Militarisation of Canada
   Register

[x]

Militarisation of Canada


BitWhys is offline BitWhys canada
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157 BitWhys is a jewel in the roughBitWhys is a jewel in the roughBitWhys is a jewel in the rough
BitWhys's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 10:36 AM

Quoting Toro
Is the US a more compassionate society because it spends several times more than Canada on social services?
I dunno. You tell me.

better watch out, though. there's a troop of right-wingers around here that don't take too kindly to being compared to the States.
Reply With Quote
tamarin is offline tamarin
House Member
Posts: 3,167 tamarin is a jewel in the roughtamarin is a jewel in the roughtamarin is a jewel in the rough
July 23rd, 2007, 10:41 AM

I think Katrina put US compassion in a startlingly new light. Being compared to the Third World in international newspapers isn't a recommendation.
Reply With Quote
Anachronism is offline Anachronism canada
Newbie
Posts: 22 Anachronism is on a distinguished road
Location: In a two-storey house located near the center of a city that is small by extra-provincial standards.
Anachronism's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 11:18 AM

Quoting karrie
Are you joking? Does that seriously work better in your eyes? Letting your country be bombed, and just throwing your hands up in the air over it. I can't even imagine. Lets hope you never run a country, because your citizenry would be sitting ducks.
You don't understand. We're talking about nuclear warfare. My country would be blown up anyway. The best course of action is to avoid more destruction. The only reason for me to bomb someone else even though I'm sure to be destroyed would be for revenge, which is stupid and results in millions of further deaths.
MAD may be the only thing that keeps people from blowing each other up, but despite what most people think, it is not a Nash equilibrium, where the best idea is to not fire nukes as long as no one else does. The thing that seperates it from being a Nash equilibrium is the fact that the more nukes launched, the more death, so in the perspective of the entire human race, the best course of action is to never fire a nuke, no matter what other people do. So that's what I'd do.
Reply With Quote
Zzarchov is offline Zzarchov
House Member
Posts: 3,381 Zzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond reputeZzarchov has a reputation beyond repute
Zzarchov's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 11:38 AM

A good line of reasoning, except it relies upon the other person considering your people as human beings. Just because you do see the "enemy" as human's doesn't mean the "enemy" (or those running the nation) see you in the same way and will be opposed to harming you and reaping the benefits of conquest.

In such a case by stating you will not fire a nuke, you encourage death and destruction by encouraging them to fire upon you.
Reply With Quote
karrie is offline karrie canada
counting to bunnyrabbit
Posts: 12,071 karrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond repute
Videos: 21
Location: bliss
karrie's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 11:41 AM

Quoting Anachronism
You don't understand. We're talking about nuclear warfare. My country would be blown up anyway. The best course of action is to avoid more destruction. The only reason for me to bomb someone else even though I'm sure to be destroyed would be for revenge, which is stupid and results in millions of further deaths.
MAD may be the only thing that keeps people from blowing each other up, but despite what most people think, it is not a Nash equilibrium, where the best idea is to not fire nukes as long as no one else does. The thing that seperates it from being a Nash equilibrium is the fact that the more nukes launched, the more death, so in the perspective of the entire human race, the best course of action is to never fire a nuke, no matter what other people do. So that's what I'd do.
No, I don't think you understand. If you haven't started a war, and someone hits your country with a nuclear bomb, simply not doing anything about it wouldn't be the end of it. Chances are occupation would be the result if you're not willing to fight back, tit for tat. And occupation never goes well for the native citizens. So, you refuse to set off a bomb, and let all your citizens live in the hell of being an occupied country (with a second nuke being the punishment if you resist, since you've already proven you won't fight back).

Now, if you've already launched an attack of some other sort on a country, and they retalliate with a nuke, then it makes sense to not fight back, and instead desist with your hostile activities and rebuild. But, each and every situation is different and requires different tactics and actions.
Reply With Quote
Blackleaf is offline Blackleaf
Senate Member
Posts: 6,131 Blackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to behold
Blackleaf's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 11:43 AM

Quoting Karlin


Government spending on military is growing, educational factilites for military officer training are being built, recruiting efforts are growing
That's good, isn't it?

Or at least it is in most other Western nations.
Reply With Quote
Blackleaf is offline Blackleaf
Senate Member
Posts: 6,131 Blackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to behold
Blackleaf's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 11:47 AM

Quoting #juan
One of the major planks in Harper's platform was large, armed, icebreakers for the north. He has reneged on that promise in favour of small coastal patrol ships that won't travel in over three feet of ice. I don't know what he thinks these little ships will do.
They could fight seals or polar bears in the event of those magnificent creatures forming a military coup against the governments of Canada and the US (but especially Canada) for their sickening mistreatment, but they won't do any good against the Russians (in a battle for oil in the Arctic, for example) or anyone else who has a grudge against Canada.

