Canada should join the big leagues

[Edward Campbell]

This is from the current edition of 'Foreign Affairs:'

"For decades, the United States invested in a nuclear order built around nonproliferation, even as Cold War disarmament agreements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty expired. Opposing proliferation among unreliable states and adversaries makes sense, but a blanket opposition to the further spread of nuclear weapons obscures the significant benefits they can bestow. The United States would do well to reconsider its strict adherence to nonproliferation and encourage a small set of allies—namely Canada, Germany, and Japan—to go nuclear. For Washington, selective nuclear proliferation would allow these partners to take on larger roles in regional defense and decrease their military dependence on the United States. For these allies, in turn, acquiring nuclear weapons provides the most dependable protection against the threats of regional foes, such as China and Russia, as well as a United States less committed to its traditional alliances."

Yes. indeed! But the Raging Grannies (and 90% of Canadian voters) will be opposed.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This is from the current edition of 'Foreign Affairs:'

"For decades, the United States invested in a nuclear order built around nonproliferation, even as Cold War disarmament agreements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty expired. Opposing proliferation among unreliable states and adversaries makes sense, but a blanket opposition to the further spread of nuclear weapons obscures the significant benefits they can bestow. The United States would do well to reconsider its strict adherence to nonproliferation and encourage a small set of allies—namely Canada, Germany, and Japan—to go nuclear. For Washington, selective nuclear proliferation would allow these partners to take on larger roles in regional defense and decrease their military dependence on the United States. For these allies, in turn, acquiring nuclear weapons provides the most dependable protection against the threats of regional foes, such as China and Russia, as well as a United States less committed to its traditional alliances."

Yes. indeed! But the Raging Grannies (and 90% of Canadian voters) will be opposed.

Realistically my money is on Poland and South Korea before Canada, Germany and Japan.

 

[brihard]

God no. The opportunity cost for CAF would be WAY too high to take on the nuclear enterprise.

 

[MilEME09]

God no. The opportunity cost for CAF would be WAY too high to take on the nuclear enterprise.

Doesn't something like 60% of the UKs defense budget go to just maintaining their nuclear deterrent? Yeah we cant afford that

 

[dapaterson]

A commissionaire in a shack outside a silo in Wakaw SK is all the security needed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Doesn't something like 60% of the UKs defense budget go to just maintaining their nuclear deterrent? Yeah we cant afford that

Does that money go to nuclear warheads or does it go to nuclear subs?

Sticking a nuclear device on top of an in service cruise missile is a very different proposition to designing, building, crewing, operating and maintaining a fleet of SSBNs.

 

[Rifleman62]

Why go nuclear. We would never use them. When decision time came we would hold conferences, make warning announcements and dither until Ottawa is dust.

 

[OldSolduer]

My preference is NO. Nuclear weapons bring their own set of problems. I do not think Canada has the expertise to do this.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We had nuclear depth charges on both coasts and tactical nuclear missile battery in Germany.

 

[Kirkhill]

My preference is NO. Nuclear weapons bring their own set of problems. I do not think Canada has the expertise to do this.

I agree but cost is not likely to be the deciding issue.

Even terrorists can secure fissile materials.

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree but cost is not likely to be the deciding issue.

Even terrorists can secure fissile materials.

In this day and age probably quite easily.