# Canada-National emergency? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 3, 2000, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974 "2000-08-03T13:00:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![labradorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@labradorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/labradorian)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/21 "2000-08-04T13:52:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JCHeckler \* > \*\*The whole Quebec thing doesn’t help, either. The US Navy and all the other air arms that operate the F-18 call it the “Hornet”, but apparently there is some goofy ass law up North that says the name for equipment has to have a French counterpart and amazingly there is no French word for “Hornet” (that’s what I read, but I find it hard to believe), so in Canada it’s just the CF-18 (with no name). (What? They don’t have hornets in France?) Anyway, I don’t know if these stories are true or not… to me, they seem too stupid to be real. > \*\* You may not be aware that Quebec is not exclusively French, nor is French exclusively restricted to Quebec. If there is such a “thing” it is a “language thing”, and not a “Quebec thing”. According to DND’s web site, the CF-18 is a Hornet, in English, ainsi qu’en français. And I also know a few francophone pilots who have no trouble flying Sea King helicopters, Challenger jets, and so on, translated equipment names notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Milton\_De\_La\_Warre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Milton\_De\_La\_Warre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milton_De_La_Warre)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/22 "2000-08-04T15:53:52Z")
Sorry about the imprecision on the language thing/French thing, etc. As to Challenger, Sea King, etc., it just goes to show what one reads in the journals isn’t always correct. I believe —but am not 100% sure— I saw the CF-18 (no name) statement in World Airpower Journal, which otherwise seems pretty accurate. An earlier post said something to the effect of “pretty sad to be transporting your military on (civilian) freighters”. The US uses (in part) the Military Sealift Command, which despite the name has civilian crews on its vessels. …Or so I heard, but given the above, I could be wrong again. I do know MSC vessels are haze grey like Navy ships, but are distinguished by a blue and yellow band on their funnels. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/23 "2000-08-04T18:12:36Z")
> [@](#): > > An earlier post said something to the effect of “pretty sad to be transporting your military on (civilian) freighters”. The US uses (in part) the Military Sealift Command, which despite the name has civilian crews on its vessels. …Or so I heard, but given the above, I could be wrong again. I do know MSC vessels are haze grey like Navy ships, but are distinguished by a blue and yellow band on their funnels. From what I’ve read, it sounds like the Canadian military just went out and hired a ship to move their stuff. This guy contracted the job out to an American shipping firm. Someone (either the Canadian gov’t or the middleman) screwed the shipping company out of about $300,000, so the ship dropped anchor just outside of Canadian waters until they got paid. CMIIW, but doesn’t the shipping company have every right to hold the cargo as collateral pending payment? ---
**Author:** ![fredicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/779978/32.png) [@fredicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fredicus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/24 "2000-08-04T21:03:53Z")
With regards to moving equipment by commercial carriers, It’s done routinely by european forces, even some of the richest nations in the world are forced to recognise economic neccesity. 🙂 ( no disparaging inference to Canada of any kind suggested ) ---
**Author:** ![Cap\_n\_Capri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Cap\_n\_Capri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cap_n_Capri)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2000, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/25 "2000-08-06T17:44:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KeithB \* > \*\*If “General Mud” did not help the poles in WWII, then “Admiral Snow” will not help you Canucks, either! > > BwaHaHa! \*\* Ask a German if he remembers Leningrad. Cold is far more effective an ally than mud. At 40 below, oil in American cars (and I assume other vehicles) begins to gelatanize. Canadians roll the windows down. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![INTERPRETER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dbc845/32.png) [@INTERPRETER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/INTERPRETER)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/26 "2000-08-08T11:43:08Z")
Indeed Cap’s Capri: not only do we Canadians roll our windows down at 40 below - we also consider it perfect making out weather (indoor ou outdoor). Seriously though, your point about the role cold weather played in WWII is certainly well taken. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/27 "2000-08-08T12:04:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*mattk said:\*Konrad – the Canadian Army’s website mentions that they bought 130 (some other sites mention 115) tanks in 1979, and have been upgrading them since That’s just what Canada wants everyone to _think_. We are not fooled! They don’t scare us. I bet half their tanks do not even start! They are like the old 69 Chevy in your friend’s garage that he swears will be restored some day. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/28 "2000-08-08T13:59:06Z")
My God…it’s an army of Micro Machine tanks…headed _right this way_! ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2000, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974/29 "2000-08-10T02:45:42Z")
when i heard peter jennings mention this conflict i had to mention it to a canadian co-worker. then i got my time magazine in the mail, there was a wee article on it. however the line in the article that had me wondering was: (severe paraphasing here) canada tried to build a combat bra. it was dropped due to lack of interest. lack of interest?!?!? i’m rather interested in what a combat bra would do, what sort of weapon cap. etc. canadians… always thinking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-national-emergency/27974.md?page=1)