 Russia outlines Arctic force plan Russia has announced plans to set up a military force to protect its interests in the Arctic.
Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Seriously though, this is not good news for other Arctic nations... time to get the ball rolling on real solutions to the issue
Get the frozen nukes up there and bomb moscow. and pyongyang. and teheran.
What are "frozen nukes"? Are they better then deep-fried nukes?
I can understand Canada�s position in the '50 and '60's about nuclear weapons and it was a noble pursuit at the time but we don't live in those times now and in a post cold war world where the nature of combat and conflict has completely changed it's time to reconsider our anti-nuclear stance.
I would propose 25-50 medium yield warheads shell-gamed (a la 1960's) between 300 missiles. Naturally I would've proposed that 10-15 years ago though.
Get the frozen nukes up there and bomb moscow. and pyongyang. and teheran.
What are "frozen nukes"? Are they better then deep-fried nukes?
Well the ones that are doing nothing but freezing near a polar bear.
Get the frozen nukes up there and bomb moscow. and pyongyang. and teheran.
What are "frozen nukes"? Are they better then deep-fried nukes?
Code for the nuclear tipped harp seals.
Armed seals and polar bears? What are we, Narnia?
And ten feet of ice!
This is how you get your drinking water in the arctic.
The tool used to chip that hole has a blade about 3 inches wide,the water was silted from glacial runoff and undrinkable.
What are "frozen nukes"?
Do you watch South Park? Do you know what a S'Nuke is?
Canada of course has the top secret Elizabeth May S'Nuke. We're anxious to use it.
What are "frozen nukes"?
Do you watch South Park? Do you know what a S'Nuke is?
Canada of course has the top secret Elizabeth May S'Nuke. We're anxious to use it.
South Park is a TV show. Don't recall S'Nukes from it though.
Until Canada is ready to get over it's aversion to nuclear weapons we will never be taken seriously. Countries that have don't have to put up with this crap. They are negotiated with rather than dismissed out of hand. Canada is too large to be defended by conventional means imo and there has yet to be a nation in possession of a nuclear arsenal, no matter how modest, that has been invaded. Nuclear weapons are 100% defensive deterrent in nature. Plus it's actually a fair bit cheaper than the kind of (conventional) military we would actually need to competently defend and deter notions of attack.
I can understand Canada�s position in the '50 and '60's about nuclear weapons and it was a noble pursuit at the time but we don't live in those times now and in a post cold war world where the nature of combat and conflict has completely changed it's time to reconsider our anti-nuclear stance.
I would propose 25-50 medium yield warheads shell-gamed (a la 1960's) between 300 missiles. Naturally I would've proposed that 10-15 years ago though.
100% agree wiht you. Really, it's like shwoing up to a war armed with spears because you have some moral problem with guns. Nucelar technology is sixty or seventy years old now. Pretty soon, everyone is going to have nuclear weapons. Frickin' Pakistan has them. It's embarrassing.
Until Canada is ready to get over it's aversion to nuclear weapons we will never be taken seriously. Countries that have don't have to put up with this crap. They are negotiated with rather than dismissed out of hand. Canada is too large to be defended by conventional means imo and there has yet to be a nation in possession of a nuclear arsenal, no matter how modest, that has been invaded. Nuclear weapons are 100% defensive deterrent in nature. Plus it's actually a fair bit cheaper than the kind of (conventional) military we would actually need to competently defend and deter notions of attack.
I can understand Canada�s position in the '50 and '60's about nuclear weapons and it was a noble pursuit at the time but we don't live in those times now and in a post cold war world where the nature of combat and conflict has completely changed it's time to reconsider our anti-nuclear stance.
I would propose 25-50 medium yield warheads shell-gamed (a la 1960's) between 300 missiles. Naturally I would've proposed that 10-15 years ago though.
100% agree wiht you. Really, it's like shwoing up to a war armed with spears because you have some moral problem with guns. Nucelar technology is sixty or seventy years old now. Pretty soon, everyone is going to have nuclear weapons. Frickin' Pakistan has them. It's embarrassing.
I'm not to sure arming every country in the world with nukes is particularily smart. The risk of them being used would just rise dramatically.