Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Should Canada begin a military nuclear weapons program?


Slegr
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Slegr said:

Remember when Iran blew up a plane full of Canadians last year as retaliation on the US and we patiently waited for the US to do something about it, and they did nothing and we shook our finger at Iran? 

 

your a moron  so you want canada to nuc iran  give your head a shake   nuclear weapons are  pure ignorance   not needed in the world 

Edited by canuktravella
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Slegr said:

Remember when Iran blew up a plane full of Canadians last year as retaliation on the US and we patiently waited for the US to do something about it, and they did nothing and we shook our finger at Iran? 

 

So having nuclear warheads how would that situation play out differently again? The world should be reducing the number of these bombs, not increasing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

What about we try to increase affordable housing options for our young people ?

What about we try to increase affordable housing for people on low income / income support ?

What about we try to offer substance abuse counselling / rehab programs / safe housing for addicts / mentally challenged.

What about we try to offer high quality public education that prepares our youth for vocations and employment skills. 

What about we try to offer high quality  / timely health care to our growing seniors demographic 

What about we offer safe / clean / affordable  housing in care homes for our elderly. 

 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS...  Hell no.....

 no to nucs 

no to crackheads give them the chinese method of dealing with druggies why would we wanna keep  these scumbags fed clothed and juiced up on crank 

yes to affordable housing and yes to elder care  but hell no to  supporting junkies  with our  welfare state      actually welfare should only be given if  drug tests passed  and if violent crimes occurr  10 yr minimum sentences  this country is obsurd all these rapists pedos murderers getting out of jail for time served  during trials screw that 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 no to nucs 

no to crackheads give them the chinese method of dealing with druggies why would we wanna keep  these scumbags fed clothed and juiced up on crank 

yes to affordable housing and yes to elder care  but hell no to  supporting junkies  with our  welfare state      actually welfare should only be given if  drug tests passed  and if violent crimes occurr  10 yr minimum sentences  this country is obsurd all these rapists pedos murderers getting out of jail for time served  during trials screw that 

Well they are technically incarcerated during the trial unless on bail so the sentence being shortened with time actually locked up during trial is understandable. Also mandatory minimums is part of the reason US is in the mess they are in right now so let's not open that pandora's box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't even have the conventional forces, in an emergency. Having nukes would be just an expenditure we don't need. 

We'd be better off improving our Coast Guard, Naval, Army and Air Forces. Expanding our Army Engineers (Natural disasters, Troops for riot control, Medical Equipment and personnel) Helicopters/ Or Osprey's. Cargo transports. Trucks/Off road vehicles. 

Raises the bigger question what would be the delivery system? Once again if it's missiles we'd be depending on the US for launch systems anyways so we'd still have to rely on the US. So what build our own nuclear bombers? 

 

If we were wanting to waste money might as well build a pair of small aircraft carriers. With low tech low cost strike planes (Modern versions of the A4, and carrier type F5's). 

At least that can help with NATO and UN actions. And put in once again cargo planes you can go anywhere and provide food and medical supplies. 

Edited by Ghostsof1915
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, canuktravella said:

 no to nucs 

no to crackheads give them the chinese method of dealing with druggies why would we wanna keep  these scumbags fed clothed and juiced up on crank 

yes to affordable housing and yes to elder care  but hell no to  supporting junkies  with our  welfare state      actually welfare should only be given if  drug tests passed  and if violent crimes occurr  10 yr minimum sentences  this country is obsurd all these rapists pedos murderers getting out of jail for time served  during trials screw that 

Have you ever considered it would be mutually beneficial to treat the addicts like human beings and help them overcome their addiction rather than abandoning them.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe people believe the stupid fairytale of mutually assured destruction.

What's next are they going to start believing that if the wealthy can get richer they will let the money trickle down to the poorer.

Nobody can be that naïve anymore.  

