Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons

[NeoTheOne]

Im doing a 1000 word essay on this and it would be great if i can disucuss this topic with you guys and get 3 arguments to debate on. I am taking the side of No They Shouldnt mainly becuase this might offend USA and other countries for breaking the Nuclear Profileration Treaty, the cost of nuclear wepon manufactering is really high and plus there are no places to test them and I need one more point or anyother points that you guys might think i should use instead of these 2.

[vidcc]

If the argument is no they shouldn't could it be that they don't need them?
They live under the shield of the USA (just a brief suggestion)

[Fromagepas]

Not if you can't spell "weapons".

[NeoTheOne]

Not if you can't spell "weapons".
I just realized that i spelled it wrong. Okay so Canada is living in sort of a Nuclear Umbrella from the U.S. That could work becuase i can talk about how U.S.A has all the required nuclear technology and canada does supply them Uranium (can anyone back the uranium part). anyone else, Btw what are the costs of developing Nuclear Weapons in the modern world.

[NeoTheOne]

This is my essay Outline so far

Introduction:
In this world of high tech advancements and breakthroughs, there are also advancements and breakthroughs in the field of nuclear technology. Such advancements have made nuclear bombs to be more portable and cheap. Allowing anyone and any country to be able to buy, build and unfortunatly use these weapons of mass destruction. Despite World War II and the cold war being finished over 60 years ago, these Nuclear weapons are still lurking out there, and they have become more and more accurate and powerful. Countries like Iran, North Korea and supposedly Iraq have all said to have nuclear weapons. However the more western countries such as U.S.A are out to stop the development of these nuclear weapons. Despite USA having more appx 18820 nuclear warheads/weapons, they feel as if these are in the safer hands then say being in Kim Jong-Il hands. The U.S. and Russia have put new emphasis on the war-fighting role of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons states refuse to give up their arsenals and feign surprise that other nations, seeing that nuclear weapons have become the currency of power in the modern world, are trying to acquire them. So are terrorists. No major city in the world is safe from the threat of a nuclear attack. The risk of accident multiplies daily. All these are characteristics of the Second Nuclear Age. Countries like Russia and the US have all made rules on the use of nuclear weapons in wars, yet other “Nuclear States” feel they should not give away these weapons seeing as they are the symbol for power in the modern world. Instead these countries are busy developing them or buying them from the black market, from people like Abdul Qadeer Khan. On the other hand, you never see the country Canada being mentioned in all this. This is because Canada has chosen to live a nuclear free life. in 1971 PM Pierre trudeau decaled that Canada would be nuclear weapon free They are part of the nuclear no proliferation treaty or the NPT, which says to disarm all nuclear weapons and use nuclear technology for peaceful causes. Canada does have the potential to start building nuclear weapons at any given time, and is however a major contributor of nuclear material to the US.

Thesis
Many countries have left the NPT to form nuclear weapons, but Canada has not and shouldn’t because Canada should not have nuclear weapons.

Argument #1:
U.S.A has Canada in a nuclear umbrella no need to develop weapons
Argument #2
The cost of developing, testing and deploying nuclear weapons is high
Argument #3
??

[manker]

They should have nukes just in case those Alaskans invade.

They are the nearest country after all - and I don't trust 'em, they're just too quiet and nice. Who knows what stockpiles of guns and stuff they've got hidden in the snow up there.

Nuke them now before it's too late!

