OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,342
- Points
- 1,260
I'd like to see a full scale investigation of the interference in our electoral system to start.
Lets get real, Canada and talk defence.
- Thread starter ArmyRick
- Start date
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,789
- Points
- 1,260
Not just the electoral system. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Beijing has infiltrated every level of government and business. “Elite capture” is one of the United Front Work Department’s leading methods of influencing society.
They also intimidate and harass the wider Chinese-Canadian communities, including Mainlanders, Hongkongers, Uighurs, Tibetans and Taiwanese. It doesn’t matter how long your family has been in Canada, according to Chinese law, if you are of Chinese descent, you are subject to Chinese law and must help the Motherland when called upon. If you think that’s stupid, you’ll get calls in the middle of the night threatening to put your family in China in jail.
Add to that that the largest Chinese language media outlets are owned by either pro-Beijing owners or the United Front Work Department. Independent Chinese media is not mainstream in the community.
Not to mention the ties between the Triads, the CCP, the opioid epidemic, money laundering on a colossal scale, the insane housing prices in our largest cities…just the tip of the iceberg. And we let it happen.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,342
- Points
- 1,260
Canada's way of life in 'jeopardy' as governments fail to take security issues 'seriously': Mark Norman
The former vice admiral blasted federal politicians of all stripes for 'dangerous' politicization of the country's security and defence.
nationalpost.com
Admiral Norman has his say.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,156
- Points
- 1,260
This seems a fitting place
www.ctvnews.ca
Canada on sidelines as U.S., Britain, Australia move ahead on new security deal
Canada's omission from a military pact involving three of its closest allies is symptomatic of a larger problem in how this country is perceived by its friends, experts are warning, as the U.S., Britain and Australia move ahead on their deal.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,329
- Points
- 1,010
Yup. Sad as F. Canada plays petty politics and dithers while the rest of an seemingly increasing unstable world starts to strap on the wraps and gloves and puts their mouthguards in. Hint, Canada, F-ing hint.This seems a fitting place
Canada on sidelines as U.S., Britain, Australia move ahead on new security deal
Canada's omission from a military pact involving three of its closest allies is symptomatic of a larger problem in how this country is perceived by its friends, experts are warning, as the U.S., Britain and Australia move ahead on their deal.
Maybe they just left us out to avoid the CAUKUS jokes :/This seems a fitting place
Canada on sidelines as U.S., Britain, Australia move ahead on new security deal
Canada's omission from a military pact involving three of its closest allies is symptomatic of a larger problem in how this country is perceived by its friends, experts are warning, as the U.S., Britain and Australia move ahead on their deal.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,163
- Points
- 990
On one side, this is exactly the kind of program a big boy government would be joining and doubling the size of.This seems a fitting place
Canada on sidelines as U.S., Britain, Australia move ahead on new security deal
Canada's omission from a military pact involving three of its closest allies is symptomatic of a larger problem in how this country is perceived by its friends, experts are warning, as the U.S., Britain and Australia move ahead on their deal.
On the other, given the fate of the Canada-class I do have to wonder if the geo-political situation has changed enough for the US to be onboard with us having nuc's, or if this program is contingent on Australia being the whole Pacific away with no stakes in the Arctic
- Reaction score
- 21,690
- Points
- 1,260
Everyone likes to mention the US stopping Canada from going Nuke. I’m curious as to where that comes from.
The last time Canada looked at Nuke boats, you scuttled yourselves.
I would too. We used to have a whole whack of them up in North Bay until papa Pierre turfed them in the early 70's. Kind of ironic that a Diefenbaker refused to install nucs but Pearson, the peace keeping guy campaigned on installing them and won only to have his successor turf them out again. I suspect the yanks were simply shaking their heads.
KTown Cowboy
New Member
- Reaction score
- 38
- Points
- 480
The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome."[25]
- Reaction score
- 21,690
- Points
- 1,260
I find that to be a very unlikely occurrence.
At the time of the Beatty White Paper, the USN (and DoD) was pushing for the RCN to get SSN, and it was Canada who walked back from the deal as unaffordable.
Your quote from the CA Defence Journal highlights it was Canada not the US that walked away.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,156
- Points
- 1,260
Honestly I have never believed our version of the events myself.
There is more to it than that. In the late 50s we had signed on to nuclear roles in Europe - with 1 Air Division adopting strike/reconnaissance and 1 SSM Battery RCA as a land nuclear delivery unit - and at home with RCAF Air Defence Command. We trained and converted our forces, but well into there early 60s had not taken over the roles and accepted the warheads which would have remained under US control. In other words, we had the kit, but without the warheads.
I remember the election well, and the subsequent acceptance of the roles, which we trained into the 70s. And, as a cold warrior, I am sort of glad my only military qualification i did not get to use, was nuclear weapons employment officer.
I remember the election well, and the subsequent acceptance of the roles, which we trained into the 70s. And, as a cold warrior, I am sort of glad my only military qualification i did not get to use, was nuclear weapons employment officer.
- Reaction score
- 21,690
- Points
- 1,260
Yes, but I think you would agree that there is a major difference between weapons and power plants.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,342
- Points
- 1,260
AGAIN - if we want to have a serious discussion about Defense issues then our first issue is to prosecute those who are found to be complicit in China's alleged interference in our elections. THAT is critical - for if China gets a real foothold our military will be further emasculated.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,163
- Points
- 990
As in most things, not black and white.
- There was major initial pushback, including promise to block the technology transfer - 1987
- Reagan is brought around by both a heavy push from Thatcher non wanting to lose the sale, and some easily inferred backroom concessions regarding how firmly we would assert sovereignty "The country is not expected to try to keep U.S. submarines from plying the Arctic waters, but rather to observe them". -1988 https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...eactors/46af5081-d70b-4c1b-993e-142b74fbd734/
- Canada dithers on the whole White Paper, project dies on the vine
and
the US was opposed to the Canada having SSN capability independent from US strings that could have and was intended to oppose US interests in the Arctic, and was willing to throw their weight around to prevent it
are not mutually exclusive statements.
Hence musing about changes to the geo-political situation and the remoteness of Australia. There's no conflict of interest there. Given the history I think that any hypothetical Canadian involvement in AUKUS would have been limited to contributing to it's aims, not piggy-backing on it to build the fabled "three ocean Navy"
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,869
- Points
- 1,160
You seem to think that Canada and the USA are 'friends'... time to drag out a Palmerston quote
“Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
― Lord Palmerston
- Reaction score
- 21,690
- Points
- 1,260
The US wanted to ensure that the SSN for Canada were made in the US.
Not Canada, and not the UK.
*The US controls the Uk program as well.
Neither the US nor Canada wanted Canadian SSBN.
Reagan and BMPM were pretty close, and Reagan saw that even if the UK built the boats, it was a win for the US and USN (and US nuc industry).
@daftandbarmy Would you accept friends with occasional benefits
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,869
- Points
- 1,160
The US wanted to ensure that the SSN for Canada were made in the US.
Not Canada, and not the UK.
*The US controls the Uk program as well.
Neither the US nor Canada wanted Canadian SSBN.
Reagan and BMPM were pretty close, and Reagan saw that even if the UK built the boats, it was a win for the US and USN (and US nuc industry).
@daftandbarmy Would you accept friends with occasional benefits
Sure, but I'm pretty certain that's a one way relationship
- Reaction score
- 21,690
- Points
- 1,260
I’m sure it would be less one sided if we where not also funding your national defense too…Sure, but I'm pretty certain that's a one way relationship
