[z_whalen]

During the Cold War the primary focus of NORAD was ICBMs, but it's job is and always has been to warn of attack against North America by missile, aircraft, or space vehicle. It monitors American and Canadian airspace and also collects data from around the world with orbital satellites and ground based sensors. You can't really compare NORAD to the Arrow. NORAD is an entire air defense matrix while the Arrow is just a jet. Taking away NORAD would severly hamper the ability of any jet, like the Arrow or other interceptors, to defend North America. Arrow or no Arrow, NORAD remains a huge asset in the defense of both Canada and the United States.

[Brianne]

I'm listening, but to what, exactly? I've heard these arguments before, but I'm not sure why you've title the thread 'Listen Brianne'. It seems the thread should be titled NORAD.

[z_whalen]

Yah is it possible to change the title of the thread? I wouldn't mind discussing NORAD.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] Yah is it possible to change the title of the thread? I wouldn't mind discussing NORAD.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Done. If someone hadn't suggested changing the title, I was going to delete the thread. <br /> <br />Just to further the "I'm the new guy" thread Stymiest - posting a thread directed at a particular person can be seen as hostile too: you're calling them out... <br /> <br />

[canuck]

"We do not build military machines because they looks good we build them because they are practical and the Arrow was just not a practical fighter for that time period." <br /> <br />I still don't understand how equipping the CF with a long-range, persistent, defensive weapon over Canadian territory such as the Arrow interceptor would be impractical. We are still lacking in this capability to this day. How else can we exert our sovereignty over the arctic, it's shipping lanes, the remote interior, or our vast coastal areas were Coast Guard patrol aircraft never operate? You continue to complain about how much it WOULD HAVE cost, but you ignore the fact that the money was already spent... and in the Canadian economy at that. <br /> <br />Why don't we hear complaint about the purchasing of those obselete and untried Bowmark missiles from the US that were intended to fill the defensive void that the Arrow cancellation left open? <br /> <br />So what is the reasoning behind cancelling the project just because ICBMs were becoming more prominant? Nothing would have protected against incoming missiles any way and the conventional air borne threat still existed. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />"NORAD remains a huge asset in the defense of both Canada and the United States." <br /> <br />On NORAD, I don't believe the infrastructure should be dismantled, but I do believe the NORAD agreement as it now exits should abandoned so that Canada's role in aerospace defense can focused on Canadian airspace. <br /> <br />If I'm not mistaken, there is a secondary NORAD headquarters somewhere in Ontario and I see no reason why Canadians could not defend Canada's airspace IN CANADA, using the existing infrastucture, but under a different framework where our government has direct control over the surveillence of Canadian airspace. <br /> <br />In this way, Canada could still fulfill continental airspace security obligations, without being dragged hand-in-hand by the Americans into BMD as in the integrated nature of the agreement that exists today. The entire concept of a domestic, airspace surveillence capability is integral to the issue of Canada's sovereignty. <br /> <br />

[z_whalen]

It's not that equipping Canada "Canada with a long-range, persistent, defensive weapon" was impratical. The problem with the Arrow is that it was more than we needed. That is why it was so costly. Why would we produce a jet like the Arrow when we could just get a cheaper one that could still meet our needs. We went in trying to get a luxury interceptor with all the frills. What we came out was squat: an expensive fighter that was overkill for the current situation. We should have started out with the idea that we were going to design a jet that could do it's job, not one just to show off. <br /> <br />NORAD's current focus is North American airspace, and rightly so. Let me be clear: NORAD is not one American base manned by American soldiers where all North American airspace info is gathered. NORAD is made up of a number of control centers that in three regions: Alaska, Canada and the Continental U.S. I don't see how we could benefit by turning it's focus only to Canadian airspace, perhaps you should elaborate. We are already monitoring Canadian airspace from our Control Centers at CFB Ontario and we have our own air defense forces assigned to protect our airspace. What we do get with the agreement is the benefit of sharing information with the U.S. which extends our vision to Alaska and Continental U.S. NORAD Regions. Abandoning NORAD is not going to make Americans lay-off the pressure on us to integrate BMD, all we have to do is say no. You are forgetting that the U.S. is our ally. Our countries are right next to each other and sometimes we can benefit by sharing responsibility for our mutual defense. I have not seen Americans fail in this obligation, but Canada has. If you're wondering why American vessels are sailing into our waters I can give you an answer. It is because we do not give them reason to think that we care at all about monitoring the defense of North America. I know we don't like the situation but the U.S. and Canada are tied together by geography. Giving up our security just to piss them off is a bad idea.

