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.

 

[MilEME09]

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

Nuclear depth charges? For when you wanna do extreme fishing?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I am all for it. It is the only way to guarantee our sovereignty.

Right now like it or not we are beholden to the country to our south, and ultimately they dictate what we will do as otherwise they could destroy us. This is not and will not ever be to the benefit of Canadians, rather the benefit of Americans. If it benefits us it is a side effect rather than the intent.

If the cost of being a sovereign independent nation is having to spend more on defence to maintain nukes (which is still dramatically less than what we would need to spend to maintain conventional forces to provide enough of a deterrence) so be it.

I am tired of Canada being someone’s servant, at their beck and call. First it was Britain, now the US. This would be the means to make it so we only are involved where we want to be and on our terms not anyone elses.

 

[Blackadder1916]

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.

Why does that matter? Unlike some of the junior members of the nuclear club, who principally want to deter (or destroy) their immediate (next door) neighbour(s), the UK's sights are aimed farther away. So ensuring that a delivery system will be available should the need arise is paramount. The only way to place your ready to fire weapons in a secret location (safe from pre-emptive destruction) and close to the potential target (less time to react) is to make it mobile. At present, the most dependable way (for a country the physical size of the UK) to accomplish that is by SSBN. So that is the cost of being in the nuclear deterrence business.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Nuclear depth charges? For when you wanna do extreme fishing?

Nuclear ASW. The good old days. It drove a very complicated armament panel, even in the Sea King.

The Weapons were US owned, BTW.

 

[AmmoTech90]

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

Are you sure about the depth charges?
We did have Honest John SSM, Bomarcs, Genies, and various dumb bombs, all nuclear, but I wasn't aware of depth charges.
Some of the MPA were modified with nuclear release equipment but as far as I know there were no depth charges transfered.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Nuclear depth charges? For when you wanna do extreme fishing?

 

[stoker dave]

Others above have noted the extreme cost of a nuclear weapons program. As a ballpark estimate (yes, I more or less made up these numbers) I would think $50B - $100B to build the infrastructure and $50B per year after that. Please consider:

• need to design, build, staff and operate a uranium enrichment facility.
• need to design, build, staff and operate a weapons manufacturing facility.
• need infrastructure to store, transport, maintain and deploy nuclear weapons.
• need a delivery mechanism for the nuclear weapons.

The security requirements alone will be a huge cost.

Management of radioactive waste produced from uranium processing and manufacturing will be a huge effort.