Nukes for Canada

[The Terrible Sweal]

These are dangerous times. Nuclear weapons are proliferating among tin-pot regimes around the world, from North Korea to Israel.

Canada has substantial quantities of important resources that nations are known to fight for, such as hydrocarbons and fresh water.

Canada's nearest neighbor is a nuclear powered state with a leader who claims the right to attack other states at will.

In my opinion, a properly responsible government of any country is justified in seeking nuclear deterent capability. States with special strategic needs such as Israel, Iran, North Korea, and Canada especially.

[Black Dog]

Canada has unique strategic position in that the only realistic threat could only come from the United States.

Nuclear weapons would be little detrrent

In my opinion, a properly responsible government of any country is justified in seeking nuclear deterent capability.

The responsible approach is for goivernments to minimize proliferation to prevent nukes from falling into the wrong hands. The more countries possess nuclear weapons, the greater the probability of them being used. We need fewer nukes, not more, and Canada should play a role in calling fro global nuclear disarmament.

Heading into the other direction would be total folly.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think the different handling meted out by the US vis a vis Iraq and North Korea shows distinctly that a nuclear deterent is effective.

If the nuclear non-proliferation regime was holding up, I would agree that adhereing to it is the responsible approach, but since it's not holding up, I can see no advantage in being the only sheep among the wolves, so to speak.

[Black Dog]

I think the different handling meted out by the US vis a vis Iraq and North Korea shows distinctly that a nuclear deterent is effective.

If the nuclear non-proliferation regime was holding up, I would agree that adhereing to it is the responsible approach, but since it's not holding up, I can see no advantage in being the only sheep among the wolves, so to speak.

Well the obvious question to ask is, who exatly are we suppossed to be deterring? What threats does Canada face that can be relaistically tempered with nukes? I'd posit: none.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear The Terrible Sweal,

In my opinion, a properly responsible government of any country is justified in seeking nuclear deterent capability. States with special strategic needs such as Israel, Iran, North Korea, and Canada especially.

Canada has no 'special strategic needs' for a nuclear deterrent. No one but the US could invade us, and they wouldn't last a year if they tried. (Occupation forces, I mean) Otherwise, Canada threatening another country with nukes would just be 'being meddlesome'.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think the different handling meted out by the US vis a vis Iraq and North Korea shows distinctly that a nuclear deterent is effective.

If the nuclear non-proliferation regime was holding up, I would agree that adhereing to it is the responsible approach, but since it's not holding up, I can see no advantage in being the only sheep among the wolves, so to speak.

Well the obvious question to ask is, who exatly are we suppossed to be deterring? What threats does Canada face that can be relaistically tempered with nukes? I'd posit: none.

First and foremost, as you noted, we are detering rogue behaviour by the United States, and then there's Russia too. In a broader sense we would be detering anyone who may come to pose a threat to our interests.

Are these dangers highly speculative? Certainly. But the nature of danger is that you don't see it until it's too late. A nuclear deterent capability is within our technical abilities and need not be very expensive for simply deterent value.

[The Terrible Sweal]

No one but the US could invade us, and they wouldn't last a year if they tried. (Occupation forces, I mean)

The U.S. is perfectly capable of invading Canada, is led by a dangerous religious fanatic, and may soon need our oil.

Other countries are also capable of invading us, but are detered from doing so by the United States. Can we continue to sponge off this relationship? Can we afford to be beholden for our very safety to another country? I don't think so.

But I don't think we should limit ourselves to simply fear of invasion. Our nukes could serve to protect us from acts of WMD terror by rogue states as well.

[Black Dog]

The U.S. is perfectly capable of invading Canada, is led by a dangerous religious fanatic, and may soon need our oil.

And would nukes deter that? No. Not to mention that, if the U.S. really wanted to get their hands on Canada's resources, there's easier ways then invading and occupying a country this size , full of 30 million future Democrats.

Other countries are also capable of invading us, but are detered from doing so by the United States.

Like who?

