Time For A Nuclear Canada?

[Big Guy]

The good news is that in 1950, Canada had 11 model 1561 Fat Man atomic bombs at Goose AFB, Newfoundland and Labrador. The bad news is that they belonged to the United States Air Force Strategic Air Command.

In the early 1960's both Liberal Pearson and Conservative Diefenbaker were prepared to assimilate nuclear weapons into Canadian forces as its obligation to NATO.

http://www.usask.ca/diefenbaker/galleries/virtual_exhibit/nuclear_question_in_canada/

Since then we have gone in the opposite direction and towards the “peacekeeper” and “honest broker” international reputation – until the Harper government came into power. The Harper government issued in an era of Canada “the warrior nation” prepared to follow the American lead and the best friend of Israel.

It is time for us to decide just what we want to be. It looks like the warrior nation is the direction we are going so it is time then that we be taken seriously. The following countries are taken “seriously” by the rest of the world; The United States, the Russian Federation (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

And why are they taken seriously? Because they all have a seat at the nuclear table.

If we are indeed going to pour money into new ships and powerful air force then we should have nuclear capability and make sure that future military acquisitions reflect that fact!

Is it time that Canada have nuclear weapon capability?

Will the USA allow us to have nuclear capability?

Will anybody in the world take us seriously if we do not have nuclear capability?

Should we not be looked at as more capable than North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel?

Are we better off being peacekeepers and honest brokers?

[Derek 2.0]

Since then we have gone in the opposite direction and towards the “peacekeeper” and “honest broker” international reputation – until the Harper government came into power. The Harper government issued in an era of Canada “the warrior nation” prepared to follow the American lead and the best friend of Israel.

Canada had a role as a participant, indirectly and directly, with the deliverance of both tactical and strategic (American) nuclear weapons until the end of the Cold War…..

As to your partisan dig, I would suggest it does a great disservice to those members of the Canadian Forces that participated in the 1991 Gulf War, operations in the FRY and our post 9/11 contribution to the global war on terror initiated under the Chrétien government, and then further expanded into a greater combat role under the Martin government.

It is time for us to decide just what we want to be. It looks like the warrior nation is the direction we are going so it is time then that we be taken seriously. The following countries are taken “seriously” by the rest of the world; The United States, the Russian Federation (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

Define “warrior nation”………I would assume our participation in both world wars, Korea, etc as a valid reason for Canada to share that moniker.

If we are indeed going to pour money into new ships and powerful air force then we should have nuclear capability and make sure that future military acquisitions reflect that fact!

Is it time that Canada have nuclear weapon capability?

The political atmosphere is hardly congruent enough to fund the replacement of a handful of modern fighters, ships and trucks…….let alone the purchase of the required infrastructure and support for a Canadian nuclear deterrent.......

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't see a need to be nuclear armed right now. It would be a waste of money better spent on other things.

[Bonam]

Will the USA allow us to have nuclear capability?

It seems unlikely to me that the US would substantially oppose Canada acquiring nuclear weapons, after all, it did not seem particularly offended when other nations with which it has good relations have acquired these weapons. So I don't think that's a factor.

I don't see a need to be nuclear armed right now. It would be a waste of money better spent on other things.

Dollar for dollar, nothing provides the level of value in national defense and security like nuclear weapons. No nation armed with nuclear weapons has ever in history been the subject of invasion by a foreign power.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Dollar for dollar, nothing provides the level of value in national defense and security like nuclear weapons. No nation armed with nuclear weapons has ever in history been the subject of invasion by a foreign power.

Agreed, but with an asterisk, as Argentina did not hesitate to "invade" the U.K.'s Falkland Islands (las Malvinas) in 1982, prompting a conventional war.

As a NATO member, the protocol already exists to forward deploy American nuclear weapons and delivery systems to Canada, as is done in Europe today (e.g. Germany, Turkey). Canada hosted such weapons as late as 1984.

Edited June 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Big Guy]

Agreed, but with an asterisk, as Argentina did not hesitate to "invade" the U.K.'s Falkland Islands (las Malvinas) in 1982, prompting a conventional war.

As a NATO member, the protocol already exists to forward deploy American nuclear weapons and delivery systems to Canada, as is done in Europe today (e.g. German, Turkey). Canada hosted such weapons as late as 1984.