I do get not wanting to rely on the American's as reliable partners but still this is such a stupid wasteful way to spend money.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Just no. Canada needs to use it's resources and budget intelligently. While I don't see anything wrong with having an elite group in the military (i.e. SEALS, Green Berets, Rangers, et al) that trains in anti-terrorism tactics, there's no need for the building and possession of a nuclear weapon. If the $$$ is actually there, then maybe add a wing of F-35 fighters to deploy as deterrence. The US can easily defend North America. Its the leadership that can't get out of its own way when it comes time to actually take action, not the military itself. The last time we (the US) had leadership with enough "cajones" to use the military properly was when Ronald Reagan was president. Bush Sr should have taken Hussein out, but chickened out. Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump? There's not a one of them that would've known what to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Father Ryan said:

No. Just no. Canada needs to use it's resources and budget intelligently. While I don't see anything wrong with having an elite group in the military (i.e. SEALS, Green Berets, Rangers, et al) that trains in anti-terrorism tactics, there's no need for the building and possession of a nuclear weapon. If the $$$ is actually there, then maybe add a wing of F-35 fighters to deploy as deterrence. The US can easily defend North America. Its the leadership that can't get out of its own way when it comes time to actually take action, not the military itself. The last time we (the US) had leadership with enough "cajones" to use the military properly was when Ronald Reagan was president. Bush Sr should have taken Hussein out, but chickened out. Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump? There's not a one of them that would've known what to do. 

HAHAHA....F-35 is a bug ridden pile of garbage. Reagan? He was a bloody actor. You don't need "cajones" to be a president, you need brains. Two of the best Presidents in the 20th Century served in the military. Eisenhower, and Kennedy. You can thank your lucky stars they were the ones in charge. I still shudder to think if Nixon was President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We might not be here. When you have served in the military you understand what you are asking your troops and sailors the sacrifices to make. 

Remember the reason Al Queda was created, funded was by CIA money to fight in Afghanistan. Hence the term "Blowback". When the CIA cut them off they turned against their former masters. Reagan was also the guy who let Oliver North sell weapons to Iran (The bad guys remember?) so he could fund insurgents in Nicaragua. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are enough nukes already to destroy the planet numerous times, dont need more nor do we need our leader to become Kim Justin-un. Imagine if some of the money spent trying to kill and dominate each other was spent on figuring out how to clean up the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

HAHAHA....F-35 is a bug ridden pile of garbage. Reagan? He was a bloody actor. You don't need "cajones" to be a president, you need brains. Two of the best Presidents in the 20th Century served in the military. Eisenhower, and Kennedy. You can thank your lucky stars they were the ones in charge. I still shudder to think if Nixon was President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We might not be here. When you have served in the military you understand what you are asking your troops and sailors the sacrifices to make. 

Remember the reason Al Queda was created, funded was by CIA money to fight in Afghanistan. Hence the term "Blowback". When the CIA cut them off they turned against their former masters. Reagan was also the guy who let Oliver North sell weapons to Iran (The bad guys remember?) so he could fund insurgents in Nicaragua. 

Actually, I did serve, USN (E5, SK2SS). And really, the agencies that serve under the President are usually a reflection of the person himself. Kennedy was WAY overblown; he had plenty of information to avoid the Bay of Pigs (but didn't), was such a woman chaser as to make Bill Clinton look like a virgin and a saint, and with his brother Robert, damn near got us really deep in the "s**t" by trying to assassinate Castro. Damn near a sociopath. Eisenhower, I will heartily agree with you. The only reason people thought he was ineffective was because he didn't have to be histrionic to get things done; by the time people noticed something needed to happen, his administration had already addressed it and moved on. 

Yes, Al Queda formed out of our helping them with Afghanistan when the USSR was screwing around with them. I'm not going to defend Reagan for everything...but he was a hell of a lot better than anything we've had since then. 

I'll take your opinion on the F35 and look into to it. The defense contractor/construction industry is one complete "Charlie Foxtrot", has been for years. I more used that as an example to illustrate the need to stay completely and utterly away from the nuclear option. Substitute a wing or two of Hornets and/or F-22s, then.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Slegr said:

Sounds crazy, right?

But what if it’s not?

We rely too much on the US to keep us safe. We are the only country in the world that has the ability and capability to create nuclear weapons but hasn’t.

Sure we would be kicked out of the international bros leagues. But probably only for awhile. 
Thoughts?

If Calgary Flames fans are the primary target, then absolutely!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...