The Avro Arrow. Canada's BIG What IF?

            Many times I have asked myself, " What if the Avro Arrow was released?" and "Why was it scraped". Although there have been many speculations as to why the arrow was scrapped such as the US felt threaten that Canada could produce such a plane. However this post is one that will dwell on the Arrow's much debated history. This post is on the question "Why did the Canadian government decide to build the F35 instead of rebuilding the Arrow?" Recently a test was run to compare the Avro Arrow to the F35 (by Avro itself). The result was staggering, the Arrow cost only $12 billion to build a service 100 planes for 20 yrs where as the F35  for 65 planes. The test also showed if both planes ere to leave Vancouver at the same time the F35 would make it to Winnipeg on 1 tank of gas where the Avro would make it almost to Toronto. On top of that the Avro Arrow would make it there all the quicker, flying at the speed of 3800 km/h which is twice the top speed of the F35. When asked Major General Lewis Mackenzie told The West Block, That the arrow exceeds anything in the design phase and anything flying. On top of that this plane would be the rebirth of the super sonic industry in Canada. Which in tun would provide thousands of jobs and a huge boost to the economy.  Yet with all of these facts the Harper government brushed this plan aside to buy the F35. So really the question is, "Why is the Canadian government so against the Avro Arrow?" but still that question will probably never be answered leaving the Avro Arrow as Canada's BIGGEST WHAT IF?

To Drop Or Not To Drop? That Is The Question!

Why did the U.S. drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That's what people should ask themselves when they are thinking when they are about to critize the Americans. So why did they drop the bombs. I believe that it was not just to kill Japanese militants. Although there were several things wrong with dropping the bombs on Japan the end goal may have been worth the critisism. The main problem with dropping the bombs on Japan is the fact that the full damage they could cause was and had not been tested thoroughly enough to know what the long term effects were. However,  knowing that there was the main reason to drop the bomb. It was the fact that less lives would be lost dropping the bombs then mounting a full scale invasion of Japan plus the damage, yes leveled both Hiroshiam and Nagasaki, but it was less damage then what would be caused during a full scale war on Japanese shores. The problem with the devastation was that it mentally scarred people for the rest of their lives. Those repercussions are still being felt today.  Overall,  yes the Americans should have dropped the bombs on Japan but the repercussions should have been considered and the Americans should have done relief projects for the public in Nagasaki and  Hiroshima. This would softened both the critisism and and th harsh effects of a war against the Japanese government not the Japanese people themselves! 

N.O.R.A.D. & N.A.T.O. VS. The WARSAW PACT

Peace vs. War is also another suitable title for this peticular blog. Was N.O.R.A.D. a promoter of Peace? Was the Warsaw Pact Pro-War? I believe that yes, N.O.R.A.D. and N.A.T.O. were for peace and promoted peace. However,  that being said really N & N were also bound together in times of war, N.A.T.O. more then N.O.R.A.D. This reasoning is because N.O.R.A.D. stands for "North American Aerospace Defense Security" (yes it doesn't make sense but...). Which in it's own name states that it is solely for the defense of Canada and America alike. This would lead me to thin that it is to protect the Countries and their interests then attacking others. However, recently during the 9/11 incident N.O.R.A.D. did nothing but they had time to get ready for  tracking Santa. N.A.T.O. on the other hand, is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Which is listed on data bases around the world as a intergovernmental military alliance. The meaning of military is :of, for, or pertaining to war and the meaning if alliance is :a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes. Put altogether and you have a group of countries pertaining to war. To me that sounds like includes both Defensive and Offensive. However, The Warsaw Pact was just formed as a result of Russia's longing to be like the rest of the world and forming a group of their own. 2 main differences between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact are  A) N.A.T.O. was voluntary and all countries agreed where as The Warsaw Pact was countries forced into a group due to Russia's Communist Dictatorship. B) N.A.T.O. was the Allies and The Warsaw Pact was the Russian's who as a country were just allianced with the allies due to the common enemy they shared in Germany

Dieppe Oui ou Non

In my opinion the raid that took place on Dieppe was both a failure and a successful mission. Why? Because as for it's intended purpose of grabbing codes and ciphers the Germans  had been using for many years it was a failure. Never did was single code book from Dieppe looked at by British intelligence  in Bletchley Park. But even though the mission goals were not met as a whole Dieppe still showed some things the Allies need to know for "Operation Overlord". A) It showed that the Germans were more heavily entrenched that the British had previously imagined. B) It show that extensive training for raids would have to be a must for future raids to be assembled C) And importantly, if not most importantly, Britain had to break the codes of the Germans for future raids otherwise the element of surprise would be lost and German defenses would be able to react quicker and more efficiently meaning more deaths. These three main reason were what caused the Dieppe raid to not be a complete  failure but a success in it's own right. In addition this raid motivated the lies of Ian Fleming and many others at Bletchley Park up to and including my Grandfather A. X. Balch. 

Best Buddies!

From 1910 to 1920 we as a Canada were still clinging for dear life to our friendship with Britain. We had not yet realized that We could do it on our own. To make matters worse we started to get cozy with United States of America which would lead to bone head decisions in the future. Really if we are truly honest with ourselves we will find that we joined WW1 because our big brother (Britain) was doing it too. It didn't help however that it seemed to be the growing trend with most "free" countries joining the war. Russia, Britain, France, Holland all were part of the grand scheme of WW1. If you were to ask me what WW1 was I would tell you it was the greatest bandwagon ride EVER!  Never before have some many countries joined together because England was fighting. Really it was a waste of our time as a nation and it didn't help us as a nation either. If we had joined on our ow terms like during the 2nd world war I could see it being useful to us as a nation and as a successful power in the  ever-growing world. 

Conscription necessary but not necessarily Conscription

Why conscription? That was 1 of the many major questions to the Borden government during WW1. But why conscription? Why Canada? Don't we have the right to say no? I believe that Borden was not saying that we should not have the right to say no. What Borden tried to do is jump start a dead battery known as Canada. People were not caring as they had at the beginning of the war enlistment numbers were down to the point where Canada was losing men more then she was gaining. Conscription was necessary for the extra big push that would put the allies in the favorable position of bringing in fresh troops and supplies. In war this is a very big advantage. This was not the only thing Borden was thinking however (I believe). This was also a  early  example of the fact that the government and the Canadian people (more so then the government) are commited to doing the right thing even if that thing leads to negative feedback and harsh judgement.

Borden was on to something much bigger but it included Conscription and I believe he was right!  

What did war do for Canadians? (WW1)

War has been looked at as all was being an negative thing which in its own right is true. However, war has given some countries items of equality or open mindness that would have been taken much longer too develop. For instance, look at countries like Iraq or Afghanistan where women are not allowed to vote, play sports, go to schools or work. These things were given to us through a time of war! Women were first allowed to vote in world war 1 because of Prime Minister Borden. Also (due to the lack of men)  women were allowed to work i factories for the first time. They were also allowed to get full time office jobs which meant the were 2 incomes coming in to the home instead of just one. When the me were gone sports needed players so women started playing sports such as hockey which in now we have the worlds best women's team.  All I am saying is that even though war time has negative effects on the families of Canada it was also a great economic and equality booster.