Defending North America - Choices for Canada

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.