In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
Reply With Quote
Blackleaf is offline Blackleaf
Senate Member
Posts: 6,131 Blackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to beholdBlackleaf is a splendid one to behold
Blackleaf's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 11:49 AM

Quoting karrie
Oh come now.... surely a world war would help with the whole population crisis, and reduce the carbon footprint of combatant countries more than hybrid cars will.
Surely a World War would have one of the largest "carbon footprints" of all time.

All those guns, warships, planes, bombs, etc? Not good for the environment.
Reply With Quote
karrie is offline karrie canada
counting to bunnyrabbit
Posts: 12,071 karrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond reputekarrie has a reputation beyond repute
Videos: 21
Location: bliss
karrie's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 12:01 PM

Quoting Blackleaf
Surely a World War would have one of the largest "carbon footprints" of all time.

All those guns, warships, planes, bombs, etc? Not good for the environment.
Oh come now. One bomb may have a big carbon footprint, but, if it kills twenty people who'd otherwise be driving back and forth to work every day for forty years, then it's still helped the enviro.

And it's not as if the men driving the planes and warships would be sitting at home if they weren't fighting a war... they'd be driving other things, and creating carbon in other ways. So we'd be about equal there.

Yep... world war's the way to go.
Reply With Quote
Toro is offline Toro belgium
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995 Toro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to behold
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Toro's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 12:22 PM

Quoting Blackleaf
They could fight seals or polar bears in the event of those magnificent creatures forming a military coup against the governments of Canada and the US (but especially Canada) for their sickening mistreatment, but they won't do any good against the Russians (in a battle for oil in the Arctic, for example) or anyone else who has a grudge against Canada.

In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
Hahaha.
Reply With Quote
Anachronism is offline Anachronism canada
Newbie
Posts: 22 Anachronism is on a distinguished road
Location: In a two-storey house located near the center of a city that is small by extra-provincial standards.
Anachronism's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 02:34 PM

Quoting karrie
No, I don't think you understand. If you haven't started a war, and someone hits your country with a nuclear bomb, simply not doing anything about it wouldn't be the end of it. Chances are occupation would be the result if you're not willing to fight back, tit for tat. And occupation never goes well for the native citizens. So, you refuse to set off a bomb, and let all your citizens live in the hell of being an occupied country (with a second nuke being the punishment if you resist, since you've already proven you won't fight back).

Now, if you've already launched an attack of some other sort on a country, and they retalliate with a nuke, then it makes sense to not fight back, and instead desist with your hostile activities and rebuild. But, each and every situation is different and requires different tactics and actions.
In a case where a nuclear strike is poised to eliminate the entire country (as it normally would, seeing as how there are thousands of nukes in existence within a single country), sovereignty would mean nothing because the sovereign nation wouldn't exist anymore in a few minutes. Occupation is more favorable than annihilation.
Then there's the fact that nuclear fallout would likely contaminate the majority of a given continent even if there were only a few missiles, and cause more deaths than the initial blast would. So why would anyone want to occupy a nuclear wasteland? No crops would grow there, precautions would have to be taken every time you set foot outside (and that's only after the years of the fallout being in the air), and the water would still be radioactive. It's entirely inhospitable. The only purpose for nuclear warfare is death, not colonization. So sovereignty means nothing in the case of impending nuclear strike, and thus the best course of action is to cause the least death possible, by not engaging in nuclear combat no matter the conditions.
If a nation really were to try to blow EVERYONE up with nuclear missiles, then I could see the point in retaliating. But a nation that really would do that is unlikely to ever exist. Plus, they'd only end up killing themselves as a result of the fallout. They would know this if their nuclear physicists were skilled enough to enrich uranium.
Reply With Quote
Colpy is online now Colpy canada
Senate Member
Posts: 5,588 Colpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant future
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Colpy's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 03:31 PM

Quoting Minority Observer84
As far as i'am concerned there are far more pressing issues that need support "social issues" things a conservative does not believe in
Exactly what "social issues" are you refering to?

We are already coddled cradle to grave......perhaps we should have the ability to take our place along side of our allies in the free world.............
Reply With Quote
Colpy is online now Colpy canada
Senate Member
Posts: 5,588 Colpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant future
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Colpy's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 03:35 PM

Quoting Zzarchov
So, what your saying is:

Its ok to sell out the most vulnerable members of our society if you have more pressing needs closer to home?

