04-17-2003, 09:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2003, 09:55 PM by Occhidiangela.)
Confusing security and politics is a common error. If you choose not to understand what the stakes were in the Cold War, I can't help you. There would be no second inning if the button got pushed. Just a first inning. And you do recall that . . . Canada is a NATO member who has guaranteed Article V protections in the case of attack on any member of the Alliance, just as US guarantees for Canada, et al, held. It was, and remains, a two way street. Or do you conveniently forget that?
It is obvious to me that in Canada itself there was more than one opinion on the subject, so of course you choose to blame Kenedy for pursuing, as is normal in international politics, what he saw as the big picture position that enhances continental security? OK, feel free.
You call that a threat to your security? Not hardly. More like a different approach to the same security. Big difference. I will not belabor what it takes to make collective security work, besides there not being a lot of leaks in the dyke.
I would suggest that 'pie in the sky' assumptions as to where Soviet nukes were aimed are a bit off. You can choose to believe that Ottowa was never targeted in the Cold War.
We have similar discussions, where policy and security intersect, all the time here in the US. Policy includes trade trade policy. Try, for example, the Japanese company Toshiba selling precision jigs in 1985 to USSR that, when used to make submarine propeller blades, rendered about 50% of the US, Canadian, British and general NATO anti-submarine warfare technology into scrap. For that matter, it made some of their own stuff obsolete.
Security problem? Yes.
Quote:Diefenbaker refuses to arm nuclear warheads in Canada? The American machine rolls over him like yesterday's news. Media scorn him to an unprecedented extent (despite initial Canadian support for the plan), Kennedy publicly denounces him, and the FBI funds a part of the opposition's campaign. Pearson had previously been against such measures, but with his election, which boasted American support, he suddenly changed policy, and allowed the Americans free reign on our turf.
It is obvious to me that in Canada itself there was more than one opinion on the subject, so of course you choose to blame Kenedy for pursuing, as is normal in international politics, what he saw as the big picture position that enhances continental security? OK, feel free.
You call that a threat to your security? Not hardly. More like a different approach to the same security. Big difference. I will not belabor what it takes to make collective security work, besides there not being a lot of leaks in the dyke.
I would suggest that 'pie in the sky' assumptions as to where Soviet nukes were aimed are a bit off. You can choose to believe that Ottowa was never targeted in the Cold War.
We have similar discussions, where policy and security intersect, all the time here in the US. Policy includes trade trade policy. Try, for example, the Japanese company Toshiba selling precision jigs in 1985 to USSR that, when used to make submarine propeller blades, rendered about 50% of the US, Canadian, British and general NATO anti-submarine warfare technology into scrap. For that matter, it made some of their own stuff obsolete.
Security problem? Yes.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete