Should Canada become a nuclear power?

Should Canada build nukes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
As a kid growing up in the 60's and 70's I, like most Canadians, thought the world would become less dangerous in time. The UN was evolving/growing, everyone stuck together in NATO, the superpowers were primarily aggressive to each other but the rest were on the sidelines waiting for better days.

In reality, those who didn't become nuclear (military) threats are treated distinctly different in world affairs and the world has become a more dangerous place. The UN is disolving and even allies have become openly hostile to each other. 20 years ago I would not have wanted to become a nuclear power but I'm beginning to rethink it.

How do you feel?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I voted yes only because we should never exclude it from the realm of possibility, but in reality we don't need them. America is armed to the teeth with with nukes, there is no reason for us to spend the money and it wouldn't increase our international standing IMO.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re: RE: Should Canada become a nuclear power?

Jay said:
I voted yes only because we should never exclude it from the realm of possibility, but in reality we don't need them. America is armed to the teeth with with nukes, there is no reason for us to spend the money and it wouldn't increase our international standing IMO.

So we let any superpower walk in and take over the arctic without even a hint of a threat? We are powerless without it.

How do you get a permanent veto-power seat on the UN Security Council?
 

cortezzz

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2006
663
0
16
absolutely
there is absolutely no chance in hell that nuclear disarmament will occur anytime soon-- particularly when the worlds largest most powerfull and wealthiest country says it cant do without them

i would support the only military apparatus that could actually be an effective deterent against a foreign invasion--

nukes
200-300 warheads
all submarine based
2-3 nuclear subs locked and loaded on random patrol

set up a weapons of mass liberation program to sell nukes to legitimate nations seeking an effective deterrent to a --- superpower invasion

this is all deterrent
a sort of soft MAD
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
No Nukes for Canada

In my opinion, nuclear weaponry is not necessary; we have done without it to this point, and I think that we can continue to do so. I don't think that the dynamics of the world should be where one must have brute force behind one's ideas to have them truly considered — and I think that developing nuclear weaponry in Canada would be contrary to many statements, and trends, in the past.
 

cortezzz

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2006
663
0
16
why the pacifism all of a sudden
nukes are the perfect weopon
a weopon that prevents war
scrap the regular forces and get a nuke shield up
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Re: RE: Should Canada become a nuclear power?

Jay said:
I voted yes only because we should never exclude it from the realm of possibility, but in reality we don't need them. America is armed to the teeth with with nukes, there is no reason for us to spend the money and it wouldn't increase our international standing IMO.

We have to get some balls for our country, nuclear balls are the best, then we can get the 5 billion back on the softwood deal.
 

Alberta'sfinest

Electoral Member
Dec 9, 2005
217
0
16
RE: Should Canada become

We've had nukes on army bases here in Canada for decades, even lost one in northern BC during a training mission. If Iraq could muster up a nuke program underground, what would impede us from doing the same?

For nuclear delivery, nothing beats the original method, airplanes. They can get anywhere and evade almost anything if built right. The cost is also much less than subs, and they can be easily hidden to keep our enemies guessing about what are capabilities are. Besides, navies are useless when you live in a country that has the majority of it's landmass 1000s of kilometers from the ocean. The easy way to defend our country is to bottle neck invading forces in the rockies, or fight them on the open prairies, depending on the direction of the attack.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
I could go either way, and I would probably be in support if it were proven a good idea. Really don't think its necessary just for the sake of building them because Canada lives under the umbrella of American protection.

...if something happed, such as the great powerhouse of Denmark outmuscles us in a war innocently started over the Hans Island dispute :lol: , the US would be there to mash them into mincemeat
 

Amik

Electoral Member
Mar 21, 2006
138
0
16
Re: RE: Should Canada become a nuclear power?

darkbeaver said:
Jay said:
I voted yes only because we should never exclude it from the realm of possibility, but in reality we don't need them. America is armed to the teeth with with nukes, there is no reason for us to spend the money and it wouldn't increase our international standing IMO.

We have to get some balls for our country, nuclear balls are the best, then we can get the 5 billion back on the softwood deal.

I think Canada should help Mexico get some after we've got some. This will bring stability to North America. :)
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Hank C said:
I could go either way, and I would probably be in support if it were proven a good idea. Really don't think its necessary just for the sake of building them because Canada lives under the umbrella of American protection.

...if something happed, such as the great powerhouse of Denmark outmuscles us in a war innocently started over the Hans Island dispute :lol: , the US would be there to mash them into mincemeat

Denmark isn't the one questioning our northern sovereignty.
 

cortezzz

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2006
663
0
16
Re: RE: Should Canada become

Alberta'sfinest said:
We've had nukes on army bases here in Canada for decades, even lost one in northern BC during a training mission. If Iraq could muster up a nuke program underground, what would impede us from doing the same?

