 US Sub on top of the world The U.S. Navy recently confirmed that the USS Texas and its 134-member crew completed an Arctic mission, with some U.S. media outlets noting the nuclear-powered submarine broke through the ice near the North Pole and stayed on the surface for 24 hours.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
potty mouth!! you said the 'n' word.
t'yep. Not Canada! Embrace nuclear weaponry of any kind? No way!!
I mean no problem with us selling the technology to India and then Pakistan so they could develop those weapons, ohh no - they're so much more trustworthy than ourselves.
And of course there's nothing wrong with selling enriched weapons grade uranium to the US for the past 50 years for their weapon development but OH NOES!! -- We shouldn't have it! THAT would be contributing to the rising numbers of nuclear weapons in the world and we can't have that!!
Just to be clear about the idiocy here:
1. S'ok to sell nulcear technology to rat-hole countries so they can develop weapons....leads to more weapons.
2. S'alright to sell to our good buddies the US so they can make more nuclear weapons.....leads to more weapons.
3. We can't make them for ourselves because that would increase the number of nuclear arms in the world
This is no secret. A quick google will prove my point.
To wit:
"India's ability to detonate nuclear devices was not developed in isolation," said Elizabeth May, Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "The Chrétien government always wants to celebrate sales of nuclear technology, without facing responsibility for a history of AECL sales to India, Pakistan, Taiwan; dictatorships in Argentina and Romania; and most recently South Korea and China. There is a clear cause and effect relationship between Canada's history of nuclear assistance to India and the events of the past two days." May added, "Calling for sanctions after the fact, ignores the federal government's own role in pushing nuclear exports."
-The CANDU-6’s use of natural uranium makes it attractive to countries hoping to acquire fissile material (plutonium or high-enriched uranium) for use in nuclear weapons without the need for enrichment facilities.
-The CANDU-6 practice of online re-fueling makes it difficult to detect and prevent the diversion of used nuclear fuel for the possible use in atomic weapons (p. 24)
-India produced plutonium for its 1974 nuclear weapons test in its Canadian supplied CIRUS reactor, which used natural uranium fuel (p. 23).
-It is suspected that Pakistan has used its Canadian supplied KANUPP reactor to produce military plutonium (p. 23-24).
-Three to four kilograms of plutonium is sufficient to produce an atomic bomb. (p. 13)
-Canadian reactors will have produced 170 thousand kilograms of plutonium through 2010. (p. 13)
-AECL is interested in selling additional CANDU-6 reactors to countries such as Turkey, India and Jordan that may be interested in acquiring a ready option for diverting spent reactor fuel for production of nuclear weapons.
....'eye-rollin' all around I guess....
-The dark underside of nuclear power has always been its potential to aid in the production of nuclear weapons, through the production of plutonium -- an inevitable byproduct of reactor operation. Of all commercial reactors, the CANDU design produces the most plutonium per unit of energy, and is the most difficult to safeguard.
-The ethical cost of CANDU exports has also been high, as CANDU sales have repeatedly involved bribery, and have contributed to Canada's abandonment of an effective human rights policy.
The explosion of an atomic bomb by India in 1974, using plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor, demonstrated the very real contribution that Canadian reactors can make to nuclear weapons proliferation. Canada promptly discontinued nuclear cooperation with India. Within a few years, Canada also broke off nuclear cooperation with Pakistan because of that country's determination to pursue a nuclear weapons program in response to India's demonstrated capability.
Despite Canadian and international non-proliferation agreements, CANDU sales carry an inherent risk of proliferation ~ purchasers can simply ignore their commitments, as India did. All of our past CANDU customers (India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Romania, Argentina, and South Korea) have at one time or another pursued a nuclear weapons program.
In recent years, without any public discussion or parliamentary debate, Canada has allowed its non-proliferation policy to be eroded. Since 1989, Canada's nuclear boycott of India and Pakistan has been abrogated by quietly allowing AECL and other Canadian companies to provide nuclear assistance to both countries.
Because China has given aid to "threshold" nuclear weapons states like Pakistan, the United States government will not allow its privately owned nuclear companies to sell reactors to China. The Canadian government has no ethical compunctions about selling reactors to China ~ it is eager and willing to take advantage of the absence of American competition.
Candu makes weapons grade? Learn something new everyday...
that gets a little complicated.
All reactors produce either uranium or plutonium as byproducts.