[mikeymike555]

What people always seem to neglect when discussing cost-overruns associated with the Arrow is the huge fraction of costs that were returned to the government in the form of taxes! <br />The Arrow project created huge numbers of jobs, not just in AVRO, but in all the supporting industries as well. <br />This is the same problem I have when BC Ferries wants to buy it's new ferries from Germany. Sure, the "cost" may be cheaper but these people are not looking at the big picture. <br /> <br />Also, after the Arrow was scrapped, the government quietly purchased *USED* fighter planes from the US that were vastly inferior to the Arrow. With something as highly capable as the Arrow, there would surely have been a market for it... the French had apparently already put in orders for the Iroquois engine. <br /> <br />Mike

[z_whalen]

They could have been as loud as they wanted about the purchase of U.S. aircraft. These jets may have been inferior to the Arrow, but the price was a lot better. I'm talking about the price of producing the planes by the way not the R&D. I agree with everyone saying that we shouldn't have destroyed all the designs and technology. The only reason for this was to keep it from falling into the wrong hands, but in the long run it would have been of good use I am certain. I don't blame the destruction of the Arrow on the U.S. They weren't going to buy the jet in the first place, and our government knew this from the get go, yet they carried on as if they had a secure deal when in fact they had not made a real proposal. I think the Arrow was a case of too much, too late. By the time it was nearing completion, there was no longer the need for it that was present in the first place. We could buy more of the cheaper American jets to protect our airspace instead of a handful of Arrows. What we should have doneis scrapped the jet and kept the technology. We would have more buyers for the Arrow's technology than the Arrow itself.

[Stymiest]

is it just me or do you guys always continue to argue when the fatc is their is no argument <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

[Kory Yamashita]

Scrapping the Avro Arrow was a step towards our now-obvious complete dependence on the US military. We at one time had an excellent world-leading aircraft research team here in Canada. Now we don't. And now we're talking about jumping on board the US plan to weaponize out of space. Why? Because we feel threatened. Is it any deterrent that the BMD project is doomed to fail due to technological shortcomings? Apparently not. <br /> <br />We should be angry with our government for selling us out. Whether the Avro Arrow would have been profitable to produce or not is pure heresay. What we DO know is that scrapping the Avro Arrow ultimately cost us credibility on the world stage. And that is why it has lent to undermining our sovereignty. And THAT is the problem.

[Perturbed]

I'd dump NORAD and do everything here for us.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] I'd dump NORAD and do everything here for ourselves.[/QUOTE]

[z_whalen]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] I'd dump NORAD and do everything here for us.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /><b>Why?</b> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/neutral.gif' alt='Neutral'>

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] I'd dump NORAD and do everything here for us.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /><b>Why?</b> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/neutral.gif' alt='Neutral'> [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Because I feel NORAD presents a few problems, a little benefit. <br /> <br /> <br />1 - NORAD is a cold-war era creation, when Canada was less interested in an independent foreign policy. NATO was what we followed, and now we may not necessarily agree with the U.S. or NATO. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />3. NORAD won't have any ability to stop a nuclear weapon from hitting, if it could even war anyone, and the systems are less than reliable. <br /> <br />4. Canada is not under the same nuclear threat as the United States, and I feel we'll be safer if we become less integrated with them. <br /> <br />5. Finally, although we ahve a ways to go, it is hard IMO to call yourselves independent when you have a defence base under joint command in a foreign command. I HATE the symbolism, and can you imagine Russia doing what we do? <br /> <br />6. Who says that we'll never be official enemies again? If we ever decide to take control of our water and oil resources, and build a military, we'll pretty well have oppose them in the process. Their ultimate goals is self-interest, so we shouldn't be close to a country that wants us, basically. <br /> <br />Takes a breath. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

[Kory Yamashita]

Perturbed, I've missed your clear and concise posts in these last few days/weeks/however long you've been gone for. (At least, I THINK you were gone). Anyways, way to get right to the point.