eyeball Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 4 hours ago, I am Groot said: I find that AI answers are often wrong. They can be changed depending on the wording of the question. And they're often influenced by things as ephemeral as Reddit posts. I find there's almost always a link to articles and sources with Google's AI. You can also ask for scholarly sources to help fact check the response. If you're just going to ask AI to tell you what you want to know then sure AI will be more like artificial ignorance. The idea however that being conversational on an internet chat room is tantamount to a negotiation in a boardroom full of lawyers or a formal debate in a judged/moderated competition is laughable. 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Army Guy Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 17 hours ago, CdnFox said: If they're so useless why did the other nuclear powers bother? If you are saying that nuclear weapons have no deterrent effect then you're stepping outside of your military knowledge and entering into political knowledge which is something that I have a lot more experience with than military. Nuclear weapons are absolutely a deterrent. And they absolutely do limit the size and nature of attacks. I would refer you to the attacks we saw in the 60s and 70s where their opponents attempted to destroy Israel in a very serious fashion. Since acquiring nuclear weapons that has never happened. They will harass and pressure Israel but they make certain never to threaten its existence for fear of retaliation. Russia and china, are two biggest components, but certainly be very reluctant to set foot on Canadian soil if they knew that there might be a nuclear exchange We absolutely can afford to have a small nuclear arsenal. And it should be considered. One could also ask if they are so effective why does not everyone have them ? I'd say those that already have them restrict most other nations from achieving that level of tech to have nukes in the first place, Iran is a example of that...Iraq another. And while we did at one time have nuclear tip nikey missiles Canadians did not like them here in Canada and they were eventually given back to the US... I did not say having nuclear weapons is not a deterrent...what i asked is Do you really think anyone in the Nuclear weapons club is just going to had over all the tech to build nuclear weapons, or even sell us ready made missiles.... Who would be willing to do that ?....I also asked what does having these weapons really give us....More power on the world stage ? do they give us the sovereignty we are looking for ? If your versed on nuclear weapons then you know it will cost more than just what your spending on a conventional military now... Quote don't think Canada has the budget or know how to operate Nuks, not sure the Nuclear club will allow another member....pretty sure the US would Veto that anyways....one thing the world does not need any more of, is another nation holding nukes....What does it give us really, power, sovereignty, freedom for attack...Israel has had nukes and is still attacked, I think you should recheck your history of Israel...So while have hundreds of nuclear missiles does give you a high level of protection, it does not guarantee that your nation will not be attacked...those nations with thousands of missiles have a hall pass as everyone knows it will end in MAD. having just a few hundred as Israel has does not guarantee anything... Yes, Israel has been attacked by conventional forces multiple times while possessing a, largely unacknowledged, nuclear arsenal (typically believed to have been achieved between the late 1960s and early 1970s). The most notable example is the Yom Kippur War in 1973, when a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel. Key instances and contexts include: 1973 Yom Kippur War: A massive conventional attack by Egypt and Syria. Reports suggest Israel considered a "nuclear option" or a display of force during the war to deter further advances. 1991 Gulf War: Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel during the First Gulf War. Israel did not retaliate with conventional or unconventional forces, largely due to U.S. pressure. Ongoing Conflict with Iran (2024–2025): Iran and its proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas) have frequently launched missiles and drones at Israel, with notable direct exchanges in 2024 and 2025 involving hundreds of projectiles. Hamas Attack (Oct 7, 2023): Hamas militants attacked Israel, and rockets have reportedly hit near military sites thought to hold nuclear-capable missiles. Key Points Regarding Israel's Nuclear Posture: "Nuclear Ambiguity": Israel maintains a policy of not officially confirming or denying the possession of nuclear weapons. The Samson Option: This refers to the strategic doctrine that if Israel’s existence is threatened, it might use its nuclear arsenal as a last resort. Conventional Deterrence: Despite having nuclear capability, Israel relies primarily on conventional forces and missile defense systems (like the Iron Dome and Arrow) to defeat attacks. Canada would need to build hundreds of these missiles, to be any kind of threat to any of the major players...one does not have MAD with a few dozens nuclear missiles... I think you need to look at some of the cost relating to just building these weapons, then maintaining them, and then securing them....then there is investing in things like the Iron dome , or golden dome as trump calls its to protect your launch sites from being destroyed in a surprise attack....Canada has a major issue with footing the bill for 100 K troops.... And what purpose would they have ? what would they add to the grand scheme of things ?....the world will be destroyed 100 times over, what will Canada missiles contribute to all of that....Nothing....if it gets to the use of nuclear weapons then all is lost....diplomacy has failed, conventional war had failed, all is left is the destruction of man kind... