pkern@csri.toronto.edu (pkern) (02/03/88)
What's so bad about wanting to pull out of NATO? Didn't the French do just that a (long?) while back? Isn't our NATO participation already minimal (and less than credible)? Wouldn't it be more useful to use the money saved to update equipment?
tech@auvax.UUCP (Richard Loken) (02/05/88)
In article <1988Feb3.090804.22054@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, pkern@csri.toronto.edu (pkern) writes: > > What's so bad about wanting to pull out of NATO? > Didn't the French do just that a (long?) while back? > Isn't our NATO participation already minimal (and less than credible)? > Wouldn't it be more useful to use the money saved to update equipment? Nothing Yes Yes Yes ********* 73 ********** Richard Loken VE6BSV . **** .. **** Athabasca University .... **** Athabasca, Alberta Canada ..........**** ihnp4!alberta!auvax
jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/08/88)
In article <1988Feb3.090804.22054@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> pkern@csri.toronto.edu.UUCP writes: > >What's so bad about wanting to pull out of NATO? >Didn't the French do just that a (long?) while back? >Isn't our NATO participation already minimal (and less than credible)? >Wouldn't it be more useful to use the money saved to update equipment? Actually, it was the military arm of NATO that France pulled out of. The French are still members of the non-military wing. I have some sympathy for following the French role here. Canada's contribution to NATO is indeed less than credible, so pulling out of the military wing would not hurt the organization. And, by retaining membership, a la France, the correct (in my mind) message would still be sent. The only negative aspect of this is that I find it *impossible* to believe that the powers-that-be would take the money saved and use it for sorely needed equipment upgrade. Given the choice between using that freed up money for some "essential" such as universal daycare or for preparing for a "non-existent" military threat, which option do you believe any straight-thinking politician would pursue? Especially, if that politician is considered to be a progressive by his supporters; as is just about any member of the NDP. J.B. Robinson
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/10/88)
References: <1988Feb3.090804.22054@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Sender: Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Followup-To: Distribution: can Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Keywords: >What's so bad about wanting to pull out of NATO? It's not immoral, if that's what you are worried about. Just doesn't make much sense. Won't save money, and won't help Canada in any way I can see. >Didn't the French do just that a (long?) while back? No. They pulled out of the integrated military command, or whatever it is called. NATO is a LOT more than that, and the French are fully involved. They recognize the value, but their national pride would not let their soldiers be ordered about by nationals of other countries. We don't worry about national pride, do we :-) >Isn't our NATO participation already minimal (and less than credible)? Perhaps less than it should be, but why is that a reason for making it even less? >Wouldn't it be more useful to use the money saved to update equipment? No, because it would probably cost more to pull out of NATO than to stay in. Have you ever been to a NATO ASI or ARW? If you had, you wouldn't be talking as if our few troops in Germany constituted our only connection with NATO. A disclaimer is in order here: these are completely my own opinions, not those of DND, for which I work. -- Martin Taylor ...uunet!{mnetor|utzoo}!dciem!mmt mmt@zorac.arpa Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence. Before computers, the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence. What proves intelligence now? Obviously, it is what we can do that computers can't.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/15/88)
I have had two mail requests to explain what a NATO ASI and a NATO ARW are,
so here goes ...
NATO has two top-level councils, the Military Council and the Science Council
(originally they were supposed to have an economic branch as well, governed
by what I suppose would have been an Economics Council, but that fell by
the wayside). In addition (possibly under the military council) there is
the NATO command, which is the only operational military part of NATO (but
the part that gets the publicity. The Science Council supports scientific
activities of mutual interest to NATO countries (NATO Fellowships, and
so forth), including Advanced Studies Institutes (ASI) and Advanced
Research Workshops (ARW). An ASI is intended to bring about 100 people
together for a concentrated two weeks, perhaps 12 "teachers" and the rest
"students", though sometimes the lines get a bit blurred. The idea is
to have leading-edge researchers disseminate their work to interested
people (who need not belong to NATO countries--in fact I have been at
ASI with Warsaw-Pact people). The idea of an ASI is not necessarily to
advance the state of the art, though that sometimes happens. Usually an
ASI results in a book, and I imagine you have read some without noticing
where they came from. An ARW *is* intended to advance the state of the
art. About 30-50 researchers come together for a week of concentrated
interaction on a theme, and may produce a report. There are many other
kinds of non-military meetings and information exchange as well, within
NATO. Certainly the military aspect predominates, especially in the
public view, but then it is more dramatic than what I consider the more
important stuff.
Whether we should pull out of the unified military command is, as Jim
Robinson says, quite another matter. It doesn't involve much money, and
it does give us goodwill if we stay in, so why not? A threat exists,
even though it may not seem as immediate as it did a few years ago. To
keep troops in Germany is certainly cheaper than *really* looking after
our own defence, as the NDP claims to want.
As before, a disclaimer: these are certainly my own opinions, and I have
not consulted DND about them.
--
Martin Taylor
...uunet!{mnetor|utzoo}!dciem!mmt
mmt@zorac.arpa
Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence. Before computers,
the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence. What proves
intelligence now? Obviously, it is what we can do that computers can't.