[DorisInsinuate]

This is my essay Outline so far

Introduction:
In this world of high tech advancements and breakthroughs, there are also advancements and breakthroughs in the field of nuclear technology. Such advancements have made nuclear bombs to be more portable and cheap. Allowing anyone and any country to be able to buy, build and unfortunatly use these weapons of mass destruction. Despite World War II and the cold war being finished over 60 years ago, these Nuclear weapons are still lurking out there, and they have become more and more accurate and powerful. Countries like Iran, North Korea and supposedly Iraq have all said to have nuclear weapons. However the more western countries such as U.S.A are out to stop the development of these nuclear weapons. Despite USA having more appx 18820 nuclear warheads/weapons, they feel as if these are in the safer hands then say being in Kim Jong-Il hands. The U.S. and Russia have put new emphasis on the war-fighting role of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons states refuse to give up their arsenals and feign surprise that other nations, seeing that nuclear weapons have become the currency of power in the modern world, are trying to acquire them. So are terrorists. No major city in the world is safe from the threat of a nuclear attack. The risk of accident multiplies daily. All these are characteristics of the Second Nuclear Age. Countries like Russia and the US have all made rules on the use of nuclear weapons in wars, yet other “Nuclear States” feel they should not give away these weapons seeing as they are the symbol for power in the modern world. Instead these countries are busy developing them or buying them from the black market, from people like Abdul Qadeer Khan. On the other hand, you never see the country Canada being mentioned in all this. This is because Canada has chosen to live a nuclear free life. in 1971 PM Pierre trudeau decaled that Canada would be nuclear weapon free They are part of the nuclear no proliferation treaty or the NPT, which says to disarm all nuclear weapons and use nuclear technology for peaceful causes. Canada does have the potential to start building nuclear weapons at any given time, and is however a major contributor of nuclear material to the US.

Thesis
Many countries have left the NPT to form nuclear weapons, but Canada has not and shouldn’t because Canada should not have nuclear weapons.

Argument #1:
U.S.A has Canada in a nuclear umbrella no need to develop weapons
Argument #2
The cost of developing, testing and deploying nuclear weapons is high
Argument #3
??
Your introduction looks at bit chunky. I think you should slim it down to about half that size.

Somewhere in the essay you should also argue points for Canadian nuclear weapons.

I'm for the nukes. It's the only thing that'll stop the threat of George Washington Bush invading.

[Guillaume]

I'm for the nukes. It's the only thing that'll stop the threat of George Washington Bush invading.
What about Jonno living there now? :unsure:

[manker]

I'm for the nukes. It's the only thing that'll stop the threat of George Washington Bush invading.
What about Jonno living there now? :unsure:That may put George Washington Bush off, but what if Tom Leo gets a crew of vigilante desperados together in an effort to get him back to Sheringham.

They'd lay waste to the countryside in a manner not seen since the Hellequin in Britanny. Nukes are the only way to stop that threat - and even then, you'd need at least eleven.

[MagicNakor]

The Cold War didn't end sixty years ago....

:shuriken:

[Barbarossa]

This is my essay Outline so far

Introduction:
In this world of high tech advancements and breakthroughs, there are also advancements and breakthroughs in the field of nuclear technology. Such advancements have made nuclear bombs to be more portable and cheap. Allowing anyone and any country to be able to buy, build and unfortunatly use these weapons of mass destruction. Despite World War II and the cold war being finished over 60 years ago, these Nuclear weapons are still lurking out there, and they have become more and more accurate and powerful. Countries like Iran, North Korea and supposedly Iraq have all said to have nuclear weapons. However the more western countries such as U.S.A are out to stop the development of these nuclear weapons. Despite USA having more appx 18820 nuclear warheads/weapons, they feel as if these are in the safer hands then say being in Kim Jong-Il hands. The U.S. and Russia have put new emphasis on the war-fighting role of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons states refuse to give up their arsenals and feign surprise that other nations, seeing that nuclear weapons have become the currency of power in the modern world, are trying to acquire them. So are terrorists. No major city in the world is safe from the threat of a nuclear attack. The risk of accident multiplies daily. All these are characteristics of the Second Nuclear Age. Countries like Russia and the US have all made rules on the use of nuclear weapons in wars, yet other “Nuclear States” feel they should not give away these weapons seeing as they are the symbol for power in the modern world. Instead these countries are busy developing them or buying them from the black market, from people like Abdul Qadeer Khan. On the other hand, you never see the country Canada being mentioned in all this. This is because Canada has chosen to live a nuclear free life. in 1971 PM Pierre trudeau decaled that Canada would be nuclear weapon free They are part of the nuclear no proliferation treaty or the NPT, which says to disarm all nuclear weapons and use nuclear technology for peaceful causes. Canada does have the potential to start building nuclear weapons at any given time, and is however a major contributor of nuclear material to the US.

