10-28-2011, 06:59 PM
|
#21
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
A nuclear sub is also known as a nuke' I was reliably informed by a Conquerer's 2nd mate engineering H.M.N during a drunken attempt to fix a lister 3 cylinder diesel
|
Actually and not to nitpick, the term that is used by the American's is nuc.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 07:09 PM
|
#22
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Actually and not to nitpick, the term that is used by the American's is nuc.
|
We were very drunk trying to get a narrow boat going after a heavy drinking session just outside of Coventry, he could have called it a bunny wunny and I wouldn't have questioned it.
Shortly after that I fell in the Canal
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:06 PM
|
#23
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by prarieboy
That's worth persuing. At least we could keep it on topic
|
Back on topic: What are the latest developements in the competition between parties to establish Arctic boundaries?
Last edited by drhu22; 10-28-2011 at 08:14 PM.
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:06 PM
|
#24
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Count me in as someone that really likes the idea of Canada getting a few nuke SSN boats.
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:10 PM
|
#25
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
Count me in as someone that really likes the idea of Canada getting a few nuke SSN boats.
|
What is an SSN boat?
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:21 PM
|
#26
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Fast Attack Submarine (nuclear).
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:24 PM
|
#27
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
Fast Attack Submarine (nuclear).
|
We're talking all submarines, but what about ice breakers? Don't they play a big role too...as far as arctic sovereignty goes?
Anyways, I think its a crying shame how much money is wasted on the military because of corruption and greed, when the world is going bankrupt, and people are dying needlessly.
Last edited by drhu22; 10-28-2011 at 08:41 PM.
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:39 PM
|
#28
|
Had an idea!
|
I don't know why its so hard to understand the need for nuclear powered subs.
The subs we have now have cost over $1 billion just to repair. That money would have been better spent in purchasing new ones.
Beyond that, they give us a MUCH greater ability to control our interests everywhere in the world.
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:52 PM
|
#29
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Canada shouldn't just be thinking of nuclear submarines, they should be obtaining at least a dozen nuclear missiles.
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:56 PM
|
#30
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
Canada shouldn't just be thinking of nuclear submarines, they should be obtaining at least a dozen nuclear missiles.
|
Ya Ya...Bio too!!!
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:56 PM
|
#31
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I don't know why its so hard to understand the need for nuclear powered subs.
The subs we have now have cost over $1 billion just to repair. That money would have been better spent in purchasing new ones.
Beyond that, they give us a MUCH greater ability to control our interests everywhere in the world.
|
Its a shame what happened to those boats. They really are a pretty good concept.
Most of the difficulty happened because they sat in storage for so long before we claimed them.
But diesel electric boats really aren't the best choice for a nation with an arctic coast line to monitor.
If we were ever to have purchased nuclear subs, it was back in the 80's when Mulrooney was in power and promised them and we were on the verge of mothballing the really terrible Oberon class boats.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 08:57 PM
|
#32
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
Canada shouldn't just be thinking of nuclear submarines, they should be obtaining at least a dozen nuclear missiles.
|
Why our stock pile up at alert is still perfectly fine
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 09:08 PM
|
#33
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Halifax
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
Canada shouldn't just be thinking of nuclear submarines, they should be obtaining at least a dozen nuclear missiles.
|
We don't need nukes, the good ol' US of A has enough to go around.
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 09:21 PM
|
#34
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
Canada shouldn't just be thinking of nuclear submarines, they should be obtaining at least a dozen nuclear missiles.
|
Should we all start hoarding more nukes?
Or just Canada?
Last edited by drhu22; 10-28-2011 at 09:52 PM.
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 10:00 PM
|
#35
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGr3gor
We don't need nukes, the good ol' US of A has enough to go around.
|
Probably true, but we would be so much more badass if we have like 2.
|
|
|
10-28-2011, 10:47 PM
|
#36
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
Canada shouldn't just be thinking of nuclear submarines, they should be obtaining at least a dozen nuclear missiles.
|
Can't! We're signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a Non-Nuclear state... so we can't get any.
Of course, NN states on that treaty include:
Pakistan
India
Israel
(North Korea until they withdrew in the early 2000s)
Iran
So, uhhhh...
|
|
|
10-29-2011, 04:10 AM
|
#37
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
We have the knowledge, we have the uranium, and we have reactors. For the most part, we are a nuclear power even without having an actual bomb because we have the capacity to produce them if needs be.
|
|
|
10-29-2011, 12:07 PM
|
#38
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
We have the knowledge, we have the uranium, and we have reactors. For the most part, we are a nuclear power even without having an actual bomb because we have the capacity to produce them if needs be.
|
I think the nuclear club could become a lot bigger almost overnight if a major global conflict erupted. Of course, countries like Canada, Japan, Austrailia, South Africa (built them in the past) and most of Europe have the immediate capablities. I believe at one time, both Brazil and Argentina had advanced nuclear programs that they "volunteered" to stop due to diplomatic pressure. And then of course, some supposed "non-nuclear" states like Turkey, Italy, Netherlands and Poland have them on their soil courtesy of NATO. I also don't buy it for a second that Belarus and Kazahkstan transferred all of theirs back to Russia. Ukraine had more than 5,000 and have claimed to have dismantled them ore sent them to Russia, but I have my doubts... no evidence mind you, I just don't see why they wouldn't keep a few.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
10-29-2011, 12:45 PM
|
#39
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not sure
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Why our stock pile up at alert is still perfectly fine
|
Please elaborate. Are you saying we already have them?
|
|
|
10-29-2011, 12:48 PM
|
#40
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhu22
We're talking all submarines, but what about ice breakers? Don't they play a big role too...as far as arctic sovereignty goes?
Anyways, I think its a crying shame how much money is wasted on the military because of corruption and greed, when the world is going bankrupt, and people are dying needlessly.
|
What does a sentence like this even mean?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:00 PM.
|
|