[civiltech]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] Hmm not sure if the bunker is physically located at North Bay, but both Canadian sector command centers are. That is where all radar data is going before it ends up at Region headquarters. Anyway, the point still stands: NORAD does not hinder our defense, it is actually a benefit.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />The base is just outside of North bay. <br /> <br />It is quite the bunker to say the least! However, is is a project that has been largely scaled down since the end of the cold war. It's secondary function was to take over op's from Cheyenne Mountain if that base was ever destroyed, or put out of commission. <br /> <br />

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] What I'm trying to say is that we can be independent and still be a good ally. Pulling out of NORAD would just lead to more American babysitting. Like I said before, NORAD does nothing to infringe on our national air defense, the problem is that we need a better force to back it up. Wouldn't want to leave our defense to the trigger-happy American gun nuts! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Oh I think we've been more than a good ally. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mad.gif' alt='Angry'>

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Canuck] [QUOTE BY= z_whalen] Pulling out of NORAD would just lead to more American babysitting.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />...but that is exactly what increasing US integration has done to Canada. That not only includes Defense, but Trade as well. Norad has affected Canada's military as Nafta has affected Canada's economy. Both have resulted in increased US dependence.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />As designed, one would guess.

[Kory Yamashita]

As someone with no particular knowledge of the military, I've been quite entertained following this discussion. However, seeing as this site is officially dedicated to the cause of Canadian sovereignty, and that issue has come up on several occasions, I feel obligated to say this: <br /> <br />Whether NORAD is beneficial in strictly military terms or not, I fear that the interdependence, or even the PERCEIVED interdependence could threaten our sovereignty. It is not our ability to respond to a particular attack that I feel is threatened. Rather, it is our likelyhood of actually being attacked that worries me. <br /> <br />The United States, as we all know, has just upped the stakes of its foreign policy by seizing Iraq's oil fields. In the years to come, an oil shortage due in part to peak oil and in part to the emergence of other major economic powers (China, India) could thus trigger a lot more anti-American sentiment, and on a much larger scale in much more powerful nations than currently exists. <br /> <br />My concern is that our strategic integration with the United States could place Canadian defenses under attack as a strategic strike at the US. This would force Canada into a war in support of US foreign policy that we didn't support to begin with. <br /> <br />In short, the diplomatic arguments against Ballistic Missile Defense seem to apply to NORAD as well. However, I would like to point out that this is a new scenario, resulting from the US's ridiculously aggressive foreign policy of late. <br /> <br />I don't want to die for the cause of rich Americans getting richer off of Iraqi oil. That's why I protested the war before it started and that's why I think we should be distancing ourselves from the US rather than cozying up. <br />

[civiltech]

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] As someone with no particular knowledge of the military, I've been quite entertained following this discussion. However, seeing as this site is officially dedicated to the cause of Canadian sovereignty, and that issue has come up on several occasions, I feel obligated to say this: <br /> <br />Whether NORAD is beneficial in strictly military terms or not, I fear that the interdependence, or even the PERCEIVED interdependence could threaten our sovereignty. It is not our ability to respond to a particular attack that I feel is threatened. Rather, it is our likelyhood of actually being attacked that worries me. <br /> <br />The United States, as we all know, has just upped the stakes of its foreign policy by seizing Iraq's oil fields. In the years to come, an oil shortage due in part to peak oil and in part to the emergence of other major economic powers (China, India) could thus trigger a lot more anti-American sentiment, and on a much larger scale in much more powerful nations than currently exists. <br /> <br />My concern is that our strategic integration with the United States could place Canadian defenses under attack as a strategic strike at the US. This would force Canada into a war in support of US foreign policy that we didn't support to begin with. <br /> <br />In short, the diplomatic arguments against Ballistic Missile Defense seem to apply to NORAD as well. However, I would like to point out that this is a new scenario, resulting from the US's ridiculously aggressive foreign policy of late. <br /> <br />I don't want to die for the cause of rich Americans getting richer off of Iraqi oil. That's why I protested the war before it started and that's why I think we should be distancing ourselves from the US rather than cozying up. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />We are a member of NATO. That treaty means we work together with the US, or any other ally who is under threat. We can't isolate ourselves because of percieved or real threats.

