Defending Canada from American Military aggression

[CBH99]

I said we should back when Trump was musing about the 51st state stuff.

Seems like people were of 1 of 3 camps

1) Too expensive.

Like paying for our sovereignty should have a limit.

2)America would not let us and it would be noticed

I remain unconvinced.

3)Nuclear war should be avoided at all costs, even if it means surrender.

Usual suspects.

Well...

1) Things CAN be too expensive - even sovereignty

Literally - depending on what's on the shopping list - it may infact cost more than what the government has available in it's purse.


2) You think America won't notice their next door neighbour quietly assembling a nuclear weapon??

They would. Whether you are convinced of that or not, they would

(They were able to get human intelligence assets INSIDE Iran's active nuclear site and have them upload a computer virus that caused catastrophic damage to their alleged nuclear program. If they can pull that off inside a hostile nation like Iran, I imagine they can casually stroll up to the bloody thing if we were to have one...no Mission Impossible skills required!)


3) "Nuclear war should be avoided at all costs, even if it means surrender..."

Ummmmmm, yeah. Couldn't agree more. (Does that make me a usual suspect?]

 

[Altair]

Ummmmmm, yeah. Couldn't agree more. (Does that make me a usual suspect?]

Yes.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yes.

Nonsense. This is Canada. Anyone who entertains surrendering to the US under any circumstance is a MAGA supporter.

Everyone fights; no one quits.

 

[Genetk44]

The Americans WILL NOT ALLOW CANADA TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! any time in our lifetimes.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The Americans WILL NOT ALLOW CANADA TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! any time in our lifetimes.

We kind of signed a treaty with them about that. But If we even just applied the treaty's rule that permits us to terminate it, it would send a powerful message to Washington. Especially considering they know that (1) we have the uranium; (2) we have the scientists; and, (3) we already have the necessary facilities to do all this without their help or involvement.

On top of that, they are, under Trump, trying to run a big "modernization program" of their own nuclear deterrent capability. That is NOT, repeat NOT possible for the US to carry out without Canadian uranium. Just threatening to slow down production, or cut it off altogether, is an incredible leverage we can exert on them.

 

[Quirky]

(2) we have the scientists; and, (3) we already have the necessary facilities to do all this without their help or involvement.

How long before those two things get B2’d if we pulled out of said treaties.

 

[Genetk44]

We kind of signed a treaty with them about that. But If we even just applied the treaty's rule that permits us to terminate it, it would send a powerful message to Washington. Especially considering they know that (1) we have the uranium; (2) we have the scientists; and, (3) we already have the necessary facilities to do all this without their help or involvement.

On top of that, they are, under Trump, trying to run a big "modernization program" of their own nuclear deterrent capability. That is NOT, repeat NOT possible for the US to carry out without Canadian uranium. Just threatening to slow down production, or cut it off altogether, is an incredible leverage we can exert on them.

I stand by my statement…it doesn’t matter what we have or who we have….they will not permit us to have our own nuclear weapons..ever.

 

[Czech_pivo]

How long before those two things get B2’d if we pulled out of said treaties.

Well if something started happening to either of those we’d have a pretty good sense of who would be doing it.

 

[Kirkhill]

It is heartening to see how much faith Canadians have in the rule of law.

No need for armies when everyone follows the law.

 

[ArmyRick]

Well...

1) Things CAN be too expensive - even sovereignty

This is Canada, where defence spending is purely based on the mood of the people. For decades, our nation was just fine with gutting the defence spending (Canadians just couldn't see the reason for defence, even though defending sovereignty is always a thing), and yes both Conservatives and Liberals are guilty.

Canada needs a kick in the ass and we may end up getting one sooner or later. Decades in and out, promise to build the military, start to do it, then global situations calm down for five minutes, and boom, gut the forces. That is the stupid Canadian way.

We have enjoyed the peace and freedom largely due to our rather remoteness from everywhere else and to be honest, because we sit right beside big brother America. Don't fool yourselves into thinking the world just loves "good old Canada".

I am hoping (I suspect I will be wrong) that this time Canada maybe builds a military sustainable and somewhat capable, and keeps it going longer than 5 minutes.

In this issue, we are our own worst enemy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I am hoping (I suspect I will be wrong) that this time Canada maybe builds a military sustainable and somewhat capable, and keeps it going longer than 5 minutes.

Lots of talk... Today I had to inspect a ship looking for some kit it was suspected of hoarding because there is zero in the CFSS and no new supply is on the horizon; and we need it to send sailors to sea... Every other Navy uses these things. But we apparently can get any.

I call bull shit.

Not to you, to our political betters who promise announcements forgetting the deliverables are actually more important...

We love to talk fighters, tanks and frigates. But we cant get simple things like uniforms and badges right.

 

[CBH99]

Yes.

Guilty as charged then I guess.

A nuclear holocaust doesn't benefit anybody alive today, and it certainly doesn't benefit the younger generations that will carry on once we are gone.