But I don't think we should limit ourselves to simply fear of invasion. Our nukes could serve to protect us from acts of WMD terror by rogue states as well.

We gots nukes. They gots nukes. All god's chillun gots nukes.

Hey, why don't we just concentrate on making sure "rogue states" don't aquir enuke sin the first place?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The U.S. is perfectly capable of invading Canada, is led by a dangerous religious fanatic, and may soon need our oil.

And would nukes deter that? No. Not to mention that, if the U.S. really wanted to get their hands on Canada's resources, there's easier ways then invading and occupying a country this size , full of 30 million future Democrats.

How would you account for the U.S. delicacy about North Korea compared to Iraq, then? And as for future democrats ... occupied people don't get to vote.

Other countries are also capable of invading us, but are detered from doing so by the United States.

Like who?

Russia, China, France and Britain are all capable of occupying and holding Canadian territory, though not all of it, and not without substantial logistical difficulties.

Hey, why don't we just concentrate on making sure "rogue states" don't aquir enuke sin the first place?

Too late. Rogue states already have nukes.

[Black Dog]

How would you account for the U.S. delicacy about North Korea compared to Iraq, then? And as for future democrats ... occupied people don't get to vote.

A U.S. invasion is a miniscule possibility. I'd be more concerened with gradual economic and political convergence. Even so, it's pretty specious comparing Canada's relationship with the U.S. to the American policy vis a vis Iraq and North Korea. There's too many factors at work to boil it down to a simplistic "one has nukes, one didn't." explanation.

Russia, China, France and Britain are all capable of occupying and holding Canadian territory, though not all of it, and not without substantial logistical difficulties.

What territory? Baffin Island? How would they get here. I'm talking realistic threats, (you know, actual enemies)not just any country that can muster up a decent military force.

Too late. Rogue states already have nukes.

So encourgaing more states to get nukes seems a little counterproductive. You're using the same logic as people who advocate mandatory gun ownership: if everyone's armed, then no one will step out of line. But that's not the way it works in the real world. India and Pakistan, two rouge nuclear states, have come to the brink many times. As more nations arm themselves with nukes, the probability of a nuclear exchange will eventually equal one.

[The Terrible Sweal]

A U.S. invasion is a miniscule possibility. I'd be more concerened with gradual economic and political convergence. Even so, it's pretty specious comparing Canada's relationship with the U.S. to the American policy vis a vis Iraq and North Korea. There's too many factors at work to boil it down to a simplistic "one has nukes, one didn't." explanation.

As remote as the possibility of American invasion might seem, nukes would be an effective deterent. I didn't 'compare' our relationship with that of North Korea and Iraq, I pointed out that the US treated North Korea differently than Iraq because of the fear of nukes. Do you disagree?

Russia, China, France and Britain are all capable of occupying and holding Canadian territory, though not all of it, and not without substantial logistical difficulties.

What territory? Baffin Island? How would they get here.

Baffin Island is part of Canada too, y'know. Anyway, for Russia, it would be strategic parts of the Arctic. France or Britain, I'd think Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe parts of Quebec. How would they get here? By boat and plane.

I'm talking realistic threats, (you know, actual enemies)not just any country that can muster up a decent military force.

Your talking likely threats; I'm talking potential threats. My point is that when it comes to threats, you want to be safe rather than sorry, and that nukes are a relatively cheap way to get 99% certainty about some admittedly unlikely, but catastrophic threats.

And remember, I'm thinking of dangers other than straight up invasions. A country with nukes will not be used by a rogue state for WMD target practice just to prove a point.

Too late. Rogue states already have nukes.

So encourgaing more states to get nukes seems a little counterproductive.

I'm not encouraging more states to get nukes ... I'm encouraging my state to recognize that all the encouragement necessary already exists.

You're using the same logic as people who advocate mandatory gun ownership: if everyone's armed, then no one will step out of line.

Not at all. I'm using the freedom loving gun owners personal argument... If I am armed, I have an option for dealing with someone who steps out of line.

India and Pakistan, two rouge nuclear states, have come to the brink many times.

