Defending North America - Choices for Canada

Più simili a questo

profitable business ideas

da Mindomo Team

Portable devices

da opet neki lik

SCUOLA Tassonomia Bloom Web

da Anna Rita Vizzari

The Tourism Industry

da Joshua Belen

Defending North America - Choices for Canada

Canada's Role in the Cuban Missile Crisis

Against Canada getting involved

1. It is risky to get involved in a conflict as large as the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is more to lose than there is to gain. The entire situation is rooted in U.S. policy and interests.

2. P.M. Diefenbaker doubted the severity of the threats made against the United States. He suggested that it would be more appropriate to send a team of U.N. inspectors instead of getting directly involved.

3. Showing involvement and placing our military on high alert might provoke the Soviet Union.

4. The "Rostow Memo" outlining the desired results of the U.S. in Kennedy's meeting with Diefenbaker proved that they hoped to "push" Canada towards their wishes. Diefenbaker believed that the U.S. wanted to dominate Canada.

For Canada getting involved

1. Not getting involved and showing support towards our American allies would have damaged the relationship between both countries.

2. Getting involved would possibly salvage the turbulent relationship between President Kennedy and P.M. Diefenbaker.

3. If we did get involved, we would provide assistance to the U.S. navy through our military prowess in anti-submarine warfare.

4. Getting our navy involved would allow the U.S. to deploy their naval assets further south, allowing for direct participation in the 60-ship naval quarantine of Cuba.

Canada's Acceptance of Nuclear Weapons (1963)

Against the acceptance of nuclear weapons

1. Accepting nuclear weapons would look hypocritical since we were urging the U.N. to work towards disarmament.

2. Accepting nuclear weapons would have been inconsistent with our foreign policy. Canadian citizens have also expressed their concerns about the matter; having nuclear weapons was seen as "global suicide".

3. The issue surrounding the acceptance of nuclear weapons has proved itself to be divisive, causing turmoil within our government. It is hard to push through with the act when there are many individuals proposing arguments on the opposing side.

4. Accepting nuclear weapons would make Canada a target, similar to how the U.S. was a target to the Soviet Union.

For the acceptance of nuclear weapons

1. Accepting nuclear weapons would have appeased the U.S. and improved our relations with them. Canada would also be fulfilling its role as a member of NORAD and NATO.

2. Having nuclear weapons would help protect the country in the event that communists attack.

3. Acceptance new nuclear weapons would be an effective replacement for the Avro Arrow, which was scrapped.

4. During this issue, Canada was already working towards integrating nuclear weapons in its military. We replaced our CF-100 interceptions with the U.S. made CF-101. Fully accepting weapons would seem like the next logical step.

Scrapping the Avro Arrow

For the scrapping of the Arrow

1. It costs too much to create the Avro Arrow. It is said to have cost six times more than its American counterpart. Pushing through with the project would have used up too much taxpayer dollars.

2. No one wanted to order the Avro Arrow, so creating it would seem rather pointless.

3. The company making the Arrow, A.V. Roe Canada, was described as being a "ramshackle" and "disorganized". No good would have come out of the project so long as they were in charge.

4. It would be hard to get other countries to support the project because it is designed to cater too closely to Canada's needs. The U.S. and U.K. expressed admiration, but did not show any other type of support.

Against the scrapping of the Arrow

1. During the time, the Arrow was seen as being the "Crown Jewel of A.V. Roe Canada. It was on the cutting edge of aerospace technology and would have brought on positive attention towards Canada.

2. Its creation would have proved Canada's abilities as a fully independent country.

3. The Avro Arrow would have served as a stepping stone for other, more advanced space technology in the country.

4. The Avro Arrow being scrapped led the best scientists of our country to work for NASA. Had it not been scrapped, we would have had a better space program.