Nuclear weapons kill tens of millions of innocent people who just want to live in a safe community, find meaningful employment, and be great parents while raising healthy families.

It doesn't matter if those people fall under a Canadian flag, American flag, or a Russian flag. Or even an Iranian flag, or a Chinese flag.


Killing millions of people, causing a nuclear winter, or leaving the world with radioactive drinking water isn't the legacy I want to leave or even be associated with.

...

If my options are the mass murder of a city or two + the ecological disaster that would follow, or 'surrendering'...I'd surrender. Full stop period.

Not because I don't believe in or want a strong & independent Canada, but because I haven't lost my f**king mind in thinking that murdering millions of innocent people is somehow justified.

We kind of signed a treaty with them about that. But If we even just applied the treaty's rule that permits us to terminate it, it would send a powerful message to Washington. Especially considering they know that (1) we have the uranium; (2) we have the scientists; and, (3) we already have the necessary facilities to do all this without their help or involvement.

On top of that, they are, under Trump, trying to run a big "modernization program" of their own nuclear deterrent capability. That is NOT, repeat NOT possible for the US to carry out without Canadian uranium. Just threatening to slow down production, or cut it off altogether, is an incredible leverage we can exert on them.

The United States is a multi-faceted monster, capable of delivering both great prosperity AND/OR heartless disparity.

They can be the best ally one could ask for, a great economic partner, and a sigh of relief when one falls under their umbrella.

But they can also be your worst nightmare, either personally or politically.

...

Yes, we have the scientists. Like Quirky said though, I wouldn't give them much time if Uncle Sam found out they were making a nuclear weapon right next door.

And yes, we have the facilities. But I would expect those facilities would be craters early on in this fantasy scenario.




I can't envision a scenario where America would allow us to have nuclear weapons.

They didn't even like the idea of us having nuclear submarines during the Cold War, and we were arguably their #1 ally.

Even to this day, the nuclear weapons onboard British submarines are US-controlled, and need to be transported to the US for maintenance & servicing.




Best case would be heavy, heavy sanctions if this fantasy scenario were to ever play out.

 

[Altair]

Guilty as charged then I guess.

A nuclear holocaust doesn't benefit anybody alive today, and it certainly doesn't benefit the younger generations that will carry on once we are gone.

Nuclear weapons kill tens of millions of innocent people who just want to live in a safe community, find meaningful employment, and be great parents while raising healthy families.

It doesn't matter if those people fall under a Canadian flag, American flag, or a Russian flag. Or even an Iranian flag, or a Chinese flag.


Killing millions of people, causing a nuclear winter, or leaving the world with radioactive drinking water isn't the legacy I want to leave or even be associated with.

...

If my options are the mass murder of a city or two + the ecological disaster that would follow, or 'surrendering'...I'd surrender. Full stop period.

Not because I don't believe in or want a strong & independent Canada, but because I haven't lost my f**king mind in thinking that murdering millions of innocent people is somehow justified.

The onus is on the one doing the attacking. Dont want to get nuked? Don't attack.

If the USA tried to conquer France, would they fire nukes? Yes.

If India was about to conquer Pakistan, would Pakistan fire nukes? Yes.

If the USA was about to conquer China, would China fire nukes? Yes.

If China was about to conquer the USA, would the USA fire nukes? Yes.

If Iran was about to conquer Israel, would Israel fire nukes? Yes.

Yet if Canada was about to be conquered, surrender? GOOHWTS

Even to this day, the nuclear weapons onboard British submarines are US-controlled, and need to be transported to the US for maintenance & servicing.

I do love that the French knew all those many decades ago that they couldn't rely on anyone but themselves to defend their nation. The Brits for some reason think that they have a special relationship with the Americans that can never be broken.

History has proven the French right.

 

[brihard]

Any talk of Canadian nukes is utterly smooth brained. We could never hide it from the U.S., and they would not permit it. It would explicitly be an option we would develop because of and to be levied against them. They did not tolerate nukes as close as Cuba; why would we think they’d tolerate them closer still?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Lots of talk... Today I had to inspect a ship looking for some kit it was suspected of hoarding because there is zero in the CFSS and no new supply is on the horizon; and we need it to send sailors to sea... Every other Navy uses these things. But we apparently can get any.

I call bull shit.

Not to you, to our political betters who promise announcements forgetting the deliverables are actually more important...

We love to talk fighters, tanks and frigates. But we cant get simple things like uniforms and badges right.

Is the issue no funds or is it an issue of the existing supply chain and the people running it?

 

[GR66]

Guilty as charged then I guess.

A nuclear holocaust doesn't benefit anybody alive today, and it certainly doesn't benefit the younger generations that will carry on once we are gone.

Nuclear weapons kill tens of millions of innocent people who just want to live in a safe community, find meaningful employment, and be great parents while raising healthy families.

It doesn't matter if those people fall under a Canadian flag, American flag, or a Russian flag. Or even an Iranian flag, or a Chinese flag.


Killing millions of people, causing a nuclear winter, or leaving the world with radioactive drinking water isn't the legacy I want to leave or even be associated with.