And stopped. Why do you think that is? Look at their situation realistically ... Absent nukes, if India wanted to take over Pakistan and was willing to pay the price in lives and money, there is little doubt about the final outcome. With nukes, Pakistan knows with substantial certainty that India will never consider accepting the price it would take. Absent nukes, one country must live with the possibility that their enemy will conquer them. With nukes, neither country needs to worry about that.

As more nations arm themselves with nukes, the probability of a nuclear exchange will eventually equal one.

Or zero, depending on what you believe.

[Black Dog]

As remote as the possibility of American invasion might seem, nukes would be an effective deterent. I didn't 'compare' our relationship with that of North Korea and Iraq, I pointed out that the US treated North Korea differently than Iraq because of the fear of nukes. Do you disagree?

Absolutely. North Korea's nuclear program is not at astage where it can be considered a threat. According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative:

North Korea probably has enough weapons-grade plutonium to produce at least two nuclear weapons. Additionally, North Korea has tested high explosives that might be used in triggering the fission reaction in a nuclear weapon. However, since North Korea has not tested a nuclear explosive device, it is uncertain whether the DPRK has actually developed nuclear weapons.

So I don't think that the DPRK's nukes were a consideration was a consideration. Secondly, your logic is faulty in that "regime change" in Iraq was a Bush administration priority from Day One. It wasn't as though they weighed the two and decided on Iraq.

Baffin Island is part of Canada too, y'know. Anyway, for Russia, it would be strategic parts of the Arctic. France or Britain, I'd think Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe parts of Quebec. How would they get here? By boat and plane.

More importantly though: why would they undertake such a venture? It would be costly, it would be inefficient and it would be pretty much pointless, given that Canada has been on good terms with most of these countries since Confederation.

Your talking likely threats; I'm talking potential threats. My point is that when it comes to threats, you want to be safe rather than sorry, and that nukes are a relatively cheap way to get 99% certainty about some admittedly unlikely, but catastrophic threats.

And remember, I'm thinking of dangers other than straight up invasions. A country with nukes will not be used by a rogue state for WMD target practice just to prove a point.

Better to be smart. Nukes don't really guarantee anything. Certainly, Canada doesn't need a nuclear deterrent agnst rogue states, simply because our relationships with our allies would be sufficient. Anyone who nukes us would undoubtely face serious reprisals from the U.S., England and the rest of our NATO allies.

That's why we have alliances in the first place.

I'm not encouraging more states to get nukes ... I'm encouraging my state to recognize that all the encouragement necessary already exists.

But there's nothing stopping anyone else from applying the same logic. That's why we have a NPT: to stop the dangerous spread of WMD.

[August1991]

Thelonius wrote:

Canada has no 'special strategic needs' for a nuclear deterrent. No one but the US could invade us, and they wouldn't last a year if they tried. (Occupation forces, I mean)

Terrible Sweat wrote:

First and foremost, as you noted, we are detering rogue behaviour by the United States, and then there's Russia too. In a broader sense we would be detering anyone who may come to pose a threat to our interests.

Are both of you guys playing with a full deck? Smoking wacky tabaccy? Missing French fries from your Happy Meal?

A US invasion of Canada makes sense only in a Hollywood movie plot.

A U.S. invasion is a miniscule possibility. I'd be more concerened with gradual economic and political convergence.

Miniscule possibility? How about putting it, on my list of fears, after "3428. Meteor falls on my head."

BD is right though. Economic and political convergence is possible. I don't think it will happen and it doesn't frighten me but I can understand the fear. Hell, the Americans can buy what they want from us. It's cheaper that way. (What a thought about a way to end warfare!)

Nothing is funnier than English Canadian fear/dislike of the US juxtaposed with American supreme ignorance/disinterest of Canada.

Please, drop the US invasion scenario. It makes the thread look foolish.

----

As to the threat of a Korean missile, yes, while very small, it exists. Let's trust that the Americans have already informed the combless Korean demi-God with the Elton John glasses that he and his country will be donged if any Nodongs dong North America.

