Canada Should Get Nuclear Weapons

[Rob Halfordia]

Yeah, except the US invaded Iraq (because they are imperialistic) while Israel was attacked.

While I'm not a big fan of things the US has done, Iraq was invaded because Hussein was gassing and slaughtering Iraqi civilians... Imperialism had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://eofdreams.com/data_images/dreams/oil/oil-07.jpg

[Ainin]

Let us salute the entirety of the Canadian military.

A company of light infantry and a platoon of bagpipes players in kilts.

Hail Canada.

[Parhe]

I think that Canada should get nuclear weapons.

Things look like they're pretty crazy down in the US border and some day, the USA might suddenly decide to invade and annex Canada (they've shown their willingness to invade somewhere as far away as Iraq for oil).

After all, Canada is sitting on top of extremely resource rich land. It has massive reserves of oil, natural gas, and mineral resources. Should the US or another country turn imperial one day, Canada would be a logical target. Its a massive country with a ton of natural resources (and tons of untapped resources in the Canadian North), yet it only has around 34 million people (less people than the tiny island country of the UK), almost all located in easily targetted cities close to the US border. I am NOT exaggerating when I say if the USA wanted to, it could invade and take all of Canada's major cities in a few weeks.

Canada isn't safe. It relies too much on the USA, if the USA turns against it or if the USA is unwilling to defend Canada when Canada gets attacked, it is doomed. Canada must get nuclear weapons. Then no one would dare invade it no matter the profits because Canada could retaliate with a nuclear strike. I'm surprised that Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons. France, the UK, China, and Russia all have them so why not Canada?

It's time for Canada to get nukes to ensure it is secure. It's time for Canada to join the world's elite and prestigious club of nations, a club whose individual members have the capability to destroy entire cities and forests with the click of a button. It's time for Canada to get some of that glory and power. Now is the time to do it, when war is looming, it will be too late.

What do you think NSG? Is it time for Canada to go nuclear?

The argument seems to be that it can be taken over by another nation if America does not come to help. How does this differ from any other nation with the technology (Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.)?

[Segland]

Israel is at war with a much less powerful state, though -- that's like saying we would never get involved in a war in Afghanistan/Iraq because we have nuclear strike capabilities. Israel wouldn't fire nukes at Palestine, trust me.

Not Palestine, but if the nations around them ever want to try another round, Israel might be overwhelmed. Egypt, Iraq and Jordan all have US-made equipment, M16s to M1 Tanks. They might be "friendly" now, but governments change their minds, or change completly, often on in that part of the world.

Perhaps, but the Yom Kippur War proved that experience and superior leadership beats numerical power. I feel that in a scenario where Israel was fighting other Arab nations in a modern setting, Israel would still be able to preserve its existence. On top of that, it would likely have US support.

[United States of Cascadia]

While I'm not a big fan of things the US has done, Iraq was invaded because Hussein was gassing and slaughtering Iraqi civilians... Imperialism had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://eofdreams.com/data_images/dreams/oil/oil-07.jpg

This is the second time I've reposted this. Oil was not a motivator.

You mentioned in another post that the US went after Iraq for oil, since no one seems to have addressed that, I will. Following the invasion of Iraq, Iraqi oil field production plummeted. Something that should come as no surprise when you consider they were under attack, now that reconstruction has begun in Iraq, most of the oil fields haven't gone to US companies, but British ones, so much for the resource invasion theory...

[Great Franconia and Verana]

I really wouldn't trust Stephen Harper with nuclear weapons

[Kommeria]

^Stopped reading here.

Of course a conservative can't admit Iraq was invaded for oil.

Take off your tin foil hat and look at the numbers, brother. How much does gasoline cost now? How much did it cost in 2003?

The whole "NATO into Iraq for oil" conspiracy is just as preposterous as the whole "US went in because Bush's buddies own the company that makes MREs."

[Soselo]

Nobody should get nuclear weapons.

[Wisconsin9]

Let us salute the entirety of the Canadian military.

A company of light infantry and a platoon of bagpipes players in kilts.

Hail Canada.

Have you ever defended a position with men in kilts being parachuted in? I haven't, and I sure as hell don't want to. And they're playing bagpipes on the way down. That, my friend, is a fate worse than death.

[Ainin]

I really wouldn't trust Stephen Harper with nuclear weapons

Since going to war requires Royal Assent, it'd probably be David Johnston that controlled the big red button if Canada had nukes.

And I would trust David Johnston with it even less than Harper.

[Kommeria]

I really wouldn't trust Stephen Harper with nuclear weapons

But you trust Obama and Putin with nukes?
-or, God forbid, Biden?

Nobody should get nuclear weapons.

^
This. I agree with this dude.

[Rob Halfordia]

Nobody should get nuclear weapons.

^THIS!

[Rob Halfordia]

Of course a conservative can't admit Iraq was invaded for oil.

Take off your tin foil hat and look at the numbers, brother. How much does gasoline cost now? How much did it cost in 2003?

