Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
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)?
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
what would we have done without you.
oh and thanks for all the money we saved. fan-tastic.
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. :)
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
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?
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
Those people at Fox News scare me. Sometimes I imagine they're just waiting to devour my brains. :(
:shuriken:
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
Is my point so objectionable as to be rejected out-of-hand?
Yes.
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
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:
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
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.
Re: Should Canada Have Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Is my point so objectionable as to be rejected out-of-hand?
Yes.
Touchy-touchy.
I shouldn't have reminded you.