Thesis
Many countries have left the NPT to form nuclear weapons, but Canada has not and shouldn’t because Canada should not have nuclear weapons.

Argument #1:
U.S.A has Canada in a nuclear umbrella no need to develop weapons
Argument #2
The cost of developing, testing and deploying nuclear weapons is high
Argument #3
??


1. The cold war didn't finished 60 years ago, that's sort of when it started. It finished more like 16 years ago. (by some accounts)

2. Kim Jong Il must have big hands for you to imagine him holding 18820 nukes.

3. How does a nuclear weapon "lurk", exactly? :unsure:

[MagicNakor]

Board's being buggy again. Let's see that second page.

:shuriken:

[Fromagepas]

"U.S.A has Canada in a nuclear umbrella no need to develop weapons"

"The cost of developing, testing and deploying nuclear weapons is high"

Dreadful arguments after what went before them.

You start with - Canadia is in the moral high ground, because it has taken the executive decision not to have nuclear weapons. We have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and will not make, or buy nuclear weapons. We will only use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes.

To then go on to say.

1. We don't need them anyway because our big brother America has then.

and

2. They are really expensive so we don't want to spend the money.

Makes your nation look like lilly-livered hypocrites. I'm assuming that's not what you want to say. I know you have a lot of French people in the Country, but ffs.

[NeoTheOne]

"U.S.A has Canada in a nuclear umbrella no need to develop weapons"

"The cost of developing, testing and deploying nuclear weapons is high"

Dreadful arguments after what went before them.

You start with - Canadia is in the moral high ground, because it has taken the executive decision not to have nuclear weapons. We have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and will not make, or buy nuclear weapons. We will only use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes.

To then go on to say.

1. We don't need them anyway because our big brother America has then.

and

2. They are really expensive so we don't want to spend the money.

Makes your nation look like lilly-livered hypocrites. I'm assuming that's not what you want to say. I know you have a lot of French people in the Country, but ffs.

I see where your going at, I will make improvements and be back, Also our teacher said that our intro should be about 3/4ths of a page seeing that its a 1000 word essay

[DorisInsinuate]

I was always told introductions shouldn't be more than a paragraph :dabs:

3/4st of a page is lyke half the essay :dabs:

[Fromagepas]

Reasons not to have nuclear weapons:

1. We believe that developing nuclear weapons is morally wrong and have signed up to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

2. The cost in civilian casualties is unacceptable if nuclear weapons are deployed. There is no way to target their use. They destroy whole cities. Quote Hiroshima as an example.

3. The damage lasts for years and the whole environment, every living thing is destroyed. All animals, all plant life, goodness knows what they do to the Worlds eco-systems which can be in a very fragile balance.

4. The legacy of illness and genetic mutation is too high a cost to pay. Children can be effected for generationsto come.

5. They are a questionable detterent. Can they be shown to have stopped one conventional war happening (look at the world today)? Possibly use a clever analogy with the death penalty not stopping people commiting murder.

6.The money spent on developing and storing the weapons and their system of deployment, in training the Officers to use them and in all the ancillary costs would be better used elsewhere. Think of it being spent on hospitals or schools.

In essence, the cost (not just monetary) associated with having far outweighs any perceived benefit.

These arguments are negated if you use "America will deploy them on our behalf anyway". You can't really not want them, but want the "protection" they afford.

[NeoTheOne]

Thank You Fromagepas, I will be using those points surely

[Fromagepas]

Hope they are of some help to you. If nothing else they might give you some ideas to think through yourself.

[maebach]

Thank You Fromagepas, I will be using those points surely

I've only had to do one essay this year, and it was on how Canada is known as the peaceful country in this world.