I do not disagree - but that still keeps the use of these weapons within the control of the USA. If Canada had independent nuclear capabilities then it would not need the USA or the permission of the USA to facilitate a Canadian foreign policy - not an American foreign policy. I believe that there is a big difference between "hosting" weapons and being in control of those weapons.

[bush_cheney2004]

... I believe that there is a big difference between "hosting" weapons and being in control of those weapons.

The circumstances of Canada's hosting and control of American nuclear weapons was dictated by some practical considerations and politics...many Canadians wanted nothing to do with such weapons on Canadian soil and this was a way to fool/placate them.

Canada currently has no targeting or delivery systems for strategic nuclear weapons, so at best we are talking about smaller yield "tactical" warheads or radiological bombs. A viable nuclear deterrent must be credible, reliable, and survivable.

[Big Guy]

The circumstances of Canada's hosting and control of American nuclear weapons was dictated by some practical considerations and politics...many Canadians wanted nothing to do with such weapons on Canadian soil and this was a way to fool/placate them.

Canada currently has no targeting or delivery systems for strategic nuclear weapons, so at best we are talking about smaller yield "tactical" warheads or radiological bombs. A viable nuclear deterrent must be credible, reliable, and survivable.

Does one create delivery systems for strategic nuclear weapons and then later obtain those capabilities? I don't think so. If the Americans allowed Canada access to our own nuclear arsenal then we could soon develop target and delivery systems.

[Derek 2.0]

I do not disagree - but that still keeps the use of these weapons within the control of the USA. If Canada had independent nuclear capabilities then it would not need the USA or the permission of the USA to facilitate a Canadian foreign policy - not an American foreign policy. I believe that there is a big difference between "hosting" weapons and being in control of those weapons.

To have a viable nuclear deterrent, that is independent of the United States, as a minimum we would have to increase defence spending to a level similar as that of France or the United Kingdom, more then doubling our current total.....

[Derek 2.0]

Does one create delivery systems for strategic nuclear weapons and then later obtain those capabilities? I don't think so. If the Americans allowed Canada access to our own nuclear arsenal then we could soon develop target and delivery systems.

That’s generally how it’s done……..from American, British and Soviet strategic bombers in the 1940s, to modern entrants into the club like Pakistan, North Korea and soon to be Iran, all countries that have cross-shared IRBM technology for decades, prior to having nuclear weapons……..

[Derek 2.0]

I don't see a need to be nuclear armed right now. It would be a waste of money better spent on other things.

Nor do I.........As to fiscal realities, when a country such as Canada has so much difficulty purchasing the basics to equip our military presently, political will aside, financially a viable nuclear deterrent is a non-starter.

[bush_cheney2004]

Does one create delivery systems for strategic nuclear weapons and then later obtain those capabilities? I don't think so. If the Americans allowed Canada access to our own nuclear arsenal then we could soon develop target and delivery systems.

Not sure what you mean....building a fission bomb is a relatively simple affair these days given access to weapons grade materials. IIRC, Canada does not have an existing capability for such enrichment, instead exporting to the U.S.A for that purpose, mostly for NPT reasons.

So if you really propose to develop an independent Canadian bomb and delivery system, there are several steps that would have to be successfully completed and politically acceptable.

Edited June 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

So if you really propose to develop an independent Canadian bomb and delivery system, there are several steps that would have to be successfully completed and politically acceptable.

And though the idea of a Canadian nuclear deterrent is next to impossible, I think the idea that Canada could develop it’s own viable deterrent sans help from the Americans, Russians, British or French is impossible.

What’s not mentioned, is to have a viable independent deterrent, we’d also have to develop technologies and field assets to support and defend it……from satellites, maritime nuclear propulsion, intelligence, secured communications etc..

[bush_cheney2004]

....What’s not mentioned, is to have a viable independent deterrent, we’d also have to develop technologies and field assets to support and defend it……from satellites, maritime nuclear propulsion, intelligence, secured communications etc..

Politics aside, I have no doubt that Canada could design, build, and test a fission bomb. But as you indicate, a few bombs do not an independent deterrent make. Canada could first strive to develop tactical / regional capabilities in the way that France went its own, independent way, but at great cost.

