Canada Kicks Ass
Canada as a Nuclear power

REPLY

Previous  1  2



PostManPat @ Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:07 am

LETS BLOW SOMETHING UP [drool]

   



ThePolitician @ Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:43 am

Scape Scape:
.... Invest in Canada, the rest of the world is.


That's an understatement, we're the only OPEC nation that doesn't control a majority of it's own oil & gas deposits.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
why do we still ship uranium south of the border for america to use as weapons anyways?


We've shipped uranium to worse places than the US. The US is the largest importer of our uranium of course, and as long as there is still a market for nuclear power, it will probably continue to be.

Uranium does not directly equal nuclear weapons either, the vast majority of new uranium is utilized directly on power supply and the spent fuel rods are for the most part treated and disposed of. (Another heated topic in Saskatchewan where they would like to bury them up north much to the chagrin of northerners).

   



bootlegga @ Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:56 am

ThePolitician ThePolitician:
That's an understatement, we're the only OPEC nation that doesn't control a majority of it's own oil & gas deposits.


Technically, we are not a member of OPEC, but we do have more energy resources than most of them, being #2 in just receverable oil reserves worldwide. Then there's something like 500 years worth of coal buried under us, untold tons of uranium and more hydroelectric power than we can use.

http://www.opec.org/aboutus/

   



bootlegga @ Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:01 am

Tman1 Tman1:
Someone tell me the difference of being a 'Nuclear power' and having nuclear capabilities. Does Canada have nuclear weapons? No, do they need them? Sure as hell not (same could be said for anyone *cough, cough*). What people don't believe is that Canada is capable of making nuclear weapons. Seems to be a major error in countries thinking Canada as helpless. Due to the nature of this country, are people willing to give up their health care dollars for some useless nuclear weapons? Well, I sure as hell wouldn't.


Canada was actually the first nation in the world to reject nuclear weapons. We had a breeder reactor even before the Brits, so we likely could have been the 2nd or 3rd nation to deploy them. Personally, I'm glad we didn't. They are costly, dangerous and, because of the US, unnecessary (they still own over 10,000).

One nation that could get very serious about nukes is Japan. With their nuclear energy industry, space program and powerful electronics indusry, they could become one of the world's most powerful very quickly. They would likely only adopt them if the North Koreans push them to, as many Japanese have a deep aversion to them due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

   



dgthe3 @ Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:48 am

The CANDU reactor produces in it's waste weapons grade material. I think we also had one of the first nuclear reacotrs in the world (ZEEP) up at chalk river. In Ontario, I think we produce half of our electricity via nuclear, maybe more, at Pickering, Bruce, Darlington, and others. We have the expertise and materials to become a nuclear weapons superpower, but at the moment there is no need for that.

the one thing that nuclear weapons are good for is to ensure that the other guy isn't going to use his. It takes longer for a missile to reach it's target than it does for you to launch your own. This was the baisis for the MAD policy of the Cold War. If one side were to start a nuclear war, they would be obliterated by the other within a half hour. As a result, nuclear weapons become strategic defensive weapons not tactical offensive weapons. No nation in the world will ever use nuclear weapons againt another nation who has nukes, or who is very close friends with someone who has nukes. Also, most paths for nukes to reach the US go over Canada. That makes it impossible for anyone to know early on where the nuke will land exacty. It could be heading for Ottawa, Toronto, New York, Washington, etc. The Americans (and Canadians) at NORAD will assume that any nuke headed south accros Canada is aimed at the US and Americans will launch their missiles at the source. That is the nuclear shield that we live under. So there is little real need for Canada to have nuclear weapons, unless we wish to make a political statement of some kind, and based on our history i highly doubt this will ever happen

   



Zipperfish @ Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:04 pm

dgthe3 dgthe3:
The CANDU reactor produces in it's waste weapons grade material. I think we also had one of the first nuclear reacotrs in the world (ZEEP) up at chalk river. In Ontario, I think we produce half of our electricity via nuclear, maybe more, at Pickering, Bruce, Darlington, and others. We have the expertise and materials to become a nuclear weapons superpower, but at the moment there is no need for that.

the one thing that nuclear weapons are good for is to ensure that the other guy isn't going to use his. It takes longer for a missile to reach it's target than it does for you to launch your own. This was the baisis for the MAD policy of the Cold War. If one side were to start a nuclear war, they would be obliterated by the other within a half hour. As a result, nuclear weapons become strategic defensive weapons not tactical offensive weapons. No nation in the world will ever use nuclear weapons againt another nation who has nukes, or who is very close friends with someone who has nukes. Also, most paths for nukes to reach the US go over Canada. That makes it impossible for anyone to know early on where the nuke will land exacty. It could be heading for Ottawa, Toronto, New York, Washington, etc. The Americans (and Canadians) at NORAD will assume that any nuke headed south accros Canada is aimed at the US and Americans will launch their missiles at the source. That is the nuclear shield that we live under. So there is little real need for Canada to have nuclear weapons, unless we wish to make a political statement of some kind, and based on our history i highly doubt this will ever happen


Thatnk you dg, that was the point I was trying to make, though not as eloquently as you.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2