see on the roads have legally passed a drivers exam and yet are accidents waiting to happen.

Apples and oranges. Canada hasn't had mandatory training for drivers or a particularly challenging driver exam.

$1:

I doubt even the most ardent gun rights advocate wants assault weapons readily available to whomever wants one.

Did you not read what I posted. Upon successful completion of firearms training.(Which would need adjusting to reflect the added responsibility of owning one.)
In hindsight, don't we already have what you've described right now? I know of several locations nearby where I could get my hands on any number of weapons in which I only require the cash in hand to get them!

$1:

I bet most of these people passed a safety course.

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/3 ... 91991.html

(watch for the female police officer clip).

I can't view the video clip here at work so I can't comment on it.

[Akhenaten]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Actually my metaphor works quite well.

No it doesn't remotely. Period. No matter how much you stamp your feet and rationalize it. Citizens of countries have laws. The world doesn't. There is no debate here for anyone sincere.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Actually thats exactly whats suggested when people think that because everybody else will have them so should we

No. No one is suggesting that the we arm every nation in the world with nukes and the rationale that other nations possess nuclear weapons as a means to legitimize their acquisition for our own country does in no possible way suggests the extrapolation that 'we need to arm the entire world with nukes'. Two entirely different idea there Derb.
Arm ourselves.
Arm everyone.
See the difference? Of course you do and of course it'll make no difference. If you can only debate what you wish people said instead of addressing what they did say then you cannot debate.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Canada had nukes and willingly gave them up. Its not a question of deserve.

Yes. It is. We deserve sovereignty. We don't have it. This is the most certain, cheapest and easiest way to guarantee it. That was then. This is now.

$1:

I'm not going to spend another debate will you insulting me and accusing me of things I didn't say and twisting my words around.

No that it is actually you doing this is self-evident.

[saturn_656]

$1:

1) Us Canadians sure love to tell other people how awesome we are.

It's hard to be modest when you totally rock.

$1:

2) I'm not comparing us to Iran. I'm stating the fact we have no right to tell Iran what they can and cannot do anymore then we like "enlightened" Europeans telling us we can't hunt seals. I believe most of the forum said as much in that ho we govern our own affairs is just that.

Same as Iran.

Don't tell me you just compared Nuclear friggin weapons to seal hunting...

$1:

3) Sure they can tell us all to get stuffed and acquire them anyway. Thats why we need leading democratic countries who are well respected to be able to tell them that they don't need nukes just to be respected and we can point to our selves as an example. With nukes our words would have as much affect as parents telling their kids not to smoke while a cigarette dangles from their fingertips.

And when that doesn't work what should we do then? Because it won't.

$1:

4) Any country attacking Iran simply for acquiring nukes deserves to be attacked by viciously by every other democratic country in the world and that of course means the US and/or Israel should be attacked if they do.

And who are you going to find to lead that battle?

$1:

Neither country has any right to Iran what they can and cannot do. They can certainly make every diplomatic effort to convince Iran that they don't need nukes for self-defence.

Not threatening them with invasion is probably a good start.

More carrots, less sticks? Could work.

[DerbyX]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Apples and oranges. Canada hasn't had mandatory training for drivers or a particularly challenging driver exam.

What criteria do we have (or the US) for gun ownership? The prevaling theme is still that people who have no business having such weapons will get them.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Did you not read what I posted. Upon successful completion of firearms training.(Which would need adjusting to reflect the added responsibility of owning one.)
In hindsight, don't we already have what you've described right now? I know of several locations nearby where I could get my hands on any number of weapons in which I only require the cash in hand to get them!

I read it. The belief that people will need these weapons for self defence will likely make any required test less then that of a soldier training for the field. After all gun rights advocates point to the need of everyday people needing them, people who may need that gun right away. Various gun waiting laws are always being attacked because you just never know when you will need to by that Uzi.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

I can't view the video clip here at work so I can't comment on it.

Picture a standard scene with several police officers crouching behind a cruiser with guns drawn. The female officer fires a round into the pavement about half a foot from another officer. Looked like the kind of thing that gets somebody automatically taken off field work and stuck to a desk.