1  2  3  4  Next

I read both the Globe and Mail and the National Post everyday. The National post I like more because I disagree with most of what they write so it’s more stimulating for me to read articles I disagree with. On Saturday I was at work reading the Post like I always do I came across an article that really blew me away. It was called "Does Canada Stand for anything". What blew me away was how on the mark it was and for me to say that about the Post is saying a lot. I agreed with all the points made save the ones on missile defense and I came to realize how weak we have become.

I am hoping for some discussion on this topic after other people read the article, and I also hope this doesn’t turn into the typical ‘Canada Kicks Ass’ thread filled with petty bickering between the uneducated majority on this forum.


Does Canada Stand For Anything?

   

I think he should have proof read his article a little better and made up his own mind.

   

I read the same article online and it made me realize how weak, how far off our founding fathers vision of Canada we have strayed. Very sad.
Compare us to Australia.
Australia has a vibrant and distinctive culture, not ashamed of its British roots but confidently free of a colonial attitude.
Australia has an effective and mobile military. They have been in action in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan and Iraq.
They are no puppets of the yanks, but believe in solidarity with the US.
The Aussies have a sure and true national identity and take an active role in the world theatre.
Plus they have a really nice climate!
But really , what can you say about a Canadian? Free health care, a porous and irresponsible immigration policy, high taxation and an overly politically correct media.

The United Empire Loyalists would not be happy!

   

No culture? please, I think we've done quite well considering we live next to a country that could suck the life out of anything. I'm sure people predicted Canada wouldn't remain a seperate country many years ago, but we're still going strong. Anyone who doesn't like Canada should try to make it better or leave.

   

Sometimes if you have difficulty defining something you should do what Sherlock Holmes did and remove what it is not.

Canada does not stand for promoting American primacy or anyone else's including its own on any other sovereign body, committing to international arms races that include the creation or deployment of a 1st strike weapon system, and fiscal irresponsibility that can be measured in the trillions of dollars.

It tries to be a contributing member of the international community that works to serve the community as a whole not persecute it. Our society is far from perfect but we do address our shortcomings when we can. Force is not the 1st option or even a preferred one but when it is used we lament over properly equipping our troops at the expense of our own countries well being but time and time again we do it. We are certainly are not indecisive cowards that the National Post, a rag of a newspaper, tries to make us out to be.

Standing up to U.S. will gain us respect abroad

   

So What?

   

Back so soon, I thought you were banned yet again.

Let's play devils advocate shall we? Let's say China develops a BMD and invites Canada to sign on in case of aggression by the US. They already have contracts and interests here already so defending their own self interests is plausible. Would it not be foolish to sign on making Canada a legitimate military target for the Americans? Of course. So why is it acceptable to have it the other way around? What if we decided to sign on with the EU? Would it not make sense to sign on with an alternative to the US or at least keep our options open rather than shackle ourselves to the US? Any enemies the US have will then be ours if we do so and they have managed to pissed off 4/5ths of the earth and the rest are constantly trying to bail them out. Do we really want to be just another bailer when they are deaf to our concerns? Do you know how much each test costs for the BMD and how many billions have already been spent on a system that will not stop the Chinese JL-2 or DF-31A or the Russians new mobile hypersonic missiles the Topol-M SS-27 or SS-NX-30?

The U.S. plan to build a global missile defense has been gaining international support, but not because other governments believe it will make their countries safer.

Do we really want to give the Chinese a reason to uses these or make even more? We should not be instigating fights when energy resources will likely be fought over by rapidly growing nations. How did Japan react in 1936? It is entirely conceivable that if the resources were not blockaded by the US trade embargo that Japan very well may not have escalated to war. Why tempt fate yet again?



And this will change how by us signing on?

   

Your right, for once. NOTHING. What if we didn't want missiles flying overhead. Crazy idea right? Do you seriously believe a strongly written letter by the PM of Canada is going to stop the US from firing anyway if we are on board or not? Where is Alaska Godz? And where are China's missiles going to come from? Will we have any real say ever?



Clearly you do not understand the relationship of deterrence and how it is used to keep a balance of terror. I must repeat myself it seams and show you again. I'll type slower this time.



Deterrence is like a game of Jenga. Remember that one with a tower of wooden blocks? Well as technology evolves we are taking blocks from the middle and putting them on top. Every nation that has nuclear weapons takes a block whenever ANY technology is used to undermine their nuclear deterrent and destabilize arms control. IE the tower will fall. As the computer in war games said, "The only winning move is not to play".



It's not the Neighborhood Watch we will be signing on to it will be the local Mafia Don who will demand his 'take' of our income. THAT is extortion. Japan has already bought up trillions of US treasury dollars in debt to keep the dollar afloat and they lose 7 billion for every cent it drops if we sign on we will be hitching our wagon not to a tree stump but to the Titanic.



No, only the US is pushing the BMD. This is causing everyone else to make missiles that are even more powerful to defeat it to keep the balance of terror the same. If anyone starts thinking actually using WMD is even remotely 'feasible' and that is what BMD is all about, then war will erupt.You are a mad man for even thinking this will work.

Worries about weapons

Notice how Japan has dealt with China all this time using a pacifist constitution? Now Japan, US and Tiawan are circling the wagons vs China. This has triggered a response and now China is being sold weapons from the EU. You conventional strategy of containment is being outflanked and India and Russia look to be siding with China over the US on this leaving the US, not China, the odd man out.

   

As far as a missile defense program goes, if it is at all based on the Patriot point defense system, the Americans are screwed. It couldn't handle a slow speed, short range SCUD's. Sure they can upgrade the software, but the likelyhood that they will hit anything my go up to around 50%. However, that is just a missile/re-entry vehicle(RV) on a simple balistic path at around mach 4-5. Howver, it is all to simple to instal decoys and countre measures on the missiles. And there will almost always be multiple warheads on a single missile, lets say 5 on average. And if you were ever serious about launching an attack, you will launch more than one missile. Lets say China would launch 20 missiles, 5 warheads each. That is 100 nuclear warheads, and lets say an equal number of decoys. When they come back into the atmosphere and head towards the US there are 200 possible targets.

Now, the countre measures on the RV's may make it so that 50% of the possible kills by a defence system miss. So, of the 200 targets, 50 will get taken out. That would leave 150, half of those are fakes, so 75 nuclear warheads would reach the US. That is enough for each major city in both the US and Canada I think. I may be a little off from my numbers, in the end it may be only 50 or even 25 nukes that hit, but you get the idea. There will be no way to stop a 'real' attack. Terrorists and Rouge nations are not going to use ICBM's: too expensive and the US will know where the one or two missles came from. If a suicide bomber used a private plane out of South America, or a boat to transport the weapon, nobody would know who did it.

   

"Does Canada stand for anything?"

This question is always put forward by people who want us to be more American, as if in defiance of our Loyalist ancestors. The revolution of 1776 created two countries. The real answer to the question is that we are not American.

   

So far everything I've read or seen on the tube about this "defence" program says the damn thing couldn't shoot down an old German V1 let alone anything a little more modern. Most millitary annalists say the program is "decades" away from being a good defence system. Now tell me, why would we want to buy a Lada instead of waiting for a Cadillac?

Yes I think we should beef up our defence and yes I think China would love to get their hands on what our country has to offer, but I think this program is a lame duck.

   

I do have to agree with you Telkwa. I think you nailed it very simply.

   

1  2  3  4  Next