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: Canada has had the technology to build nukes for decades. It’s old had. We export reactors. We need the power of life and death over any potential enemy. Knowing Canada can nuke your major cities is enough deterrent. Of course it’s absurd to even consider using them against just about any country, but it does put certain threats to our country to bed. We’re not a small country anymore. With over 40 million people and plans to add many more millions we can justify harder power. I'd like to see a source on that claim that Canada has the tech to develop it's own nuclear weapons....First off we would need to get the permission from those already in the nuclear weapons club....And why would the US agree to all of that, shit we can't even agree on dairy products...and if Canada just up and did it with out any permissions, then where would they hide such a facility...or should i say several facilities....which nation Canada going to launch missiles against...That would have the resources to attack Canada....think about this for just a second....those with the resources to do so, have thousands of missiles....nuking one of their cities would mean Canada would be nothing more than a waste land.... first off we do not even have a weapons grade enrichment facility, those facilities are in those countries that already have Nuclear weapons, so there bils upon bils spent to enrich the uranium...we might be able to create a bomb or missile, in due time....then there is the question where do you test this device...., how do you deliver it....Ask how much Iran has spent into developing their nuclear program....we don't have the that kind of money...you can't build these in your basement... Now we want to put on big boy pants all of a sudden...what happened to the last 30 years, when the world was asking for us to step up and take a role in global affairs...what ever happen to the famous quote WHO IS GOING TO ATTACK US....we can barely mange to afford having 3 brigades of ground troops, which is peanuts , it's actually embarrassing, considering at the end of WWII we had 2 entire Corps...So i agree with you we should become a harder power, and grow our conventional army first....leave the Nukes to the big boys....because one they start using them it does not matter who fires them, the world will cease to exist as we know it... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: One could also ask if they are so effective why does not everyone have them ? I'd say those that already have them restrict most other nations from achieving that level of tech to have nukes in the first place, Sure, or the facilities or the materials. But we have all that. I'm sure it will not take us very long at all to assemble some moms and that's if we didn't buy plans from somebody like Britain or France or Israel or India or Pakistan or any of the other nuclear powers. And it's not like we don't have plenty of nuclear test Facilities or processing already up and running. Really the only thing holding us back would be delivery systems and that would not be that hard to figure out 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Venandi Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 (edited) 6 hours ago, Army Guy said: what happened to the last 30 years, when the world was asking for us to step up and take a role in global affairs...what ever happen to the famous quote WHO IS GOING TO ATTACK US.... My second favourite, and always a procurement staple is: "Canada doesn't need ________" Anyway, thanks for the quote above, I've been laughing my way through some of the posts here thinking the same thing. Elbows up eh? At last... I can finally type that ubiquitous "LOL" thingy and actual mean it. Here's a Boomer training session... they'll be manning (oops "personing") the border to repel Trump's Raiders: Edited February 5 by Venandi 1 Quote
Zeitgeist Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 8 hours ago, Army Guy said: I'd like to see a source on that claim that Canada has the tech to develop it's own nuclear weapons....First off we would need to get the permission from those already in the nuclear weapons club....And why would the US agree to all of that, shit we can't even agree on dairy products...and if Canada just up and did it with out any permissions, then where would they hide such a facility...or should i say several facilities....which nation Canada going to launch missiles against...That would have the resources to attack Canada....think about this for just a second....those with the resources to do so, have thousands of missiles....nuking one of their cities would mean Canada would be nothing more than a waste land.... first off we do not even have a weapons grade enrichment facility, those facilities are in those countries that already have Nuclear weapons, so there bils upon bils spent to enrich the uranium...we might be able to create a bomb or missile, in due time....then there is the question where do you test this device...., how do you deliver it....Ask how much Iran has spent into developing their nuclear program....we don't have the that kind of money...you can't build these in your basement... Now we want to put on big boy pants all of a sudden...what happened to the last 30 years, when the world was asking for us to step up and take a role in global affairs...what ever happen to the famous quote WHO IS GOING TO ATTACK US....we can barely mange to afford having 3 brigades of ground troops, which is peanuts , it's actually embarrassing, considering at the end of WWII we had 2 entire Corps...So i agree with you we should become a harder power, and grow our conventional army first....leave the Nukes to the big boys....because one they start using them it does not matter who fires them, the world will cease to exist as we know it... We’re the biggest supplier of uranium. We produce fission in our reactors. This is not new to us. 