Canada and nuclear weapons
dgthe3 @ Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:10 am
The CanDU reactor produces fuel for attomic bombs, it acts as a dual purpose facility, generating electricity and weapons material. It is rather simple to create an nuclear weapon, the hardest part is getting the uranium or plutonium. We are world leaders in nuclear technology and we helped the Us with their Manhattan Project at the end of WWII.
But everyone seems to be forgetting that nukes are not offensive weapons, they are trump cards. You protect them and save them untill just the right moment for maximum effect. A hydrogen bomb may be the most devestating weapon in history, but everyone that has them does all they can to hide and protect them -stealth bombers, underground missile fields, silent subs, etc.
doopitydoop @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:47 am
They would get jelous
danikyvor @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:13 am
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
If Canada developed a nuclear weapon, written on the side would be.....
"So sorry we are dropping this bomb on you 5 years late, it took a long time for our supreme court to give their agreement, and it took 4 times the original cost because of the kickbacks to our party friends. Buzz still does not agree because it was constructed with non-union labour. So once again sorry."
PS if it don't go BANG! return to 6969 Brock Road Oshawa or telephone 666 6666 and ask for a replacement.
"So sorry we are dropping this bomb on you 5 years late, it took a long time for our supreme court to give their agreement, and it took 4 times the original cost because of the kickbacks to our party friends. Buzz still does not agree because it was constructed with non-union labour. So once again sorry."
PS if it don't go BANG! return to 6969 Brock Road Oshawa or telephone 666 6666 and ask for a replacement.
LMAO Pluggy, that's so hilarious, because it's probably TRUE lol
Ruxpercnd @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:00 am
I am an American. I don't care if Canada has nukes.
However, as a human being, I think that the use of nuclear weapons, as tools for mass destruction, would be the height of inhumanity. The use of nuclear weapons as strictly defensive weapons might have a place.
Why not focus instead on better schools and care for our children? Why not find new and exciting ways to promote peace? With a little fine tuning, Canada would be particularly suited to promote peace and provide itself as an example of how people should live.
Indelible @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:10 am
when canada was developing the avro arrow the americans were having a shit fit, they didn't like the fact that we were developing an interceptor and at the time one that was superior to what they had. like the quip made earlier, the arrow went over budget and was scrapped in favour of buying bomarc missiles from the states. these missiles sucked ass, so we ended up buying voodoo planes again from the states.
jump ahead to the recent past. Bushy was pressuring us to buy into his missile defense sheild, saying that it was a matter of sovereignty.
the americans won't like it if we make our own nukes. they have been opposed to us developing our own weapons all along, even though the example i gave is non-nuclear.
IMO, no one ought to have nukes. there will never be any semblance of peace as long as we have the ability to easily destroy each other. many people are confused and say "peace" when what they are talking about is more like "detente". they are not the same.
Mustang1 @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:35 am
Indelible Indelible:
when canada was developing the avro arrow the americans were having a shit fit, they didn't like the fact that we were developing an interceptor and at the time one that was superior to what they had.
This is historically erroneous. Which “Americans” were allegedly “having a shit fit”? Perhaps you should read some scholarly work on the Arrow (like Mclin or Chaikin) as you may be surprised about the military culture of the United States during this episode.
Also, you may want to read up on American interceptor/fighter development of the time, as the YF-12, the proposed F-108 and F 4B/H-1 were not inferior to the Arrow.
I’ll give you a little hint…no credible historians (not the Internet variety) have ever established any direct nefarious actions on the part of the Americans in respect to the Arrow’s termination. In fact…had you dug a little deeper, you might have found the opposite.
Indelible @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:07 am
$1:
Improved anti-aircraft missiles seemed able to deal with Soviet bombers, which American intelligence, through the use of the new U-2 spy plane, had discovered were by no means as numerous as had been thought. In any case, the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) made visions of squadrons of such bombers streaking in over the Arctic obsolete, since ICBMs could not be intercepted by any technology available at the time.
In August, the Canadian government sent a mission to the US Air Force to sell them on the Arrow, but the USAF wasn't interested. They countered by promoting the range Boeing BOMARC-B anti-aircraft missile, with a range of over 700 kilometers, that seemed perfectly able to defend against intruding bombers, though the BOMARC program would prove to have problems of its own, with an unreliable guidance system and other troubles. The Diefenbaker government bought on to the BOMARC, while tentatively hanging on to the Arrow program at the same time.
However, Canada was in a recession, and the Arrow had become the most expensive single defense project the country had ever taken on. The Canadian Army and Navy were reluctant to sacrifice their own programs to support the aircraft. RCAF Air Marshall Hugh Campbell understood the politics, and told the Defense Ministry that he would accept cancellation of the Arrow if he could obtain an alternate high-performance interceptor.