[kimmy]

Other countries are also capable of invading us, but are detered from doing so by the United States.  Can we continue to sponge off this relationship?  Can we afford to be beholden for our very safety to another country?  I don't think so.

The United States does not protect Canada because they're nice guys. I mean, they're our allies and everything, but even if we weren't partners in NATO etc, they'd still react very badly to another country messing with Canadian territory. Russia? China? You can't think the Americans would just sit back and let a rival superpower annex land in North America. The Americans would react to protect Canada because they have no interest in seeing an aggressive, hostile power set up shop within striking distance of the United States.

What would be a real threat to Canadian sovereignty? A real threat to Canada's sovereignty would be if some ill-conceived plan to build nuclear weapons landed us in violation of international treaties and caused us to be the target of international trade sanctions that crippled our economy. I think that's a much more likely threat to Canadian sovereignty than any of the scenarios suggested in this thread so far.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

QUOTE 

Other countries are also capable of invading us, but are detered from doing so by the United States. 

Like who?

Well not a direct threat towards us, a Danish warships sent a party of sailors onto our soil in the arctic, without our authorzation.........With that said, I doubt any nation could really invade Canada, other then the United States.......

That brings up the question........why would the United States invade us? Not over resources, it's cheaper for them to purchase them off of us then it would be to invade us.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Are both of you guys playing with a full deck? Smoking wacky tabaccy? Missing French fries from your Happy Meal?

A US invasion of Canada makes sense only in a Hollywood movie plot

Sure it's far-fetched. However, don't forget, the US was confronted with the fact (I believe it came to light in the 80's) that they did have the "Canadian invasion plans" drawn up 'just in case'.

It was funny, during the election this year, that a Marxist-Leninist candidate did hold a lead for a short time in one constituency. I joked about how GW Bush would have filled his drawers if Canada went Marxist. One of my customers replied, "No sh#t, they'd invade." Wackily enough, he is a corporate litigation lawyer.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Further to the idea of reasons the US would need to Invade, you had questioned in another thread, Alberta's oil wealth should be shared by all" or something similar. This smacks of nationalization of the industry (while I agree that we should keep all our resource benefits for the betterment of Canadians). How about if we said to the US, "no more oil, gas or water, we want the Canadian people to benefit from our own resources" The US would be massing it's tanks at the border faster than you can say "Nicaraguan Bananas".

[The Terrible Sweal]

A US invasion of Canada makes sense only in a Hollywood movie plot.

The same might be said of Iraq. Indeed, the same was said of Iraq, by the Bush I administration, among others.

[Slavik44]

I see nothing wrong with Canada, having nukes, I do see something wrong with Canada breaking a written agreement. The only true threat to us is the U.S and it would take an extreme situation, I hope, for the U.S to invade us. Maybe we can buy some cheap nukes off the U.S (would that violate the NNPT?). but is that the Image we wan't to give to the world that Canada is a miny America? If you can't solve the problem blow it up? there are peopel out there, maybe even soem on this forum that critisize America for using nukes to end WW2 saying it wasn't justified, well if that wasn't justified I doubt Canada will ever be in a situation that is justified, meaning the only possibly time to use nukes woudl be when we shoudln't. so we can ahve nukes if we wan't, but why have them if we don't need them.

[kimmy]

I'm surprised that this poll is running so close.

-kimmy

[ceemes]

That brings up the question........why would the United States invade us? Not over resources, it's cheaper for them to purchase them off of us then it would be to invade us.

For now that is true......but as those resources become more and more scarce, or more and more expensive, then invasion and occupation could easily become a viable option for an energy hungry and water thristy USA.

I read an essay a few years back that basically stated that the wars of the 1700's were for religion and territory, the wars of 1800's were for markets and empire, the wars of the 1900's were for political ideology and that all future wars will be for diminishing resources, especially oil and water.

Canada is doublely blessed and cursed, we have these resources in abundance, in fact depending on how you measure oil reserves, Canada may have the largest reserves on the planet. And Canada, if I am not mistaken has around 25% of the worlds fresh waters reserves. This is both our blessing and potentially our curse.

