Comment by bambax

Comment by bambax 7 hours ago

12 replies

Yes.

> Prime Minister John Diefenbaker [ordered] all the completed planes (five plus a nearly finished sixth) to be chopped up and destroyed, along with all plans and blueprints so that the plane could never fly again.

Stopping the program was understandable, but the destruction is mysterious and the article doesn't say a word about why. Strange.

hylaride 6 hours ago

Killing it was the right call for the wrong reasons. But because it was the wrong reasons, it meant that no attention was paid on investing the tech into a new plane or resources.

Diefenbaker being "suckered" by the Americans is not what really happened (the CBC mini-series on the Arrow has some really cringey scenes about that angle, as well as portraying conservative party ineptitude and American arrogance). The more you read into Diefenbaker, the more he comes across as vain and susceptible to overreacting to slights (perceived or real), in over his head on the international stage, and ignorant of cold war realities (despite it being his government that had Canada form NORAD with the US).

It did set the stage for Canada's mercurial relationship with the United States, as Canada tended to over-react and over-compensate our opinions in both directions since then. This still continues to this day.

antonvs 7 hours ago

Politics. Diefenbaker had a conservative majority. Destroying everything made it much more difficult for a future Liberal government to restart the program.

  • vlvdus 7 hours ago

    Why would a future Liberal goverment restart it if the past one wanted to shut it down but didn't have the guts (or at least that's my understanding of the article)?

  • mjevans 6 hours ago

    Ban / "Burn the books" does seem to fall on the 'conservative' side of the spectrum every time I can recall.

    • RajT88 5 hours ago

      That is why Trump supporters are buying Teslas.

      They are electric and have no trans.

      • lupusreal 41 minutes ago

        That's only a funny joke if you dare to tell it right. Transmissions are called trannies.

lenerdenator 7 hours ago

Besides security reasons?

  • the_af 6 hours ago

    Which security reasons does the article state for not keeping at least one prototype (in a museum, without security-ensitive parts) and the blueprints?

    As far as I can tell they only kept part of the nose/cockpit.

    Honestly asking, I might have missed it.

    • cf100clunk 5 hours ago

      The article doesn't get into how Soviet spies were uncovered in Canada in the 1950s and 60s. Governments were not being paranoid in the face of those revelations.

      • the_af 3 hours ago

        Right, the spy threat would be the "security reasons" I guessed at.

        But still, wouldn't successful projects which were later decommissioned be more at risk of spies than an unsuccessful project? Yet successful projects do not have their blueprints and airframes routinely destroyed without a trace.

    • kens 4 hours ago

      Interestingly, the nose of the plane was only preserved because someone hid it. It was supposed to be destroyed too.