Avro ended up laying off 14,000 workers. The layoffs were a massive shock to Canada's aircraft industry, and the day of the Arrow's cancellation has been known as "Black Friday" ever since. Air Marshall Campbell obtained 66 surplus F-101 Voodoo supersonic interceptors from the United States to handle his air-defense requirements. They weren't Arrows by any means, but at least they were affordable.
In August, the Canadian government sent a mission to the US Air Force to sell them on the Arrow, but the USAF wasn't interested. They countered by promoting the range Boeing BOMARC-B anti-aircraft missile, with a range of over 700 kilometers, that seemed perfectly able to defend against intruding bombers, though the BOMARC program would prove to have problems of its own, with an unreliable guidance system and other troubles. The Diefenbaker government bought on to the BOMARC, while tentatively hanging on to the Arrow program at the same time.
However, Canada was in a recession, and the Arrow had become the most expensive single defense project the country had ever taken on. The Canadian Army and Navy were reluctant to sacrifice their own programs to support the aircraft. RCAF Air Marshall Hugh Campbell understood the politics, and told the Defense Ministry that he would accept cancellation of the Arrow if he could obtain an alternate high-performance interceptor.
Avro ended up laying off 14,000 workers. The layoffs were a massive shock to Canada's aircraft industry, and the day of the Arrow's cancellation has been known as "Black Friday" ever since. Air Marshall Campbell obtained 66 surplus F-101 Voodoo supersonic interceptors from the United States to handle his air-defense requirements. They weren't Arrows by any means, but at least they were affordable.
$1:
Others accuse the Americans of deliberately sabotaging the Arrow program. Again, the issues here are murky. The Americans were pushing compatibility with the SAGE (Semi-Automated Ground Environment) continental defense system. The Arrow did not fit into that scheme. American promotion of the BOMARC is described by some as overbearing.
However, the Americans had also been supportive of the Arrow program in many ways, and in fact at the eleventh hour had offered to donate the weapons-control system to the program and even fund the purchase of some Arrows for the RCAF. This suggests that there was no particular American policy on the Arrow, with some defense factions taking actions hostile to it and others taking actions favorable to it while in pursuit of their own agendas.
However, the Americans had also been supportive of the Arrow program in many ways, and in fact at the eleventh hour had offered to donate the weapons-control system to the program and even fund the purchase of some Arrows for the RCAF. This suggests that there was no particular American policy on the Arrow, with some defense factions taking actions hostile to it and others taking actions favorable to it while in pursuit of their own agendas.
this is from Chaikin. i admit, i DID overstate myself. sorry.
source: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avarrow.html
Mustang1 @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:21 am
Indelible Indelible:
$1:
Improved anti-aircraft missiles seemed able to deal with Soviet bombers, which American intelligence, through the use of the new U-2 spy plane, had discovered were by no means as numerous as had been thought. In any case, the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) made visions of squadrons of such bombers streaking in over the Arctic obsolete, since ICBMs could not be intercepted by any technology available at the time.
In August, the Canadian government sent a mission to the US Air Force to sell them on the Arrow, but the USAF wasn't interested. They countered by promoting the range Boeing BOMARC-B anti-aircraft missile, with a range of over 700 kilometers, that seemed perfectly able to defend against intruding bombers, though the BOMARC program would prove to have problems of its own, with an unreliable guidance system and other troubles. The Diefenbaker government bought on to the BOMARC, while tentatively hanging on to the Arrow program at the same time.
However, Canada was in a recession, and the Arrow had become the most expensive single defense project the country had ever taken on. The Canadian Army and Navy were reluctant to sacrifice their own programs to support the aircraft. RCAF Air Marshall Hugh Campbell understood the politics, and told the Defense Ministry that he would accept cancellation of the Arrow if he could obtain an alternate high-performance interceptor.
Avro ended up laying off 14,000 workers. The layoffs were a massive shock to Canada's aircraft industry, and the day of the Arrow's cancellation has been known as "Black Friday" ever since. Air Marshall Campbell obtained 66 surplus F-101 Voodoo supersonic interceptors from the United States to handle his air-defense requirements. They weren't Arrows by any means, but at least they were affordable.
In August, the Canadian government sent a mission to the US Air Force to sell them on the Arrow, but the USAF wasn't interested. They countered by promoting the range Boeing BOMARC-B anti-aircraft missile, with a range of over 700 kilometers, that seemed perfectly able to defend against intruding bombers, though the BOMARC program would prove to have problems of its own, with an unreliable guidance system and other troubles. The Diefenbaker government bought on to the BOMARC, while tentatively hanging on to the Arrow program at the same time.
However, Canada was in a recession, and the Arrow had become the most expensive single defense project the country had ever taken on. The Canadian Army and Navy were reluctant to sacrifice their own programs to support the aircraft. RCAF Air Marshall Hugh Campbell understood the politics, and told the Defense Ministry that he would accept cancellation of the Arrow if he could obtain an alternate high-performance interceptor.
