Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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
??

---

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:

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

:shuriken:

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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

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.

Thank You Fromagepas, I will be using those points surely

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neotheone

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.

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 . ;)