[Zipperfish]

It's high time Canada developed a nuclear arsenal. Or are we just going to continue to watch every other country develop them, and rely on the US.

[Akhenaten]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But we're not, at present, under any threat of invasion, are we?

That doesn't answer my point lemmy. Wanting to be capable of defending ourselves is not a threat, and we are under the same threat of invasion we ever were during the cold war. You sidestep the question because you know the answer: waiting to be invaded is the wrong time to begin a nuclear weapons program.

Lemmy Lemmy:

No, the Kiddie table with North Korea & Iran and other nations that threaten use of nuclear weapons weekly.

Yes and that's not what I'm proposing - making a threat every week. Is this what I said? Is it what I'm proposing? Is simply having a nuclear arsinal making a threat every week? C'mon. There's really zero reason or rationale to take what I'm proposing and liken it to Iran or North Korea. Are we threatening anyone? Did I propose making threats? No I simply point out that when you're NOT at the kiddie table AS WE ARE CURRENTLY then nations don't jsut kick you around, instead they negotiate, barter, propose diplomatic avenues, and what's wrong with that? Isn't that better for everyone? As it stands nobody gives it a second thought because we ARE sitting at the kiddie table.

No offense but I think your making a connection between Canada and Iran simply because I propose the only real way of capably defending ourselves is more than a little off the mark.

[Scape]

Let me get this strait, because there are nuclear subs Canada should have a fleet as well? There are far more cost effective ways to enforce sovereignty in the arctic that do not involve white elephants. Hydrogen subs would be far quieter and last underwater for months at a time for example. We could get some icebreakers while we are at it and it would still be a fraction of the cost of a nuclear sub program.

[Akhenaten]

Who you replying to Scape?

[Lemmy]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

That doesn't answer my point lemmy. Wanting to be capable of defending ourselves is not a threat, and we are under the same threat of invasion we ever were during the cold war. You sidestep the question because you know the answer: waiting to be invaded is the wrong time to begin a nuclear weapons program.

I didn't side-step anything. I agree with you, by and large. Our difference of opinion is that I'm fairly certain we already have nukes, so I don't see it as a pressing issue.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Yes and that's not what I'm proposing - making a threat every week. Is this what I said? Is it what I'm proposing? Is simply having a nuclear arsinal making a threat every week? C'mon. There's really zero reason or rationale to take what I'm proposing and liken it to Iran or North Korea. Are we threatening anyone? Did I propose making threats? No I simply point out that when you're NOT at the kiddie table AS WE ARE CURRENTLY then nations don't jsut kick you around, instead they negotiate, barter, propose diplomatic avenues, and what's wrong with that? Isn't that better for everyone? As it stands nobody gives it a second thought because we ARE sitting at the kiddie table.

No offense but I think your making a connection between Canada and Iran simply because I propose the only real way of capably defending ourselves is more than a little off the mark.

Again, you think I'm disagreeing with you, but I'm not really. I think we have nukes. I don't think we need to make that information public. If we DO need them, they're at our disposal. In all other circumstances save grave emergency, we're better to settle our differences through negotiation. I don't see the need to show our trump card, even to say "we'll use them if we're invaded".

[Akhenaten]

Fair enough.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

An invasion isn't likely to come out of the blue. But that's a moot, academic point because I believe we have a nuclear arsenal.

Now that's an interesting proposition. What makes you think that?

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

An invasion isn't likely to come out of the blue. But that's a moot, academic point because I believe we have a nuclear arsenal.

Now that's an interesting proposition. What makes you think that?

We had them in the 50s and 60s when our government claimed we didn't. Why wouldn't we now? It's just a gut-instinct, I guess; I have no facts to support my belief. But in my experience, if something doesn't make sense it's likely not true. That Canada would be the only one of the WWII Allies to not make use of this technology just doesn't make sense. So, I suspect we have them.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But we're not, at present, under any threat of invasion, are we?

Talk about 'famous last words'.

These same words were said by Neville Chamberlain in 1938, France in 1940, Joe Stalin in 1941, FDR in 1941, Kuwait in 1991, and etc.

The paradox of military strength is that strong nations are rarely at threat while weak and unprepared nations most certainly are.

The better prepared your military is for war, the less likely it is that you'll need them. Conversely, the less prepared your military is for war the more likely you are to need them.

With riches in oil, diamonds, , unpolluted water, food, gold, lumber, and millions of hectares of potential living space Canada is going to always be at threat for invasion especially as the world population nears the projected peak of nine billion.

And then let's look at Canada's vulnerabilities:

1. North Korea (or anyone) can chuck a missile at Canada and you all have exactly NOTHING to defend against that.

2. The nations that are capable of cruising Canada's northern waters year-round do not include Canada.

3. Too many Canadians take the US-Canada alliance for granted. The US has plans to invade Canada (this is old news) and so where are Canada's plans to defend against such a thing? If the voters down here go nuts and elect some idiot who hates Canada you folks will be in trouble. Obama is certain proof that we are willing to elect someone we know nothing about.

4. Canada's industrial centers are too concenrated, mostly in Ontario, and Canada produces almost no heavy weapons, no fighter aircraft, and your naval maintainance facilities are state of the art...for 1900.

5. To turn the argument on its head: Were someone to invade Canada, would Canada be a threat to them?

[Akhenaten]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

An invasion isn't likely to come out of the blue. But that's a moot, academic point because I believe we have a nuclear arsenal.

Now that's an interesting proposition. What makes you think that?

We had them in the 50s and 60s when our government claimed we didn't. Why wouldn't we now? It's just a gut-instinct, I guess; I have no facts to support my belief. But in my experience, if something doesn't make sense it's likely not true. That Canada would be the only one of the WWII Allies to not make use of this technology just doesn't make sense. So, I suspect we have them.

Not to beat a dead horse but I'm reminded of "Dr.Strangelove"...the scene where everyone in the war room realizes that the Soviet union has created a 'doomsday device' that will trigger if attacked -- but forgot to announce it to everyone. Doctor Stangelove goes on and on about the beauty of such a terrifying yet completely defensive weapon - the perfect defensive weapon -- unless nobody realizes you've got one.

[martin14]

Bart, stop rubbing it in, ok ?

It's bad enough we know these things already.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

Bart, stop rubbing it in, ok ?

It's bad enough we know these things already.

Sorry. It seemed that Lemmy needed a reminder.

[Scape]

Bart's not paranoid...he is just well prepared.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

martin14 martin14:

Bart, stop rubbing it in, ok ?

It's bad enough we know these things already.

Sorry. It seemed that Lemmy needed a reminder.

No, no, no, no, Bart. You posted before reading completely.

[KorbenDeck]

Polar north or true north?