Should Canada acquire nuclear weapons?

[DogOnPorch]

What would you rather call the cold war?

Not that it isn't the "Cold War"...I've just always been a tad dubious that we've seen the last of it.

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed, and putting direct attacks on BC (or Canada) proper aside, the amount of damage inflicted on the Puget Sound basin targets alone (Bremerton, Everett, Ft Lewis, Whidbey Island and most important of all, Bangor) would have ensured the end of all life on Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley.

Remote areas containing missile silos were also to be subject to a sound thumping by numerous huge devices. Usually along the 49th...

That and the crippling EMP attack and ICBM intercept attempts that were likely to proceed any blitz. Canada wasn't the place to be during the hypothetical WW III. All 90 mins of it.

[Guest Derek L]

Remote areas containing missile silos were also to be subject to a sound thumping by numerous huge devices. Usually along the 49th...

That and the crippling EMP attack and ICBM intercept attempts that were likely to proceed any blitz. Canada wasn't the place to be during the hypothetical WW III. All 90 mins of it.

Indeed, and even if WW III started with a conventional invasion of Western Europe (and even a limited nuclear exchange) many positions, of many members of DND, wouldn’t have been enviable……My younger brother (armoured regiment) and I joked about having a pool to see who would live longer: Sub hunting in the North Atlantic or a speed bump in the Fulda Gap…….It wouldn’t have been “fun”, and has you suggested, wouldn’t have lasted long……..Even remaining conventional, I don’t see how NATO and the Warsaw Pact could have campaigned for more than a month prior to total attrition ending the war, or reducing it a WW I redux….

[DogOnPorch]

NATO had the 155mm W48 shell and the W54 for the Davy Crockett for that last ditch effort holding Fulda or beyond. Tiny little nukes for dropping in front of advancing mech divisions. Then there was VX...the ultimate mine field.

[Guest Derek L]

NATO had the 155mm W48 shell and the W54 for the Davy Crockett for that last ditch effort holding Fulda or beyond. Tiny little nukes for dropping in front of advancing mech divisions. Then there was VX...the ultimate mine field.

And the Soviets would have targeted the POMCUS sites early, likely with chemical weapons, thus ending much of utility behind REFORGER, thus forcing NATO to fight a strategic withdrawal throughout most of Germany until reinforcements from the continental United States (and a lesser extent the UK and Canada arrived) and the French decided on what (or if) their response would have been…..It wouldn’t have been pleasant.

[DogOnPorch]

And the Soviets would have targeted the POMCUS sites early, likely with chemical weapons, thus ending much of utility behind REFORGER, thus forcing NATO to fight a strategic withdrawal throughout most of Germany until reinforcements from the continental United States (and a lesser extent the UK and Canada arrived) and the French decided on what (or if) their response would have been…..It wouldn’t have been pleasant.

POMCUS was pretty much pie in the sky. Those troop carrying DC-8s (et al) needed actual forward runways of which the legions of Su-7s, Su-22s, MiG-27s, etc, were dedicated to pock-mark/nerve gas in the opening moves. Not a chance, I'd say.

The French: always a big question mark.

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

---Groundskeeper Willie re: the French (The Simpsons)

Edited April 10, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

let's be clear... without accepting your claim, effectively, you're suggesting the Russians are taking a similar approach to the Northwest Passage as the U.S. position. In that regard, why did you single out Russia over and above the U.S. position? More pointedly, a significant facet of the Russian strategy hinges upon it's development, its "ownership" claim on the Northeast Passage (Northern Sea Route), as internal Russian waters... your presuming on Russia making a claim that the Northwest Passage is an "international straight", wholly undercuts its own position/strategy with respect to its aspirations for the Northeast Passage.

in any case, I do not accept your linked reference that gives no specific/precise detail(s) to Russia wanting to treat the Northwest Passage as an "international strait"... rather, this linked article is written by Dr. Michael Byers who holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia:

OK...Waldo has set the bar for this particular debate at a much higher level, eschewing Wikipedia &co. as the primary source and looking for detail and nuance, from writers who seriously consider these matters.

Let's see if the fair and excellent challenge is met!.........Or if, instead, we're going to be left, in effect, watching Noam Chomsky argue Nim Chimpsky about universal grammar.....

Edited April 10, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

....That and the crippling EMP attack and ICBM intercept attempts that were likely to proceed any blitz. Canada wasn't the place to be during the hypothetical WW III. All 90 mins of it.

Quite true....Canada was/is the sacrificial anode!

[DogOnPorch]

Quite true....Canada was/is the sacrificial anode!

Something I've lived with all me life. I, unlike some MLW posters, know and understand this.

Meanwhile: What's a seven letter word for something found in Russia? (This is from a Felix the Cat cartoon circa 1925). Answer next post.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Meanwhile: What's a seven letter word for something found in Russia? (This is from a Felix the Cat cartoon circa 1925). Answer next post.