The whole "NATO into Iraq for oil" conspiracy is just as preposterous as the whole "US went in because Bush's buddies own the company that makes MREs."

Convince the rest of the world. This is what the majority of the world believes. We aren't conspiracy theorists, just logical thinkers.

[Dracoria]

Take off your tin foil hat and look at the numbers, brother. How much does gasoline cost now? How much did it cost in 2003?

The whole "NATO into Iraq for oil" conspiracy is just as preposterous as the whole "US went in because Bush's buddies own the company that makes MREs."

Convince the rest of the world. This is what the majority of the world believes. We aren't conspiracy theorists, just logical thinkers.

Welp, that tells us something about the rest of the world if true.

[Segland]

Nobody should get nuclear weapons.

Why not? Of course, they're extremely detrimental to the environment and kill massive amounts of people, but they're a very effective deterrent for those exact reasons. Nuclear weapons are merely another stage in weapons development. We'll probably see antimatter bombs in the next century or so.

The statistical chances of nuclear war breaking out are quite low. Look at the Cold War, all the heightened tensions, and the countless false alarms. Not once was a nuclear warhead launched.

I believe in gradual nuclear disarmament, but you cannot argue that nuclear weapons didn't prevent the outbreak of open warfare during the Cold War and other related conflicts. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's true.

[Great Argonia]

First off Canada is part of NATO, we wouldn't invade just for oil or resources, we practically share them already. Second, yes we could easily take Canada by force, but not only would we be shunned by the international community, but the majority of Americans would never approve, we would only invade if provoked first. Now we would problably merge with or annex Canada peacefully, but not forcefully. If Canada wants to go nuclear, than thats fine, I see no problem.

[Pandeeria]

Nobody should get nuclear weapons.

Hell no.

[United States of Cascadia]

Take off your tin foil hat and look at the numbers, brother. How much does gasoline cost now? How much did it cost in 2003?

The whole "NATO into Iraq for oil" conspiracy is just as preposterous as the whole "US went in because Bush's buddies own the company that makes MREs."

Convince the rest of the world. This is what the majority of the world believes. We aren't conspiracy theorists, just logical thinkers.

Read my post higher up on the page. Oil production in Iraq dropped because of the war, something anyone with intelligence could tell you would happen when you bomb the shit out of a country.

[Rob Halfordia]

Nobody should get nuclear weapons.

Why not? Of course, they're extremely detrimental to the environment and kill massive amounts of people, but they're a very effective deterrent for those exact reasons. Nuclear weapons are merely another stage in weapons development. We'll probably see antimatter bombs in the next century or so.

The statistical chances of nuclear war breaking out are quite low. Look at the Cold War, all the heightened tensions, and the countless false alarms. Not once was a nuclear warhead launched.

I believe in gradual nuclear disarmament, but you cannot argue that nuclear weapons didn't prevent the outbreak of open warfare during the Cold War and other related conflicts. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's true.

Anti-Matter bombs?
...

[Kommeria]

Convince the rest of the world. This is what the majority of the world believes. We aren't conspiracy theorists, just logical thinkers.

Welp, that tells us something about the rest of the world if true.

That's an internet thing, not every internet majority is true. Just like the percentage of Atheists online is disproportionate to that actual number of Atheists. Yadayada.

[Segland]

Why not? Of course, they're extremely detrimental to the environment and kill massive amounts of people, but they're a very effective deterrent for those exact reasons. Nuclear weapons are merely another stage in weapons development. We'll probably see antimatter bombs in the next century or so.

The statistical chances of nuclear war breaking out are quite low. Look at the Cold War, all the heightened tensions, and the countless false alarms. Not once was a nuclear warhead launched.

I believe in gradual nuclear disarmament, but you cannot argue that nuclear weapons didn't prevent the outbreak of open warfare during the Cold War and other related conflicts. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's true.

Anti-Matter bombs?
...

Centuries ago, no one would've considered the possibility of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, antimatter bombs would be very energy-efficient.

[Rob Halfordia]

Welp, that tells us something about the rest of the world if true.

That's an internet thing, not every internet majority is true. Just like the percentage of Atheists online is disproportionate to that actual number of Atheists. Yadayada.

No, it's not. Go to Europe, and ask anyone.

[United States of Cascadia]

Welp, that tells us something about the rest of the world if true.

That's an internet thing, not every internet majority is true. Just like the percentage of Atheists online is disproportionate to that actual number of Atheists. Yadayada.

Especially on NSG.

[Rob Halfordia]

Anti-Matter bombs?
...

Centuries ago, no one would've considered the possibility of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, antimatter bombs would be very energy-efficient.

Minus the fact anti matter costs trillions of dollars by the gram.

#TotallyNotWastingMoney

[Wisconsin9]

Anti-Matter bombs?
...

Centuries ago, no one would've considered the possibility of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, antimatter bombs would be very energy-efficient.

Technically, yes, but I like to think that the militaries of the world have more sense than to build a fail-deadly city-buster.