I know thats not what you mean to say, but it is.

Just because they are few, our northern citizens have every right not to be annexed against their wishes by a foreign government. Basic needs such as not being overtaken by a foreign nation are the primary responsibility of a federal government before social needs, even basic needs like water and electricity. Civilian icebreakers are pointless and do not establish sovereignty, military ones do. Thus they ensure the basic right of our most vulnerable citizens to be able to remain in their own country.

Im normally an NDP man, but the fact that only the conservatives are willing to stand up for the most basic of government responsibilities is making me want to vote for them. I mean, sure they will destroy much of the social structures I love about Canada, but that is all internal damage and can be repaired later. If you lose soveriegnty, its gone, forever.
Well said.....although I doubt the Conservatives are going to "destroy much of the social structure I love about Canada"......they want to STAY in power, and have moved ever-closer to the centre of the Canadian political spectrum.
Reply With Quote
Colpy is online now Colpy canada
Senate Member
Posts: 5,588 Colpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant futureColpy has a brilliant future
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Colpy's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 03:42 PM

Quoting Blackleaf
They could fight seals or polar bears in the event of those magnificent creatures forming a military coup against the governments of Canada and the US (but especially Canada) for their sickening mistreatment, but they won't do any good against the Russians (in a battle for oil in the Arctic, for example) or anyone else who has a grudge against Canada.

In thse events, these anti-militaristic Canadians will then be begging other countries with much larger and better equipped militaries to come to their aid.
Aside from the ignorant innuendo about the seal hunt, not a bad post. I love how the anti-Americans here are so absolutely willing to leave our defense totally in the hands of that "imperial" power. To say nothing of the fact that their absolute trust that the US would not move militarily against a defenseless Canada completely belies their condemnation of that country as imperialist.

I guess consistency is much more than we should expect from the niave........
Reply With Quote
BitWhys is offline BitWhys canada
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157 BitWhys is a jewel in the roughBitWhys is a jewel in the roughBitWhys is a jewel in the rough
BitWhys's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 04:00 PM

What's naive is to assume everyone with an opinion gives a rat's ass which rich bastard controls the oil fields to the east of the Alaska/Yukon boundary.

everything after that is detail without a shot fired.
Reply With Quote
Toro is offline Toro belgium
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995 Toro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to beholdToro is a splendid one to behold
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Toro's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 04:06 PM

Quoting BitWhys
What's naive is to assume everyone with an opinion gives a rat's ass which rich bastard controls the oil fields to the east of the Alaska/Yukon boundary.

everything after that is detail without a shot fired.
You're right.

As long as my stocks go up...
Reply With Quote
BitWhys is offline BitWhys canada
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157 BitWhys is a jewel in the roughBitWhys is a jewel in the roughBitWhys is a jewel in the rough
BitWhys's Avatar
July 23rd, 2007, 04:20 PM

Quoting Toro
You're right.

As long as my stocks go up...
heh

Count on it. and good luck on the timing. No doubt the whole ordeal will be a lot more noisy than it has to be.
Reply With Quote
Tim Hamilton is offline Tim Hamilton canada
Newbie
Posts: 17 Tim Hamilton is on a distinguished road
July 23rd, 2007, 07:45 PM

Quoting Anachronism
Canada shouldn't be attacking anyone. A standing army is needed to protect a country, yes, but attacking other countries and starting wars is most certainly not very important to that country's sovereignty.
MAD is a prime example of how fighting wars for the sake of fighting is stupid, stupid, stupid. If I ran a country and a nuclear strike were launched against it, I would not retaliate. I'd prevent the destruction of one more country by not attacking. See how much better that works than just blowing each other up? >.>
Anyway, the point is, an army to defend a country is the only army that's necessary.
You've missed the point of MAD.

It wasn't about destroying the country that destroyed you, it was about preventing anyone from destroying anyone in the first place. The knowledge your own country would be destroyed was enough to keep anyone from launching the first attack because attacking your opponent now became the equivalent of attacking yourself.

If you ran a country without a MAD policy and you were attacked, one country would be destroyed. If you ran a country with a MAD policy and assured your enemy that the destruction of your country would result in the destruction of theirs, they would be unlikely to attack you in the first place and no country would destroyed.

I guess it's a good thing you don't run a country.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
About Canadian Content | Contact Us | Archive | Technology | Free Downloads | Top
(C) Copyright Canadian Content Interactive Media. Usage is subject to our Terms of Service at http://www.canadiancontent.net/corp/TOS.html