For nuclear delivery, nothing beats the original method, airplanes. They can get anywhere and evade almost anything if built right. The cost is also much less than subs, and they can be easily hidden to keep our enemies guessing about what are capabilities are. Besides, navies are useless when you live in a country that has the majority of it's landmass 1000s of kilometers from the ocean. The easy way to defend our country is to bottle neck invading forces in the rockies, or fight them on the open prairies, depending on the direction of the attack.

no
subs on random patrol not even close to the mother land
from where its understood that the home land of an invading army would be vaporised should they decide to do it

all of the UKs and frances nukes are sub based in this way
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
Kreskin said:
Hank C said:
I could go either way, and I would probably be in support if it were proven a good idea. Really don't think its necessary just for the sake of building them because Canada lives under the umbrella of American protection.

...if something happed, such as the great powerhouse of Denmark outmuscles us in a war innocently started over the Hans Island dispute :lol: , the US would be there to mash them into mincemeat

Denmark isn't the one questioning our northern sovereignty.

Well they are, as well as the Americans. The problem is that the US wants it declared international waters.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
It would be a waste of money. We are under the American nuclear shield and it is inconceivable that in the forseeable future we would have different enemies.

Over time this may change as Canada becomes more Islamic and the USA Hispanic.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I said I'm not sure. But I lean towards no. As it is costly to maintain, and I'm not sure if we should be responcible for any lose of these nukes. Though I've always thought having a nuke sub or a carrier would be kewl. =-D
 

cortezzz

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2006
663
0
16
Re: RE: Should Canada become a nuclear power?

Amik said:
darkbeaver said:
Jay said:
I voted yes only because we should never exclude it from the realm of possibility, but in reality we don't need them. America is armed to the teeth with with nukes, there is no reason for us to spend the money and it wouldn't increase our international standing IMO.

We have to get some balls for our country, nuclear balls are the best, then we can get the 5 billion back on the softwood deal.

I think Canada should help Mexico get some after we've got some. This will bring stability to North America. :)

yes exactly
my proposed list of nuclear power
for the americas
canada
- mexico
-cuba
venezuela
columbia
brazil
argentina
chile
the smalller nations will have to made do and align themselves with one of the above
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Hank C said:
Kreskin said:
Hank C said:
I could go either way, and I would probably be in support if it were proven a good idea. Really don't think its necessary just for the sake of building them because Canada lives under the umbrella of American protection.

...if something happed, such as the great powerhouse of Denmark outmuscles us in a war innocently started over the Hans Island dispute :lol: , the US would be there to mash them into mincemeat

Denmark isn't the one questioning our northern sovereignty.

Well they are, as well as the Americans. The problem is that the US wants it declared international waters.

Actually there is alot more to it:

Territoriality
Since 1925, Canada has claimed the portion of the Arctic between 60°W and 141°W longitude, extending all the way north to the North Pole: all islands in this region are Canadian territory and the territorial waters claimed by Canada surround these islands. Views of territorial claims in this region are complicated by disagreements on legal principles. Canada and the USSR/Russia have long claimed that their territory extends according to the sector principle to the North Pole. The United States does not accept the sector principle and does not make a sector claim based on its Alaskan arctic coast. Claims that undersea geographic features are extensions of a country's continental shelf are also used to support claims; for example the Denmark/Greenland claim on territory to the North Pole, some of which is disputed by Canada. Foreign ships, both civilian and military are allowed the right of innocent passage through the territorial waters of a littoral state subject to conditions in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [1] The right of innocent passage is not allowed however, in internal waters, which are enclosed bodies of water or waters landward of a chain of islands. Disagreements about the sector principle or extension of territory to the North Pole and to the defintion of internal waters in the arctic lie behind differences on territorial claims in the Arctic. This claim is recognized by most countries with some exceptions, including the United States; Denmark, Russia, and Norway have made claims similar to those of Canada in the Arctic and are opposed by the EU and the US.

This is especially important with the Northwest Passage. Canada asserts control of this passage as part of Canada's internal waters because it is within 20 km of Canadian islands; the US asserts that it is an international waterway. Today ice and freezing temperatures makes this a minor issue, but global warming may make the passage more accessible to shipping, something that concerns the Canadian government and inhabitants of the environmentally sensitive region.

Similarly, the disputed Hans Island (with Denmark), in the Nares Strait west of Greenland, may be a flashpoint for challenges to overall Canadian sovereignty in The North.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arctic
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Should Canada become a nuclear power?

darkbeaver said:
Jay said:
I voted yes only because we should never exclude it from the realm of possibility, but in reality we don't need them. America is armed to the teeth with with nukes, there is no reason for us to spend the money and it wouldn't increase our international standing IMO.

We have to get some balls for our country, nuclear balls are the best, then we can get the 5 billion back on the softwood deal.

Your nuclear balls would probably cost you alot more than 5 billion, welcome to the wonderful world of budget deficits.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
What a waste of money that would be. Why spend on something we're never going to use?

And it won't necessarily get us a UN veto seat either (see India and Pakistan).