The US is both our neighbour and our largest trading partner, it also consumes the vast majority of the world energy production even though it holds only 6% of the world population. Having the US as our neighbour and trading partner again is both a blessing and a curse.

The fact of the matter is, the US demand for both oil and water is increasing, while its supply or access to both is decreasing. Already in the agriculture heartland of the Midwest, the aquafillers are being emptied faster then they can be replenished. California is also demanding more and more water for its industry, agriculture and cities. Again supply is fast outstripping demand. There are currently major disputes between a number of western states over water rights.

As for oil, well with the unrest in Iraq and the uncertainity in the region, production has been cut. But the biggest threat to US oil imports from OPEC comes from China. It is expected that in the next twenty years, China's demand for oil and energy will surpass that of the US, and she will have the economic and military might to be able to buy it. As we speak, China is set to send some 2000 combat troops to the Sudan to protect its oil and pipeline interest there. Soon you can expect China to exert more influence into the Middle East.

There may come a time in the near or distant future where the US will consider that armed annexation of Canada will be needed to meet its own energy and water demands. This is not all that far fetched, untill around the mid-80's, the Pentagon kept plans on the books for just such an action. Indeed, there were a number of military bases that were closed during the Reagan and Bush Sr. Administration who's only purpose for existing was as a launch point for an invasion of Canada.

As for the question of arming Canada with nukes and required delivery systems. Ten years ago I would of said no, there was no need for them.......Today however, I think we would be extremely foolish not to consider the option.

If there are acouple of things that history has taught us, its |A| today's friends can easily become tomorrows enemy and |B| any nation that does not arm to protect itself from a more powerful if currently friendly neighbour is doomed to be taken over sometime in the future.

[Stoker]

ceemes, are you wearing your tinfoil hat?

As I said above, the United States doesn't need to invade Canada........even if Water and Oil do start getting scarce, do you forsee a (potentail) Canadian Prime Minister refusing to sell oil and water to the States? (Other then Layton)

[Guest eureka]

Could a US invasion of Canada be successful? In the war of 1812, the US had 14 rimes the population of Canada and we licked them. Now it is only 9 times our population.

Some Boy Scouts posted in strategic locations should be all the deterrent we need.

[Stoker]

Could a US invasion of Canada be successful? In the war of 1812, the US had 14 rimes the population of Canada and we licked them. Now it is only 9 times our population.

I think you best go and read history..........We had the most powerful nation in the world on our side

The Americans could take Canada, if they wanted, with their National Guard units most likely.......

[Slavik44]

Could a US invasion of Canada be successful? In the war of 1812, the US had 14 rimes the population of Canada and we licked them. Now it is only 9 times our population.

Some Boy Scouts posted in strategic locations should be all the deterrent we need.

The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada. On the other hand, the British army was successfully stopped when it attempted to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. There were a number of American naval victories in which American vessels proved themselves superior to similarly sized British vessels. These victories coming after victories in the Quasi War (an even more forgotten war) launched American naval traditions.

The War of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain (1812-1815) was the war that gave the United States the identity that we know today. It gave the United States distinct national symbols: "The Star-Spangled Banner", Old Ironsides, "Don't Give Up the Ship", Andrew Jackson and New Orleans, Free Trade and Sailor's Rights.

The War of 1812 has been unjustly overlooked: The British see it as a sideshow to the Napoleonic Wars. In the United States, it stands in the shadows of the Civil War and Revolutionary War. Canadians, however, see it as the making of their nation. In truth, it was the making of the United States as well. . . .

Like its beginning, the end of the War of 1812 much depended on what transpired in Europe. With Napoleon defeated, the British could siphon their forces off to North America. This meant invasion and possible defeat of the United states. For Britain, this meant security for Canada and the possibility of a more favorable bargaining position in case of a peace settlement.

