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?

 

[Kirkhill]

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?

We are developing great facility in hitting bullets with bullets.

How many nukes make a swarm and how nuch does it cost?

 

[FormerEnlisted]

.... 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.

If Carney is serious about these issues, he should immediately try to form some type of Veteran's Guard/Legion of Frontiersmen/Home Guard branch of the militia.
Forget about disarmament, issue 12.* conditions to existing PAL's upon enlistment, and require every man to buy their own equipment. Most guys already have everything they would need, and the arsenal issues could be sorted out at the unit level depending on what is available locally. Broad standardization would be simple if the only standard items were a head dress, insignia, and smock/outer layer. Keep involvement local and focus on core security (ie. drone warfare/interdiction) issues.
Even if only 5% of PAL holders signed up, it would still generate a specialized domestic security force of over 100k who could be used as bodies for local concerns. Most importantly the infrastructure footprint would be tiny, they are pre-screened, and since it would be a local initiative, there would be genuine support from the public because they'd be protecting their own families.
If we can't do something as simple as this, I don't think atomic weapons are very realistic.

 

[mariomike]

try to form some type of Veteran's Guard/Legion of Frontiersmen/Home Guard branch of the militia.

Germany tried that near the end of the war. Old men and young boys.

Japan also had Civil Defense.

But, the bomber always got through.

In the post-war age, that would include nukes.

 

[Altair]

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.

Great thing trump has pushed every NATO member to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense.

A lot of new money being sloshed around and I dont think the Americans are sitting there counting where every cent goes. Especially since they fired everyone who may keep tabs on such things.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Great thing trump has pushed every NATO member to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense.

A lot of new money being sloshed around and I dont think the Americans are sitting there counting where every cent goes. Especially since they fired everyone who may keep tabs on such things.

True. I mean even we made 2% for ‘25 without really doing much of anything other than changing up the columns in the accounting books. This year will be different, hopefully.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

Germany tried that near the end of the war. Old men and young boys.

Japan also had Civil Defense.

But, the bomber always got through.

In the post-war age, that would include nukes.

I understand that.
This is a matter of scaling resources to escalation. The little green men problems Ukraine faced before total invasion are a good representation of the threats of low intensity conflict. Large reserves of static defensive units are an equally low resource solution to that challenge.
Since drones are probably going to be the greatest security threat (at this tier), having specialized security controls to indict their transport, destroy their operators, and enhance public safety is a reasonable response.
Obviously as the conflict intensifies the relative importance of such units would decrease. But its a potential tool and a realistic one at that.
If Ottawa decides to build a complete triad for deterrence (unlikely in my opinion), these same units would be an invaluable resource for dealing with the aftermath of an exchange.
As I am sure you are aware, we had a Veteran's Guard in WW2 which could be used as a model for future conflicts. If Ottawa wants a robust spectrum of security options, increasing the available manpower is obviously a good investment.

This conversation is about nuclear weapons though. If we pursue that sovereign path, we will need a complete re-imagining of our military. This is just my two cents on how best to get there.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not sure how much information can be provided on here when I ask this question but here goes.

How much difference in terms of money/effort/resources is there in securing/defending a site in Canada that would contain say 5 ICBM's vs something like the Bruce Nuclear Power Station, that, after its proposed expansion will likely be the world's largest nuclear power station?

I realise that a main difference between the 2 is that one has the ability to launch a nuc from that location to another location, whether that's within Canada or outside Canada and its destructive power is immensely greater, and the other (Bruce) would mean a 'localised' nuclear event with the immediate area experiencing the main event (terrible choice of words, but its all that I could come with up), with a rippling affect expanding ever outwards as the wind/water movement spread the outcome.

 

[Altair]

Not sure how much information can be provided on here when I ask this question but here goes.

How much difference in terms of money/effort/resources is there in securing/defending a site in Canada that would contain say 5 ICBM's vs something like the Bruce Nuclear Power Station, that, after its proposed expansion will likely be the world's largest nuclear power station?

I realise that a main difference between the 2 is that one has the ability to launch a nuc from that location to another location, whether that's within Canada or outside Canada and its destructive power is immensely greater, and the other (Bruce) would mean a 'localised' nuclear event with the immediate area experiencing the main event (terrible choice of words, but its all that I could come with up), with a rippling affect expanding ever outwards as the wind/water movement spread the outcome.

Why do we need ICBM?

France doesnt even have ICBMs.

All we need it one jet in the air capable of launching a nuke.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Why do we need ICBM?

France doesnt even have ICBMs.

All we need it one jet in the air capable of launching a nuke.

That would be the most absolute worst delivery mechanism that we could chose. Its chance of success would be close to zero.

France's range for those missiles is 600km..... That's less than the distance from Windsor, ON to Kingston, ON.

In your scenario it sounds an awful lot like you view that our needed range would be under 2,000km....... I don't have a view as dark and as misguided as that.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

How much difference in terms of money/effort/resources is there in securing/defending a site in Canada that would contain say 5 ICBM's vs something like the Bruce Nuclear Power Station?

This an excellent question. Its very hard for anyone to provide an actual cost/benefit analysis without this information.

Sovereignty may be priceless but it helps to understand the cost of things when discussing problems.

 

[Altair]

That would be the most absolute worst delivery mechanism that we could chose. Its chance of success would be close to zero.

France's range for those missiles is 600km..... That's less than the distance from Windsor, ON to Kingston, ON.

In your scenario it sounds an awful lot like you view that our needed range would be under 2,000km....... I don't have a view as dark and as misguided as that.

It's MAD.

Our own destruction is already built into the equation.

 

[Altair]

This an excellent question. Its very hard for anyone to provide an actual cost/benefit analysis without this information.

Sovereignty may be priceless but it helps to understand the cost of things when discussing problems.

as long as it's within 75 percent of our current defense budget it really doesn't matter.

Heck, it can even be 1.5 times the current defense budget.

We need to spend to 5 percent of GDP on defense anyways

 

[dapaterson]

That would be the most absolute worst delivery mechanism that we could chose. Its chance of success would be close to zero.

France's range for those missiles is 600km..... That's less than the distance from Windsor, ON to Kingston, ON.

In your scenario it sounds an awful lot like you view that our needed range would be under 2,000km....... I don't have a view as dark and as misguided as that.

From a "long term benefit to the CAF" perspective, dropping nuclear weapons on Kingston is definitely a strong net positive.