Cromeslab Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) For sure Sarcasm Edited October 23, 2020 by Cromeslab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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 More sharing options...
24K PureCool Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 No, let's not get into that cow web and also pretty sure it is against international law for what that is worth these days. Let US spend the big bucks on the military. They have a vested interest to keep Canada secure at all cost seeing how long and undefended the border is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K PureCool Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) 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 October 23, 2020 by Ghostsof1915 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 Once upon a time though....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwags Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 Why in the &^@# would we ever do that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwags Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Ryan Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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 $$$ is actually there, then maybe add a wing of F-35 fighters to deploy as deterrence. The US can easily defend North America. Its the leadership that can't get out of its own way when it comes time to actually take action, not the military itself. The last time we (the US) had leadership with enough "cajones" to use the military properly was when Ronald Reagan was president. Bush Sr should have taken Hussein out, but chickened out. Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump? There's not a one of them that would've known what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 23 minutes ago, Father Ryan said: No. Just no. Canada needs to use it's resources and budget intelligently. While I don't see anything wrong with having an elite group in the military (i.e. SEALS, Green Berets, Rangers, et al) that trains in anti-terrorism tactics, there's no need for the building and possession of a nuclear weapon. If the $$$ 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 More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 58 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 maybe we have 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekey Pete Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crobar Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Father Ryan Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Patel Bure Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 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! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 Canadian nuclear weapons, what is that, a few firecrackers? Nah, invest in sports development. We'll kick their a** in the Olympics instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now