[Kory Yamashita]

[QUOTE BY= civiltech] [QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] As someone with no particular knowledge of the military, I've been quite entertained following this discussion. However, seeing as this site is officially dedicated to the cause of Canadian sovereignty, and that issue has come up on several occasions, I feel obligated to say this: <br /> <br />Whether NORAD is beneficial in strictly military terms or not, I fear that the interdependence, or even the PERCEIVED interdependence could threaten our sovereignty. It is not our ability to respond to a particular attack that I feel is threatened. Rather, it is our likelyhood of actually being attacked that worries me. <br /> <br />The United States, as we all know, has just upped the stakes of its foreign policy by seizing Iraq's oil fields. In the years to come, an oil shortage due in part to peak oil and in part to the emergence of other major economic powers (China, India) could thus trigger a lot more anti-American sentiment, and on a much larger scale in much more powerful nations than currently exists. <br /> <br />My concern is that our strategic integration with the United States could place Canadian defenses under attack as a strategic strike at the US. This would force Canada into a war in support of US foreign policy that we didn't support to begin with. <br /> <br />In short, the diplomatic arguments against Ballistic Missile Defense seem to apply to NORAD as well. However, I would like to point out that this is a new scenario, resulting from the US's ridiculously aggressive foreign policy of late. <br /> <br />I don't want to die for the cause of rich Americans getting richer off of Iraqi oil. That's why I protested the war before it started and that's why I think we should be distancing ourselves from the US rather than cozying up. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />We are a member of NATO. That treaty means we work together with the US, or any other ally who is under threat. We can't isolate ourselves because of percieved or real threats. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Funny you say that, because that's exactly what the US is doing (closing borders, turning away tons of people with legitimate business just because of their skin colour, etc). And they're taking us along for the ride.

[Stymiest]

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] [QUOTE BY= civiltech] [QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] As someone with no particular knowledge of the military, I've been quite entertained following this discussion. However, seeing as this site is officially dedicated to the cause of Canadian sovereignty, and that issue has come up on several occasions, I feel obligated to say this: <br /> <br />Whether NORAD is beneficial in strictly military terms or not, I fear that the interdependence, or even the PERCEIVED interdependence could threaten our sovereignty. It is not our ability to respond to a particular attack that I feel is threatened. Rather, it is our likelyhood of actually being attacked that worries me. <br /> <br />The United States, as we all know, has just upped the stakes of its foreign policy by seizing Iraq's oil fields. In the years to come, an oil shortage due in part to peak oil and in part to the emergence of other major economic powers (China, India) could thus trigger a lot more anti-American sentiment, and on a much larger scale in much more powerful nations than currently exists. <br /> <br />My concern is that our strategic integration with the United States could place Canadian defenses under attack as a strategic strike at the US. This would force Canada into a war in support of US foreign policy that we didn't support to begin with. <br /> <br />In short, the diplomatic arguments against Ballistic Missile Defense seem to apply to NORAD as well. However, I would like to point out that this is a new scenario, resulting from the US's ridiculously aggressive foreign policy of late. <br /> <br />I don't want to die for the cause of rich Americans getting richer off of Iraqi oil. That's why I protested the war before it started and that's why I think we should be distancing ourselves from the US rather than cozying up. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />We are a member of NATO. That treaty means we work together with the US, or any other ally who is under threat. We can't isolate ourselves because of percieved or real threats. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Funny you say that, because that's exactly what the US is doing (closing borders, turning away tons of people with legitimate business just because of their skin colour, etc). And they're taking us along for the ride.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />lol its kind of like any human reaction to a disease lol <br /> <br />Denial <br />Anger <br />Acceptance <br />Plan fo Action <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

[Brent Swain]

You completely miss the point that the greatest threat to Canada is the US. It's like the cat telling the mouse "I'm her to protect you." So we get in bed with the cat and naively snuggle up. Fear mongering by the cat has been an extremely effective scam.
If the Arrow wan't so far ahead of the USanians technolgy, why did they deliberately destroy the drawings and test results.
Why did they immediately hire all the arrow scientists to show them how.
When they took their model to the US for wind tunnel testing the yanks rolled their eyes and laughed. When the test results came in they were no longer laughing. In fact they were humiliated. We made them look like dinosaurs.
The Arrows Iriquois engines were more that three times as powerful as the most powerful engines they had at the time.
Brent

[sasquatch2]

Perturbed

$1:

2. NORAD is on American soil--I just don't believe that we have can have the same control, whether our leaders say so or not. The USA has ultimate say on matters involving their terriotry.

Norad is spread all over the US and Canada. Norad also maintains a base in northern Greenland (THULE). perhaps you confuse it with SAC.

The prime assets were the DEW line and the PINETREE line. Neither of which Canada had the funds to create.

Foolish anti-americanism is not a considered factor in the equation.

[sandorski]

I need to find a thread where someone is freaking out about Y2K. I'll so f***ing pwn that guy....