2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Czech_pivo]

Nuke subs are far more complicated then nuclear warheads; I'm sure they already have munitions and delivery platforms capable of it without going to submarines (probably also on conventional submarines).

The nuclear part of submarines is just a big steam engine, after all, it just is a very complex addition to possibly the most complex machine built by mankind.

100% agree. I was thinking more along the 'optics' of it. I think that its easier to get your population 'onside' with the idea of nuclear weapons by pointing to the nuclear submarines and saying, 'we've already got nuclear submarines and we're using them appropriately, we'll do the same with nuclear weapons.'

I'd say that besides Canadians being the cheapest people on earth and what would be our balking at the costs associate with Canada having nuclear submarines, that Canadians somehow believe that having nuclear submarines means that we have 'nuclear weapons' somehow. They are unable to separate the distinction between two vastly different things.

 

[Navy_Pete]

100% agree. I was thinking more along the 'optics' of it. I think that its easier to get your population 'onside' with the idea of nuclear weapons by pointing to the nuclear submarines and saying, 'we've already got nuclear submarines and we're using them appropriately, we'll do the same with nuclear weapons.'

I'd say that besides Canadians being the cheapest people on earth and what would be our balking at the costs associate with Canada having nuclear submarines, that Canadians somehow believe that having nuclear submarines means that we have 'nuclear weapons' somehow. They are unable to separate the distinction between two vastly different things.

A lot of the activists treat nuclear ships/submarines as a 'nuclear weapon system' even if it has all conventional weapons, which is stupid for a number of reasons.

In reality we've had weapon platforms capable of deploying nuclear weapons for a long time, we just don't have the actual warheads, bombs etc, and with NPT committed to not getting them. Maybe time to reconsider that though, especially as we don't need ICBM range.

 

[Altair]

A lot of the activists treat nuclear ships/submarines as a 'nuclear weapon system' even if it has all conventional weapons, which is stupid for a number of reasons.

In reality we've had weapon platforms capable of deploying nuclear weapons for a long time, we just don't have the actual warheads, bombs etc, and with NPT committed to not getting them. Maybe time to reconsider that though, especially as we don't need ICBM range.

If Germany and or Poland decide to make a dash for it, I will be extremely disappointed if we don't join them.

 

[YZT580]

If Germany and or Poland decide to make a dash for it, I will be extremely disappointed if we don't join them.

Sadly, be prepared to be disappointed. Quebec would never allow it.

 

[Altair]

Sadly, be prepared to be disappointed. Quebec would never allow it.

Quebec of yesteryear maybe.

It's 2026.

 

[GR66]

If we were to get the KS-III submarines from South Korea we'd have Hyunmoo 4-4 SLBM's which could technically give us a 2nd strike capability if equipped with a nuclear warhead (which presumably SK would do as quickly as possible if they went nuclear). The range on these is pretty limited however (500km).

Say as part of the KS-III deal we set up domestic production of these sub-launched ballistic missiles as well as ballistic missiles compatible with the HIMARS systems we are buying. We could also add some Hyunmoo-5's to our artillery arsenal for striking hardened targets (and much longer range).

South Korea fields Hyunmoo-5 ‘monster missile’

South Korea has begun deploying its Hyunmoo-5 surface-to-surface ballistic missile to frontline military units, military officials said Sunday, confirming that the country’s most powerful conventional strike weapon has entered operational service as part of efforts to deter North Korea. According

defence-blog.com

With these three systems in place we'd have the makings for a potential nuclear triad if we were to obtain warheads - gravity bombs for the RCAF's F-35's, SRBMs and IRBMs for the Army and SLBM's for the RCN. All platforms that South Korea would also likely develop if they go nuclear.

We already supply uranium to South Korea for their nuclear reactors. We could get the conventional delivery systems in place and make an agreement with South Korea that if/when they go nuclear we get some of their warheads in return for our supply of uranium.

I don't see it happening politically but if it were to happen I think this would be the logical process. Get all the nuclear capable platforms in place first then simply equip them with warheads from SK if/when they become available. That way you don't have a drawn out development process that can be targeted by enemies before weapons can be deployed - like what happened with Iran.