..."T-R-O-U-B-L-E"

[DogOnPorch]

..."T-R-O-U-B-L-E"

Exactly.

[WLDB]

Bring on the debate, but I don't see the need for these weapons. They've only been used once and I doubt any major power will use them again.

[waldo]

Meanwhile: What's a seven letter word for something found in Russia?

borscht?

[Guest Derek L]

POMCUS was pretty much pie in the sky. Those troop carrying DC-8s (et al) needed actual forward runways of which the legions of Su-7s, Su-22s, MiG-27s, etc, were dedicated to pock-mark/nerve gas in the opening moves. Not a chance, I'd say.

The French: always a big question mark.

It would have quite obviously been full of many unknowns………

Though they likely would, how long would it have taken the French to deploy?

Would Sweden have entered the war onside with NATO, thus providing much needed reinforcements on the northern flank?

Would Red China go to war with the Soviets? Would the Chinese help contain North Korea, thus allowing the South Koreans, Japanese and American to go on the offensive in Asia/North Pacific?

What would happen with Cuba and Latin America?

The Middle East?

How effective would NATO’s southern flank, led by the Turks, Greeks and Italians have been in containing southern Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces?

Would Yugoslavia have entered the war? And with whom?

Would many of the Warsaw Pact nations fold or have negligible effect?

How soon until one side let the nuclear genie out of the bottle?

Too many “what ifs” and we were quite fortunate that we never had to find out the outcome.

[DogOnPorch]

Too many “what ifs” and we were quite fortunate that we never had to find out the outcome.

That's what wargames were/are handy for...playing out the options.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=SPI%20modern%20wargames&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=H9aET5zjDpDViAKHlpj2BA&biw=1324&bih=577&sei=KNaET7y0IqiMigK8_N31BA

[Guest Derek L]

That's what wargames were/are handy for...playing out the options.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=SPI%20modern%20wargames&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=H9aET5zjDpDViAKHlpj2BA&biw=1324&bih=577&sei=KNaET7y0IqiMigK8_N31BA

Indeed, but us lowly OF-1 & 2 grades had to rely upon table Harpoon……..Higher up the totem pole, better the quality “games”………The most concise modeling that I’ve seen, and in open print, was a non-fiction book, titled (fittingly enough) World War Three (I forget the Authors name, but will try and dig up my copy later)………

His conclusion, shared by many others (circa early to mid 80s), and sans nuclear weapons (and Chemical and Biological), was that we’d have won the war at sea, had a downward race to the bottom between NATO airpower and Soviet SAMs and the war in Europe, namely dependant upon the other areas of conflict, would have been too close to call………More pointedly though, he couldn't fathom a scenario, in which the losing side in any of these elements, wouldn’t have resorted to tactical nukes, which in turn would rapidly escalate into a full blown strategic exchange…….resulting in a hybrid combination of Planet of the Apes, Mad Max and On the Beach.

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed, but us lowly OF-1 & 2 grades had to rely upon table Harpoon……..Higher up the totem pole, better the quality “games”………The most concise modeling that I’ve seen, and in open print, was a non-fiction book, titled (fittingly enough) World War Three (I forget the Authors name, but will try and dig up my copy later)………

If it's the one I'm thinking of...I've read it.

His conclusion, shared by many others (circa early to mid 80s), and sans nuclear weapons (and Chemical and Biological), was that we’d have won the war at sea, had a downward race to the bottom between NATO airpower and Soviet SAMs and the war in Europe, namely dependant upon the other areas of conflict, would have been too close to call………More pointedly though, he couldn't fathom a scenario, in which the losing side in any of these elements, wouldn’t have resorted to tactical nukes, which in turn would rapidly escalate into a full blown strategic exchange…….resulting in a hybrid combination of Planet of the Apes, Mad Max and On the Beach.

Yes...it's a touchy situation when you have an entire Guard Tank Army bearing down on your tiny regiment. Even though the modern Russian tanks were somewhat dogs, there were...are...10s of thousands of them if not a 100 thousand + counting reserve/mothball machines. Since losing isn't an option and command and control never a sure thing, it would be fairly probable that some division commander (et al) would load up the tactical nukes or VX gas for organic support.

[Signals.Cpl]

If it's the one I'm thinking of...I've read it.

Yes...it's a touchy situation when you have an entire Guard Tank Army bearing down on your tiny regiment. Even though the modern Russian tanks were somewhat dogs, there were...are...10s of thousands of them if not a 100 thousand + counting reserve/mothball machines. Since losing isn't an option and command and control never a sure thing, it would be fairly probable that some division commander (et al) would load up the tactical nukes or VX gas for organic support.

I dont think tactical nukes were/are at the disposal of local commander at all times. I belive it would be up to higher ups. Otherwise it could get scary just because 1 division is losing and decides to even out the playing field. I could be wrong but I remember reading this but I might be mistaking.