Avro ended up laying off 14,000 workers. The layoffs were a massive shock to Canada's aircraft industry, and the day of the Arrow's cancellation has been known as "Black Friday" ever since. Air Marshall Campbell obtained 66 surplus F-101 Voodoo supersonic interceptors from the United States to handle his air-defense requirements. They weren't Arrows by any means, but at least they were affordable.
$1:
Others accuse the Americans of deliberately sabotaging the Arrow program. Again, the issues here are murky. The Americans were pushing compatibility with the SAGE (Semi-Automated Ground Environment) continental defense system. The Arrow did not fit into that scheme. American promotion of the BOMARC is described by some as overbearing.
However, the Americans had also been supportive of the Arrow program in many ways, and in fact at the eleventh hour had offered to donate the weapons-control system to the program and even fund the purchase of some Arrows for the RCAF. This suggests that there was no particular American policy on the Arrow, with some defense factions taking actions hostile to it and others taking actions favorable to it while in pursuit of their own agendas.
However, the Americans had also been supportive of the Arrow program in many ways, and in fact at the eleventh hour had offered to donate the weapons-control system to the program and even fund the purchase of some Arrows for the RCAF. This suggests that there was no particular American policy on the Arrow, with some defense factions taking actions hostile to it and others taking actions favorable to it while in pursuit of their own agendas.
this is from Chaikin. i admit, i DID overstate myself. sorry.
source: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avarrow.html
Fair enough. I tend to get a little overzealous when I come across the continuation of the orgy of the mytholization that tends to emerge when many discuss the Arrow. Canadian history should be celebrated, but not at the expense of good scholarship. Thanks for the supporting link/info.
Indelible @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:27 am
n/p. WOW! a nice post from mustang! i think we should celebrate! jks, buddy! 
the americans weren't the only factor either. some of the fault lies on dief, some on the americans, some on the prez of Avro and his cheese grater of a personality, some on the liberals before dief, and like the site says, a lot of the facts are murky.
i get excited easily too sometimes.
Mustang1 @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:41 pm
Indelible Indelible:
n/p. WOW! a nice post from mustang! i think we should celebrate! jks, buddy!
the americans weren't the only factor either. some of the fault lies on dief, some on the americans, some on the prez of Avro and his cheese grater of a personality, some on the liberals before dief, and like the site says, a lot of the facts are murky.
i get excited easily too sometimes.
the americans weren't the only factor either. some of the fault lies on dief, some on the americans, some on the prez of Avro and his cheese grater of a personality, some on the liberals before dief, and like the site says, a lot of the facts are murky.
i get excited easily too sometimes.
Oh…I’ve got lost of nice posts; the classification sometimes depends on the reader
. I’ve got some faults and one of them is a low threshold for ahistorical bullshit and another other is a disdain for blatant hypocrisy.
And unlike some others around here, I can certainly let a matter drop. No worries here.
Indelible @ Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:49 pm
getting back to the topic, i htink that the same hting will happen again if we make a nuke, which we wouldn't.
SaintLucifer @ Sat May 06, 2006 1:10 pm
When will you idiots realise Canada is a nuclear-armed state already? Why do you think we allowed the testing of U.S. cruise missiles across our territory? Our nuclear program is every bit as advanced as that of the USA. We could assemble a nuke within moments notice. The Americans know this. The WORLD knows this. Now stop talking stupid.
PJB @ Sat May 06, 2006 6:21 pm
SaintLucifer SaintLucifer:
When will you idiots realise Canada is a nuclear-armed state already? Why do you think we allowed the testing of U.S. cruise missiles across our territory? Our nuclear program is every bit as advanced as that of the USA. We could assemble a nuke within moments notice. The Americans know this. The WORLD knows this. Now stop talking stupid.
Please provide proof of this claim.
Personally I would much rather see a global decrease in nuclear weapons rather than any kind of increase.
MissT @ Sun May 07, 2006 4:29 pm
As I understand it, although Canada does have nuclear power stations, these are CanDu reactors, which are better models than most, in that they recycle the plutonium which would otherwise go towards making weapons or waste. Makes the reactors more efficient too. This technology is what has helped Canada to USE nuclear power, but not to be A nuclear power.
Not that I support nuclear energy anyway, but if we're gonna have it, at least we should keep on with the CanDu reactors and away from weapons.
JustKate @ Sun May 07, 2006 5:51 pm
In my opinion.......I think Canada should have the bomb as a deterant from everyone as a defence. We have a large country full of resources that we need to protect. JMHO We are no threat to anyone. Never have been as a country. That's important to note here. Being naive never protected anyone. I lock my doors today, things have escalated, we need to consider that as Canadians. Once again.......out of our control...things change unfortunately.