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 (edited) 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: I'd like to see a source on that claim that Canada has the tech to develop it's own nuclear weapons....First off we would need to get the permission from those already in the nuclear weapons club........ first off we do not even have a weapons grade enrichment facility, those facilities are in those countries that already have Nuclear weapons, so there bils upon bils spent to enrich the uranium...we might be able to create a bomb or missile, in due time....then there is the question where do you test this device...., how do you deliver it....Ask how much Iran has spent into developing their nuclear program....we don't have the that kind of money...you can't build these in your basement... Now we want to put on big boy pants all of a sudden...what happened to the last 30 years, when the world was asking for us to step up and take a role in global affairs...what ever happen to the famous quote WHO IS GOING TO ATTACK US....we can barely mange to afford having 3 brigades of ground troops, which is peanuts , it's actually embarrassing, considering at the end of WWII we had 2 entire Corps...So i agree with you we should become a harder power, and grow our conventional army first....leave the Nukes to the big boys....because one they start using them it does not matter who fires them, the world will cease to exist as we know it... "For many years Canada has been a leader in nuclear research and technology, exporting reactor systems developed in Canada as well as a high proportion of the world supply of radioisotopes used in medical diagnosis and cancer therapy." https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/canada-nuclear-power From the question to AI if Canada has the nuclear technology to make a bomb. "Canada possesses the technical expertise, nuclear infrastructure, and raw material (uranium) to develop uranium enrichment capabilities" Not a far reach to build a nuclear weapon if we can do that. Edited February 5 by ExFlyer 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Army Guy Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 Here is another article on the F-35/ grippen issue....they address a lot more of the problem than i could...I know those Grippen cheerleaders are going to gloss over it and ignore the talking points... Richard Shimooka: A mixed F-35/Gripen fleet will fail us in every way 2 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: We’re the biggest supplier of uranium. We produce fission in our reactors. This is not new to us. You need to do some reading on the subject, creating a nuclear weapon is a lot more complex than you suggest, we do not have a enrichment facility, nor the tech to operate it, Yes we have nuclear reactors, and Uranium, i also have a bag of horse sh!t for my garden, does not mean i possess the tech or knowledge can grow anything...all the nuclear rods we have are not weapons grade...Nor do we make ICBM rockets here nor have the tech to build them.... And the biggest one is will those already in the Nuclear club allow us to to take this journey of yours...Look at Irans journey some how they think that owning a few nukes will place them on the throne in the region.... Not to mention the cost would be far more than we are spending right now on conventional military...If it was easy to do everyone would have them... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
ExFlyer Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 9 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Here is another article on the F-35/ grippen issue....they address a lot more of the problem than i could...I know those Grippen cheerleaders are going to gloss over it and ignore the talking points... Richard Shimooka: A mixed F-35/Gripen fleet will fail us in every way An excellent article. An opinion piece that really explains the situation well. It really states the downfall if we choose the Grippen. What is does not address is what the huge cost of changing all our infrastructure, logistics, training, tools and, test equipment. It did say that politics and our supposed hate for the US is what is driving this. It also states that there are many American built components, especially the avionics which are very critical in fighters s o we are not getting out form under big brother if we get the Griffen. Lastly, it is the public that seems to want the Griffen and not what the Air Force or its operators want. Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Army Guy Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 16 hours ago, CdnFox said: Sure, or the facilities or the materials. But we have all that. I'm sure it will not take us very long at all to assemble some moms and that's if we didn't buy plans from somebody like Britain or France or Israel or India or Pakistan or any of the other nuclear powers. And it's not like we don't have plenty of nuclear test Facilities or processing already up and running. Really the only thing holding us back would be delivery systems and that would not be that hard to figure out We dont have any of that, which is my point, there is a huge difference between nuclear fuel rods in a power plant, and weapons grade material....one needs a uranium enrichment facility capable of enriching weapons grade material....we don't even have the tech to set that up, or even run it...Sure we have a few testing facilities which can tell you the radiation output of your material, but that is where it stops, we have no testing facility to test the detonation effects, or if the bomb will even work as advertised.... and again you assume that we can buy these plans on the open or black market....IF and only IF the rest of the nuclear club allows that transfer to happen...Do you think the US is going to say yes, what would be their motivation? and what would that cost us?...there is already enough nukes in the world to destroy the earth as we know it, many times over...If our conventional forces can not stop a invasion on Canadian soil and the US forces can not stop it....and we resort to using nukes it is game over....it will set of a snowball effect HENCE the whole MAD doctrine...we already have to many wingnuts with nukes...besides would we trust someone like Justin to have the nuclear football ....we have had a few Justin's in our time 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
ExFlyer Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Army Guy said: You need to do some reading on the subject, creating a nuclear weapon is a lot more complex than you suggest, we do not have a enrichment facility, nor the tech to operate it, Yes we have nuclear reactors, and Uranium, i also have a bag of horse sh!t for my garden, does not mean i possess the tech or knowledge can grow anything...all the nuclear rods we have are not weapons grade...Nor do we make ICBM rockets here nor have the tech to build them.... And the biggest one is will those already in the Nuclear club allow us to to take this journey of yours...Look at Irans journey some how they think that owning a few nukes will place them on the throne in the region.... Not to mention the cost would be far more than we are spending right now on conventional military...If it was easy to do everyone would have them... Iran did not have the nuclear industry and history that Canada has. I asked AI (s oposed to looking for related articles, press releases or academic papers) if Canada could make nuclear weapon material: Yes, Canada has the technical expertise, raw materials, and infrastructure to produce nuclear weapon material, though it currently chooses not to for legal and diplomatic reasons. As a "nuclear latent" or "threshold" state, Canada possesses the following necessary components: 1. Raw Materials and Processing Uranium Reserves: Canada is a top global producer of uranium, holding roughly 15% of the world's uranium-238. Processing Facilities: The Cameco refinery in Blind River, Ontario, is the largest in the world, and its Port Hope facility handles about 21% of global uranium conversion capacity. Byproducts: Canada also has significant reserves of heavy water and tritium, both used in advanced thermonuclear weapon designs. 2. Plutonium Production Capability CANDU Reactors: Canada operates 19 CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) reactors. Uniquely, these can be refuelled while running, which allows for the measured production of plutonium-239. Existing Inventories: Canada’s spent fuel rods contain an estimated 200 tonnes of plutonium. While this is "reactor-grade" rather than "weapons-grade," experts suggest it could still be used to create functioning nuclear devices. 3. Technical Expertise Historical Know-how: Canada was a key partner in the Manhattan Project and previously operated plutonium extraction facilities at Chalk River Laboratories until 1954. Estimated Timeline: Experts suggest Canada could likely assemble a prototype device within months to two years if it made the project a national priority, though building a complete and reliable arsenal with delivery systems would take 4 to 5 years Now, would the holders of nuclear bomb licensing allow us... that is a different discussion Edited February 5 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Zeitgeist Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 (edited) 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: You need to do some reading on the subject, creating a nuclear weapon is a lot more complex than you suggest, we do not have a enrichment facility, nor the tech to operate it, Yes we have nuclear reactors, and Uranium, i also have a bag of horse sh!t for my garden, does not mean i possess the tech or knowledge can grow anything...all the nuclear rods we have are not weapons grade...Nor do we make ICBM rockets here nor have the tech to build them.... And the biggest one is will those already in the Nuclear club allow us to to take this journey of yours...Look at Irans journey some how they think that owning a few nukes will place them on the throne in the region.... Not to mention the cost would be far more than we are spending right now on conventional military...If it was easy to do everyone would have them... We don’t just have nuclear reactors, we pioneered nuclear power and exported CANDU reactors. We also have highly advanced rocket systems and have been launching satellites for decades. It reminds me of the auto industry, which grew up simultaneously and quite integrated on both sides of the border from the first assembly lines onwards. Canadian nuclear physicists and engineers work in these fields on both sides of the border with the highest security clearances. We’re heavily involved with NASA too. Literally the CSA shares production. Canadarm? Canada can build all the warheads it wants and it already carries them in CF-18’s. Pacifist PM Pierre Trudeau didn’t want them on Canadian soil which the Yanks rightfully thought was ridiculous. My guess is if we started getting that level of hard power on our soil, the Yankee generals would say, “Finally!” and we’d be taken more seriously and