However, the negotiations that followed Napoleon's defeat also needed the presence of British troops. Thus, the entire army could not simply be transported to North America. Some warships had to stay behind to defend merchant vessels against privateers. As well, Britain had been at war with Napoleon for twenty years. Exhausted by the war, the idea of more fighting with the United States would soon become unpopular with the people. As a result, demand for peace negotiations appeared.

These negotiations took most of 1814. At first, the demands made by both sides were harsh and farfetched, ranging from the demand to hand over Canada to the United States, to the demand to create an Amerindian nation with permanent boundaries. Later on, both sides agreed to moderate their demands. However, the American government refused to surrender any American land. The British government was forced to comply, for the United States held naval superiority on the Great Lakes.

At last, on December 24, 1814, the Treaty of Ghent was signed. Not a single senator voted against peace. The treaty ended the war and obliged each side to return what it had conquered. Not only did the Treaty of Ghent conclude the War of 1812, but it marked the end of the last armed conflict between Britain and the United States. Never again did these two nations war with each other.

The North American War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom is one of several wars associated with that year. It is more normally known in British texts as the British-American War to distinguish it from Napoleon's war against Russia which also began in that year and from the continuing British war with Napoleon. (These wars may perhaps be linked by a common connection with furthering Napoleon's Continental policy of economic attrition against British war-making capacity.)

This particular war began with the American declaration of war on June 18 of that year (following U.S. President James Madison's appeal to the U.S. Congress on June 1), and lasted until the beginning of 1815. The treaty of peace was signed at Ghent on December 24, 1814, although it did not reach the U.S. until mid-February, 1815. Ratification was unanimously advised by the U.S. Senate on February 16. It was ratified by President Madison on February 17 (reportedly at 11pm) at which time ratifications were exchanged with the United Kingdom. The treaty was proclaimed on February 18, 1815.

The Treaty established status quo ante bellum. There were no territorial concessions made by either side. The issue of impressing American seamen was made moot when the Royal Navy stopped impressment. This was a concession to American successes in battle in 1814: before this, the British position was to hold all territory gained in battle.

Many Canadians consider the War of 1812 to have been an American defeat. From their point of view, the American invasions of 1813 and 1814 were repulsed. Further supporting this point of view is that the British occupied some American territory at the end of the war; however, the Americans did not occupy any British territory. However, from the American point of view, the war was a successful defense of American rights, which they claimed culminated in the victory at New Orleans. (Yet the battle of New Orleans took place after the war was over.) Because New Orleans was successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was possible.

Following the Treaty of Ghent, relations between the United States and Britain would remain peaceful, if not entirely tranquil, throughout the 19th century. Both nations made border adjustments in 1818 and established the line of 49 degrees North latitude as the international border west of the Lake of the Woods. Border disputes between the State of Maine and the Province of New Brunswick were settled in the 1830s: see Aroostook War

In both Canada and the United States the War of 1812 caused a great rise in nationalism. In the Canadian colonies, the war united the French and the English colonies against a common enemy. At the beginning of the War of 1812 it is estimated that perhaps one third of the inhabitants of Upper Canada for example were American born, some were United Empire Loyalists but others had come just for the cheap farmland and many had little loyalty to the British Crown at the beginning of the war. Thus the war gave many inhabitants of Upper and Lower Canada a sense of nationhood as well as a sense of loyalty to Britain. Unfortunately, this nationalistic sentiment also caused a great deal of suspicion towards American ideas like responsible government which would frustrate political reform in Upper and Lower Canada until the Rebellions of 1837.

No territorial gains were made by either side and impressment and Indian issues were put on hold. The United States however did gain worldwide respect for managing to withstand Britain. A growth in American manufacturing was caused by the formidable British blockade of the American east coast. The death of the Federalist Party also followed the war. The Great Lakes were no longer disputed but became shared property of Canada and Britain, and the United States. The Indian threat was at a minimum since Tecumseh had fallen and the Prophet was increasingly ridiculed and finally resorted to drink.

Yes the patriotic emaisl we get every now and then sound great and heart warming but really no one one the war of 1812.