- Reaction score
- 42,054
- Points
- 1,210
That comment, today of all days...
Canada should join the (nuclear) big leagues
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,641
- Points
- 1,160
Was thinking about this a bit more the other day. Fun Fact: in the 1960’s, Italy modified at least 1 Duca degli Abruzzi-class cruiser to carry 4 Polaris ICBMs. While these missiles were never acquired, Italy did design the Alfa ship launched MRBM - and tested it - but never put the missile into production. But they did prove the concept of a surface ship launched, medium range ballistic missile. And they did it on a ship that was 30+ years old.
I’m not sure what type of delivery system the higher ups might think Canada could acquire. But as a proof of concept, Italy has some experience and at least a working theory stored away in the knowledge vaults. OTOH, our submarine choice could very well come equipped with a BM facility.
But if we are talking about an independent defensive nuclear strike ballistic missile capability a surface ship seems to be the place to at least start. And where do we get the targeting and other capability and infrastructure. I doubt we would dual purpose NORAD facilities since an independent capability implies no reliance on other countries in the plans to use it, should that be necessary.
I’m not sure what type of delivery system the higher ups might think Canada could acquire. But as a proof of concept, Italy has some experience and at least a working theory stored away in the knowledge vaults. OTOH, our submarine choice could very well come equipped with a BM facility.
But if we are talking about an independent defensive nuclear strike ballistic missile capability a surface ship seems to be the place to at least start. And where do we get the targeting and other capability and infrastructure. I doubt we would dual purpose NORAD facilities since an independent capability implies no reliance on other countries in the plans to use it, should that be necessary.
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Points
- 1,160
I like nuclear, and I'd like to see it happen, but:
1) We don’t have the people,
2) We don’t have the money,
3) We don’t have the political will.
It won’t happen in my lifetime.
1) We don’t have the people,
2) We don’t have the money,
3) We don’t have the political will.
It won’t happen in my lifetime.
- Reaction score
- 5,641
- Points
- 1,160
The way the Liberals excel at whipping up people into an anti American frenzy, if Carney pronounced we need it to deter the US from an invented threat, well then the debate is over.
I’m still on the fence about nuclear weapons. Part of me says yes- but maybe all the rest has to go? Our one and only defence posture would be don’t f*ck with us or we’ll nuke you. It’s badass but impractical and a little harsh.
But to have a well equipped conventional force backed up with the deterrence of retaliatory nuclear strike capability, that is the sweet spot I think. Expensive but perhaps necessary.
Or subscribe to weapons like Germany. That gets us nothing but cost and no deterrence.
Or do nothing of the sort. I don’t think this is a long term option anymore as these weapons are possibly about to go mainstream.
I’m still on the fence about nuclear weapons. Part of me says yes- but maybe all the rest has to go? Our one and only defence posture would be don’t f*ck with us or we’ll nuke you. It’s badass but impractical and a little harsh.
But to have a well equipped conventional force backed up with the deterrence of retaliatory nuclear strike capability, that is the sweet spot I think. Expensive but perhaps necessary.
Or subscribe to weapons like Germany. That gets us nothing but cost and no deterrence.
Or do nothing of the sort. I don’t think this is a long term option anymore as these weapons are possibly about to go mainstream.
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Points
- 1,160
Maybe we could just stick to battlefield nukes?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 22,746
- Points
- 1,260
How many more Nukes does the world need? None IMO we can destroy ourselves quite nicely with the ones on hand.
- Reaction score
- 13,679
- Points
- 1,160
Do you remeber the proverbial nuclear handgrenade? Low yield so little damage but you couldn't get out of the blast radius fast enough?
What if you could fly one down a vent from 1500 km away?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 22,746
- Points
- 1,260
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 19,984
- Points
- 1,260
How many ancient commissionaires would we need to hire to guard our silos ?
I jest of course, but we need to get a lot more serious as a country and as a military before we pick up the biggest stick from the tree.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 19,984
- Points
- 1,260
Do you think I actually expected to get serious about stuff ? lol
I have said numerous time. I don't actually predict Canada will survive the expected life span of my daughter.
- Reaction score
- 5,641
- Points
- 1,160
I think you are right. At least as far as the west goes.
Bumping this with the latest Sunday morning think piece from Evan Dyer at CBC, basically an easily digestible run down on Canada’s status as a nuclear threshold state.
- Reaction score
- 12,621
- Points
- 1,360
We could easily make the weapon, we wouldn't be able to keep it a secret. We are a sieve for foreign actors.
- Reaction score
- 8,306
- Points
- 1,260
If Ukraine goes under, gets substantially carved up or has a regime change that puts it firmly under the Russian sphere of influence - dollars to donuts Poland gets some form of nuclear weapons. Along with this, I could see them expanding their umbrella to the Baltics, as a wild card maybe even Slovakia.
Could that be the impetus that tips us towards our own programme?
Or, if the Nordics band together and develop their own separately or in congruence with us?
- Reaction score
- 6,960
- Points
- 1,160
While I'm not unhappy with the decision to go with the 212CD for the Canadian Patrol Submarine, part of me always hoped for the KS III with its SLBM capability. Pair that with the Chunmoo MLRS and domestic ballistic missile production to support them both then you would have a potential delivery system for a nuclear weapon.
If you develop a nuclear weapon before you have a workable delivery system then it's not really much of a deterrent and it leaves you open to foreign attempts (both political/economic and military) to block your nuclear program. However, if you have the delivery systems already in place and it's just a matter of fitting them with warheads then you have an immediate nuclear deterrent.
If you develop a nuclear weapon before you have a workable delivery system then it's not really much of a deterrent and it leaves you open to foreign attempts (both political/economic and military) to block your nuclear program. However, if you have the delivery systems already in place and it's just a matter of fitting them with warheads then you have an immediate nuclear deterrent.
