Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons

[Mr JP Fugley]

Yes.

Touchy-touchy.

I shouldn't have reminded you.

oh, heaven forfend, no. please, remind me at every possible opportunity.

what is it you are reminding me about. is it how long it took you to actually support your allies. fair point, we could learn a lot from you guys.

tell you what, next time you're in a war we'll wait until an enemy actually attacks us, before we help you. or two years, whichever comes the sooner.

nah, on second thoughts we won't do that.

[j2k4]

Touchy-touchy.

I shouldn't have reminded you.

oh, heaven forfend, no. please, remind me at every possible opportunity.

what is it you are reminding me about. is it how long it took you to actually support your allies. fair point, we could learn a lot from you guys.

tell you what, next time you're in a war we'll wait until an enemy actually attacks us, before we help you. or two years, whichever comes the sooner.

nah, on second thoughts we won't do that.

Still pissed off about WWI and WWII, eh?

We joined the fray in Europe too late to suit you, and left the Pacific "too soon".

If you haven't gathered the awful truth by now, it's because there was no oil in it for us...if there's oil needs fighting over, we're in it with bells-you know it's true.

[Guillaume]

If you haven't gathered the awful truth by now, it's because there was no oil in it for us...if there's oil needs fighting over, we're in it with bells-you know it's true.

C'mon, don't be so harsh on yourself just because you didn't push your invasion of Europe all the way to Baku.

edit: speelage

[j2k4]

If you haven't gathered the awful truth by now, it's because there was no oil in it for us...if there's oil needs fighting over, we're in it with bells-you know it's true.

C'mon, don't be so harsh on yourself just because you didn't push your invasion of Europe all the way to Baku.

edit: speelage

You're kidding.

We invaded Europe?

I'd always heard it was Montgomery and his lads freed France and drove to Berlin.

I thought we just manned the chow line and sewed parachutes for those British studs.

[Guillaume]

No, no, according to official history, De Gaulle himself did that, armed with a spoon.

[j2k4]

No, no, according to official history, De Gaulle himself did that, armed with a spoon.

Oh.

I really must go to France and study the official history of the world, ffs.

[Mr JP Fugley]

oh, heaven forfend, no. please, remind me at every possible opportunity.

what is it you are reminding me about. is it how long it took you to actually support your allies. fair point, we could learn a lot from you guys.

tell you what, next time you're in a war we'll wait until an enemy actually attacks us, before we help you. or two years, whichever comes the sooner.

nah, on second thoughts we won't do that.

Still pissed off about WWI and WWII, eh?

We joined the fray in Europe too late to suit you, and left the Pacific "too soon".

If you haven't gathered the awful truth by now, it's because there was no oil in it for us...if there's oil needs fighting over, we're in it with bells-you know it's true.

nah not really.

just brought it up since you decided to suggest that your country has been the defenders of all of europe for the last several decades.

[j2k4]

Still pissed off about WWI and WWII, eh?

We joined the fray in Europe too late to suit you, and left the Pacific "too soon".

If you haven't gathered the awful truth by now, it's because there was no oil in it for us...if there's oil needs fighting over, we're in it with bells-you know it's true.

nah not really.

just brought it up since you decided to suggest that your country has been the defenders of all of europe for the last several decades.

Not so much since the late eighties, but I think U.S. military presence in Europe was the linchpin to deterring Soviet expansion.

We certainly had no other reason to be there.

[Biggles]

J2

In fact, nuclear weapons are not, in the scheme of things, overly expensive. Both the UK and France have hundreds of warheads and a range of delivery systems, Subs, Land based IBMs (France) and plane delivered ordnance. More than enough to obliterate any potential invader - even a large one.

Europe has not, however, invested hugely in a large conventional army - in the manner that the US has continued to do. This is very, very expensive (missiles do not collect a pension when they retire) . One Nimitz carrier could have funded a whole array of IBMs.

Europe has therefore tended to invest in quality rather than quantity and has fairly specific military goals - defence rather than global projection. This view is changing slightly and the new carriers that the UK intends to build (to accommodate the JSF) will allow for a degree of projection if needed. However, Europe does not envisage fighting battles half way around the world in the manner that the Pentagon appears to plan (and budget) for. The US umbrella was directly related to the Cold War situation with Russia, where total destruction awaited both sides. Without the Cold War the umbrella is redundant. European capability far exceeds anything a ME terrorist state could muster now or for the foreseeable future.

This has allowed for Europe to budget its resources in a manner different from the US. I think, though, the demise of "social Europe" is a tad over-stated. We all like to moan and complain about services but they are largely as good, if not better, than they have ever been. Wants will always exceed demand though

Given that Canada is more European in its global outlook than say the US, I can't see why they would need nuclear weapons. They are not threatened on any border (unless the Fox News gets its way and Canada is invaded by the US for being impudent) and they are not involved significantly in any global conflicts - although they do contribute to Afghanistan forces (as one or two US pilots may or may not be aware of). It is therefore questionable if having such weapons would add value to any defence related situation they might encounter.

Lets face it, if AQ get hold of a bomb and get it to N America, are they going to blow up Toronto or Washington?

Quite correct in all aspects (I appreciate your bent toward quality ), but, it must be acknowledged, great wads of money have been saved, and spent on other things.

Is my point so objectionable as to be rejected out-of-hand?

BTW-I wonder if, instead of Washington D.C. or Toronto, they'd consider blowing up Montreal?

J2

I do agree that we have spent less on defence than the US. Has this been to our advantage and US disadvantage? This is difficult to call in my opinion.

The US has a considerable military industry that turns over a dollar or two for the US and employs a considerable number of people.

With hindsight the USSR was less of threat than was assumed at the time. Also, we must regard the activities of the US in SE Asia. The US has been on quite a war footing for much of the post WW2 period and this also has contributed to its greater spending on defence than Europe. It could be argued that given our experience of the past we are a tad suspicious if our Governments start to flirt with uniforms and guns. So there is a political/cultural aspect to this too.

[peat moss]

If I could make a point about monies spent , It grieves me to think of the old equipment Canada sends our son's and daughter to fight with . Yep better equipped than the Iraqis but not as well as the Brits or US .

That pisses me off either send them with the tools or keep the kids at home .