In a normal country, the IAEA steps in and monitors
how they are produced and what happens to them.
Obviously not done in India, Pakistan, NK, and
of course our bestest buddies in the gulf, Iran.
However, to say that to make a bomb, you ONLY need a Candu reactor
is not really fair either.
There is a bit more to it that. Given the nuclear programs of India
and Pakistan have been at it for a long time, I'll bet they got Russian
help for the rest of the bomb making bit.
It takes several years of full time production to make enough
material for even a small bomb, not the fastest way to do it.
It's almost 2010. What happened in the 1970s with India and CANDU is 40 year-old news and water-under-the-bridge. What we need to do is the diplomatic work to prevent countries from USING nukes. We're kidding ourselves if we think we can prevent their production if a country wants to build them.
It's almost 2010. What happened in the 1970s with India and CANDU is 40 year-old news and water-under-the-bridge. What we need to do is the diplomatic work to prevent countries from USING nukes. We're kidding ourselves if we think we can prevent their production if a country wants to build them.
I repeat:
More to the point:
Despite Canadian and international non-proliferation agreements, CANDU sales carry an inherent risk of proliferation ~ purchasers can simply ignore their commitments, as India did. All of our past CANDU customers (India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Romania, Argentina, and South Korea) have at one time or another pursued a nuclear weapons program.
In recent years, without any public discussion or parliamentary debate, Canada has allowed its non-proliferation policy to be eroded. Since 1989, Canada's nuclear boycott of India and Pakistan has been abrogated by quietly allowing AECL and other Canadian companies to provide nuclear assistance to both countries.
So I feel my point stands: it's okay for us to make money off of other nations willing to proliferate nuclear weapons, but it's not ok for us to have them.
A further point:
...and since it became a 'known' that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons how many clashes or all out wars have their been in the region? The 1999 one was incredibly short and calmed down real quick.
When you have nuclear weapons nations negotiate, ask, barter, pursue diplomatic avenues. They don't just walk on in like they've been doing in the arctic.
So I feel my point stands: it's okay for us to make money off of other nations willing to proliferate nuclear weapons, but it's not ok for us to have them.
True, and short of someone dropping a bomb on us, we won't have them.
We all know this.
So I feel my point stands: it's okay for us to make money off of other nations willing to proliferate nuclear weapons, but it's not ok for us to have them.
No, I'd say it's okay for us to have them. In fact, I think we likely do.
When you have nuclear weapons nations negotiate, ask, barter, pursue diplomatic avenues. They don't just walk on in like they've been doing in the arctic.
I don't necessarily disagree with that statement, but more important than having nuclear weapons (or any other "big stick") is having a strong track-record of practising pacta sunt servanta with the international community. And even if we don't have nukes we could make a bunch in a hurry if we wanted, should a situation arise requiring such a threat.
But when you dangle threats like you propose, it just puts your international credibility in with the likes of North Korea and Iran. Is that what we want? Do we want to join those nations at the "kiddie table" of international relations? I think not.
This is not what I propose. France has nuclear weapons. They've also stated they'd use them in the case of invasion. Are they dangling threats? Do countries walk into their provinces because they figure they have a claim on the territory? No.
A 'threat' that you can and will defend youself against invasion is hardly a threat in my book. Wanting to be capable of defending yourself hardly makes you Iran or North Korea.
You're not seriously proposing the idea that we could wait until we are invaded to start making nuclear weapons are you?
This is not what I propose. France has nuclear weapons. They've also stated they'd use them in the case of invasion. Are they dangling threats? Do countries walk into their provinces because they figure they have a claim on the territory? No.
France has nuclear weapons for different reasons than ours, a history of an aggressive neighbour on their Eastern border being the prime one. Canada has no such history, nor geography.
A 'threat' that you can and will defend youself against invasion is hardly a threat in my book. Wanting to be capable of defending yourself hardly makes you Iran or North Korea.
But we're not, at present, under any threat of invasion, are we?
You're not seriously proposing the idea that we could wait until we are invaded to start making nuclear weapons are you?
An invasion isn't likely to come out of the blue. But that's a moot, academic point because I believe we have a nuclear arsenal.
This is a confusing statement. The kiddie table....like Russia, China, France and the US?
No, the Kiddie table with North Korea & Iran and other nations that threaten use of nuclear weapons weekly.