3.1: Defending North America

更多类似内容

Globalization Positive and Negative Impacts

由PG - 12BT 626894 Chinguacousy SS

Websites

由Rick Miller

People to Contact for Our CFP

由Brian Croxall

Progressive Era- Unit Plan

由Robert Martin

3.1 Defending North America -JANE HA

'Canada's Acceptance of Nuclear Weapons in 1963'

Subtopic

AGAINST "No, do not accept them"

4. It would be ironic to accept nuclear weapon while Canada is already working on a disarmament of nuclear weapon.

3. The more weapons we accept, the more possibility to be the main target of Soviet Union. Internationally, Canada should stand in the middle to maintain peace.

2. Economically, it would affect Canada a lot. Canada does not have to spend enormous amount of money to buy or produce those dangerous weapons.

1. A lot of Canadians fear about wars and weapons and are horrified with the memories that they have been experiencing. It would result in contributing to global suicide.

FOR "Yes, we should accept it"

5. There are the Bomarc Missiles that were meant to carry nuclear warheads. Without reinforcing the nuclear weapons, they will all be useless without them, because those missiles are supposed to be located at various bases in Canada so it would act as our defense.

4. Internationally, Canadian trade and invest from the United States would be injured, if we do not accept nuclear weapons and keeps this anti-America policy.

3. If Canada does not accept nuclear weapons, Canada would be behind in military technology in the world. This is the time that we can improve our technology with nuclear weapons, and have the equal or stronger than them.

2. It would demonstrate Canada's role for NORAD and NATO that Canada is supporting them, and it would not make any other conflict between them.

1. Nuclear power will lead Canada to be more secure and North America in general. Since Canadian people are horrified with lots of wars and the feeling of hospitality, comforting them by reinforcing our weapons helps the country a lot.

'The Scrapping of the Avro Arrow'

AGAINST "We should keep it"

4. If it would be marketed efficiently, Canada would make huge benefits and earn lots of profits, which would allow them to have the stronger economy.

3. The Avro Arrow can carry an advanced missiles and shoot down the bombs easily to the Soviet Union.

2. Possessing the new technology air craft will make Canada as a leader that has more opportunities in many ways among other countries.

1. It could make a lot of jobs by creating the factories that produce materials for the air craft, so it would be helpful for increasing the unemployment rate in Canada.

FOR "Yes, I agree"

5. The quality of the air crafts is such an innovation that even the U.S. is jealous about the project. Therefore, it could offend the U.S. and make conflicts on the relationship between Canada and the U.S. One popular view was that senior American officials conspired to kill the project because if they couldn't build a fighter of such quality, then neither should Canada. Financial Post, January 18, 1997

4. The company that produces the Avro Arrow is very disorganized, which means it would not make people to trust them to buy their product. Historian Michael Bliss wrote that the Avro had to go because costs had soared, there were no foreign orders and the company, A.V.Row Canada was a ramshackle, disorganized company. Right Honourable Men (Toronto: Harper Collins, 1994), 204

3. There is no foreign orders and the company, so it would not be sold to other countries as people expect. Finkel and Conrad noted that the Arrow cost six times more to produce than its American counterpart and that no one, not even the Canadian Air Force, wanted to buy it. History of the Canadian Peoples (Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 1993)

2. The cost of air craft keeps increasing, and the cost of the plane is $12.5 million dollars per a air craft. It is really huge damage to Canadian economy to produce the air crafts, because it costs six times more to produce than its American counterpart. http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/flight.htm

1. Inventing new and high technology air crafts would lead Canada to be a main target of the Soviet Union, which is really risky. Since it could be seen like Canada is preparing for another war with the Soviet Union and could offend them.

'Canada's Role in the Cuban Missile Crisis'

AGAINST "No, we just need to stay here"

4. Canada has to keep its independence and show the world that Canada has a will of its own.

3. Involving in the conflict is only an act of intervention in the internal affairs of Cuba, so Canada should step aside and watch the situation.

2 It would be really dangerous and risky to be part of it, since Canada has to allow American Aircraft carrying all the bomb through Canada. The government is responsible to protect people.

1. This conflict is mainly about the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which means that Canada should not be involved in. It would only cause another conflict.

FOR "Yes! we need to support the U.S."

4. As a peace-keeper, Canada should get involved in between them to stop the conflict and keep the peace within the world.

3. The fact that the Soviet Union is building the nuclear missile launch site, it could influence Canada in a bad way, or lead Canada in a great danger with the missiles. Therefore, we need to support the U.S. and prevent the dangerous situation.

2. If we do not help the United States, it would damage the relationship between Canada and the U.S.

1. This is very sensitive and important time because it is during the test of establishment of NORAD, so we need to fulfill our role.