given more input on NATO and other military foreign policy. That’s clear sovereignty. NORAD and arctic cooperation between the two countries has happened quietly and successfully in the background for decades. These are serious effective people who have no time for old worldy sabre rattling. Much of the world only responds seriously to hard power, including guys like Trump and Putin. Canada has to act militarily more like a UK than a New Zealand, because our economy and size, certainly land mass and increasingly population, warrant it. Edited February 5 by Zeitgeist 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: We don’t just have nuclear reactors, we pioneered nuclear power and exported CANDU reactors. We also have highly advanced rocket systems and have been launching satellites for decades. It reminds me of the auto industry, which grew up simultaneously and quite integrated on both sides of the border from the first assembly lines onwards. Canadian nuclear physicists and engineers work in these fields on both sides of the border with the highest security clearances. We’re heavily involved with NASA too. Literally the CSA shares production. Canadarm? Canada can build all the warheads it wants and it already carries them in CF-18’s. Pacifist PM Pierre Trudeau didn’t want them on Canadian soil which the Yanks rightfully thought was ridiculous. My guess is if we started getting that level of hard power on our soil, the Yankee generals would say, “Finally!” and we’d be taken more seriously and given more input on NATO and other military foreign policy. That’s clear sovereignty. NORAD and arctic cooperation between the two countries has happened quietly and successfully in the background for decades. These are serious effective people who have no time for old worldy sabre rattling. Much of the world only responds seriously to hard power, including guys like Trump and Putin. Canada has to act militarily more like a UK than a New Zealand, because our economy and size, certainly land mass and increasingly population, warrant it. Like i said before having nuclear reactors and producing weapons grade material are tow very different processes which we have not solved or had an interest in, because of the cost. Canada is still researching the means to launch satellites into space... Your entire thought process hinges on the US approval....what possible reason would we use to persuade them to allow us access to this tech, or even attempt this adventure........ and what if they say NO, what possible reason would the US agree...what advantage would it give them to have their neighbor have nuclear weapons. US would be shocked if we actually grew our conventional military and took our defensive agreements seriously, no where in anyu of those agreements does it say we need nukes.......i don't think they would be impressed at all of us having nukes...Israel has nukes and it does not have any more credibility than we do.... Look i agree with most of what you have said, but we are reaching for the stars, when we have not even learned to walk in regards to defending Canada, or being a reliable partner in our existing defensive agreements... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 7 hours ago, Army Guy said: We dont have any of that, which is my point, there is a huge difference between nuclear fuel rods in a power plant, and weapons grade material....one needs a uranium enrichment facility capable of enriching weapons grade material....we don't even have the tech to set that up, or even run it...Sure we have a few testing facilities which can tell you the radiation output of your material, but that is where it stops, we have no testing facility to test the detonation effects, or if the bomb will even work as advertised.... and again you assume that we can buy these plans on the open or black market....IF and only IF the rest of the nuclear club allows that transfer to happen...Do you think the US is going to say yes, what would be their motivation? and what would that cost us?...there is already enough nukes in the world to destroy the earth as we know it, many times over...If our conventional forces can not stop a invasion on Canadian soil and the US forces can not stop it....and we resort to using nukes it is game over....it will set of a snowball effect HENCE the whole MAD doctrine...we already have to many wingnuts with nukes...besides would we trust someone like Justin to have the nuclear football ....we have had a few Justin's in our time I assume we can buy the plans and the missiles if we want from our allies. America may not want us to have it but the Brits in France won't care. No black market necessary And we've got tons of uranium, wouldn't be hard to have enrichment up and running quite quickly. Something we should have been doing already Again you come up with every reason in the world for failure. But the reality is is that none of what you said is a hold back. We could absolutely have nuclear weapons, and frankly it would be more useful than new jets or tanks 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: I assume we can buy the plans and the missiles if we want from our allies. America may not want us to have it but the Brits in France won't care. No black market necessary And we've got tons of uranium, wouldn't be hard to have enrichment up and running quite quickly. Something we should have been doing already Again you come up with every reason in the world for failure. But the reality is is that none of what you said is a hold back. We could absolutely have nuclear weapons, and frankly it would be more useful than new jets or tanks Brits and France will do as they are told by the US...they won't share that tech unless it is authorized by the US... I don't think it is because of my failure , it is because of reality for many reasons....we sleep next to the worlds largest super power, creating Nuclear weapons is very expensive, maintaining them is expensive, we as a nation have never been that concerned about anything military so why invest in Nukes when conventional armies will be used 99 .9 % of the time.... they will never be used "hopefully" and a weapon that is not used is a useless weapon, according to the Russians...and these weapons if used will be the end of the world... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted February 6 Report Posted February 6 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Brits and France will do as they are told by the US...they won't share that tech unless it is authorized by the US... I don't think it is because of my failure , it is because of reality for many reasons....we sleep next to the worlds largest super power, creating Nuclear weapons is very expensive, maintaining them is expensive, we as a nation have never been that concerned about anything military so why invest in Nukes when conventional armies will be used 99 .9 % of the time.... they will never be used "hopefully" and a weapon that is not used is a useless weapon, according to the Russians...and these weapons if used will be the end of the world... I know that you believe that what you just said is true, but to be honest not only is it not true but it appears to be getting less true every day. Britain France and a number of the other members are realizing that they can't be beholden to the united states And sure, creating and maintaining nuclear weapons is expensive. Weren't you the one that suggested we should be spending more on our military? And a weapon that prevents a war is a million times more effective than a weapon that can only be used after a war starts. Humans have known that for thousands of years now. Si vis paceum para bellum. A phrase so old and accepted that we named a bullet after it 2 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted February 6 Report Posted February 6 On 2/5/2026 at 10:35 AM, ExFlyer said: Iran did not have the nuclear industry and history that Canada has. I asked AI (s oposed to looking for related articles, press releases or academic papers) if Canada could make nuclear weapon material: Yes, Canada has the technical expertise, raw materials, and infrastructure to produce nuclear weapon material, though it currently chooses not to for legal and diplomatic reasons. As a "nuclear latent" or "threshold" state, Canada possesses the following necessary components: 1. Raw Materials and Processing Uranium Reserves: Canada is a top global producer of uranium, holding roughly 15% of the world's uranium-238. Processing Facilities: The Cameco refinery in Blind River, Ontario, is the largest in the world, and its Port Hope facility handles about 21% of global uranium conversion capacity. Byproducts: Canada also has significant reserves of heavy water and tritium, both used in advanced thermonuclear weapon designs. 2. Plutonium Production Capability CANDU Reactors: Canada operates 19 CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) reactors. Uniquely, these can be refuelled while running, which allows for the measured production of plutonium-239. Existing Inventories: Canada’s spent fuel rods contain an estimated 200 tonnes of plutonium. While this is "reactor-grade" rather than "weapons-grade," experts suggest it could still be used to create functioning nuclear devices. 3. Technical Expertise Historical Know-how: Canada was a key partner in the Manhattan Project and previously operated plutonium extraction facilities at Chalk River Laboratories until 1954. Estimated Timeline: Experts suggest Canada could likely assemble a prototype device within months to two years if it made the project a national priority, though building a complete and reliable arsenal with delivery systems would take 4 to 5 years Now, would the holders of nuclear bomb licensing allow us... that is a different discussion YOU can't make a bomb from uranium you dig out of the ground here in Canada without heavily investing in it's infra structure.......it needs to be refined and enriched, both process we don't have in Canada if you want to have "weapons grade" uranium, the countries that do have these facilities have spent billions build them... and you have to build dozens of missiles or bombs to have the result you are trying to achieve....Israel has approx 90 bombs...and it does not enjoy the safety net your looking for... Below is just the cost for the enrichment facility, and note these were in US dollars in the late 40's...there is plenty more dollars to be dumped into a hole just to produce one bomb or missile....And for what reason.... Quote Building a weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility is a massive, multi-billion dollar undertaking, with modern, high-capacity centrifuge plants costing between $1.5 billion and over $11 billion, depending on scale, technology, and location. Developing a new national enrichment capability for defense purposes in the U.S. is estimated to cost between $3.1 billion and $11.3 billion. Key Cost Factors & Estimates: Centrifuge Technology (Modern): A 3.8 million SWU (Separative Work Units) centrifuge facility was estimated to cost around $3.5 billion to complete. Small-Scale/Military Capacity: A national facility designed specifically for military-grade High Enriched Uranium (HEU) using AC100 centrifuges is estimated to cost between $3.1B and $11.3B. HALEU Production: A facility for producing High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) is estimated at $4–5 billion. Laser Enrichment: Laser techniques (like SILEX) are noted to potentially allow smaller, cheaper, and harder-to-detect facilities, though