...

If my options are the mass murder of a city or two + the ecological disaster that would follow, or 'surrendering'...I'd surrender. Full stop period.

Not because I don't believe in or want a strong & independent Canada, but because I haven't lost my f**king mind in thinking that murdering millions of innocent people is somehow justified.




The United States is a multi-faceted monster, capable of delivering both great prosperity AND/OR heartless disparity.

They can be the best ally one could ask for, a great economic partner, and a sigh of relief when one falls under their umbrella.

But they can also be your worst nightmare, either personally or politically.

...

Yes, we have the scientists. Like Quirky said though, I wouldn't give them much time if Uncle Sam found out they were making a nuclear weapon right next door.

And yes, we have the facilities. But I would expect those facilities would be craters early on in this fantasy scenario.




I can't envision a scenario where America would allow us to have nuclear weapons.

They didn't even like the idea of us having nuclear submarines during the Cold War, and we were arguably their #1 ally.

Even to this day, the nuclear weapons onboard British submarines are US-controlled, and need to be transported to the US for maintenance & servicing.




Best case would be heavy, heavy sanctions if this fantasy scenario were to ever play out.

There are two reasons that existing non-nuclear states may seek to obtain nuclear weapons:

1. They are potentially threatened by an existing nuclear power and want nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
2. They have potential for conflict with a neighbouring non-nuclear power and want to either beat them in a race to obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent or in order to dominate/intimidate the other.

Canada, due to our unique geographic location is a special case. We don't require a nuclear deterrent against any of the existing (non-US) nuclear powers as nobody has the military capability to physically invade and occupy our territory and the United States would consider any such attach (or a nuclear attack) as being an attack on their own back yard/direct interests so we effectively fall under their nuclear umbrella.

There are no other nations that we have such a conflict with that we have the need for nuclear weapons to dominate/intimidate them or as a deterrent (see above).

As far as the United States goes, we are still (despite the current stat of affairs) allies. What is the need for nuclear weapons to deter your ally? If we were to develop nuclear weapons we would in effect be saying to the United States that we no longer consider them an ally and are now a potential threat to them. How far do you think that would get us? Would killing a few million Americans really be worth the total destruction of our country (and population)?

 

[Altair]

Any talk of Canadian nukes is utterly smooth brained. We could never hide it from the U.S., and they would not permit it. It would explicitly be an option we would develop because of and to be levied against them. They did not tolerate nukes as close as Cuba; why would we think they’d tolerate them closer still?

Turns out, some countries work with other countries to develop nuclear capabilities.

Countries that might be looking to join the nuclear club might be Poland or Japan. We have uranium. Just saying.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is the issue no funds or is it an issue of the existing supply chain and the people running it?

Your latter point, I believe. And I will add and overly difficult procurement process.

 

[Altair]

There are two reasons that existing non-nuclear states may seek to obtain nuclear weapons:

1. They are potentially threatened by an existing nuclear power and want nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
2. They have potential for conflict with a neighbouring non-nuclear power and want to either beat them in a race to obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent or in order to dominate/intimidate the other.

Canada, due to our unique geographic location is a special case. We don't require a nuclear deterrent against any of the existing (non-US) nuclear powers as nobody has the military capability to physically invade and occupy our territory and the United States would consider any such attach (or a nuclear attack) as being an attack on their own back yard/direct interests so we effectively fall under their nuclear umbrella.

There are no other nations that we have such a conflict with that we have the need for nuclear weapons to dominate/intimidate them or as a deterrent (see above).

As far as the United States goes, we are still (despite the current stat of affairs) allies. What is the need for nuclear weapons to deter your ally? If we were to develop nuclear weapons we would in effect be saying to the United States that we no longer consider them an ally and are now a potential threat to them. How far do you think that would get us? Would killing a few million Americans really be worth the total destruction of our country (and population)?

Allies don't muse about conquering you. And the term allies means little in 2026.

Denmark and the USA are "allies" and the latter won't take the option of military force off the table in regards to the former.

The USA is looking at North and South America as "their hemisphere" and their leader has openly talked about the leader of Canada being a governor and how great we would be as a 51st state. The Europeans won't help us, we are on our own.

If the choice is be swallowed by our neighbour or build nukes, I know which I would choose.

 

[brihard]

Allies don't muse about conquering you. And the term allies means little in 2026.

Denmark and the USA are "allies" and the latter won't take the option of military force off the table in regards to the former.

The USA is looking at North and South America as "their hemisphere" and their leader has openly talked about the leader of Canada being a governor and how great we would be as a 51st state. The Europeans won't help us, we are on our own.

If the choice is be swallowed by our neighbour or build nukes, I know which I would choose.

Your choice would be stupid and would fail. It would inevitably result in whatever U.S. military action were needed to prevent it from happening. That would be easy for them. It would probably also result in an imposed “regime change”. It would essentially catalyze and accelerate all the militarily bad outcomes they people are afraid of.