[Derek 2.0]

Politics aside, I have no doubt that Canada could design, build, and test a fission bomb. But as you indicate, a few bombs do not an independent deterrent make. Canada could first strive to develop tactical / regional capabilities in the way that France went its own, independent way, but at great cost.

I agree……on the cheap, to have the ability to implement a counterforce doctrine, we’d be looking at spending and capability levels as to what the French have (which will have a true global reach with their soon to be deployed SLBMs), which would currently force us to more than double our defence spending.

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree……on the cheap, to have the ability to implement a counterforce doctrine, we’d be looking at spending and capability levels as to what the French have (which will have a true global reach with their soon to be deployed SLBMs), which would currently force us to more than double our defence spending.

If absolute independence is less important than just having the capability, Canada could partner with the U.S. the way that the U.K. presently does for Trident SLBMs (expensive, but most survivable). There is no need or reasonable expectation to ever rival the capabilities of the existing heavyweights.

Edited June 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

If absolute independence is less important than just having the capability, Canada could partner with the U.S. the way that the U.K. presently does for Trident SLBMs. There is no need or reasonable expectation to ever rival the capabilities of the existing heavyweights.

I agree that would lesson a great many of the burdens to contend with, and if we were to go down that road, I think the British force would be the one to emulate. With that said, their replacement program for said deterrent is expected to cost as much as our F-35 & Naval replacements combined…..And of course, we’d then also need a similar size SSN force to protect it…..

[Moonlight Graham]

Nor do I.........As to fiscal realities, when a country such as Canada has so much difficulty purchasing the basics to equip our military presently, political will aside, financially a viable nuclear deterrent is a non-starter.

Ya basically. We have higher defence priorities than getting nukes to fight nuclear armed enemies we don't have.

[Moonbox]

This thread made me lol as soon as I saw it. Nukes? For what purpose? As it stands our fate is pretty much sealed with that of the USA, and they have more nukes than the world could handle as it stands. They're not going to nuke us, so why would we need any nukes ourselves?

[Bonam]

This thread made me lol as soon as I saw it. Nukes? For what purpose? As it stands our fate is pretty much sealed with that of the USA, and they have more nukes than the world could handle as it stands. They're not going to nuke us, so why would we need any nukes ourselves?

By that logic why do we need a military of any kind at all?

[Moonlight Graham]

By that logic why do we need a military of any kind at all?

Good question, do we? Other than basic military to guard our coasts and respond to domestic emergencies, why do we even need a military beyond that, ie: for foreign intervention? Would the world or Canada be any worse off had Canada not participated in any foreign military operations during the last 50 years?

Edited June 17, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Derek 2.0]

Good question, do we? Other than basic military to guard our coasts and respond to domestic emergencies, why do we even need a military beyond that, ie: for foreign intervention? Would the world or Canada be any worse off had Canada not participated in any foreign military operations during the last 50 years?

Does Canada have foreign interests beyond our borders and coastlines?

[Moonbox]

By that logic why do we need a military of any kind at all?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you need to re-evaluate your own extension of logic there Bonam, or failure thereof rather.

To get you started, ponder on the obvious difference between a conventional military and then a nuclear missile, particularly in their practical and intended uses. Can we patrol our borders with nuclear missiles? Can we go on UN or NATO missions with them? Can we deter violence within our own borders with atomic weapons? The FLQ crisis would have been over pretty quick with a hydrogen bomb amirite?

Being responsible and paying the buck to defend ourselves and fulfill NATO missions is not the same thing as feeling safe under the umbrella of US nuclear deterrence.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

By that logic why do we need a military of any kind at all?

And to expand on that, if we’re content with other nations (the United States namely) representing and defending our interests on the world stage, which is a de facto surrendering of our sovereignty, why bother remaining an independent nation?

[Derek 2.0]

Being responsible and paying the buck to defend ourselves and fulfill NATO missions is not the same thing as feeling safe under the umbrella of US nuclear deterrence.

I agree with your assessment largely, but with the safety associated with the American nuclear umbrella and mutual defence through NATO, there is an expectation that we’ll offer a worthwhile contribution…….what often befuddles Canadians is the definition of worthwhile.