they require sophisticated, high-cost technology. Modernizing Existing Sites: Replacing aging, 1940s-era uranium processing infrastructure (such as the Y-12 facility) is extremely expensive, with costs for a new facility recently re-baselined at over $10 billion. Factors Affecting Cost: Time and Delays: Costs can triple if construction is delayed over a decade. Labor and Materials: Specialized, highly skilled labor and high-quality materials required for nuclear-grade infrastructure often exceed standard inflation rates. Regulatory Hurdles: Stringent safety and security regulations, particularly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing process, contribute to high upfront and operating costs. International Controls: Non-proliferation treaties (like the Nuclear Suppliers Group) tightly control the technology, making it challenging for new nations to establish such capabilities. The high cost of building and operating such facilities is one reason why many countries rely on existing international suppliers rather than developing their own enrichment programs. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
ExFlyer Posted February 6 Report Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, Army Guy said: YOU can't make a bomb from uranium you dig out of the ground here in Canada without heavily investing in it's infra structure.......it needs to be refined and enriched, both process we don't have in Canada if you want to have "weapons grade" uranium, the countries that do have these facilities have spent billions build them... and you have to build dozens of missiles or bombs to have the result you are trying to achieve....Israel has approx 90 bombs...and it does not enjoy the safety net your looking for... Below is just the cost for the enrichment facility, and note these were in US dollars in the late 40's...there is plenty more dollars to be dumped into a hole just to produce one bomb or missile....And for what reason.... You can argue with me all you want but the fact is, we, in Canada, have the skills, technology and capability to make a bomb and all components for it. Be real, we make aircraft, we have software developers, we have space engineers making things for NASA, we have scientists all over. You clearly underestimate our potential If Iran, a truly 3rd world country can... we can.... far quicker and easier. But, as I have said, if the license approvers allow it is a completely different story. Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Army Guy Posted February 6 Report Posted February 6 13 hours ago, CdnFox said: I know that you believe that what you just said is true, but to be honest not only is it not true but it appears to be getting less true every day. Britain France and a number of the other members are realizing that they can't be beholden to the united states And sure, creating and maintaining nuclear weapons is expensive. Weren't you the one that suggested we should be spending more on our military? And a weapon that prevents a war is a million times more effective than a weapon that can only be used after a war starts. Humans have known that for thousands of years now. Si vis paceum para bellum. A phrase so old and accepted that we named a bullet after it Do you think it has come to the point where GB, or France would be willing to upset the US by giving Canada access to nuclear weapons or components...I think Trump would flip his wig, and tariff the crap out of them....that alone might give them pause...Britain more than France has dependency on US military forces in GB...another thought that may influence GB to tow the line...France is a wild card...but even they are or could be influenced by at least tariffs... Your right i have been a huge fan of investing more into our military....Nuclear weapons offer very little protection or hard military power unless you have enough of them. and is a weapon of last resort...conventional armies will be what gives other nations pause or reconsider their actions....having both puts you in a different league all to together. Quote Nuclear deterrence doesn’t work. Here’s why. We aren’t rational and we can’t read minds. For nuclear deterrence to work, all stakeholders must be perceived to act “rationally” and “predictably” but we know that’s not how people work - particularly in the fog of war. Nuclear weapons don’t keep the peace. History shows that the existence of nuclear weapons has done nothing to prevent the many terrible conflicts since 1945, including acts of aggression against countries with nuclear weapons. In reality, nuclear weapons haven’t been used due solely to good luck – which cannot be expected to last forever. Nuclear weapons make conflicts worse. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine highlights how any of the 9 nuclear-armed states can threaten or use nuclear weapons to limit the capacity of other states to respond. Nuclear deterrence makes nuclear use more likely because the threat of use of nuclear weapons must be credible, and so the nuclear armed states are always poised to launch nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are useless for today’s threats. Nuclear weapons are strategically useless to address the actual security threats facing nations in the 21st century, including climate change, terrorism and cyber attacks. https://www.icanw.org/what_about_nuclear_deterrence_theory Your statement of a weapon that can prevent wars is more effective than a weapon that can only be used after a war starts....One could say that about conventional forces as well, if they are large enough and well equipped they do provide deterrence, hence why NATO is being pushed to increase it's conventional forces bigger is better in most cases...there is a few examples of nuclear armed countries being attack, Israel has several instances where it has been attacked but refrained form using its own nuclear forces...China and the US over in Korea...both nuclear countries Faught a long protracted war with each other...Having Nuclear arms has also emboldened some countries into doing what ever they want....take a look at Russia in Ukraine, it gives or highlights your side of the debate, Russia has threatened other nuclear armed countries of interfering with it's war in Ukraine militarily anyways....making that conflict last much longer than it needs to....And Russia is a huge example of Crazy in crazy town...one nation that would more than likely use WMD of provoked.... Once Nuclear weapons are used mankind will be fighting the next war with sticks and stones....if he exists at all... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted February 7 Report Posted February 7 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Do you think it has come to the point where GB, or France would be willing to upset the US by giving Canada access to nuclear weapons or components. Yep. I think under the right conditions that's exactly what they'll do. But honestly it would be too late by the time the US found out. What would be more of a challenge is getting the missiles shipped here but I honestly don't think that would be a huge problem either. I think the Americans would be more angry that we weren't buying their missiles instead 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Your right i have been a huge fan of investing more into our military....Nuclear weapons offer very little protection or hard military power unless you have enough of them. You really don't need that many. The fact is that even a relatively small number prevent an invasion. And even massive direct conflicts are avoided severely. Why is the US only selling weapons to Ukraine? Why not confront the russians directly? They had no problem bombing other countries.... hummmm Nuclear weapons change the picture. If Israel can keep a stockpile of about 90 weapons then surely to god we can. 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Your statement of a weapon that can prevent wars is more effective than a weapon that can only be used after a war starts....One could say that about conventional forces as well, if they are large enough and well equipped they do provide deterrence, Sure, which is why the phrase has been around a lot longer in the history of nuclear weapons. I remember a scene from a tv show where a reporter asked a solder "why do you call the current policy a "peace offensive", arent offensives the opposite of peace' The solder says "allow me to demonstrate. Pretend this ruler is a knife and attack me". Reporter winds up on the ground with his arm twisted. Gets up "Ok now attack me again." Reporter says "no! You'll just throw me down again!" "see?" says the solder... "peace at last!" however in today's day and age unfortunately a strong conventional deterrent is not enough if the other side also has nuclear weapons A deterrent only exists when your forces are stronger or at the very least equal to your opponents. In any situation where somebody else has nuclear weapons and you don't then deterrence is not a viable option. They know they can attack and if things start going badly they can fall back behind their nuclear weapons which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. Anytime you crane started doing well putin started with the nuclear saber rattling You don't have to have as many nukes, but you need to be able to say that if you use nukes on us you will pay a horrible price. Then it's a deterrant. But if all you can say is "if you nuke us we'll drive our surviving tanks towards you, so please don't nuke them as well', then there's no deterrence at all. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 Ottawa made payments related to the acquisition of more U.S.-built fighters jets https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-purchase-components-9.7081240 https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/defence-spending-fighter-jets-helicopters So, the totals may go up? Kinda puts the Griffon purchase on the back burner..or right off the stove?? Getting Griffon and F35 for a dual fleet makes no sense, in any way. 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Ottawa made payments related to the acquisition of more U.S.-built fighters jets https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-purchase-components-9.7081240 https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/defence-spending-fighter-jets-helicopters So, the totals may go up? Kinda puts the Griffon purchase on the back burner..or right off the stove?? Getting Griffon and F35 for a dual fleet makes no sense, in any way. Come on, even you had to know Connie was bullshiting about going somewhere else for jets. Trump would never let him 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 (edited) 31 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Come on, even you had to know Connie was bullshiting about going somewhere else for jets. Trump would never let him Who the phk is connie???? The news is news...you no like...tough $hit. Edited February 10 by ExFlyer 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 3 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Who the phk is connie???? Our prime minister. Were you honestly so stupid that you couldn't figure that out from the context of the statement? Are you actually claiming that your brain power is so weak that you just couldn't possibly crack that code and had no idea who I was talking about? Well. Looks like your mother isn't the only person in your family it's mentally disadvantaged. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.