[peat moss]

Canada has had nukes since the early sixties as part of our NORAD commitments , wonder if they were every decommissioned ?

Why don't you do the conspiracy angle makes for great reading and you don't have to prove anything . ;)

[j2k4]

Re: the argument that Canada lives under the U.S. "umbrella", I don't think this accounts for the question of Canada having nukes (ala North Korea, Iran, et. al.) for offensive, aggressive or antagonistic purposes.

As an aside, insofar as the "umbrella" scenario is correct for Canada, it is correct (in most aspects other than, but still including, nuclear defense) for all of Western Europe.

In light of the fact massive savings in defense spending have accrued to all these countries owing to the U.S.'s having shouldered past responsibility for same in the cause of keeping the old Soviet Union in check, do you think these funds have gone instead for the incredible array of social welfare programs, the costs of which are now bedevilling much of Europe (and Canada, to a lesser extent)?

[Mr JP Fugley]

As an aside, insofar as the "umbrella" scenario is correct for Canada, it is correct (in most aspects other than, but still including, nuclear defense) for all of Western Europe.

In light of the fact massive savings in defense spending have accrued to all these countries owing to the U.S.'s having shouldered past responsibility for same in the cause of keeping the old Soviet Union in check, do you think these funds have gone instead for the incredible array of social welfare problems, the costs of which are now bedevilling much of Europe (and Canada, to a lesser extent)?

yeah, thanks for keeping the world on the brink of thermo-nuclear armageddon for all these years.

what would we have done without you.

oh and thanks for all the money we saved. fan-tastic.

[j2k4]

As an aside, insofar as the "umbrella" scenario is correct for Canada, it is correct (in most aspects other than, but still including, nuclear defense) for all of Western Europe.

In light of the fact massive savings in defense spending have accrued to all these countries owing to the U.S.'s having shouldered past responsibility for same in the cause of keeping the old Soviet Union in check, do you think these funds have gone instead for the incredible array of social welfare problems, the costs of which are now bedevilling much of Europe (and Canada, to a lesser extent)?

yeah, thanks for keeping the world on the brink of thermo-nuclear armageddon for all these years.

You'd rather have been kept on this "brink" by Germany or the U.S.S.R.?

what would we have done without you.

Speak German, most likely.

oh and thanks for all the money we saved. fan-tastic.

You're welcome. :)

[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?

[j2k4]

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? :D

[MagicNakor]

Those people at Fox News scare me. Sometimes I imagine they're just waiting to devour my brains. :(

:shuriken:

[Mr JP Fugley]

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?

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

Yes.

[maebach]

what would we have done without you.

Speak German, most likely.

oh and thanks for all the money we saved. fan-tastic.

You're welcome. :)
:lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Those people at Fox News scare me. Sometimes I imagine they're just waiting to devour my brains. :(

:shuriken:

Maybe that's what's wrong with vid; he watches FOXNEWS all the time and then complains about it in here.

I think CNN is more his style.

[j2k4]

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

Yes.

Touchy-touchy.

I shouldn't have reminded you.

[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. :no:

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. :no:

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? :D


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 .

[Mr JP Fugley]

Who really did well after the second world war - The Japanese. Couldn't spend money on military development or upkeep, so spent it on developing their manufacturing infrastructure.

Dominate the world car / electronics markets now. Didn't the good old USA used to do that.

[peat moss]

You forgot about the Germans , did n't do so badly either . Of course they over engineer everything away . In a good way I might add .

[j2k4]

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? :D


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.

Point taken.

The need for eternal preparedness still exists, but the threats and logistics are much different than before the Wall came down.

I don't think we need 50,000 troops in Japan, and 30,000 in South Korea.

Bases need to be closed, etc.

At some point regional powers have to do their own policing, right?

The U.N. might find a useful function yet...

[Biggles]

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

I meant to say at the time, this really tickled my funny bone. :) Not sure why, but I thought it a beautiful counterpoise to the overall discussion.