Canada should join the (nuclear) big leagues

[OldSolduer]

Can you clarify for me are you against nuclear weapons for everyone ? Or just against us having them ?

Banned outright. No one should possess nukes. But the genie has left the bottle…

 

[mariomike]

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

Banned outright. No one should possess nukes. But the genie has left the bottle…

I wonder if those 90% would feel something like, "We don't have nukes, so neither should they!"

The remaining 10% might ask something like, "They have nukes, why don't we?"

It is much cheaper than maintaining a conventional force needed to achieve the same deterrence.

Cost wise Britain spends about 3 billion a year, France 6 billion (best comparison since they are a completely in house nuclear power), and the US 75 billion.

Based on those numbers thats about 1/6th to 1/10th of the defence budget. Pretty reasonable to me considering we struggle to even effectively generate a division for the Army, a squadron for the Navy and a couple squadrons for the airforce off that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The remaining 10% might ask something like, "They have nukes, why don't we?"

I'm newly into this camp. I was anti. But now I think Canada needs mutually assure the destruction of anyone wishes the same on us.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Banned outright. No one should possess nukes. But the genie has left the bottle…

I wish it was that way. Unfortunately cats out of the bag, just like drones, AI, etc. combat just got a whole lot scarier in a very short amount of time.

I'm newly into this camp. I was anti. But now I think Canada needs mutually assure the destruction of anyone wishes the same on us.

Welcome to the camp, since the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent waffling of those who have nukes to guarantee those under their ‘umbrella’, I have been here too.

The only country you can trust and rely on is your own.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'm newly into this camp. I was anti. But now I think Canada needs mutually assure the destruction of anyone wishes the same on us.

I'm with you on this.
I'm not sure if we 'go it alone' or if we see if there is route 'through NATO' and the cost, burden, risks are borne with some trusted Allies. Spitballing here, possibly, Germany, Poland, the Nordics, The Netherlands?

I've mentioned before that Poland is seriously kicking the tires at getting a CANDU reactor, this is a proven route to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm with you on this.
I'm not sure if we 'go it alone' or if we see if there is route 'through NATO' and the cost, burden, risks are borne with some trusted Allies. Spitballing here, possibly, Germany, Poland, the Nordics, The Netherlands?

I've mentioned before that Poland is seriously kicking the tires at getting a CANDU reactor, this is a proven route to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The amount of money spent on developing, maintaining, securing and defending a nuclear force would buy an awful lot of inter-continental range assets capable of delivering conventional warheads with precision against both static and manoeuvering targets.

I am not a fan of Mutually Assured Destruction.

I am a fan of eliminating the convention that says that assassination of foreign leaders is out of bounds.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The amount of money spent on developing, maintaining, securing and defending a nuclear force would buy an awful lot of inter-continental range assets capable of delivering conventional warheads with precision against both static and manoeuvering targets.

I am not a fan of Mutually Assured Destruction.

I am a fan of eliminating the convention that says that assassination of foreign leaders is out of bounds.

But if we remove that convention and the opposing side has Nuc's, what do you think they'll do after we cap their leader?