DEFENDING NORTH AMERICA

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
DEFENDING NORTH AMERICA by Mind Map: DEFENDING NORTH AMERICA

1. The Scrapping of the Avro Arrow

1.1. FOR

1.1.1. -The Avro Arrow was the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world at this time which could have provided the Canadian Air Force with an advantage.

1.1.2. -There was conspiracy that the only reason it was scrapped was because the U.S government was jealous they could not produce an aircraft of this caliber, so they believed the Canadians should not have one either.

1.1.3. -Producing this aircraft would have been an opportunity for Canada to establish themselves as a technological leader in the international community.

1.1.4. -

1.2. AGAINST

1.2.1. -The costs to build the Avro Arrow were very high, nearly six times more than the American counterpart.

1.2.2. -There were no foreign orders coming in for the aircraft, so the government couldn't justify producing it

1.2.3. -Not even the Canadian Air Force wished to purchase the Avro Arrow since the prices were so high.

1.2.4. The company that produced the Avro Arrow was described as 'disorganized' and 'ramshackle' so they did not have a good foundation or reputation.

2. Canada's Acceptance of Nuclear Weapons in 1963

2.1. FOR

2.1.1. -The Liberals (led by Lester Pearson) believed Canada should accept nuclear weapons under certain conditions.

2.1.2. -The Defense Minister firmly believed that having nuclear weapons was key in order to fend off the possibility communist attacks

2.1.3. -Many influential individuals in Canada voiced concern that by rejecting nuclear weapons which the U.S supported, Diefenbaker would potentially injure trade relations with the U.S

2.1.4. -Conflicting opinions in the Conservative party led to their defeat in the next election and the Liberal party became the minority government.

2.1.5. Bomarc missiles, which Canada had opted for instead of the Avro Arrow, were nearly useless without nuclear warheads.

2.2. AGAINST

2.2.1. -Many Canadian citizens were strongly opposed to nuclear weapons as they knew it could spell the destruction of the world.

2.2.2. -The Minister of External affairs pointed out that it was hypocritical for Canada to be a member of the United Nations, which promoted disarmament of countries, to support nuclear weapons.

2.2.3. -Diefenbaker believed Canada would lose independence by accepting the "american" way of nuclear weapons and was uneasy about accepting.

2.2.4. -(Could not find another against argument so I added an extra For)

3. Canada's Role in the Cuban Missile Crisis

3.1. FOR

3.1.1. -As part of the NORAD forces, Canadians were expected to support the Americans unconditionally to stop this threat.

3.1.2. -Canada is also a member of the UN, whose job is to intervene when an aggressor is present. It was Canada's responsibility to help.

3.1.3. -Majority of Canadians (at least 80%) believed Canada should have helped the Americans immediately and been supportive to America. Many also changed their stance on nuclear weapons and believed them to be necessary.

3.1.4. -Eventually Diefenbaker conceded to what the majority of Canadians were saying and put Canadian troops on alert, but the damage was already done to their relationship with the U.S.

3.2. AGAINST

3.2.1. -Prime Minister Diefenbaker and President Kennedy already had strained relations as they had differrent styles of dealing with things and disliked eachother.

3.2.2. -Diefenbaker did not believe the picture proof of the missile site in Cuba that the U.S provided and didn't want to support them until a fact-finding mission happened.

3.2.3. -He also banned U.S planes from landing in Canada if they were carrying atomic weapons, and did not tell the Canadian NORAD forces to be on alert.

3.2.4. -Diefenbaker believed he was protecting Canada's independence from being taking over by American sentiment and influence.

3.2.5. The Canadians were no longer in the line of attack, since before they were expecting an attack from over the North Pole and therefore over their country so they had no choice but to help defend. Now the threat was coming from the South and the threat was less urgent for Canada.

4. I didn't understand if 'FOR' meant they were for scrapping the avro arrow, or it mean they were for the avro arrow. The way i set mine up is the FOR argument is arguing why they should have used it.