[Guest Derek L]

If it's the one I'm thinking of...I've read it.

Yes...it's a touchy situation when you have an entire Guard Tank Army bearing down on your tiny regiment. Even though the modern Russian tanks were somewhat dogs, there were...are...10s of thousands of them if not a 100 thousand + counting reserve/mothball machines. Since losing isn't an option and command and control never a sure thing, it would be fairly probable that some division commander (et al) would load up the tactical nukes or VX gas for organic support.

Yup, it certainly would have depended on the date of the war though……..After NATO had numerous 120mm barrelled tanks and TOW’s deployed to Germany, the utility of many of the older Soviet tanks would have been in question, and it’s not unreasonable to expect a similar ratio between NATO & Warsaw Pact armoured losses as those per historic between the Israelis and Arabs……As for nukes, they didn’t need them, they had divisional artillery……I wouldn’t have envied the troops and civilians on the ground.

[DogOnPorch]

I dont think tactical nukes were/are at the disposal of local commander at all times. I belive it would be up to higher ups. Otherwise it could get scary just because 1 division is losing and decides to even out the playing field. I could be wrong but I remember reading this but I might be mistaking.

Some weapons like the Little John were attached at division level during the Cold War. Their use was another matter, as you say. But, I'm looking at a scenario where said division finds itself out of communications and threatened by 4+ Soviet mech divisions. Do you pop-off that Davy Crockett or MADM?

Edited April 11, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

I dont think tactical nukes were/are at the disposal of local commander at all times. I belive it would be up to higher ups. Otherwise it could get scary just because 1 division is losing and decides to even out the playing field. I could be wrong but I remember reading this but I might be mistaking.

You’re close…….Most of the warheads were under control of the Strategic Rocket Forces (ICBMs, IRBMs Scuds/Frogs etc) and those that weren’t, were held at the Theatre, Army Group Level and you can be sure, there were numerous levels of Cheka, KGB and MVD in the equation.

[Guest Derek L]

Some weapons like the Little John were attached at division level during the Cold War. Their use was another matter, as you say. But, I'm looking at a scenario where said division finds itself out of communications and threatened by 4+ Soviet mech divisions. Do you pop-off that Davy Crockett or MADM?

Thought you were talking about the Soviets........With NATO, some nukes were held at even lower levels than Division…….Same with Naval and Air Force equivalents……..In theory, their use required prior sanction from higher up the food chain……..In, fictional, practice, you never know.

[DogOnPorch]

Yup, it certainly would have depended on the date of the war though……..After NATO had numerous 120mm barrelled tanks and TOW’s deployed to Germany, the utility of many of the older Soviet tanks would have been in question, and it’s not unreasonable to expect a similar ratio between NATO & Warsaw Pact armoured losses as those per historic between the Israelis and Arabs……As for nukes, they didn’t need them, they had divisional artillery……I wouldn’t have envied the troops and civilians on the ground.

The Russians have always been slow to mothball any particular machine. Plus, they've exported huge numbers of their older tanks/aircraft to the 3rd world over the decades post WW2. If one side has nothing...a T-55 can be quite daunting. But, the Israelis' armored force is half made-up of captured and converted T-55s/T-62s/T-72s courtesy of the Arabs...so there have been some positive side effects.

The TOW and LAW changed the battlefield...and the Sagger and RPG-7, of course. All those wires criss-crossing everywhere would have been disturbing, I bet.

The US has always been keen on the organic artillery support. Bullets before soldiers. The 155 is one of the finest gun lines ever made, in my opinion. Soviet artillery was often directed at corp level or higher without much input from the troops at the front. But, again...they had tens of thousands of artilley pieces, katyushas, FROGs, SCUDS and AT guns. The big hammer.

Edited April 11, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Thought you were talking about the Soviets........With NATO, some nukes were held at even lower levels than Division…….Same with Naval and Air Force equivalents……..In theory, their use required prior sanction from higher up the food chain……..In, fictional, practice, you never know.

Then there's the boomer fleet. The President needn't be involved under certain conditions if I'm correct. BC??

[bush_cheney2004]

Then there's the boomer fleet. The President needn't be involved under certain conditions if I'm correct. BC??

The office of President and SecDef are at the top of the National Command Authority food chain for two-man control of nuclear weapons release and execution of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) or its modern equivalent, which is a pre-ordained protocol to follow for all US strategic nuclear forces. The president can only be removed from the process by temporary transfer of power (i.e. 25th Amendment), which has happened at least three times. This is why continuous communications is so important to boomers on patrol.

Before tactical nuclear weapons were removed from all US submarines (e.g. MK45 ASTOR torpedo or UUM44 SUBROC), release was controlled locally by the ship's crew (two-man control) and standing orders for rules of engagement.